Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences, No. 2012-1433 (July 22, 2013) (precedential) (2-1) Patent No. 7,713,723

Key point:

• A mere disclosure of individual claim limitations in the description did not render support for the combination of those claim limitations under the written description requirement of § 112.

In re Bimeda Research & Development Limited, No. 2012-1420 (July 25, 2013) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 6,506,400

Key point:

• A broad disclosure of a genus did not provide adequate support for a species under the written description requirement of § 112.

Teva Pharms USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No’s.: 2012-1567 – 2012-1570 (July 26, 2013) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No’s.: 5,800,808; 5,981,589; 6,048,898; 6,054,430; 6,342,476; 6,362,161; 6,620,847; 6,939,539; 7,199,098

Key point:

• Make sure to clearly define measurements and/or measurement methods to avoid invalidity based on indefiniteness under § 112.

Charles Machine Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Manufacturing Company, No 2012-1578 (July 26, 2013) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 5,490,569

Key point:

• The doctrine of claim vitiation may not be an exception to establishing equivalence under the doctrine of equivalents.