Federal Circuit Invalidates Patent Over the Inventions Set Forth in the Claims Requirement of 35. U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.

15 October 2013 IP Litigation Current Blog

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Juxtacomm-Texas Software, LLC v. Tibco Software, Inc., Nos. 2013-1004, -1025 (Sept. 30, 2013) (nonprecedential) serves as a reminder of the vulnerability of patent claims that drift beyond the scope of what an applicant regarded as its invention:

The decisions of the district court … construing the relevant claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,195,662 and granting the motion for summary judgment of invalidity based on 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2, are affirmed on the basis of the district court’s opinions. The language of the claims controls their construction, and the invention set forth in the claims “is not what the patentee regarded as his invention.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

The patent-in-suit disclosed a software system for converting database information from one format to another.  Claims 1 and 17 both recited that the data transformation occurred “within the systems interface.” However, the patent specification failed to describe any “data transformation” occurring within the “systems interface.” Instead, the specification explained that the systems interface merely defined the scripts that performed the data transformation within the distribution system. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas found Juxtacomm’s argument during summary judgment briefing that invalidity required an "irreconcilable contradiction" too strict and concluded that all that was necessary was a ”logical inconsistency or contradiction between the claims and the specification.” In light of the contradiction between the specification and the claim language, claims 1 and 17 were found invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.

While succeeding on a theory of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 can be difficult, Juxtacomm demonstrates that invalidity theories under § 112 ¶ 2 are, for defendants, well worth pursuing and plaintiffs should therefore be careful not to discount the potential impact of challenges to validity under § 112 ¶ 2.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Hatch Comments on DNC-Related Construction Projects in Milwaukee
14 June 2019
Milwaukee Business Journal
Bernard Quoted on Debt-Relief Settlement with ITT Tech Lender
14 June 2019
Wall Street Journal
Dodd and Daughter Profiled in Wisconsin Golf
13 June 2019
Wisconsin Golf
Brinckerhoff Comments on SCOTUS Ruling in Patent Case
11 June 2019
Intellectual Property Magazine
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ
Foley's Government Contracts Annual Update
16 October 2019
Liviona, MI