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 | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
Client Alert | 7 min read | 11.24.25
Draft Executive Order Seeks to Short-Circuit AI State Regulation
