In the case of Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, the Federal Circuit confirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's ruling that U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176 was not inherently anticipated by a cited prior art reference, Majore. The Board determined that Majore's process did not guarantee the specific cell marker expression profiles required by the patent. Restem's arguments focused on whether the documented process steps of Majore inherently implied all resulting products met the claimed markers, a claim the Federal Circuit ultimately rejected, underscoring the significance of detailed limitations in patent claims.
The Federal Circuit's decision highlighted the crucial distinction between a process and the inherent characteristics of products, emphasizing that not every product is automatically understood from its production method.
The ruling affirmed that the prior art did not meet the specific non-expression limitations required by the '176 patent, thereby reinforcing the importance of precise claim constructions in patent law.
Collection
[
|
...
]