Digest of Inline Plastics Corp. v. Easypak, LLC, No. 2014-1305 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 27, 2015) (precedential). On appeal from D. Mass. Before Newman, Clevenger, and Dyk.

Procedural Posture: Plaintiff patentee appealed final judgment of non-infringement. CAFC vacated the judgment and remanded for redetermination of infringement in accordance with corrected claim constructions.

  • Claim Construction: The District Court erred in limiting the terms “frangible section” and “tamper evident bridge” to require at least two score lines based on the frequency with which the specification described the sections as having two score lines. The specification explicitly described an alternative embodiment of the claimed invention with only a single score line and the preferred, two-score line embodiment was not described as having unique characteristics of patentable distinction from other disclosed embodiment. As such, the patentee was entitled to the full claim scope as described in the specification.
  • Prosecution Disclaimer: Declarations submitted during prosecution describing the commercial success of and long-felt need for the commercial embodiment of the patent did not limit the scope of the claim terms.