Blog March 23, 2020
Narrow Independent Claims are Not Expanded by the Presence of Broad Dependents
- Person title
Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Applera Corp., ___F.3d ___ (Fed. Cir. Mar. 16, 2015) (PROST, Newman (dissenting), Linn) (D. Conn.: Arterton) (2 of 5 stars)
Federal Circuit vacates judgment of infringement as resting on an overbroad interpretation of the claims.
The patent related to a nucleotide probe used in detecting certain nucleic acids. The claim required, as part of the probe, a chemical group that was "at least one component of a signaling moiety capable of producing a detectable signal." The claim also required that this group was attached to the rest of the nucleotide structure in such a way as to "not substantially interfere with formation of the signaling moiety."
Such language, interpreted in light of the specification, precluded the claim from reaching probes having a chemical group that was itself a complete signaling moiety. The claim's phrases "component of a signaling moiety" and its bar against interfering with "formation of the signaling moiety" indicated that the moiety must be separately formed. Such interpretation was supported by the specification, which included no disclosure of "direct" detection or use of complete signaling moieties. That three dependent claims involved direct detection did not alter this interpretation because dependent claims cannot broaden independent claims from which they depend. Finally, the district court's reliance on expert testimony to conclude the specification discloses an example of "direct" detection was insufficient because it "does not override our analysis of the totality of the specification, which clearly indicates that the purpose of the invention was directed toward indirect detection, not direct detection." Slip op. at 13-14.
Dissent: Judge Newman thought the claim's reference to "at least one component of a signaling moiety" imposes no requirement of multiple components and must be broad enough to include the dependent claims, which expressly claim embodiments in which the group at issue is a complete signaling moiety. Judge Newman also noted that the district court received testimony concerning appropriate interpretation of the "at least one component" term, and that noted that fact determinations accompanying the district court's construction are entitled to Teva deference.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog November 4, 2019
Legal Alert: Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. - What Did the Federal Circuit Do?
Blog November 4, 2019
Legal Alert | Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. — What Did the Federal Circuit Do?
Blog August 17, 2018
En Banc Federal Circuit: Patentee's Service of Complaint, Followed by Voluntary Dismissal, Triggers IPR Clock
Blog October 5, 2017
Legal Alert: Federal Circuit Faults PTO's Approach to Claim Amendments During IPR, But Allows PTO to Try to Fix the Problem
Blog May 16, 2016
Software Claims Directed to Specific Improvements in Computer Operations May be "Non-Abstract"
Blog May 2, 2016
Corporate Residence Definition in Patent Cases Unchanged by Congressional Revisions to Venue Statute; Minimum Contacts Under Beverly Hills Fan Reaffirmed
Blog April 11, 2016
Claims Directed to Detection of Gene Variants Patent-Ineligible, Notwithstanding Mental Activity Requirement
Blog July 27, 2015
Judicial Review Available for Decision that a Patent Qualified for CBM Review; § 101 Review Appropriate in CBM Review
Blog July 8, 2015
Software Claim Addressing Concepts Long Known in Other Fields and Lacking Other Inventive Concept Is Not Patent Eligible
Article December 27, 2022
Senior Principal John Dragseth Authors IPWatchdog Article "Top Federal Circuit Decisions of 2022 That No One Told You About"
Blog July 6, 2021
Federal Circuit Finds Digital Camera an Abstract Idea
Blog June 24, 2021
Legal Alert: What to Know about the Supreme Court's Arthrex Decision
Blog June 22, 2021
Legal Alert: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in U.S. v. Arthrex
Article January 4, 2021
Fish Attorneys Author Law360 Article, "Lessons For 2021 From Fed. Circ. Post-Grant Review Cases"
Blog November 13, 2020
Federal Circuit Panel Holds Hatch-Waxman Venue Under the Second Prong of § 1400(b) is Based on Actions Related to ANDA Submission
Q&A November 12, 2020
Q&A with Riqui Bonilla and Nitika Gupta Fiorella for Corporate Counsel Business Journal
Article September 1, 2020
Fish Attorneys Author Biosimilar Development Article, "An Update On 2020 U.S. Biosimilars Regulation & Litigation"
Article July 7, 2020
Fish Attorneys Author Article in Bloomberg Law, "INSIGHT: SCOTUS Decision on Computer Fraud Act Could Impact Trade Secrets"
Blog June 26, 2020