“Consisting Essentially Of:” Expanding the Scope of Indefiniteness

Nov 8, 2019

Reading Time : 3 min

In December 2014, HZNP Medicines LLC (“Horizon”) brought suit against Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (“Actavis”) in the District of New Jersey, alleging infringement of a group of its patents relating to the formulation and method-of-use of a drug for treating osteoarthritis. This suit was in response to Actavis having previously filed an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification, stating that Horizon’s patents-at-issue were invalid and that they would not be infringed by Actavis’ generic product. The district court issued its Markman order on August 17, 2016, finding three terms in Horizon’s asserted claims indefinite and thus ruling in summary judgment that the formulation patents were invalid.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed.

The Federal Circuit addressed whether three key terms met the definiteness requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b). For the first term, “impurity A,” Actavis successfully argued at the district court that the term “impurity A” is indefinite because neither the claims nor intrinsic evidence defined it. Horizon argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would recognize “impurity A” as “USP Related Diclofenac Compound A” based on extrinsic evidence, including available pharmacopeias. The Court disagreed with Horizon for several reasons. The Court concluded that the term’s usage within the challenged claims does not make clear that it refers to any particular compound. Nor does the specification provide a clue as to the impurity’s identity. Also, the Court noted that the specification and claims referred to “impurity A” in quotes, indicating that its actual composition was not known. Therefore, the term “impurity A” is indefinite.

Second, the Court held a set of claims invalid for indefiniteness because they regarded the degradation of “impurity A” through the term “degrades at less than 1% over 6 months.” The Court reasoned that because “impurity A” itself was unidentified and therefore indefinite, it followed that any claim regarding its degradation would also be invalid as indefinite.

Third, the Court addressed the effect of the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” on indefiniteness. The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” serves a middle ground between closed-ended claims using the phrase “consisting of” and open-ended claims using the phrase “comprising.” The Court states that here it means that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients within the claims, but could include unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. Characterizing the patents’ basic and novel property as superior drying time of the compositions of the invention, the Court applied the Nautilus test for indefiniteness (i.e. failing to inform a POSITA, with reasonable certainty, the scope of the invention) to the drying time. Though Horizon argued that the indefiniteness test should apply only to the claims and not to the basic and novel property of the invention, the court reasoned that because the claim language used the phrase “consisting essentially of,” evaluating definiteness of the claim language inherently necessitated an analysis of the basic and novel property as well. Because the patent provided for two different methods of evaluating drying time and the two methods provided inconsistent results, the court held that the underlying basic and novel property of the invention was indefinite, hence making the claims indefinite and invalid as well.

HZNP Medicines LLC, Horizon Pharma USA, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., 2017-2149, 2017-2152, 2017-2153, 2017-2202, 2017-2203, 2017-2206 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2019)

Practice Tip: When a claim refers to an impurity, the remainder of the claim or specification should provide reference to a specific, identifiable compound. Further, when using the transition phrase “consisting essentially of” to list a set of elements, an indefiniteness analysis can extend to the specification and the basic and novel properties of the invention described therein. Thus, patent applicants should make sure to clearly delineate such properties in the written description.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.