Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
655 F.3d 1364
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- Star Scientific licensed Williams patents on tobacco curing to reduce TSNA formation.
- Williams patents claim a “controlled environment” during curing to substantially prevent nitrosamines.
- RJR developed Peele method (indirect-fire retrofit) and asserted anticipation/obviousness against the Williams patents.
- Provisional filing (Sept. 15, 1998) and continuation leading to the ’649 and ’401 patents; StarCure is the commercial embodiment.
- District court deemed patents unenforceable for inequitable conduct and definite but remanded after Star I; on remand, trial addressed infringement, validity, and priority.
- PTO reexamination after oral argument confirmed the 1998 priority date; Peele not prior art due to priority; Peele data not used for anticipation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority date determines prior art scope | Star argues 1998 priority applies | RJR contends 1999 Peele/other references predate claims | Correct priority was 1998; Peele not prior art. |
| Best mode invalidity | Star contends Williams had best mode | RJR claims no best mode disclosed | No best mode violation given 1998 priority date. |
| Indefiniteness of 'controlled environment' | Term sufficiently definite for skilled art | Term is insolubly ambiguous | Not indefinite; term is definite. |
| Obviousness over prior art | Combination of Wiernik and Tohno renders obvious | No clear motivation to combine; lacking disclosure of air-free exhaust | Not obvious. |
| Anticipation by Peele/Spindletop/Brown | References anticipate claims | Peele not prior art; Brown/Spindletop do not disclose required limitations | Peele not anticipatory; no clear anticipation by Spindletop/Brown. |
Key Cases Cited
- KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (Supreme Court 2007) (obviousness standard; reasonableness in combining references)
- Exxon Research & Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (limitations on indefiniteness and technical claim construction guidance)
- Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (indefiniteness standard and insolubly ambiguous terms)
- New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (priority and written description enabling claims)
- Research Corp. Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (review of priority date and non-deferential analysis)