Clarifying Claim Construction In Interferences

Law360, New York (February 19, 2010, 1:05 PM ET) -- The Federal Circuit recently clarified substantive interference practice in Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v. Cardiac Science Operating Company, No. 2009-1241, 2010 WL 10913 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 5, 2010) (“Philips”). Philips shows that several practices often overlooked amid the complexities of interference practice can profoundly affect the outcome.

First, claim construction in an interference does not follow the normal paradigm. Depending upon the challenges raised, a given claim might have two meanings: one based upon your own specification and one based upon the specification of your opponent....
To view the full article, take a free trial now.

Already a subscriber? Click here to login

You must correct or enter the following before you can submit this form:

All fields required

  5. Required

Only Law360 gives you:

Non-stop coverage of high-stakes litigation across 30 practices

Real-time tracking and reports on 10,000+ companies, firms and industries

Over 80,000 attorney profiles with neutral data collected from active lawsuits

Research tools to find cases, court documents, attorneys and companies

Customized feeds and alerts that can easily be shared with colleagues

In-depth expert analysis from high-profile attorneys at top firms

Access to our vault with over 75,000 original articles