直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Reverses-In-Part Based on Claim Construction

June 24, 2025

Authored and Edited by Luke H. MacDonald, Ph.D.; Sonja W. Sahlsten; Jack McLaughlan*

In Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc., No. 2023-2211 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2025), the Federal Circuit reversed-in-part and vacated-in-part a PTAB determination finding all claims of a patent owned by Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc. valid in an inter partes review filed by Sigray Inc.

Sigray requested review of all claims of Zeiss’s patent, which detail projection magnification of x-ray images. Sigray’s invalidity grounds relied on Jorgensen, a paper describing a process to minimize X-ray magnification. Zeiss disputed whether Jorgensen disclosed the claimed “magnification of the projection X ray stage ... between 1 and 10 times.” The Board relied on expert testimony that Jorgensen’s X-rays have no “meaningful divergence,” are “essentially parallel,” and only exhibit “a very small angle” of divergence to find Jorgensen did not disclose “between 1 and 10 times” magnification. The Board held that Jorgensen did not anticipate claims 1, 3, and 4 and that claims 1-6 were not obvious.

The Federal Circuit disagreed. The Court reasoned the Board had narrowly construed “between 1 and 10”—despite the Board’s statement that it did not construe the claims. It found the Board’s decision to be based on the incorrect “belief that small amounts of divergence, and therefore magnification, are outside the claim.”

The Court reversed the Board’s determination that Jorgensen did not anticipate claims 1, 3, and 4, and it vacated and remanded the finding of non-obviousness of claims 2, 5, and 6 over Jorgensen.

Tags

invalidity, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), anticipation

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Industries

Life Sciences

Medical Device and Diagnostics

Related Offices

Reston, VA

Washington, DC

Contacts

Luke H. MacDonald, Ph.D.
Associate
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2742
Email
Sonja W. Sahlsten
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4329
Email

*Jack McLaughlan is a Summer Associate at Finnegan. 

Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information

Related Insights

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Articles

California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data

June 4, 2026

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP