• Home
  • About
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
  • Services
    • Patent
      • Utility Patents
      • Design Patents
      • Patent Application
      • Patent Defense
      • Patent Enforcement
      • Working with In-House Attorneys
    • Trademark
      • Trademark Search
      • Trademark Application
      • Trademark Enforcement
      • Trademark Defense
    • Licensing
    • Worldwide IP
    • Risk Management
    • Due Diligence
  • Industries
    • Browse Patent Samples
    • Automotive Patents
    • Construction Patents
    • Consumer Products Patents
    • Electronics Patents
    • Food, Beverage, & Other Culinary Patents
    • Manufacturing Patents
    • Medical Products & Devices Patents
    • Optics Patents
    • Software & App Patents
    • Tools & Equipment Patents
  • Learning Resources
    • First-Time Inventor?
    • Why Patent Your Invention in a Bad Economy?
    • Videos on Patents
    • Search 180+ Articles
      • Patent process
        • Overview of Patent Process
          • Patent process timeline and major milestones
          • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Simplified)
          • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
        • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
          • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
          • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
        • Benefits of a Patent Search
          • What is a patent search and How to do it?
        • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
        • USPTO Website
      • Invention Agreements
        • What is an NDA and when to use them?
        • How to use a contract to protect your invention?
        • Working with others without losing your IP rights
        • Patent Assignments for Independent Contractors
        • Losing Invention Rights When Hiring or Collaborating with Others
        • Avoid Problems: Get an Invention Assignment Agreement
      • Protect Inventions
        • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
        • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
        • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
        • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
          • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
          • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
          • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
          • Benefits of Patent Protection
          • Best uses for design patents
        • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
          • Dangers of 1 yr grace period under first-inventor-to-file system
          • File a patent application before telling others about the invention
        • Risks and benefits of securing software patent protection
          • Strategy to overcome patentable subject matter rejection
        • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
          • What is a continuation patent application?
      • How Patent Applications Work: the Basics
        • How to respond to an office action?
        • Request for non-publication of a patent application
        • Anatomy of a Patent Document
        • How to write a broad patent application?
        • Design patents: pros and cons
      • Patent costs
        • How much does it cost to get a utility patent?
        • Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative?
        • Patent Cost Framework and cash flow
        • Provisional patent application: a cheap option?
        • Cheap provisional patent applications
      • Patent infringement
        • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
        • Patent Marking: Everything you wanted to know
        • Avoiding Patent Infringement
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
      • Worldwide patents
        • Pros and cons of securing worldwide patent protection and their steps
        • Foreign patent filing to secure protection in other countries
      • Responding to Office Actions
        • Overview of Office Actions
      • Trademarks
        • Trademark Registration: common law, state and federal
        • How to obtain a federal trademark registration?
        • How to select a trademark?
          • Protect your idea when pitching to an investor, potential licensee, or buyer
  • Schedule Consultation
  • Contact

Top-Rated Orange County Patent Lawyer | Helping Inventors in Orange County, Los Angeles County & Beyond | OC Patent Lawyer, Irvine CA

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Patent Infringement / Patent Claim / Claim construction when claims recited in terms of size

Claim construction when claims recited in terms of size

March 18, 2014 by James Yang

Claim constructionThe Federal Circuit in Takeda v. Zydus (Fed. Cir. Feb. 20, 2014) resolved issues in relation to claim construction, infringement and invalidity.  The patent was directed to an orally ingestable tablet that disintegrated in your mouth where the formulation contains granules small enough (i.e., 400 µm or less) to avoid a feeling of roughness in the patient’s mouth upon disintegration.

A significant portion of the opinion dealt with how to measure the size of the granules, including the measurement technique and whether two cores that are joined together should be counted as one granule, or whether the cores should be measured separately as two separate cores.  In preparing a patent application, one might consider the pros and cons of including multiple measurement techniques in the patent application as well as the actual measurement process and also reciting the preferred technique in a dependent claim.  But that was not done here.

I.         Claim construction

In determining infringement, the court must first construe the meaning of the words used in the patent claims.  In the instant case, the claims of the patent required “fine granules having an average particle diameter of 400 µm or less.”  The patent owner (Takeda) argued that the phrase included a ±10% range from the 400 µm mark.  The defendant (Zydus) argued that the claim term should be construed so that the average particle diameter is precisely 400 µm or less as literally stated with no variation on the upper end of the range.

In construing the claim terms, the Federal Circuit started with the language of the claims themselves and also reviewed the specification to come to the conclusion that the 400 µm limitation does not contemplate a ±10% range but meant what it literally said:  “400 µm or less.”  The specification supported this meaning.  For example, the specification stated that the maximum particle size of the granule was 425 µm.  If the claims were construed to include a +10% upper limit to the 400 µm size (i.e., 440 µm), then the claims would encompass a dimension larger than the stated maximum size mentioned in the specification.

