Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 02 FEBRUARY 2016

Inphi v. Netlist: Alternative Features Satisfy The Patent Written Description Requirement For A Negative Claim Limitation

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Contributor
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Mintz is a litigation powerhouse and business accelerator serving leaders in life sciences, private...

View firm profile
Explore more from Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Netlist sued Inphi for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,532,537 ("the '537 Patent") in September 2009.

United StatesIntellectual Property

It can be tricky to evaluate written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for negative claim limitations since the support may amount to the absence of a feature from an invention that is described positively with respect to what it includes, as opposed to what it does not. The Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit provided some clarity on this issue in Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., which is discussed below along with some practice tips in view of the decision.

The Federal Circuit held in Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc. that describing alternative features, without identifying the comparative advantages or disadvantages of each feature, could constitute a "reason to exclude" to satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for a negative claim limitation under the Santarus standard, which states that "[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation."

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from