Ashley T. Brzezinski
Subscribe to Ashley T. Brzezinski's PostsAshley T. Brzezinski advises clients on medical technology and life sciences intellectual property matters, particularly on strategic portfolio development and transactional due diligence. Ashley represents clients in areas such as medical technology, mechanical devices, ophthalmic applications, medical implants, wearable medical diagnostic systems, robotics, artificial intelligence, computer-assisted medical solutions, bioinformatics, telecommunications, material science, integrated circuit design, semiconductor devices and applications, and optics. Ashley also performs IP due diligence studies in transactions involving life science companies, provides invalidity and non-infringement opinions, and represents clients in reexamination and post-grant proceedings. Read Ashley Brzezinski's full bio.
I Hear Ya: Claim Terms Not as Narrow as Features in Specification
By Ashley T. Brzezinski on Feb 29, 2024
Posted In Patents
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s final judgment of noninfringement, finding that the district court improperly narrowed the constructions of certain claim terms to particular features recited in the specification. Promptu Sys. Corp. v. Comcast Corp., Case No. 22-1939 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 16, 2024) (Moore, Prost, Taranto, JJ.)...
Continue Reading
Statements in Unrelated Application Don’t Narrow Claim Term
By Ashley T. Brzezinski on Nov 9, 2023
Posted In Patents
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a stipulated judgment of noninfringement in a patent infringement dispute after construing a disputed claim term, taking a more literal approach than the district court based on the meanings of the individual words of the claim language. Malvern Panalytical Inc. v. TA Instruments-Waters LLC, Case...
Continue Reading
Actual Confusion Is the Best Evidence of Confusion
By Ashley T. Brzezinski on Feb 9, 2023
Posted In Trademarks
The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed and vacated a district court’s preliminary injunction grant in a trademark dispute, concluding that potential confusion is insufficient to satisfy the burden of showing a substantial likelihood of confusion. H&R Block, Inc.; HRB Innovations, Inc. v. Block, Inc., Case Nos. 22-2075; -2023 (8th Cir. Jan....
Continue Reading
