Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This is a list of special types of claims that may be found in a patent or patent application.For explanations about independent and dependent claims and about the different categories of claims, i.e. product or apparatus claims (claims referring to a physical entity), and process, method or use claims (claims referring to an activity), see Claim (patent), section "Basic types and categories".
Abbott v. Sandoz, 566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009), [1] was a US patent law case argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that established a bright-line ruling regarding claims of patent infringement relating to disagreements over so-called “product-by-process” claims. The case was decided on May 18, 2009.
Claims can also be classified in categories, i.e. in terms of what they claim. A claim can refer to a physical entity, i.e. a product (or material) or an apparatus (or device, system, article, ...). The claim is then called respectively "product claim" or "apparatus claim"; or; an activity, i.e. a process (or method) or a use.
A method patent claim can be infringed only when a single person or entity (including contractually obligated agents) practices all of the claimed steps. [5] Neither a physical device, such as a product that can be used to practice the method, nor instructions for practicing the method, are infringing until they are used by a single person to ...
The defense of non-infringement is that at least one element of an asserted claim is not present in the accused product (or in the case of a method claim, that at least one step has not been performed). The defense of invalidity is a counter-attack on the patent itself., i.e., the validity of the patent or of the allegedly infringed claims.
The cases concern the patentability of biological products through the description of the procedure for achieving that product (a product-by-process claim). The Enlarged Board of Appeal ruled that such products were patentable and not in conflict with Article 53(b) EPC, which does not allow patents for "essentially biological" processes.
Based on that evidence, the lawsuit claims that the plaintiffs “contracted listeriosis and suffered harm” after eating contaminated products produced by Tiger Brands, allegations the company ...
An infringement chart that allegedly shows how the product or process accused of infringement contains each claim element, thereby satisfying the all elements test for infringement. (This would be a chart prepared by the plaintiff or patent owner.) [ 2 ]