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 | 6 min read | 11.05.25
The EU’s Defense Readiness Roadmap and Omnibus: What Are the Competition Law Implications?
As part of a comprehensive plan to ensure that EU Member States achieve “defense readiness” by 2030, the European Commission has proposed a package of measures to facilitate public and private investments in defense by simplifying legal frameworks relevant to defense. In a previous alert, we provided an overview of the Defense Readiness Omnibus and examined its implications for defense procurement. In this alert, we focus on its implications for the enforcement of competition law.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.03.25
ICE Is Suddenly At The Door: How Retailers, Hospitals, And Hotels Can Survive The Surprise Visitor
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.03.25
Client Alert | 13 min read | 10.30.25
Federal and State Regulators Target AI Chatbots and Intimate Imagery
