(f) a
buffer.
[Wherein the italicized limitations were relevant to the District Court s claim construction and this appeal.]
Maia s products contain amino acids in addition to the synthetic peptide hormone, which Bracco contended satisfy the buffer, surfactant and/or solubilizer limitations recited in the claims. The issue thus resolved as whether these claim limitations encompassed amino acids. One aspect of the District Court s construction was that dependent claims recited Markush groups for these limitations that contained amino acids for each. Another aspect was that the specification recited particular definitions of these terms that encompassed amino acids within their scope. These characteristics of the specification formed the basis for the District Court s construction of the terms buffer, surfactant, and solubilizer to include amino acids (among in each instance many other species). Following claim construction, Maia stipulated infringemen
You should read this case if: grammar gets you going
Does “X/Y” mean “X
and Y,” “X
or Y,” or both? The Federal Circuit took on the meaning of a slash in our case of the week.
The case concerns drug patent claims referring to “a surfactant/solubilizer.” Whether the defendant infringed the patent turns in part on the meaning of the slash. According to the accused infringer, the slash means “and”: To be “a surfactant/solubilizer,” a substance must be both a surfactant
and a solubilizer. According to the patentee, the slash captures both “and” and “or”: To be “a surfactant/solubilizer,” a substance can be a surfactant
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Fed. Circ. Won t Revive Patent Suit Over Gallbladder Drug
Law360 (December 17, 2020, 10:47 PM EST) The Federal Circuit on Thursday upheld the way a New Jersey federal judge defined several terms in a Bracco Diagnostics Inc. gallbladder drug patent, under which Maia Pharmaceuticals Inc. conceded it couldn t beat infringement allegations Bracco lodged against it.
A three-judge panel largely upheld the way U.S. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan defined three terms at issue in Bracco s patent, which means Maia was unable to escape the infringement finding. The nonprecedential opinion was issued a month and a half after oral arguments.