<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Global IP Watch - Intellectual Property for International Professionals &#187; Claim Construction</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.globalipwatch.com/tag/claim-construction/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com</link>
	<description>Intellectual Property for International Professionals</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 03:06:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>FC: &#8220;ascending dose&#8221; claim language describes drug release behaviour, not patient blood concentration</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/09/26/fc-construes-ascending-dose-claim-language-as-describing-only-drug-release-behaviour-not-increase-in-patients-blood-concentration/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/09/26/fc-construes-ascending-dose-claim-language-as-describing-only-drug-release-behaviour-not-increase-in-patients-blood-concentration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Sep 2010 21:39:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Elvina Chow</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada: Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claim Construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NOC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1465</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Janssen-Ortho Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) (2010 FC 42), the Federal Court of Canada (&#8220;Federal Court&#8221;) denied Alza Corporation and Janssen-Ortho&#8217;s (&#8220;the Applicants&#8221;) application for an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance (NOC) to Novopharm Ltd. for its generic methylphenidate drug until the expiration of Canadian Patent [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/09/26/fc-construes-ascending-dose-claim-language-as-describing-only-drug-release-behaviour-not-increase-in-patients-blood-concentration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FC Holds Ice Skate Designer Infringed by inducement and procurement through Manufacturering partner unaware of patent</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/06/24/fc-holds-ice-skate-designer-infringed-by-inducement-and-procurement-through-manufacturering-partner-unaware-of-the-patent/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/06/24/fc-holds-ice-skate-designer-infringed-by-inducement-and-procurement-through-manufacturering-partner-unaware-of-the-patent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:04:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fereshteh Ghadyani</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada: Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anticipation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claim Construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement by inducement and procurement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[utility]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1407</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Bauer Hockey Corp. v. Easton Sports Canada Inc. (2010 FC 361), the Federal Court (&#8220;FC&#8221;) held Easton Sports Canada Inc. (Easton) infringed, and induced others to infringe, plaintiff Bauer&#8217;s Canadian Patent No. 2302953 (&#8220;the &#8217;953 patent&#8221;) claiming an improved skate having a one-piece quarter section. The FC found all skates manufactured by Easton using [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/06/24/fc-holds-ice-skate-designer-infringed-by-inducement-and-procurement-through-manufacturering-partner-unaware-of-the-patent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CAFC Remands Inconsistent Jury Verdict Which Found Dependent Claims Obvious, But Not Antecedent Independent Claims</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/05/22/cafc-remands-inconsistent-jury-verdict-which-found-dependent-claims-obvious-but-not-antecedent-independent-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/05/22/cafc-remands-inconsistent-jury-verdict-which-found-dependent-claims-obvious-but-not-antecedent-independent-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 May 2010 04:34:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Bickley</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[United States: Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Analogous Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claim Construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inconsistent Jury Verdicts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obviousness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1387</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Comparer Corp. v. Antec, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (&#8220;CAFC&#8221;) upheld the District Court&#8217;s claim construction but vacated the jury&#8217;s verdicts on obviousness as irreconcilably inconsistent, remanding the case for a new trial on invalidity. Comaper had brought suit against Antec alleging willful infringement of multiple claims of U.S. Patent [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/05/22/cafc-remands-inconsistent-jury-verdict-which-found-dependent-claims-obvious-but-not-antecedent-independent-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CAFC Rejects Limiting Claim Construction Where Term Found Only in Specification, Not Claim</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2009/10/10/cafc-rejects-limiting-claim-construction-where-term-found-only-in-specification-not-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2009/10/10/cafc-rejects-limiting-claim-construction-where-term-found-only-in-specification-not-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Oct 2009 03:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Bickley</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[United States: Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claim Construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claim Limitations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conflicting Expert Testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-disclosure Agreement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=552</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Kara Tech v. Stamps.com, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated the District Court&#8217;s judgment finding infringement based on a construction consistent with the claims&#8217; plain language. While the specification repeatedly referenced an electronic encryption key, the claims contained no such limitation. The CAFC noted the claims, not the specification, define [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2009/10/10/cafc-rejects-limiting-claim-construction-where-term-found-only-in-specification-not-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

