Samuel Henderson Translations

Professional legal and patent translations

“Disclosed but not claimed is disclaimed”

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands (De Hoge Raad) ruled on an interesting question of patent claim scope earlier this year.  The case, Bayer/Sandoz, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:196, involved a much-litigated patent on the synthesis of drospirenone, a component of some birth control products. The question at issue was whether, because the claims mentioned only a ruthenium catalyst while the specification also disclosed the use of other metals as catalysts, the claims could.. Read More

15 means 15, US court concludes in pharma patent case

Chart

On July 5, Chief Judge Stark of the Delaware District issued a claim construction opinion in the pharmaceutical patent case of Noven v. Actavis.  The patent at issue is US Patent No. 8,231,906, “Transdermal estrogen device and delivery.” Like many US pharmaceutical patent cases, this one arises under the Hatch-Waxman framework, in which a generic manufacturer submits an Abbreviated New Drug Application to the FDA and thereby creates a constructive.. Read More

Federal Circuit rules on claim construction in Genzyme v. Biomarin

On June 14, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in the patent case Genzyme Therapeutic Products v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical, docket number 15-1720. Judge Bryson wrote for the three-judge panel. The case was appealed from an inter partes review proceeding before the United States Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB). The patents at issue were US patents 7351410 and 7655226, both of which are directed.. Read More

If you put it in, is it an input? In Redbox case, court dances around the deep questions

A Redbox kiosk in Indianapolis. ( Valerie Everett , via Wikimedia Commons .) The ongoing patent suit between Redbox and VendoNet reached another turning point on January 8, when the Northern District of Illinois issued a second claim construction order that rejected VendoNet’s motion for reconsideration and also delved deeper into the question of what an “input device” is. The court declined to rule on the underlying question of whether.. Read More