Search a title or topic

Over 20 million podcasts, powered by 

Player FM logo
Artwork

Content provided by Randy Noranbrock. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Randy Noranbrock or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!

Canatex Completion Solutions v. Wellmatics (Fed. Cir., November 12, 2025) 2024-1466

11:52
 
Share
 

Manage episode 519342895 series 3661412
Content provided by Randy Noranbrock. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Randy Noranbrock or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.

This episode is about an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC, decided on November 12, 2025. The core issue of the appeal is whether the U.S. Patent No. 10,794,122, owned by Canatex, is invalid for indefiniteness due to an alleged clerical error in the claims. Specifically, the patent uses the phrase “the connection profile of the second part,” which Canatex argued should be corrected to “first part” because the context of the invention, relating to a downhole oil and gas tool, makes the error evident and the correction the only logical one. The district court had ruled the patent claims invalid, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, concluding that the error was indeed obvious on the face of the patent and that changing “second” to “first” was the only reasonable correction that a skilled artisan would recognize. The court's ruling emphasized that judicial correction of claim terms is appropriate when the demanding standard for an obvious error and unique correction is met, thereby remanding the case for further proceedings.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

  continue reading

54 episodes

Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 519342895 series 3661412
Content provided by Randy Noranbrock. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Randy Noranbrock or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.

This episode is about an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC, decided on November 12, 2025. The core issue of the appeal is whether the U.S. Patent No. 10,794,122, owned by Canatex, is invalid for indefiniteness due to an alleged clerical error in the claims. Specifically, the patent uses the phrase “the connection profile of the second part,” which Canatex argued should be corrected to “first part” because the context of the invention, relating to a downhole oil and gas tool, makes the error evident and the correction the only logical one. The district court had ruled the patent claims invalid, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, concluding that the error was indeed obvious on the face of the patent and that changing “second” to “first” was the only reasonable correction that a skilled artisan would recognize. The court's ruling emphasized that judicial correction of claim terms is appropriate when the demanding standard for an obvious error and unique correction is met, thereby remanding the case for further proceedings.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

  continue reading

54 episodes

All episodes

×
 
Loading …

Welcome to Player FM!

Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.

 

Copyright 2025 | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | | Copyright
Listen to this show while you explore
Play