Having Your Broad Claims And Enabling Them Too

In a sequel to its early 2007 decision in Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied another patentee’s attempt to have its claim scope and enablement too in Automotive Technologies International v. BMW, et al., Case Nos. 06-1013, -1037 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 6, 2007) (Lourie, J.; Rader, J.; Prost, J.). when the unanimous panel upheld the district court’s ruling that the asserted claims were invalid for lack of enablement.

In 2001 Automotive Technologies International (ATI) filed a complaint against various entities alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,231,253. The technology at issue involved "crash sensing devices for deployment in an occupant protection apparatus, such as an airbag, during an impact or crash involving the side of a vehicle." Following a Markman hearing, the district court issued an order construing the relevant claims, one of which included the means-plus-function limitation of "means responsive to the motion of