{"id":11533,"date":"2021-05-04T14:58:03","date_gmt":"2021-05-04T20:58:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=11533"},"modified":"2021-05-04T14:58:03","modified_gmt":"2021-05-04T20:58:03","slug":"oral-argument-of-the-day-medicinova-v-genzyme","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=11533","title":{"rendered":"Oral argument of the day: Medicinova v. Genzyme"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The oral argument of the day is from MEDICINOVA, INC. v. GENZYME CORPORATION<\/em>, No. 2020-1064 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 14, 2020). This was a Rule 36 Judgment. I thought the oral argument was interesting for its discussion of “derivative claim construction.” This not so common expression refers to construing a term not present in the claim itself, but rather, present in the construction of the claim term. One example of this is from the Advanced Fiber Technologies Trust v. J & L FIBER<\/em>, 674 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) case:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The disputed term at issue, “perforated,” appears not in the claims but rather in the district court’s construction of a disputed claim term. We note, as an initial matter, that “we do not ordinarily construe words that are not in claims.” Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,<\/em> 582 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed.Cir.2009)<\/a>; see also <\/em>Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.,<\/em> 365 U.S. 336, 339, 81 S.Ct. 599, 5 L.Ed.2d 592 (1961)<\/a> (“[T]he claims made in the patent are the sole measure of the grant.”). However, in those cases in which the correct construction of a claim term necessitates a derivative construction of a non-claim term, a court may perform the derivative construction in order to elucidate the claim’s meaning.<\/p>Advanced Fiber Technologies Trust v. J & L FIBER<\/em>, 674 F.3d 1365, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012).<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

You can read the Rule 36 Judgment here: [Link<\/a>].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The oral argument of the day is from MEDICINOVA, INC. v. GENZYME CORPORATION, No. 2020-1064 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 14, 2020). This was a Rule 36 Judgment. I thought the oral argument was interesting for its discussion of “derivative claim construction.” This not so common expression refers to construing a term not present in the claim […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11533"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11533"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11533\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11539,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11533\/revisions\/11539"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11533"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11533"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11533"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}