You searched for Patent | Page 22 of 176

Results for "Patent"

Surprise? Last-minute new theory leads to new trial

by Dexter Hamilton | Sep 18, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a new trial after the defendant introduced a new noninfringement theory on the eve of trial based on test results it previously refused to produce, saying they were not necessary. Magēmā Technology LLC v. Phillips 66, Phillips 66 Co., and WRB Refining LP, Case No. 2024-1342 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2025) (Moore, Stoll, Bumb, JJ.)

Magēmā owns a patent directed to a solution to desulfurize fuel used to power cargo ships. Magēmā entered into licensing discussions with Phillips, but after the parties failed to reach an agreement, Phillips modified its hydrotreater reactors to implement what Magēmā believed was an infringing desulfurization process. Magēmā sued.

The governing fuel standard required a flashpoint of at least 140 degrees, meaning fuel with a pre-hydroprocessing flashpoint below that threshold would not infringe. The parties disagreed on where at the refinery the flashpoint should be tested. Phillips provided data from one sampling point while Magēmā requested data from a location closer to the hydrotreater reactor. Phillips refused, citing safety concerns, and argued that Magēmā could estimate the flashpoint using an accepted formula. The district court denied Magēmā’s motion to compel, agreeing that the formula sufficed. However, after discovery closed, Phillips moved to supplement the summary judgment record with new flashpoint test results from a different sampling station. The district court denied the motion, finding Phillips had no reasonable explanation for failing to sample earlier, and that introducing the evidence late would be unduly prejudicial, especially since Phillips had previously said Magēmā could rely on the formula. Yet shortly before jury selection, Magēmā learned that Phillips intended to argue that the formula was inadequate and that only actual testing could prove infringement (evidence Magēmā lacked), effectively shifting the burden. Magēmā objected, but the district court overruled the objection.

At trial, Philips told the jury that the standard required actual flashpoint testing and that Magēmā could not prove infringement without test samples. Magēmā requested a curative instruction, which the district court denied. The district court also barred Magēmā from explaining why it had relied on a formula rather than actual testing data. The jury returned a general verdict of noninfringement. Although the district court acknowledged that Phillips’ arguments were “improper and prejudicial,” it denied Magēmā’s motion for a new trial, finding that the misconduct did not affect the outcome. Magēmā appealed.

Phillips argued that Magēmā had failed to timely object, but the Federal Circuit disagreed, citing to Magēmā’s pre-jury selection objection, request for a curative instruction, and motion for a new trial. Finding that the district court abused its discretion in denying a new trial, the Federal Circuit agreed that Phillips’ argument was “improper and prejudicial,” characterizing it as a “bait-and-switch.”

Because the jury returned a general verdict form, the Federal Circuit could not determine the basis for the noninfringement finding and, given the repeated emphasis Phillips placed on its improper argument, the Court concluded it would be unjust to let the [...]

Continue Reading

Prevailing party: Dismissal with prejudice will do it

by Kyle Sorenson, PhD | Sep 18, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a district court erred in denying fees and costs to the prevailing party (here, the defendant), but upheld the district court’s denial of Rule 11 sanctions. Future Link Sys., LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., Case Nos. 23-1056; -1057 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2025) (Stoll, Reyna, Bryson, JJ.)

Future Link sued Realtek for patent infringement in the Western District of Texas. Realtek challenged service and personal jurisdiction and subsequently moved for Rule 11 sanctions. During discovery, Future Link produced a licensing agreement with a third party, under which the third party had agreed to pay a lump sum if Future Link sued Realtek. Shortly afterward, Future Link entered into a separate licensing agreement with Realtek covering the accused products and voluntarily dismissed the case.

Realtek moved for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and costs under Rule 54(d)(1), and asserted that Future Link had filed objectively baseless lawsuits. The district court denied Realtek’s motions for fees and sanctions, did not address the motion for costs, and converted Future Link’s voluntary dismissal to a dismissal with prejudice.

Fees and costs

To seek fees and costs, a party must qualify as “the prevailing party.” In reviewing the district court’s decision on fees and costs, the Federal Circuit addressed Realtek’s prevailing party status under both § 285 and Rule 54(d).

