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 | 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
