1. Insights
  2. Blogs
  3. IP Newsflash

Federal Circuit Vacates Summary Judgment of Non-­Infringement Where Supplementation of the Infringement Contentions Should Have Been Allowed

Oct 28, 2014

Reading Time : 1 min

While at the district court, the court issued a docket control order that called for AntiCancer to submit its preliminary infringement contentions just five days after it amended its complaint to add patent infringement allegations. AntiCancer complied with the docket control order and filed its preliminary infringement contentions based off the scientific publications of Pfizer and another defendant. Four months later (but nine months before the close of fact discovery), Pfizer filed a motion for summary judgment of non­infringement stating that the preliminary infringement contentions were deficient. The district court agreed as to three claim elements, and it authorized AntiCancer to supplement its contentions but only if AntiCancer paid Pfizer’s attorneys’ fees and costs related to the summary judgment motion. AntiCancer objected to the fees/costs condition, and the district court entered summary judgment.

On appeal, AntiCancer argued that the fee­shifting condition amounted to an improper sanction under 9th Circuit precedent, and that summary judgment on that condition was improper. AntiCancer argued that its “infringement theories were as crystallized as they could be” before AntiCancer could “possibly have taken any discovery to support its infringement claims and to learn the actual details of the defendants’ internal research activities.” Further, they argued the local patent rules contemplate that discovery will follow after the contentions are served, so complete proof infringement is not required in the preliminary contentions.

In vacating the district court’s order, the Federal Circuit appears to have relied on 9th Circuit law to determine whether the sanction was appropriate, as opposed to making a sweeping decision regarding the sufficiency of infringement contentions. Indeed, the Federal Circuit agreed that the district court could have properly required additional specificity in the infringement contentions, but found no showing of bad faith on the part of AntiCancer. Therefore, the Federal Circuit found that fee­shifting sanction conditioned on AntiCancer’s supplementation could not be sustained.

AntiCancer, Inc. v Pfizer, Inc., 2013­1056 (Fed. Cir. October 20, 2014).

Share This Insight

Categories

Federal Circuit
Subscribe to the IP Newsflash Blog Series >

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 20, 2026

The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the PTO must conduct notice‑and‑comment rulemaking before issuing instructions that guide how the Board should exercise discretion at the institution stage of IPRs. The court held that no such rulemaking is required. Instructions to the Board regarding its use of the Director’s delegated discretionary authority not to institute review are merely general statements of policy exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking.  

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 18, 2026

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently invalidated claims directed to a panoramic objective lens for lack of enablement, holding the claims impermissibly recited a single element in means‑plus‑function form. Under § 112, ¶ 6, “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function….” By its plain terms, the statute permits means‑plus‑function claiming only in the context of a “combination.” In other words, a claim may not consist solely of a single means‑plus‑function element. Claims drafted as a single means are invalid for lack of enablement as a matter of law.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 13, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the defendants’ motion to compel the production of correspondence between the plaintiffs’ testifying expert and a third-party analyst who had performed experiments and provided data used by the testifying expert. The court found that the scope of material sought by the motion was overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.