Applying de novo review, the Federal Circuit concluded that Realtek was the prevailing party, despite the voluntary dismissal, because the district court had converted that dismissal to one with prejudice. The Federal Circuit emphasized that prevailing party analysis turns on whether there has been a material alteration of the legal relationship between the parties. Citing its own precedent, the Court explained that a dismissal with prejudice constitutes such a change because it bars the plaintiff from reasserting the same claims against the same products.
The Court explained that a favorable ruling on the merits is not required. A defendant that successfully avoids liability, such as through dismissal with prejudice, can still be deemed the prevailing party.

Since the dismissal with prejudice prevented Future Link from reasserting its patent claims against the accused products, Realtek was the prevailing party. The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees under § 285 and remanded the issue for consideration of whether the case was exceptional and fees were warranted. It likewise remanded the Rule 54(d) costs issue for initial determination.

Rule 11 sanctions

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Rule 11 sanctions. Realtek had argued that Future Link’s prefiling investigation was inadequate and that the lawsuit was improperly motivated by a third-party payment arrangement, making that arrangement the but-for cause of the lawsuit.

The Federal Circuit rejected both arguments. First, it found that Future Link’s pre-suit investigation met Rule 11 standards: Future Link obtained and analyzed three accused products, prepared claim charts comparing asserted patent claims to the accused products, and investigated relevant optional features that it reasonably believed [...]

Continue Reading

Claims barred by laches: Prosecution delay doesn’t pay, nor does skipping evidence of concrete injury

by Courtney Seams | Sep 11, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment for the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) on application of prosecution laches in an action under 35 USC § 145. The Federal Circuit also agreed that the district court lacked Article III jurisdiction over certain claims because the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of concrete injury when challenged after initial pleadings. Hyatt v. Stewart, Case Nos. 2018-2390; -2391; -2392; 2019-1049; -1038; -1039; -1070; 2024-1992; -1993; -1994; -1995 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2025) (Reyna, Wallach, Hughes, JJ.) (precedential).

Gilbert Hyatt filed four GATT bubble patent applications, all of which had claims rejected by the examiner. Hyatt appealed those rejections to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, which affirmed various rejections of others. Following the Board decisions, Hyatt filed four separate actions in district court under 35 U.S.C. § 145, challenging the PTO rejections. In response, the PTO asserted prosecution laches as an affirmative defense and, in the alternative, invalidity, based on anticipation and lack of written description.

The district court initially ruled in Hyatt’s favor, finding that the PTO’s affirmative defenses failed with respect to the claims for which the Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection. The district court concluded that it lacked Article III jurisdiction over the remaining claims (those for which the Board reversed the examiner) because there was no final agency action as to those claims.

The PTO appealed, arguing that prosecution laches barred all of the claims or, in the alternative, that the claims were invalid. Hyatt cross-appealed, contending that prosecution laches did not apply in § 145 actions or that the district court abused its discretion in applying laches in these specific § 145 actions.

In an earlier appeal, Hyatt I, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s rulings on prosecution laches, holding that the district court applied the wrong standard for prosecution laches and had the burden of proving that Hyatt engaged in unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecuting his applications and that the delay was prejudicial. The panel remanded the case held the issue of Article III jurisdiction in abeyance. On remand, the district court reversed course and found in favor of the PTO on prosecution laches, concluding that Hyatt had unreasonably delayed prosecution in a manner that prejudiced the agency.

Hyatt appealed. The Federal Circuit consolidated the appeals with the earlier stayed jurisdictional issues. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of prosecution laches, finding no clear error in its determination that Hyatt’s conduct met the standard for delay and prejudice. The Federal Circuit also agreed that the district court lacked Article III jurisdiction over claims that had not been finally rejected by the PTO, reinforcing that § 145 actions may only proceed where there is a final agency determination resulting in a justiciable controversy.

On the issue of prosecution laches, the Federal Circuit explained that it had already considered and rejected Hyatt’s argument that prosecution laches is unavailable in a § 145 action in Hyatt I, and [...]

