Compared To Structural Claim Language, Functional Language More Susceptible To Inherent Anticipation
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.15.08
In Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. Vutek, Inc. (No. 07-1515; August 21, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirms the district court's summary judgment of invalidity of a patent for a method and apparatus for ink jet printing UV curable ink on a rigid substrate.
The claims of the asserted patent use functional language rather than structural language to describe a cold UV curing assembly, i.e., "the cold UV assembly being effective to impinge sufficient UV light on the ink to substantially cure the ink." The district court had construed the phrase "substantially cure" to mean "cured to a great extent or almost completely cured." Thus, the Federal Circuit concludes that this claim limitation will be anticipated so long as the Light Emitting Diodes ("LEDs") disclosed in the prior art patent are able to cure the ink to a great extent. The prior art does not expressly disclose that its LEDs cure the ink to a great extent, but it does teach that if a UV radiation source is passed over the ink at a slower speed and/or multiple times, the degree to which the ink is cured will increase. This teaching was supported by expert testimony that multiple passes by the disclosed LEDs would eventually result in a substantial cure. Therefore, the Federal Circuit concludes that the prior art inherently discloses LEDs that are "effective to" cure the ink to a great extent, and thus affirms the district court's summary judgment of invalidity.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.10.26
In Appeal of Bahadir (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied the government’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, ruling in favor of the contractor on both key issues raised by the government. The case arises from a contract for construction work at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, under which Appellant alleged government-caused delay and filed certified prolongation claims using a “windows analysis” methodology. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that Appellant failed to state a sum certain for each of what the government characterized as 38 distinct claims, and separately that four claims had not been properly presented to the Contracting Officer.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.10.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.26
Missouri AG Sues Kansas City Over Race- and Sex-Based Contracting Program
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.06.26
