Claims Broadened Beyond Specification Are Invalid
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.27.07
In Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc. (No. 06-1156; March 22, 2007), a Federal Circuit panel affirms a district court’s summary judgment of invalidity of Liebel’s “front-loading” patents for lack of enablement and its “syringe-sensing” patents on grounds of anticipation by the prior art.
The claims of the originally-filed application for the front-loading patents explicitly recited a pressure jacket in front of a syringe receiving opening, but all references in the claims to a pressure jacket were removed during prosecution. The specification of the front-loading patents is viewed as not having described an injector with a disposable syringe without a pressure jacket and as even teaching away from such an injector as being “impractical.” Additionally, the inventors admitted that they tried unsuccessfully to produce a system without a pressure jacket and decided not to pursue such a system because it was “too risky.” Thus, the claims of the front-loading patents are deemed invalid for not fulfilling the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The district court also decided that Medrad’s earlier U.S. patent (“the ‘858 patent”) anticipated Liebel’s syringe-sensing patents. The ‘858 patent discloses an injector controller, but does not discuss the details of how the controller interacts with the motor and plunger. But due to the incorporation by reference in the ‘858 patent of another U.S. patent that discusses the interaction of a control circuit and a plunger, the ‘858 patent is found to disclose the control circuit that computes the location of a plunger, as claimed in the syringe-sensing patents, leading the Federal Circuit panel to conclude that the claims of the syringe-sensing patents are invalid over the ‘858 patent.
Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 09.09.25
On September 5, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) withdrew its appeals of decisions issued by Texas and Florida federal district courts, which enjoined the FTC from enforcing a nationwide rule banning almost all noncompete employment agreements. Companies, however, should not read this decision to mean that their noncompete agreements will no longer be subjected to antitrust scrutiny by federal enforcers. In a statement joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, Chairman Andrew Ferguson stressed that the FTC “will continue to enforce the antitrust laws aggressively against noncompete agreements” and warned that “firms in industries plagued by thickets of noncompete agreements will receive [in the coming days] warning letters from me, urging them to consider abandoning those agreements as the Commission prepares investigations and enforcement actions.”
Client Alert | 12 min read | 09.09.25
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.08.25
California’s Climate Disclosure Laws Continue to Roll Forward
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.08.25
RADV Audits: Implications and Recommendations for Medicare Advantage Organizations
