Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 12 SEPTEMBER 2019

Claim Language "Lofty . . . Batting" Found Not Invalid On Indefiniteness And Anticipation Grounds

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

In Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2018-2042 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 27, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's findings that the claims of U.S.

United StatesIntellectual Property

In Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2018-2042 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 27, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's findings that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,078,359 were not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and § 102.

The '359 patent is directed to an improvement in aerogel composite products and includes a claim directed to, among other things, "lofty . . . batting." Aspen Aerogels, Inc., filed an ITC complaint alleging that Alison imported aerogel insulation materials that infringed the '359 patent. Despite Alison's challenge that the term "lofty . . . batting" was indefinite, the ITC found that the '359 patent was not invalid and entered an exclusion order barring importation. Alison appealed.

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