[United States] FMC v. Sharada (CAFC, August 1, 2025)
Updated: Oct 9
Article information
Article type: Case note
Categories: United States
Topics: Claim interpretation / Added matter
First published on this website: 2026-10-07
Display and classification checked: 2026-10-07
[United States] FMC v. Sharada (CAFC, August 1, 2025)
During prosecution, a provisional application was first filed containing several teachings that the disclosed compositions were stable.
In one of the subsequent nonprovisional applications, all references to stability were deleted from the specification.
The CAFC held that, in view of those deletions in the prosecution history, a person skilled in the art would not understand the compositions recited in the asserted patent's claims to cover only stable formulations.
(Lesson) Deleting all limiting statements from the original specification can prevent a narrow construction of the claim language.
⇒ Would the same apply in Japan? What about concerns over extending the scope of disclosure or adding new matter?
https://t.co/dOorQsAGU9
Original article (2025-11-07):
https://lnkd.in/gVCp5jiQ
Related articles
Update history
Content changes and display maintenance are recorded separately.
2026-10-07: First published from the original LinkedIn post; categories, article information, and consultation navigation added.
Comments