{"id":2020,"date":"2018-04-16T23:56:12","date_gmt":"2018-04-17T03:56:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2020"},"modified":"2018-04-23T00:24:38","modified_gmt":"2018-04-23T04:24:38","slug":"claim-covered-at-least-the-depicted-enantiomer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2020","title":{"rendered":"Claim Covered at least the Depicted Enantiomer"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/opinions-orders\/17-1798.Opinion.4-12-2018.1.PDF\">Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd. v. Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited<\/a>, [2017-1798, 2017-1799, 2017-1800] (April 16, 2018) affirmed determination of infringement of the claim which depicted the enantiomer that was the active ingredient.\u00a0 \u00a0While the district court construed the claim as covering both enantiomers and mixtures thereof, the Federal Circuit said that it need not determine what else falls within\u00a0the claim\u2019s ambit to resolve the dispute.<\/p>\n<p>The plain claim language and\u00a0specification demonstrate that, at a minimum, the claim covers what it depicts, which suffices\u00a0to resolve the parties\u2019 dispute because Appellants conceded that the district court\u2019s judgment can be affirmed if the claim at least covers the depicted enantiomer.\u00a0 \u00a0Noting a lack of anything\u00a0in the claim language limiting its scope to a \u201cracemate\u201d or\u00a0\u201cracemic mixture,\u201d or some indication in the specification<br \/>\nor prosecution history to the contrary, the Federal Circuit held that the\u00a0plain and ordinary meaning of the claim covers at\u00a0least the specific enantiomer depicted in the claim itself.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd. v. Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited, [2017-1798, 2017-1799, 2017-1800] (April 16, 2018) affirmed determination of infringement of the claim which depicted the enantiomer that was the active ingredient.\u00a0 \u00a0While the district court construed the claim as &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2020\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2020","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-claim-constructino"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2020","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2020"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2020\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2021,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2020\/revisions\/2021"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}