Case: Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, No. 2013-1002 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 3, 2013). On appeal from D. Del. Before Prost, Bryson, and Taranto.

Procedural Posture: Plaintiff appealed summary judgment of non-infringement; CAFC affirmed.

  • Claim Construction: The district court was correct to construe the term “the biological activity of 2,4 D monooxygenase” according to its plain scientific meaning. The word “monooxygenase” has a clear meaning, and the intrinsic record did not support a different meaning. Claim-construction policy regarding public notice and patentee drafting duties required that Plaintiff make any variance from plain meaning of the term clear in the intrinsic record. The fact that Plaintiffs’ proposed functional construction of the claim term raises significant § 112(a) validity issues, as there is no limiting structure aside from one embodiment, further supports rejection of Plaintiffs’ proposed construction.