This Federal Circuit opinion concerns an appeal by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against Moderna, Inc., regarding a patent infringement lawsuit concerning Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, SPIKEVAX®. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation of the patent term “branched alkyl” within Alnylam's U.S. Patent Nos. 11,246,933 and 11,382,979, specifically whether the alpha-position carbon must be bound to at least three other carbon atoms (tertiary or quaternary) or if two are sufficient (secondary). The District Court for the District of Delaware initially ruled in favor of Moderna, interpreting Alnylam as having acted as its own lexicographer by defining the term in a way that excluded Moderna’s product. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed this decision, concluding that Alnylam's patent specification clearly defined “branched alkyl” and that no "otherwise specified" exception applied to allow for a secondary carbon at the alpha position.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding a patent dispute between Sigray, Inc. and Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 7,400,704, owned by Zeiss, which covers X-ray imaging systems with projection magnification. Sigray challenged the patent's validity through an inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), arguing certain claims were anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art, specifically a reference called Jorgensen. The Court of Appeals reversed the PTAB's decision concerning claims 1, 3, and 4, finding they were indeed anticipated by Jorgensen due to the inherent presence of projection magnification, even at very small levels. The court determined the PTAB incorrectly construed the claim limitation regarding the range of projection magnification. The case is remanded for the PTAB to consider the obviousness of the remaining claims (2, 5, and 6) in light of the court's ruling.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This is an opinion from the Federal Circuit addressing whether a consumer, Rebecca Curtin, had the legal right, or statutory standing, to oppose a trademark registration for "RAPUNZEL" covering dolls and toy figures. The case explores the requirements for bringing an opposition under 15 U.S.C. § 1063 of the Lanham Act, particularly focusing on whether a consumer's interests fall within the "zone of interests" protected by the statute and if their alleged harm is proximately caused by the registration, applying the framework established in the Supreme Court's Lexmark decision. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision that Ms. Curtin, as a mere consumer, lacked the necessary commercial interest and demonstrated only too remote and speculative harm to have standing for this type of opposition.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding a patent interference proceeding between The Regents of the University of California and The Broad Institute. The core dispute involves priority of invention for a CRISPR-Cas9 system using single-guide RNA for editing DNA in eukaryotic cells. The court reviews the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decisions on conception and written description of the invention, ultimately affirming-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding the case regarding the main appeal, while dismissing The Broad Institute's cross-appeal as moot. The court found that the Board legally erred in its analysis of conception by improperly requiring knowledge that the invention would work and failing to adequately consider routine methods or skill in its assessment.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This is a decision on an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC. The core issue is IOENGINE's appeal of a jury verdict and subsequent court decisions which found certain patent claims invalid due to prior art, specifically a device known as the DiskOnKey System, including its Firmware Upgrader. IOENGINE argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish the DiskOnKey System as prior art under "public use" or "on sale" laws and that the district court made errors in jury instructions and allowing certain evidence despite IPR estoppel. The court affirms the prior ruling, finding substantial evidence supports the jury's finding of public use and concluding that IPR estoppel does not prevent the use of this type of prior art in a district court setting.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This episode is about an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of IN RE: MIODRAG KOSTIC, GUY VANDEVELDE, concerning their appeal from a United States Patent and Trademark Office decision. The case centers on a reissue application for U.S. Patent No. 8,494,950, titled "System for Conducting an Exchange of Click-Through Traffic on Internet Web Sites." The core issue is whether a reissued claim (claim 3) improperly broadened the scope of the original patent claims, which is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. § 251(d) when the application is filed more than two years after the original patent was granted. The court ultimately affirms the decision against the appellants, finding that the reissued claim is indeed broader because it allows for alternative processes, whereas the original claim required specific steps including a trial process.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This is an opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning a patent infringement lawsuit between Fintiv, Inc. and PayPal Holdings, Inc. Fintiv sued PayPal, asserting infringement of four patents related to a "cloud-based transaction system". The core issue on appeal is the district court's ruling that certain claim terms, specifically "payment handler" and "payment handler service," are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. The court examined whether these terms constitute means-plus-function limitations and if the patent specifications provide sufficient corresponding structure or an algorithm for the claimed functions, ultimately affirming the district court's decision that the claims are indefinite due to the lack of disclosed structure.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding PT Medisafe Technologies' attempt to register a dark green color for medical examination gloves as a trademark. The court affirmed the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which had denied registration because the proposed color mark was found to be generic. Applying a two-step test specifically for color marks, the court agreed that the color was too common within the relevant class of goods (chloroprene medical examination gloves) to identify a single source. Therefore, the court concluded that the proposed mark failed to function as a source indicator and was ineligible for trademark protection.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning an appeal involving Qualcomm Incorporated and Apple Inc., with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as an intervenor. The core issue revolves around Apple's challenge to a Qualcomm patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. Specifically, the dispute focuses on whether Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) can form "the basis" of a ground for challenging a patent's validity under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), which limits such grounds to "prior art consisting of patents or printed publications." The court examines the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's prior decisions, PTO guidance memoranda, and relevant case law, ultimately finding that the Board erred in its interpretation and application of the statute by concluding that AAPA used in combination with other prior art does not form the basis of the ground.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.