1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Semantic Definition Differences Not Inconsistent With Claim Construction

Semantic Definition Differences Not Inconsistent With Claim Construction

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.30.08

In Innogenetics, N.V. v Abbott Laboratories (Nos. 2007-1145, -1161, January 17, 2008) the Federal Circuit reverses a district court’s JMOL that a claim was not anticipated, and remands for a new trial. The patent technology at issue relates to diagnostic tools for detecting and classifying hepatitis C types using specific short strands of nucleic acids, “probes”, that bind to target DNA. Innogenetics sued Abbott for patent infringement. At trial, Abbott’s expert testified that the Resnick patent anticipated claim 1 of Innogenetics’ patent, and specifically that the Resnick patent disclosed probes that “distinguish” between two hepatitis C types. The word “distinguish” was objected to by Innogenetics as inappropriate, arguing that Abbott’s expert report defined “a method of genotyping” as the process of “detecting and classifying.”

The district court construed “method of genotyping,” to mean a method that “distinguishes” among types. Before the case went to the jury, the district court granted JMOL of no anticipation based on its determination that Abbott’s expert testimony “rested on an inaccurate understanding of the construction of the limitation genotyping.” Abbott’s motion for a new trial was denied.

Using an abuse of discretion review standard, the Federal Circuit finds that the district court’s determination that the expert’s testimony was tainted by an inaccurate understanding of the term genotyping is clearly erroneous. Despite the semantical difference, the panel discerns no difference in the meaning between the definitions used by the expert and the one adopted by the district court, and finds that the expert’s failure to use the district court’s exact word does not change the substance of his testimony or render it inapplicable.

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights