Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 JUNE 2021

CAFC Patent Cases, 5/18-21-6/2/21

WilmerHale
WilmerHale
Contributor
WilmerHale

WilmerHale

WilmerHale's London office was established more than 40 years ago. With lawyers qualified in the...

View firm profile
Explore more from WilmerHale

BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [OPINION] (2020-1475, 2020-1605, May 28, 2021) (Newman, Lourie, Dyk)...

United StatesIntellectual Property

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions

  1. BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [OPINION] (2020-1475, 2020-1605, May 28, 2021) (Newman, Lourie, Dyk) 
    Lourie, J. Affirming the decision of the International Trade Commission relating to Complainant's allegations that Respondent violated 19 U.S.C. § 1337 by importing into the United States certain microfluidic chips. With respect to Complainant's appeal, the ALJ's findings reflected a correct determination that, while the term "sample" was defined broadly in the patent, the definition of "sample" was not so broad as to include reagents. With respect to Respondent's appeal, the ALJ correctly construed the term "droplet generation region" to mean a location on the chip where a network of channels intersects or meets, and nothing justified imposing a requirement that a channel extend directly from the sample well to the droplet-generation region. Additionally, substantial evidence supported the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from