Last Month at the Federal Circuit - February 2010
Mondaq Business Briefing › United States Law Articles in English (2010)
Linked as:
Extract
Last Month at the Federal Circuit - February 2010
Claim Terms Should Be Construed in View of the Originating Disclosure When Challenged for Written Description Support in Interference Proceeding By David Albagli
Judges: Michel, Friedman, Gajarsa (author) [Appealed from W.D. Wash., Judge Pechman] In Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Cardiac Science Operating Co., No. 09-1241 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 5, 2010), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's sua sponte dismissal of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.'s ("Philips") suit seeking to overturn the Board's cancellation of all patent claims in an interference proceeding. The Federal Circuit remanded with instructions to construe the claims pursuant to Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009), and to address Philips's written description challenge and challenges under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Philips is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,241,751 ("the '751 patent"), which is directed to a cardiac defibrillator that delivers electrical shocks to a patient's heart using two parameters—patient transthoracic impedance and desired energy level. Cardiac Science Operating Co. ("Cardiac Science") filed a continuation application, No. 10/159,806 ("the Owen application"), covering a multiple-capacitor cardiac defibrillator, which claimed priority to a parent application filed before the priority date of Philips's '751 patent. To provoke an interference, Cardiac Science copied the claims of the '751 patent into the Owen application and claimed an earlier priority date. The PTO declared an interference and formulated one count. In the interference, the Board denied five motions filed by Philips challenging the patentability of the Owen application, awarded priority to the Owen application, and canceled all claims in Philips's '751 patent. In so doing, the Board disregarded the '751 patent in construing a disputed claim term in the Owen application, citing 37 C.F.R. § 41.200(b), which states, "A claim shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the application or patent in which it appears." Slip op. at 4. Philips sought review of the Board's ruling in district court, moving for a claim construction hearing. In its last brief before the district court, Philips asserted that, if the district court denied Philips's motion for a claim construction hearing, Philips would introduce evidence to the district court at trial. The district court denied Philips's motion for a claim construction hearing and sua sponte dismissed Philips's complaint with prejudice. In the order dismissing the complaint, the district court affirmed the Board, finding that its reasons for ruling against each motion were "grounded in the ap...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
