About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« USPTO Support for Filing in DOCX Format Still a Work in Progress | Main | The "Ending the Diagnostic Odyssey Act of 2019" »

January 08, 2020

Comments

Not a hard decision. Patentee claimed "comprising one or more X." Patentee's amendment limiting the one or more X to members of a Markush group didn't alter the "comprising one or more X" language.

Under Festo, a patentee's decision to narrow a claim surrenders only the territory between the original claim and the amended claim. Defendants wanted the claim to be construed as **consisting** of one or more members of the group. Plainly, that surrenders a whole lot more than the intervening territory.

It's good practice to claim "one or more" members of a Markush group, and to draft the specification accordingly.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31