Does Focusing on Single Embodiment Limits the Patent Specification?

This issue was handled by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the SCRIPTPRO LLC, SCRIPTPRO USA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. INNOVATION ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant-Appellee decided on August 15, 2016. This was an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in No. 2:06-cv-02468-CM, Judge Carlos Murguia. United States District Court for the District of Kansas had granted summary judgment that claims 1, 2, 4, and 8 (“asserted claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,910,601 are invalid for lack of written description. This decision was appealed by ScriptPro, LLC and ScriptPro USA, Inc. (collectively “ScriptPro”).

Details of the patent at issue:

US20040039482-1

This patent relates to a collating unit operable to automatically store prescription containers dispensed from an automatic dispensing system for subsequent retrieval by an operator.

Parties agreed that claim 8 is representative of the asserted claims. Claim 8 has been reproduced below for the convenience:

Claims 8:

A collating unit for automatically storing prescription containers dispensed by an automatic

dispensing system, the collating unit comprising:

an infeed conveyor for transporting the containers from the automatic dispensing system

to the collating unit;

a collating unit conveyor positioned generally adjacent to the infeed conveyor;

a frame substantially surrounding and covering the infeed conveyor and the collating unit conveyor;

a plurality of holding areas formed within the frame for holding the containers;

a plurality of guide arms mounted between the infeed conveyor and the collating unit conveyor and operable to maneuver the containers from the infeed conveyor into the

plurality of holding areas; and

a control system for controlling operation of the infeed conveyor, the collating unit conveyor,

and the plurality of guide arms.

In 2006, ScriptPro had sued Innovation Associates, Inc. (“Innovation”) for patent infringement in 2006. After ScriptPro filed suit, Innovation petitioned for, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) instituted, inter partes reexamination. During reexamination, ScriptPro amended the asserted claims, adding language to claims 1 and 2, and rewriting claim 4 into independent format. Claim 8 was not amended. District court granted summary judgment that the asserted claims are invalid for lack of written description. Details of the decision are: ScriptPro, LLC v. Innovation Assocs., Inc., 762 F.3d 1355, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“ScriptPro I”). This decision was reversed by the federal circuit which held that district court erroneously determined that the specification limits the invention to a collating unit that requires use of sensors to determine whether a holding unit is full.

On remand, Innovation moved again for summary judgment that the asserted claims are invalid for lack of written description. In this second appeal, Innovation argued that the specification “unambiguously limits the manner in which the collating unit achieves automated storage of prescription containers . . . based on the availability of an open storage position and patient-identifying information” but the asserted claims “broadly claim a collating unit for ‘automatically storing’ absent any limitation that makes [them] commensurate with the invention” as described in the specification. In response, ScriptPro argued that the specification describes associating stored containers with a specific patient as one, but not the only, goal of the ’601 patent, such that the specification does not limit the claimed invention to sorting and storing based on patient-identifying information. The district court granted Innovation’s motion.

Federal circuit de novo reviewed the grant of summary judgement. In second appeal, ScriptPro argued that the district court erred by interpreting the ’601 patent’s specification as limited to sorting by patient-identifying information. The problem, according to ScriptPro, was that the district court’s focus on one purpose of the ’601 patent caused it to erroneously determine the scope of the invention. Federal circuit agreed with ScriptPro that the specification does not limit the claimed invention to sorting and storing prescription containers by patient-identifying information. The ’601 patent discloses multiple problems that the invention solves and many, of these solved problems involve sorting prescription containers by patient-identifying information, not all of them do.

Federal circuit agreed that as innovation argues, that much of the ’601 patent’s specification focuses on embodiments employing a sorting and storage scheme based on patient-identifying information. But a specification’s focus on one particular embodiment or purpose cannot limit the described invention where that specification expressly contemplates other embodiments or purposes. This is especially true in cases, where the originally filed claims are not limited to the embodiment or purpose that is the focus of the specification.

Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the court and remanded back the matter to the district court again with the costs to ScriptPro. Copy of the judgement can be accessed here.

About the Author: Swapnil Patil, Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at: swapnil@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 × three =

Archives

  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010