April 19, 2014

Federal Circuit Will Review Cybor Intellectual Property Decision En Banc

On March 15th, in a long-awaited ruling, the Fed. Cir. vacated a panel holding reversing a lower court’s finding that disputed means-plus-function claims met the written description requirement. The Fed. Cir. asked the parties and amici (and there will be many of them) to address the position adopted in the Cybor decision that interpretations of claim  meaning and scope by a lower court are questions of law that are properly reviewed de novo by the Fed. Cir. without giving any deference to the fact-finding made by the lower court in support of its decision.

District Courts have long chafed under this decision since they are required to do all the work required to conduct a Markman hearing that may ultimately be completely disregarded by the Fed. Cir. when it reviews verdicts turning on claim construction–as most of them must. However, should even precise fact-finding trump basic rules of claim construction? The outcome of this en banc decision will be as important to patent law as KSR, Markman and Philips defined. In any case, that is what the scholars will be telling us for a year or two to come.

En Banc Order

© 2014 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author


Warren Woessner is a registered patent attorney and a founding shareholder of Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner. His practice focuses on chemical patent law, including biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, vaccines, medical treatments, diagnostics, and biofuels and agricultural chemistry, including related opinion and licensing matters.


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.