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.

Contact the Docs


  • "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 #8 Overall Rank


« CVC Takes Its Turn at Filing Dispositive Motion to End Interference | Main | PTAB Denies Broad Motion No. 3 to De-designate Claims as Not Corresponding to Count No. 1 »

September 29, 2020


Oof: Biogen explicitly defined “polypeptide” in the ’755 patent:
Polypeptide — A linear array of amino acids con-nected one to the other by peptide bonds between the α-amino and carboxy groups of adjacent amino acids.
Per the Fed. Circuit: "The 'polypeptide' structure is thus defined by reference to its 'linear' array, without regard to its folded protein structure. The district court charged the jury with this definition..."

Defining your claim terms can backfire badly, leaving little room to argue during claim construction. Without that strict (and entirely gratuitious) definition, Biogen might have prevailed under the Amgen standard.

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 2024

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