Blog November 4, 2019
Reissue Was Broadening Where New Dependent Claims Exceeded Previously-Judged Scope of Independent Claim
- Person title
ArcelorMittal France v. AK Steel Corp., ___F.3d ___ (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2015) (Dyk, Wallach, HUGHES) (D. Del.: Robinson) (3 of 5 stars)
Federal Circuit affirms-in-part and reverses-in-part judgment of invalidity due to impermissible broadening during reissue.
ArcelorMittal applied for reissue of its patent while a prior appeal stemming from this litigation was ongoing. Original 1 claim included a limitation requiring "a very high mechanical resistance," and the reissue added dependent claim 23, which required mechanical resistance "in excess of 1000 MPa." The Federal Circuit's prior opinion, however, had construed the mechanical resistance limitation in the original clam as limited to "greater than 1500 MPa."
The district court properly held that claims 1 through 23 were impermissibly broadened. The Federal Circuit's prior interpretation of claim 1 controlled interpretation of original claim 1; post-reissue, claim 1 had broader scope due to the addition of claim 23. The addition of claim 23 is not "new evidence" that might permit revisiting the interpretation of original claim 1 under either law of the case or the mandate rule. A reissue claim cannot be used to redefine the scope of an original claim. And while reissue prosecution history is sometimes relevant to determining the scope of original claims, such history is not relevant to determining whether broadening of an original claim has occurred.
The district court erred, however, in holding that because some claims of the reissue patent had been impermissibly broadened, all reissue claims were invalid. Invalidity due to impermissible broadening is evaluated claim-by-claim. There was no dispute that claims 24 and 25 (which were added during reissue) had the same scope as original claim 1, and so no broadening occurred.
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 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
Blog June 18, 2015
Ordered Method Claim Does Not Bar Partly-Simultaneous Performance of Steps
Blog June 17, 2015
Claims Covering Basic Detection of Naturally-Occurring Compound, However Scientifically Significant, 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
What to Know about the Supreme Court's Arthrex Decision
Blog June 22, 2021
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