Scriptpro, LLC v. Innovation Associates, Inc.
762 F.3d 1355
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- ScriptPro sued Innovation Associates for infringement of claims 1, 2, 4, and 8 of the ’601 patent.
- The district court granted summary judgment invalidating the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (now § 112(a)) for lack of written description.
- The ground of invalidity rested on the district court’s view that the specification describes a sensor-based collating unit, whereas the asserted claims do not require sensors.
- The ’601 patent describes a collating unit that works with an automatic dispensing system and stores containers in holding areas according to a patient-specific algorithm.
- The specification and preferred embodiments discuss sensors as an optional feature, not a required element for the claims at issue.
- The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the absence of sensors in the claims is not per se unsupported by the written description.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the written description supports sensorless claims | ScriptPro argues the description discloses a sensorless system to achieve the invention's core purpose. | Innovation Associates contends the specification limits the invention to sensor-containing embodiments. | Not per se limited; triable issue remains on written description. |
| Whether the description forecloses sensorless operation as a matter of law | The specification teaches optional sensors and memory-based slot tracking without sensors. | The specification describes sensor-based slot determination as essential. | Not decided; reversal on basis that summary judgment was inappropriate. |
| Whether original claims without sensor limitation inform the written description | Original sensorless claims support lack-of-sensor limitation in the issued claims. | Original claims are not dispositive; written description governs. | Not reached; reliance on original claims not necessary for reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp., 635 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (written description can support subcombinations)
- Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc., 563 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (subcombination sufficiency in written description)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim construction and written description framework)
- Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (written description informs true invention)
- LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (original claims as part of specification can satisfy written description)