Digest of ScriptPro, LLC v. Innovation Associates, Inc., No. 2013-1561 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2014) (precedential). On appeal from D. Kan. Before Taranto, Bryson, and Hughes.

Procedural Posture: Patent holder, ScriptPro, appealed summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. CAFC reversed.

  • Section 112 Issues (Written Description): CAFC reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of an adequate written description. The patent specification under review stated that “[t]he collating unit of the present invention broadly includes” several components, including “a plurality of sensors.” The CAFC found that as a general rule it is common, and often permissible, for particular claims to pick out a subset of the full range of described features in the specification while omitting others. Although in this case the patent specification used qualifying phrases such as “broadly”, “generally”, and “broadly includes”/ “broadly comprises,” the CAFC held that these phrases were not such sufficiently clear statements so as to limit the invention to a subset of features. The sensorless claims were therefore held to have an adequate written description.