Case: Research Found. of State Univ. of New York v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., Nos. 2012-1523, -1524, -1555, -1556, -1557, -1545, -1546, -1590, -1591, -1592, -1566, -1596, -1597, -1598, -1599 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2013) (non-precedential). On appeal from D. Del. Before Newman, Reyna, and Taranto. Per curiam.

Procedural Posture: Plaintiffs appealed from a judgment of invalidity on three patents. CAFC affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded.

  • Anticipation: The district court correctly held most of the patent claims to be invalid. However, the district court erroneously extended to several of the dependent claims its finding of anticipation of the independent claims, without addressing the additional claim elements of those “materially different” dependent claims. “What suffices to anticipate one claim may not suffice for another claim containing different elements.”