Butamax(TM) Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc. (No. 2013-1342, 2/18/14) (Rader, Linn, Wallach)

February 18, 2014 12:52 PM

Linn, J. Reversing summary judgment of non-infringement based on unduly narrow claim construction of claims direct to host cell that produces isobutanol. Also reversing finding of invalidity under written description requirement based on disputed issue of fact.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Solvay S.A. v. Honeywell International Inc. (No. 2012-1660, 2/12/14) (Rader, Newman, Dyk)

February 12, 2014 9:13 AM

Dyk, J. Affirming district court finding that claim was invalid as anticipated by invention conceived abroad but reduced to practice in the United States. Reduction to practice in the United States inured to benefit of prior Russian inventor even though inventor did not expressly request the United States scientists to reduce the invention to practice. The Court also rejected a narrow claim construction as waived and on the merits. Newman, J. dissented.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC (No. 2013-1140, 2/10/14) (Rader, Moore, Wallach)

February 10, 2014 3:11 PM

Rader, J. Reversing and remanding Board decision in inter partes reexamination reversing Examiner's rejections. Although the Board was correct to reject the Examiner's claim construction, it erred in sustaining the Examiner's factual findings based on that erroneous construction. The Board also erred in finding that certain arguments had been waived for failure to cross-appeal issues before the Board.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA (No. 2012-1576, -1601, -1602, -1603, -1604, -1605, -1607, 2/6/14) (Rader, Prost, Moore)

February 6, 2014 5:33 PM

Prost, J. Affirming district court judgment that claim directed to compound without limitation to its stereochemical form was infringed and valid. The district court properly construed the claim not to be limited to the racemic version of the compound and found that the claim was not invalid for lack of enablement, written description or obviousness.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.