My layman's take--Judge Dyk (lol) found "antibody" to mean that a "molecule consists of large, identical heavy chains (H chains) and two light, also identical chains (L chains)", even though "the ’590 patent claims and discloses 'bispecific antibodies, which do not have identical heavy and light chains,'" etc. This deviation from the claim's plain language was due to some rather unclear prosecution banter with the PTO examiner, and Judge Dyk (hehe) fixated on that over the all the other patent claim plain language. This case was in Delaware, previously suggested by one of the board lawyers to be pro-patent (if only).
I.e., Judge Dyk (lol!) misread a patent in favor of the alleged infringer and against most of the evidence presented.
That judge is such a you-know-what.
Ummm... lawyers of iHub, did I lay-interpret that well enough? If not then a simple "no" would suffice, no need to go on a bender for the better part of a week.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
