Federal Circuit Panel Once Again Splits on Claim Construction
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.24.07
In Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp. (No. 2006-1260, April 12, 2007), a Federal Circuit panel offers a split decision regarding the proper construction of a single term in the claims. According to the dissent, the district court used a dictionary as the starting point when defining each disputed term. Therefore, the dissent argues that the district court’s method actually led them astray from a proper claim construction. The majority counters by simply noting that a proper de novo review prohibits the court from considering the logic or definitions used by the lower court to reach the correct construction. Rather, the majority explains, “[w]e review only the district court’s finished product, not its process” and the unorthodox methods used by the district court during the Markman hearing are legally irrelevant.
Insights
Client Alert | 9 min read | 10.21.26
The life sciences sector is uniquely vulnerable to the inherent risks of AI-generated evidence in drug development and discovery. This client alert focuses on five core challenges: hallucinations, skewed predictions from unrepresentative training data, the opacity of AI reasoning, input sensitivity that undermines reproducibility, and adversarial manipulation of training data. To address these risks, companies should use experimental validation and human oversight as the common legal and regulatory safety net. This entails among other measures auditing AI outputs, characterizing training data, and structural oversight. Companies also should prepare for evolving frameworks and guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Union (EU) that address use of AI in drug discovery and development .
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.21.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.21.26
Private Investigations Act Series: Temporal, material and territorial scope
Client Alert | 7 min read | 10.21.26