Continue Reading

Derivation proceedings highlight race to file under AIA

by Brennen Baylor | Sep 11, 2025 | America Invents Act, Patents

In one of the first decisions regarding derivation proceedings under the America Invents Act (AIA), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s finding that an application earlier filer had not derived his claimed invention from a later-filing petitioner. Global Health Solutions, LLC v. Marc Selner, Case No. 2023-2009 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2025) (Stoll, Stark, JJ.) (Goldberg, J., sitting by designation).

Global Health Solutions (GHS) and Marc Selner filed patent applications governed by the AIA and covering similar subject matter. Selner filed his application first. GHS filed a petition to institute derivation under 35 U.S.C. § 135, alleging that Selner’s patent claims were derived from Burnam, the single inventor on the GHS application.

During Board proceedings, the parties submitted evidence regarding the timing of their respective conceptions of the claimed inventions, including several email communications. Based on Selner’s evidence, the Board determined that he could not have derived the claimed invention from Burnam. The Board also rejected GHS’s argument that actual reduction to practice was necessary to complete conception of the claimed invention. GHS appealed.

The Federal Circuit explained that while pre-AIA patent interference proceedings required a party alleging derivation to establish prior conception and communication of the invention to the opposing party, the AIA does not expressly define the evidentiary requirements for derivation petitions. Nevertheless, the Court, borrowing from its interference jurisprudence, reasoned that an AIA derivation proceeding similarly requires a showing of both conception and communication of the claimed invention. The Court emphasized, however, that standards articulated in case law from pre-AIA interference proceedings must be applied with caution and considered in light of the AIA’s distinct statutory framework.

The Federal Circuit determined that although the Board focused on which party had proof of the earliest conception (typically the dispositive issue in interference proceedings), it was harmless error. Under the AIA first-to-file framework, determination of the first to invent is not dispositive. The Court noted that because Selner was first to file, he only needed to show that his conception was independent of Burnam’s. Here, Selner’s proof of earlier conception was also proof of conception independent of Burnam, the Court noted.

The Federal Circuit also determined that the Board did not err in rejecting GHS’s argument that Selner failed to demonstrate invention in the absence of evidence of actual reduction to practice. The Court found that the Board appropriately addressed whether such a requirement (often applied in interference proceedings to complicated, unpredictable technology) applied to the invention at issue. The Court explained that Selner’s conception was complete either when he could define the invention by its method of preparation or when he had formed a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention. Selner’s earlier email communication to Burnam supported the finding that Selner had reached the requisite understanding to establish complete conception without the need for actual reduction to practice. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Board’s decision in favor of Selner, finding no derivation.

Practice note: [...]

Continue Reading

When is a word too common to trademark? Asking for a four-letter friend

by Sarah Bro | Sep 4, 2025 | Trademarks

In response to artist and entrepreneur Erik Brunetti’s ongoing efforts to register FUCK as a trademark for various goods and services, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s refusal to register the term but agreed with the Board’s position on the registrability of widely used “all-purpose words.” The Court ordered the remand because it found the Board’s reasoning insufficiently clear and lacking a coherent standard. In re Brunetti, Case No. 23-1539 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2025) (Dyk, Reyna, JJ.) (Lourie, J., dissenting).

Brunetti filed four intent-to-use applications to register FUCK as a trademark for goods, including sunglasses, jewelry, and backpacks, and services such as retail store offerings. The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) refused registration, asserting that the term failed to function as a trademark under Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 of the Lanham Act and citing its widespread use as a commonplace expression conveying varied sentiments.

The Board affirmed the PTO’s decision, concluding that FUCK was “arguably one of the most expressive words in the English language” and that consumers were accustomed to seeing it used by various sources on similar goods. The Board reasoned that such ubiquity rendered the term incapable of serving as a source identifier. It rejected Brunetti’s constitutional arguments and distinguished the Supreme Court’s prior decision in Iancu v. Brunetti, which invalidated the PTO’s refusal to register the mark FUCK on grounds of immorality. Brunetti appealed.

