Results for enablement
When a patent specification only enables one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve a small subset of a claimed range without undue experimentation, the patentee is not entitled to claim an open-ended range.
An inventor avoids summary judgment for violation of the best mode requirement despite referring to a propriety product used in the preferred embodiment by a nonexistent trade name.
An “offer to sell … within the United States” occurs when a company makes an offer, whether made inside or outside of the United States, to sell a product that the buyer will use in the United States. In addition, an “offer to sell” occurs when the product specified in the contract infringes a patent, notwithstanding the state of the product ultimately delivered.
Evidence not submitted by an applicant during prosecution or appeal is not admissible as a matter of right, and may not be admissible at all in a subsequent court appeal. The Federal Circuit will likely apply an equity-like standard when considering the admissibility of such evidence.
The Federal Circuit continues to reinforce the requirement that the full scope of a claim be enabled for the claim to be valid under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. If a disclosure does not enable a device that is covered by a claim, an infringement action asserting that claim will likely result in its invalidation for lack of enablement.
The Court considers the extent to which patent claims should be interpreted to cover embodiments that are not enabled by the specification.