II.         Infringement

Since the claims are construed as requiring the granule size to have an average particle size of 400 µm or less and the accused product has an average particle size of 412.28 µm, the Federal Circuit found no literal infringement.  The District Court had used the ±10% variation and found infringement, so the District Court ruling was reversed.

III.       Invalidity

The District Court had found the patent was not shown to be invalid.  In reviewing the invalidity arguments, the Federal Circuit reviewed three different aspects that could invalidate Takeda’s patent, namely, indefiniteness, written description and enablement.

A.        Indefiniteness

Zydus argued that the claims were indefinite because the claims did not specify the measurement technique for measuring the average granule size.  There were several possible ways to make the measurement but experts from both parties agreed that the different techniques were merely expressing the same terms in different ways.  Also, there was no evidence that the differences between the techniques were significant as the dimensions differed by only a few micrometers.

The Federal Circuit distinguished the instant case with the situation in Amgen v. Hoechst, 314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003).  In Amgen, the claims were directed to a glycosylation which differed from that of human urinary erythropoietin.  However, “two uEPO preparations produced form the same batch of starting materials could nevertheless have different glycosylation patterns.”  Thus, the claim itself was described as a moving target.  In the instant case, the claim plainly required an average particle diameter of 400 µm or less.  The fact that there is more than one way to make the measurement did not render the claim indefinite.

B.        Written Description

Zydus argued that the written description requirement was  not satisfied because the specification only taught how to measure particle size before tablets were formed (i.e., pre-tableting).  It did not discuss particle sizing with post-tableting.  However, the court found that the tableting procedure did not have any effect on the particle size.  The particle size remained unchanged when they were combined to form tablets.  As such, the Federal Circuit distinguished the instant case from Eli Lilly & co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 619 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2010) where the particle size was affected by the formulation process.  Thus, the written description requirement was met here.

C.        Enablement

Zydus argued that the patent is invalid for lack of enablement because a skilled artisan would not be able to determine the average particle diameter using the coulter counter method of measurement without undue experimentation.  It is well established that the enablement requirement is met if the description enables any mode of making and using the invention.  In this case, the patent specification identified laser diffraction which was a viable method of measurement.  Hence, there was no lack of enablement.

The Federal Circuit indicated that had measurement required the splitting of joined cores (agglomerated granules) then the specification would have failed to enable one of ordinary skill in the art.  The reason was that the laser diffraction method, the sole measurement technique described in the patent, cannot virtually dissect or account for the joined cores.  Laser diffraction cannot measure or virtually measure the size of cores that are joined.  Optical microscopy had to be used to measure co-joined, agglomerated particles, but the specification did not mention use of optical microscopy.  But since the claims required the size of the whole, agglomerated particle there was no need to try and measure the separate cores in such agglomerated particles.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Author

James Yang is a patent attorney. For more than 16 years, James Yang has been representing clients to secure patent protection for their inventions and register trademarks to protect their brands. If you need help, call him at (949) 433-0900. Read More…

Popular Posts

  • Patent process overview
  • Patent process explained
  • How much does a patent cost?
  • Why patent your invention in a bad economy?

Patent Book

Navigating the Patent System - new book by Orange County patent attorney, James Yang

Navigating the Patent System: Learn the patent process and strategies to protect your invention

Read for Free
Buy at Amazon

RECEIVE PATENT ARTICLES

Stay up to date on major changes and get tips on the patent process.

We respect your privacy.

Popular Posts

Patent process overview
Patent process explained
How much does a patent cost?
Trademark process and costs
Patent process and costs

 

Services

Utility Patents
Design Patents
Patent Prosecution Services
Patent Defense Services
Patent-Law Counsel for In-House Attorneys
Trademark Prosecution Services
See All Services

Industries

Automotive Patents
Consumer Products Patents
Culinary Patents
Manufacturing Patents
Medical Patents
Optics Patents
Software & App Patents
See All Industries

Contact

James Yang
OC Patent Lawyer
2372 Morse Ave., Suite #178
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 433-0900

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Sitemaps

Sitemap: Pages | Sitemap: Posts

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

By accessing this blog, you agree that no attorney-client relationship is formed except by a subsequent written retainer agreement. Also, you agree to not send confidential information unless directed by me to do so. The information posted on this blog is legal information and not legal advice.
Complete Terms of Use
Complete Privacy Policy

ADA Compliance

OC Patent Lawyer aims to ensure that its services are accessible to people with disabilities.
Accessibility Statement

Service Area

From our office in Irvine, California, we serve clients from all areas within Orange County and Los Angeles County, California.

© 2023 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney