After obtaining a patent on the breakthrough cloning method used to create Dolly, Roslin sought to obtain a patent for claims directed to the products of that method.

Addressing a patent owner’s standing to appeal decisions from the United States PTAB, the Court of Appeals found that a cause of action only lies for the patent owner.

The U.S. Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a lower court’s ruling of infringement, finding that the lower court construed relevant terms too broadly.

Addressing a finding of obviousness by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (now the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) (Board) following inter partes reexamination, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s finding, determining that the Board had failed to give proper consideration to clear teachings of both negative and positive prior art in determining if a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected to

Addressing the negative consequences of poor or erroneous claim drafting, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit affirmed a narrow interpretation of a functional claim and a grant of summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of the defendant, finding that a narrow description of one species does not support a broader construction of the genus.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded the claims of a patent directed to a medical device for implementation into humans were enabled by animal tests or in vitro data where human testing is inappropriate.

In addressing a written description issue relating to the adequacy of support in the specification for including a "negative limitation" in the claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit established a standard requiring the specification to describe a reason for the negative limitation.

Addressing the question of whether §271(e)(1) immunizes the manufacture, marketing or sale of a device used in the development of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory submissions, but is not itself subject to the FDA pre-market approval process, the Federal Circuit held that being subject to FDA pre-market approval is a prerequisite for invoking the safe harbor provided by §271(e)(1).