{"id":2691,"date":"2010-08-04T16:09:14","date_gmt":"2010-08-04T22:09:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=2691"},"modified":"2010-08-04T16:09:14","modified_gmt":"2010-08-04T22:09:14","slug":"liebel-flarsheim-acknowledged","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=2691","title":{"rendered":"Liebel-Flarsheim Acknowledged"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Judge Dyk acknowledged\u00a0the role of <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Liebel Flarsheim v. Medrad<\/span> when construing patent\u00a0claims.\u00a0 Judge Dyk&#8217;s dissenting opinion today in<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"> Intervet, Inc. v. Merial Ltd.<\/span>, 2009-1568 (Fed. Cir.\u00a0Aug. 4, 2010) stated\u00a0in-part:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin: 0in 0in 10pt;\"><span style=\"line-height: 115%; color: black; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Century Schoolbook';\"><span style=\"font-family: Calibri;\">I write separately primarily to make clear that in construing the claims, we are not deciding that the claims as construed are limited to patentable subject matter. As we noted in <em>Phillips v. AWH Corp.<\/em>, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), we do not take validity into account in construing claims, unless \u201cthe court concludes, after applying all the available tools of claim construction, that the claim is still ambiguous.\u201d <em>Id. <\/em>at 1327 (quoting <em>Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.<\/em>, 358 F.3d 898, 911 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted)). That is not the case here.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin: 0in 0in 10pt;\">\u00a0<\/p>\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin: 0in 0in 10pt;\"><span style=\"line-height: 115%; color: black; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Century Schoolbook';\"><span style=\"font-family: Calibri;\">The majority opinion responded to this part of Judge Dyk&#8217;s dissent\u00a0with a footnote:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<div><span style=\"line-height: 115%; color: black; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Century Schoolbook';\"><\/span><\/div>\n<p><span style=\"line-height: 115%; color: black; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Century Schoolbook';\"><span style=\"font-family: Calibri;\"><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin: 0in 0in 10pt;\"><span style=\"line-height: 115%; font-size: 8pt;\">4 <\/span><span style=\"line-height: 115%; font-size: 11.5pt;\">We do not address the issues of validity and non-patentable subject matter discussed by the dissent <\/span><span style=\"mso-spacerun: yes;\"><span style=\"font-size: small;\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span><span style=\"line-height: 115%; font-size: 11.5pt;\">because these issues were not addressed by the district court or raised on appeal.\u00a0<\/span><span style=\"mso-spacerun: yes;\"><span style=\"font-size: small;\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin: 0in 0in 10pt;\"><span style=\"mso-spacerun: yes;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">It would seem that Judge Dyk was taking the opportunity to\u00a0reassure the patent bar that <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Liebel-Flarsheim<\/span> is to be followed despite the recent failure to\u00a0adhere to\u00a0it in\u00a0 <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Becton Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP<\/span>, 2009-1053 (July 29, 2010).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin: 0in 0in 10pt;\"><span style=\"line-height: 115%; color: black; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Century Schoolbook';\"><span style=\"font-family: Calibri;\">You can read the court&#8217;s opinion here: [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/images\/stories\/opinions-orders\/09-1568.pdf\">Read<\/a>].<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Judge Dyk acknowledged\u00a0the role of Liebel Flarsheim v. Medrad when construing patent\u00a0claims.\u00a0 Judge Dyk&#8217;s dissenting opinion today in Intervet, Inc. v. Merial Ltd., 2009-1568 (Fed. Cir.\u00a0Aug. 4, 2010) stated\u00a0in-part: I write separately primarily to make clear that in construing the claims, we are not deciding that the claims as construed are limited to patentable subject [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2691"}],"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=2691"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2691\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2698,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2691\/revisions\/2698"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}