The Federal Circuit agreed that the Board had properly considered third-party use and the expressive nature of the term. However, the Court found the Board’s decision wanting in clarity and consistency. It criticized the Board’s failure to articulate a workable standard for when “all-purpose word marks” such as FUCK can function as trademarks, especially in light of other registrations for similarly ubiquitous terms such as LOVE and even FUCK itself for snow globes and gummy candies.

The Federal Circuit emphasized that the Board must engage in reasoned decision-making under the Administrative Procedure Act and provide sufficient guidance for future cases. The Court therefore vacated the decision and remanded for further proceedings.

Despite the remand, the Federal Circuit dismissed Brunetti’s argument that the PTO had retaliated against him for his prior Supreme Court victory in Iancu v. Brunetti. Brunetti claimed that the timing of the refusals (following his successful challenge to the PTO’s immoral/scandalous bar) suggested retaliation. The Court found this argument unpersuasive, noting that Brunetti offered no evidence beyond timing, and that the Board’s analysis remained viewpoint-neutral and focused on whether the mark functioned as a source identifier.

Judge Lourie dissented, arguing that the Federal Circuit should have affirmed the Board’s refusal on grounds that the term FUCK is too ubiquitous and expressive to function as a source identifier for the goods and services in question. He emphasized that the word’s widespread use across varied emotional contexts prevents consumers from associating it with a specific brand. From Judge Lourie’s perspective, FUCK on its own [...]

Continue Reading

Standing: Don’t get owned by incorrect trademark ownership

by Jolie B. Schenerman | Sep 4, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a trademark and unfair competition suit, ruling that the plaintiff did not own the asserted trademark. The Court also held that the owner of the trademark failed to ratify the action and therefore the plaintiff did not have standing to assert unfair competition claims. Ripple Analytics Inc. v. People Ctr., Inc., Case No. 24-490 (2d Cir. Aug. 26, 2025) (Park, Nathan, Perez, JJ.)

In March 2018, the US Patent & Trademark Office granted Ripple Analytics a federal trademark for RIPPLE in connection with human resources software. The following month, Ripple assigned all rights to its intellectual property to co-founder Noah Pusey via an assignment agreement. Around the same time, People Center applied to register RIPPLING for similar software. It later abandoned the application but continued to operate under the Rippling name.

Ripple sued People Center in 2020 for trademark infringement and unfair competition. During discovery, Ripple produced the assignment agreement. People Center responded by moving to amend its answer, seeking dismissal for failure to prosecute in the name of the real party in interest and requesting summary judgment.

The district court found that Pusey, not Ripple, was the real party in interest and dismissed the case because Pusey had not ratified the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. It also dismissed the unfair competition claims for lack of standing and denied Ripple’s motion to amend the complaint as futile. Ripple appealed.

The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal, finding that Ripple had “unambiguously” assigned all intellectual property rights, including the trademark at issue, to Pusey, making him the real party in interest. The Court emphasized that the assignment agreement transferred all of Ripple’s “claims, causes of action, and rights to sue,” regardless of when those claims arose. Ripple argued that Pusey satisfied Rule 17 by ratifying the pleadings and agreeing to be a plaintiff. The Court rejected this argument, noting that Pusey’s declaration stating his involvement in the case and strong interest in its outcome did not amount to an agreement to be bound by the suit, a requirement for ratification.

The Second Circuit determined that Ripple’s Lanham Act unfair competition claims failed because they were based on the inaccurate assertion that Ripple owned the RIPPLE mark. The Second Circuit also upheld the district court’s denial of Ripple’s motion to amend its complaint, explaining that the assignment agreement expressly barred Ripple from bringing suit.

Practice note: Before initiating trademark litigation, practitioners should conduct thorough due diligence on ownership to avoid standing issues. Defendants should consider initiating early discovery on ownership of the rights being asserted.

Identical or not? Jury can’t decide issues of claim construction

by Cecilia Choy, PhD | Aug 21, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement, finding that the jury’s infringement findings were unsupported by sufficient evidence and that the district court had improperly delegated claim construction to the jury. Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Qiagen Sciences, LLC, Case No. 23-2350 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2025) (Lourie, Dyk, Cunningham, JJ.)

Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings (LabCorp) holds two patents with substantially overlapping specifications, both generally directed to methods for preparing DNA samples for sequencing and enrichment techniques aimed at enabling whole-genome sequencing. LabCorp initiated litigation alleging that various Qiagen Sciences kits containing materials used in DNA sample preparation for sequencing infringed its patents. During claim construction, the district court construed several patent terms as follows:

In the first patent, “second target-specific primer” means a single-stranded oligonucleotide with a 3’ portion that specifically anneals to a portion of the known target nucleotide sequence in the amplicon from step (b), and a 5’ portion identical to a second sequencing primer.
Also in the first patent, “second adaptor primer” refers to a nucleic acid molecule containing a sequence identical to part of the first sequencing primer and nested relative to the first adaptor primer.
In the second patent, “target-specific primer” is defined as a primer sufficiently complementary to the target to enable selective annealing and amplification, without amplifying non-target sequences in the sample.

The jury found that Qiagen infringed the first patent under the doctrine of equivalents and willfully and literally infringed the second patent. The jury awarded damages accordingly. The district court denied Qiagen’s renewed motion for JMOL to reverse the damages and the jury’s findings of infringement and validity, and its alternative request for a new trial. Qiagen appealed.

Qiagen raised two noninfringement arguments regarding the first patent, and the Federal Circuit agreed with both. First, the Court held that it was error to allow the jury to apply “plain meaning” and equate a sequence being “identical to another” with being “identical to a portion” of another. Specifically, Qiagen’s accused second target-specific primer (Sample Index Primer, or SIP) was 19 nucleotides long while the second sequencing primer (Read2 primer) was 34 nucleotides. The fact that they shared an overlapping sequence did not make them identical.

Although the district court had treated “identical” as a factual issue for the jury, the Federal Circuit, citing its 2008 decision in O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech., found that this was a claim construction matter that should not have been left to the jury. The term “identical” must be given its full meaning under claim construction and cannot be interpreted as “identical to a portion.” The Court emphasized that the specification and claims distinguished between full and partial identity: The second target-specific primer must be “identical to” the second sequencing primer while the adaptor primer need only be “identical to a portion” of the first sequencing primer. This difference [...]

Continue Reading

Specification controls: Written description must be clear

by Taylor MacDonald | Aug 21, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s decision upholding patent validity, finding that the subject patent’s specification clearly established that the written description failed to adequately support the full scope of the asserted claims (35 U.S.C. § 112). Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc., Case Nos. 23-2117; -2116 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 8, 2025) (Taranto, Clevenger, Hughes, JJ.)

Mondis sued LG for alleged infringement of a patent related to computer display technology. During prosecution, Mondis amended the claims to overcome prior art, changing a limitation from identifying a particular display unit to identifying a type of display unit (the type limitation). A jury found in favor of Mondis and awarded $45 million in damages. LG moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), arguing that the patent was invalid due to a lack of written description supporting the type limitation. The district court denied the motion but granted a retrial on damages. The second jury awarded more than $14 million. LG appealed.

The Federal Circuit applied regional law standard (here, Third Circuit law) to review the district court’s denial of JMOL (i.e., assessing whether a reasonable jury could have reached the verdict). In evaluating patent validity under the written description requirement of § 112, the Court focused on whether the specification sufficiently demonstrated that the inventor possessed the claimed invention, including any amendments made during prosecution.

The Federal Circuit examined whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of validity and concluded that LG did not need extrinsic evidence to challenge the patent’s validity but properly relied on the specification. The Court found that Mondis’ attempt to piece together fragments of testimony (primarily related to infringement) to argue for implicit support in the specification was insufficient because the specification’s plain language supported only the original unamended claim limitation, not the amended type limitation.

The Federal Circuit acknowledged that both parties presented expert testimony at trial. However, the Court found that even Mondis’ expert testimony, when considered alongside the specification’s plain meaning, failed to provide adequate support for the jury’s finding. While a jury may infer implicit support, Mondis did not present enough particularized testimony to justify such an inference.

