The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a ruling by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that invalidated Eye Therapies' patent claims related to eye redness treatment methods. The ruling indicated that the PTAB misinterpreted the transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" during the review. The appeal focused on amendments made during patent prosecution which avoided prior art rejection by excluding other active ingredients. This narrow interpretation was crucial to the validity of Eye Therapies' claims and provided significant support for their patent rights.
The CAFC stated that the prosecution history supported an atypical meaning for 'consisting essentially of' as the applicant secured allowance of claims by excluding other active ingredients.
In Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC, the Federal Circuit vacated a ruling that invalidated Eye Therapies' patent claims, finding errors in the transitional phrase's interpretation.
The appeals court highlighted that claim amendments during patent prosecution that excluded additional ingredients played a crucial role in overcoming prior art rejection.
The patent application emphasized a narrow interpretation of 'consisting essentially of' which was vital for the validity of its claims under scrutiny.
Collection
[
|
...
]