Full Claim Scope Must Be Enabled To Avoid Invalidity
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.05.08
In Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, (No. 07-1174, February 1, 2008), a Federal Circuit panel affirms a district court’s judgment of invalidity for lack of enablement. The claims at issue are directed to integrating user generated audio or visual content into a pre-existing video game or movie by “selectively substitut[ing] user image data for predefined character image data so as to provide an audiovisual presentation that includes the [user provided] image integrated therein.” The accused product allows users to combine their own voice with pre-existing video images stored on a DVD.
Citing to Auto. Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 501 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the panel reasons that, because the asserted claims are broad enough to cover both movies and video games, the patent disclosure must enable both embodiments. According to the panel opinion, a “patentee who chooses broad claim language must make sure the broad claims are fully enabled.” The asserted claims are not deemed to be enabled in the context of movies because, unlike video games, movies do not rely on discrete address and control signals. In support of its conclusion, the Federal Circuit panel also notes the undisputed evidence showing that it is difficult, if not impossible, to isolate any one voice from the rest of the sounds in movie soundtracks.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
