Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 10 JULY 2023

Second Quarter 2023 Federal Circuit Law Update

Baker Botts L.L.P.
Baker Botts L.L.P.
Contributor
Baker Botts L.L.P.

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Baker Botts is a leading international law firm with 11 offices located in the US, Europe, and the...

View firm profile
Explore more from Baker Botts L.L.P.

Since serving as a Federal Circuit clerk, Michael Hawes has monitored that court's precedential opinions and prepares a deeply outlined index by subject matter...

United StatesIntellectual Property

I. Patentability Requirements

A. Inventorship/Invention and Priority Dates

1. Reduction to Practice

a. Actual

"Sufficiency of the testing required to show an invention worked for its intended purpose is a question of fact reviewed for substantial evidence." Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.ÀR.L., 2021-2356, 5/24/23.

i. Intended Purpose

"Similar to claim construction, a determination of an invention's intended purposes is a legal issue, reviewed de novo." Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.ÀR.L., 2021- 2356, 5/24/23.

"[A]lthough the patents themselves are the most important and, indeed, most persuasive evidence of the patents' intended purpose, we find it is appropriate to consider extrinsic evidence, particularly when it does not contradict the patents themselves." Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.ÀR.L., 2021-2356, 5/24/23.

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