[US] Focus Prod v. Kartri Sales (CAFC, September 30, 2025)

Read the Japanese version / 日本語版を読む

Article information

Article type: Case note

Categories: United States

Main topics: Claim interpretation / Examination and appeal practice

First published on this website: October 1, 2026

Display and classification checked: October 1, 2026 (not a revalidation of the legal analysis)

[US] Focus Prod v. Kartri Sales (CAFC, September 30, 2025)

Selecting a particular species without contesting the examiner's definition or limitation of the species creates a risk that non-elected species will be regarded as excluded from the claim scope.

⇒ As claim 73 was withdrawn without contesting the examiner's characterization, its features were held to have been excluded.

The summary judgment finding patent infringement was vacated.

https://lnkd.in/gpXxB7ce

Original article: https://lnkd.in/g_cHaYTJ

23-1446.OPINION.9-30-2025_2580961.pdf

Originally posted on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7510860193115688960/

Related articles

Further reading: examination elections and claim scope — [Publication review] [Article / Patents] Research and proposals on lack of unity in inventions expressed as alternatives (Biotechnology and Life Sciences Committee, Patent, December 2025)

Further reading: claim interpretation — [Case note] IP High Court, Reiwa 5 (Gyo-Ke) 10149 [Multi-branched heat exchanger with independent baffles] <Presiding Judge Miyasaka>

Updates and corrections

Substantive corrections and additions are recorded separately from classification, related links and display changes.

October 1, 2026: First publication of the author's original LinkedIn text on this website. Article type, categories, topic tags, sources and consultation navigation added.

2026-10-01 | Related articles: added reciprocal links with shared-topic or comparative grounds; original text unchanged.

2026-10-01 | Display maintenance: added case references stated in the original or language-alternate metadata; not a revalidation of legal analysis.

2026-10-01 | Name notation: replaced verified Japanese-script personal names with Roman-letter forms in this English article and its navigation. Legal analysis and original publication date unchanged.

2026-10-15: Aligned related-article and resource link labels with the published titles after the court name was added. The original article text, destination URLs, and classification were not changed.

Consultation and inquiries

Find information and contact details by consultation purpose