Judge Albright's courtroom had gained a reputation as a rocket docket for patent cases thanks to the development of local rules focused on patent cases and a lawyer-friendly approach built upon Judge Albright's own deep experience with patent law.
The Federal Circuit explained that the asserted claims 'do not claim humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies themselves; instead, they claim only the use of such antibodies for the different, limited purpose of treating headache.'
Dometic relied on a presumption that separately listed claim limitations indicate separate and distinct physical structures, citing Becton, Dickinson & Co. but the Federal Circuit rejected this argument.
