Business
DECN Subsidiaries Appeal Nevada District Court Trial Judge's Ruling to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (The Patent Appeals Court)
DECN Subsidiaries Appeal Nevada District Court Trial Judge's Ruling to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (The Patent Appeals Court).
About this update from Decision Diagnostics Corp
[{"type":"text","content":"Companies Anticipate Another Precedential Ruling from the Federal Circuit Three Judge Panel Based on One Over-Arching ArgumentLOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / December 19, 2018 / Decision Diagnostics Corp. (OTC PINK: DECN) Decision Diagnostics Corp. is a 16 year old diabetes focused bio-technology R&D firm, manufacturer, quality plan administrator, FDA registered medical device customer support organization, and exclusive worldwide sales and regulatory process agent for a growing brand of glucose test strips and meters as highly accurate alternatives for legacy diabetic, proprietary, and pet testing glucose test strips. The company's current portfolio of test strips includes its GenUltimate!, GenChoice!, GenSure!, and GenUltimate! TBG test strips, its Avantage! and Precise! Glucometers, and its PetSure! and GenUltimate! 4Pets testing products for dogs, cats and horses. Decision Diagnostics through its subsidiary corporations PharmaTech Solutions, Inc. and Decision IT Corp. announces today that the companies have appealed the court decision in its case against Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) and two Lifescan divisions, Nevada U.S. District Court case 2:2016cv00564, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC. The Federal Circuit Court hears all appeals involving U.S. Patents. In the companies' case the trial judge ruled incorrectly that the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel preclude us from arguing that LifeScan's OneTouch Ultra infringes the patents-in-suit by the doctrine of equivalence. According to the trial judge, during the prosecution of the patents, the original patent applicants amended their claims and made arguments to the examiner indicating that they were surrendering any way of comparing measurements taken by an analyte monitoring system other than the comparison of analyte measurements taken at different times with each other. Specifically, the trial judge wrongly concluded that to infringe, a device had to first convert a current measurement to an analyte measurement before any comparison would be made. The trial judge relied on erroneous claims made by Johnson & Johnson in their pleadings and oral arguments. Robert Jagunich, Chairman of the companies comments, ''The companies had several paths we could have followed during the drafting of this appeal. We could have listed all o...