Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealsummary judgmentpatentcorporation
appealsummary judgmentpatent

Related Cases

Duplate Corp. v. Triplex Safety Glass Co. of North America, 298 U.S. 448, 56 S.Ct. 792, 80 L.Ed. 1274, 29 U.S.P.Q. 306
View Case »
Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 73 F.3d 1573, 37 U.S.P.Q.2d 1365
View Case »
Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Systems, Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1587
View Case »
Arkansas Game and Fish Comm’n v. Eddings, 2011 Ark. 47, 378 S.W.3d 694
View Case »
Dow Chemical Co. v. Astro-Valcour, Inc., 110 F.Supp.2d 104
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 66 U.S.P.Q.2d 1631

Facts

Invitrogen Corporation, the patent holder, brought an infringement action against Stratagene for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent No. 4,981,797, which claims a process for making E. coli cells with enhanced capacity to accept foreign DNA. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Stratagene. Invitrogen appealed, arguing that the district court incorrectly construed the claims of the patent, particularly regarding the temperature range for growing E. coli cells and the meaning of 'improved competence.'

Issue

Did the district court err in its claim construction of the '797 patent, specifically regarding the growing step and the term 'improved competence'?

Did the district court err in its claim construction of the '797 patent, specifically regarding the growing step and the term 'improved competence'?

Rule

Claim language in patents generally carries its ordinary meaning in the context of the field of invention. A patent applicant may disclaim claim scope during prosecution, but such disclaimers must be clear and unambiguous. The term 'comprising' in a method claim indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps.

Claim language generally carries the ordinary meaning of the words in their normal usage in the field of invention. Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., 199 F.3d 1295, 1299, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1067 (Fed.Cir.1999).

Analysis

The court found that the district court's interpretation of the growing step (a) was too restrictive, as it excluded any growth outside the specified temperature range before the claimed method. The phrase 'improved competence' was also determined not to require a specific numerical limitation, as the claim language did not include such a requirement. The context of the patent and the prosecution history supported the conclusion that the claim allowed for preparatory steps outside the specified range.

Conclusion

The court vacated and remanded the district court's summary judgment of non-infringement, finding that the claim construction was erroneous.

Because the district court erred in construing the growing step (a) and improperly granted summary judgment that Stratagene does not infringe the '797 patent based on the erroneous claim construction, this court vacates and remands for further proceedings applying this court's claim construction.

Who won?

The court's decision to vacate the summary judgment means that Invitrogen, the patent holder, is effectively the prevailing party in this appeal, as the court found that the lower court's claim construction was incorrect and warranted further proceedings.

The court's decision to vacate the summary judgment means that Invitrogen, the patent holder, is effectively the prevailing party in this appeal, as the court found that the lower court's claim construction was incorrect and warranted further proceedings.

You must be