District Court's Markman Ruling Has No Preclusive Effect On PTO Reexam
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.24.07
The Federal Circuit, in In Re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., (No. 2006-1559, -1600, Aug. 22, 2007), affirms a Board's Reexamination decision that found that each of the claims of two related patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the prior art. The Court rejects the appellant's argument that the Board should have given preclusive effect to a district court's Markman order, which had construed the claims in their favor in a prior litigation. The Court holds that issue preclusion is not warranted because the PTO was not a party to the earlier litigation, and as a result, did not have a "full and fair opportunity" to litigate the claim construction issues.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
