[United States] LAB v. Qiagen (CAFC, August 13, 2025)
Updated: Oct 9
Article information
Article type: Case note
Categories: United States
Topics: Claim interpretation / Doctrine of equivalents
First published on this website: 2026-10-07
Display and classification checked: 2026-10-07
[United States] LAB v. Qiagen (CAFC, August 13, 2025)
When claim language differs within a claim depending on whether a modifier is included, the different wording is understood to have been chosen deliberately.
Where a claim contains both “partially matching” and “matching,” a partial match was held insufficient to satisfy “matching,” and the claim element was found not satisfied.
* Lesson: Do not let “partially matching” and “matching” coexist in a claim. Use “partially matching” throughout.
https://t.co/uBCRh4PLgO
Original article (2025-11-13):
https://lnkd.in/gZ97CNHm
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