Mondis also argued that the examiner’s allowance of the amended claim indicated sufficient support in the specification, and that the presumption of validity of an issued patent supported its position. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, noting that the examiner’s focus was on overcoming prior art, not on evaluating written descriptions. Accepting Mondis’ position would effectively shield most patents from later invalidation, a result the Court deemed impractical.

Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling and found the asserted claims invalid for lack of written description.

Use of general knowledge in IPR petitions will no longer work

by Ashley K. Justice | Aug 14, 2025 | Patents

On July 31, 2025, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a memo clarifying the requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) for inter partes review (IPR) petitions. The memo emphasizes that petitioners must clearly identify where each element of the challenged claims is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.

Historically, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board permitted petitioners to rely on applicant admitted prior art (AAPA), expert testimony, common sense, and other forms of general knowledge to fill in missing claim limitations. However, the new guidance states that such general knowledge, including AAPA, can no longer be used to supply missing claim elements. If an IPR petition relies on general knowledge to bridge gaps in the prior art, the Board will now deny institution.

The memo clarifies that § 104(b)(4) does not limit the use of general knowledge to support a motivation to combine or to demonstrate the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. However, § 104(b)(4) may be narrower than 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Just weeks before the memo was issued, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Shockwave Medical. v. Cardiovascular Systems held that AAPA can be used to supply missing claim limitations without violating § 311(b), highlighting a potential tension between the rule and judicial interpretation.

The PTO’s new requirements will apply to all IPR petitions filed on or after September 1, 2025.

Practice note: To meet the threshold for institution, IPR petitioners should ensure that each claim element is explicitly mapped to prior art patents or printed publications. Reliance on general knowledge to fill in missing elements will no longer be sufficient.

Claim construction misstep undoes injunction

by Joshua Revilla | Aug 14, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a preliminary injunction (PI), finding that the district court improperly construed a claim term based on references cited in a provisional application but omitted from the asserted patents. FMC Corp. v. Sharda USA, LLC, Case No. 224-2335 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2025) (Moore, Chen, Barnett, JJ.)

FMC owns two patents claiming priority to a provisional application concerning insecticides and miticides compositions. The patents specifically cover formulations comprising bifenthrin and a cyano-pyrethroid. Sharda currently markets an insecticide product known as Winner, which contains both bifenthrin and a cyano-pyrethroid.

FMC sued Sharda for patent infringement on its two patents and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a PI. The district court denied both motions but issued a claim construction for the term “composition.” Instead of applying the term’s plain and ordinary meaning, the district court interpreted “composition” narrowly to mean “stable compositions, rather than the well-known unstable compositions that produce ineffective results as discussed throughout the prosecution history.” In reaching this construction, the district court relied on statements made in the provisional application and disclosures found in a separate, non-asserted FMC patent that claimed priority to the same provisional application. However, these disclosures were absent from the asserted patents themselves, appearing only in the provisional application and the non-asserted patent.

FMC renewed its motion for a TRO, which the district court granted and later converted into a PI. In issuing the PI, the district court again relied on its narrow construction of the term “composition” as a key point in rejecting Sharda’s invalidity defenses. Sharda appealed.

Sharda argued that the district court erred in both its construction of “composition” and its determination that Sharda failed to raise a substantial question regarding the patents’ validity. The Federal Circuit first addressed Sharda’s challenge to the district court’s construction of the term “composition,” which had been limited to stable compositions based on disclosures in the provisional application and a non-asserted patent. The Court acknowledged that while the provisional application contained multiple references to “stability,” all such references were deliberately removed from the common specification of the two asserted patents. As a result, the specifications of the asserted patents did not simply carry forward the language of the provisional application but instead reflected a substantive evolution.

Citing its 2024 decision in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com LLC, the Federal Circuit emphasized that such omissions are legally significant. The Court concluded that a person of ordinary skill in the art, considering the deliberate removal of all references to stability, would not interpret the term “composition” as limited to stable formulations. Because FMC chose to revise the asserted patents’ written descriptions to exclude any mention of stability, the district court erred in importing a stability limitation from the provisional application and non-asserted patent into the claims. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit held that the district court improperly grafted a “stability” requirement onto the term “composition.”

The Federal Circuit also found fault with the district court’s [...]

Continue Reading