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.
*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
Articles
California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data
June 4, 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
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.