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

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

« CosmoKey Solutions GmbH v. Duo Security LLC (Fed. Cir. 2021) | Main | Webinar on the Future of IP »

October 06, 2021

Comments

"Wherein the level of β-galactosidase activity comprises between 0.05 and 200 units" is an odd construction. "Comprising" suggests that other levels of activity also fall within the scope of the claim.

Jim: Sometimes claims drafters use "comprising" as a catch-all modifier to indicate some level of "fuzziness" around ranges like this, but certainly (as you point out) there is a danger that the term can be used to find a variety of Section 112 issues depending on how the claims are construed. My understanding (without reviewing the specification or prosecution history) is that this level of activity is de minimis and yet effective in reducing the amount of lactose present in cells producing 2-FL. So any values outside this range would either be ineffective at reducing post-production lactose levels or would reduce the lactose pool in the cells during 2-FL production and thus reduce yield. In either case such embodiments would be disfavored economically and the patent holder might be content to let an infringer be saddled with such an inefficient production method.

Thanks for the comment

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

December 2021

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