CAFC in Shire v. Watson: business as usual in claim construction after Teva

The key line:


Because this case does not involve
factual findings to which we owe deference under
Teva, we again reverse the district court’s constructions of
the disputed claim terms and subsequent findings of
infringement, and remand for further proceedings



link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-1409.Opinion.6-1-2015.1.PDF

Note Feb. 2015 IPBiz post
CAFC mentions Teva v. Sandoz in affirming ED Texas in Fenner v. Cellco


In affirming ED Texas in Fenner v. Cellco, the CAFC shows that Teva v. Sandoz is not going to be a large obstacle in claim construction review. The CAFC will find the intrinsic evidence sufficient for construction in many cases.




See also
Gevo/Butamax post Teva/Sandoz .

Will it be "Bedtime for Bonzo" in the Gevo case, withe the CAFC reaching the same conclusion
post-Teva as pre-Teva?