Courts Must Analyze Claims as a Whole to Determine Whether Independent Claims That Lack Written Description Preclude Assertion of Dependent Claims

July 18, 2023

Reading Time : 2 min

The District Court for the District of New Jersey recently denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment which sought to invalidate a dependent claim on preclusion grounds based on the PTAB’s invalidation of the related independent claim for lack of written description. Because the claims were not identical in scope when viewed as a whole, the district court found it could not assume the differences were immaterial. Factual issues, therefore, prevented application of preclusion.

In 2018, the PTAB held, inter alia, that independent claim 1 of plaintiff Indivior, Inc.’s patent was anticipated. The PTAB concluded that claim 1 was not entitled to a parent application’s priority date because there was no written description support for claim 1’s 40-60% polymeric matrix limitation. Thus, the relevant anticipatory reference was prior art to claim 1. In contrast, however, the PTAB concluded that the parent application did provide written description support for claim 8, which depended from claim 1, but claimed a specific value within the range. And because claim 8 was entitled to the benefit of its priority date, it was not anticipated by the asserted reference. The Federal Circuit affirmed.

In the district court litigation, Indivior asserted previously unchallenged claim 6 against defendant Alvogen Pine Brooks LLC. Claim 6 incorporated all limitations from claim 1—including the 40-60% polymeric matrix limitation—but further required a specific ratio between a different component and the polymeric matrix. Alvogen filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that because claim 6 included the same 40-60% limitation as claim 1, it must be found to lack sufficient written description based on principles of claim preclusion.

The district court disagreed, reasoning that the written description requirement applies to patent claims in their entirety, not to individual limitations. Claim 6 included a limitation not found in claim 1. That added limitation was not considered in the PTAB’s determination, and the district court could not assume at the summary judgment stage that the differences between claim 1 and claim 6 were immaterial. It is not the case that when an independent claim lacks written description support all of its dependent claims necessarily lack written description support. Indeed, the PTAB (affirmed by the Federal Circuit) previously concluded that claim 8, which expressly narrowed claim 1’s range to a specific value, was adequately supported.

Thus, the questions of whether claim 6’s added ratio limitation necessarily narrowed the polymeric matrix range to less than 40-60% and whether the specification would support any such narrower range were factual questions the court could not to resolve at summary judgment.

The district court also found that the differences in the burdens of proof between the PTAB and district courts provide an alternative basis to deny summary judgment on preclusion grounds in this case, but noted that general rule would not apply under Federal Circuit precedent if the case involved the same claims challenged at the PTAB.

Practice Tip: When faced with a question of issue preclusion, be sure to analyze the claim as a whole to determine whether the identical relevant issue was in fact litigated in a previous case. Be prepared to explain why differences between an asserted claim and a previously invalidated claim are, or are not, material to the validity question at hand.

Indivior Inc. v. Alvogen Pine Brook LLC, No. 17-7106, 18-5285 (D.N.J June 26, 2023)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

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.