Federal Circuit Vacates District Court’s Claim Construction of the Term “Pipette Guiding Mechanism”
Intellectual Property Law Blog
DECEMBER 14, 2023
The applicant, Malvern, unsuccessfully traversed the rejection on the merits, but removed the ’175 patent from prior art consideration by arguing that § 103(c)(1) applied, due to common ownership. After a change in ownership, Malvern sought supplemental examination of the ’175 patent under 35 U.S.C. § Cytogen, Inc. ,
Let's personalize your content