District Court: Incorporation by Reference for Purposes of Anticipation Requires More than a Parenthetical

March 13, 2025

Reading Time : 2 min

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited reference met the test.

This patent infringement case involved patents directed to methods for detecting nucleic acids. Defendant advanced two anticipation defenses, both of which were premised on the incorporation of material from one reference into another. Specifically, defendant contended that the asserted patents were anticipated by either (i) the Larsson Dissertation incorporating by reference the Göransson article, or (ii) the Gunderson article incorporating by reference the Levsky article.

Plaintiffs moved in limine under FRE 402 and 403 to preclude defendant from these arguments, contending both anticipation defenses relied on material that was not adequately incorporated by reference. In their motion, plaintiffs noted that the Larsson Dissertation included citations to 131 different publications in its text, but only cited to Göransson three times. Similarly, the text of Gunderson referenced Levsky only once in a parenthetical. Plaintiffs contended that these were “routine academic citations” that failed to make clear what material was being incorporation into the primary reference. 

The court agreed with plaintiffs regarding Gunderson, and held that the lone textual citation to Levsky did not identify any specific material from Levsky that was being incorporated into Gunderson. Although Gunderson described the contents of Levsky in a parenthetical, this was, in the court’s view, the equivalent of a “bare footnote” that fell short of the detailed particularity required for incorporation. The court therefore precluded defendant from presenting any testimony or arguments regarding the Gunderson/Levsky defense.

The court reached the opposite conclusion regarding the Larsson Dissertation and its incorporation of Göransson. In so doing, the court pointed out that the Larsson Dissertation substantively discusses Göransson in three passages, including specific teachings about its strategies and methods for detecting nucleic acids. The court also credited the unrebutted testimony by defendant’s expert discussing each of those instances and explaining that one skilled in the art would have understood the Larsson Dissertation to incorporate specific teachings from Göransson. 

 Practice Tip: When considering an anticipation theory premised on incorporation by reference, a defendant should carefully evaluate whether the primary reference includes specific discussion of the secondary reference and clearly identifies where that subject matter is found. A defendant advancing such a theory should also consider having an expert describe each instance where the secondary reference is mentioned and provide an opinion as to whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the primary reference to have incorporated the specific teachings from the secondary reference.

Case: 10X Genomics, Inc. et al. v. Vizgen Inc., 1:22-cv-00595 (DDE Jan. 30, 2025) (Kennelly)

 

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.