IP Newsflash

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.

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.

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the plaintiffs’ motion to strike portions of the defendants’ expert reports and related deposition testimony. Although the defendants’ invalidity contentions did not state the specific theories of invalidity upon which the expert opined, the court found that none of the Pennypack factors supported excluding that expert testimony.

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.

A District of Delaware judge recently granted a defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in its proposed protective order after determining that litigation counsel’s ability to practice before the Patent Office—without ever having represented the plaintiffs at the Patent Office in the past—weighed heavily in favor of the bar.

In a case it described as “‘a prime example’ of when ODP does not apply,” the Federal Circuit recently reversed a decision from the District of Delaware that invalidated a claim for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), holding that a first-filed, first-issued, later-expiring claim cannot be invalidated for ODP based on a later-filed, later-issued, but earlier-expiring claim from the same family. In so doing, the court answered the question of whether a later-filed, later-issued patent in the same family can be an ODP reference against the first application in the family—it cannot. The court also clarified the scope of its prior ruling in In re Cellect, explaining that case answered a different question—the question of what expiration date should be used for an ODP analysis.

The Federal Circuit reversed a decision from the District of Delaware dismissing a case for failing to plead induced infringement because the totality of the evidence raised fact questions that could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. The Federal Circuit expressed doubts about whether appellee’s FDA-approved label alone, which carved out the claimed indication, was sufficient to actively induce. But the court held appellee’s label combined with its public statements that broadly refer to its drug as a generic version and provide usage and sales data for carved out indications, created a plausible basis for pleading induced infringement.

In keeping with precedent, a judge in the District of Delaware issued an oral order restricting the extent of permissible activities for litigation counsel before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The order resolved a protective order dispute over the proper scope of a patent prosecution bar, concluding that litigation counsel that had access to confidential information is restricted from participating in the motion to amend process in an IPR.

Federal Circuit Judge William Bryson, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, ruled on summary judgment that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel does not apply to device art, even if the device is cumulative of patents or printed publications that were, or could have been, asserted in an IPR.