focuses her practice on patent, copyright, trade secret and false advertising litigations. She represents clients in a variety of intellectual property matters, including branded-side Hatch-Waxman litigation and other patent litigations relating to a broad range of technologies. Sarah’s general litigation experience includes products liability, fraud, tortious interference, wrongful termination, defamation and breach of contract. Sarah is experienced in class action litigation and litigation in state and federal courts, including trial and appellate work.
On one hand, logic dictates that the broader the interpretation of the claim, the more extensive the array of relevant prior art—and in turn the more likely that the claim will be held invalid in light of that prior art. On the other hand, evaluating whether the Board’s use of the BRI protocol in an IPR claim construction will lead to “different results” than the plain and ordinary meaning construction used by federal courts in claim construction is complicated by the relatively scant evidence on the subject, and the inevitable fact that this evidence is naturally dependent on particular prior art and invalidity and obviousness arguments specific to a particular patent. Even putting aside the question of what impact a different claim construction standard may have in an IPR, In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies will not address several powerful differences between an IPR and district court litigation that impact whether a particular patent claim survives.