Language of Magnitude Can Be Definite Without Reference to a Precise Numerical Range If the Intrinsic Evidence Provides Sufficient Comparative Information

Judges: Michel, Plager, Linn (author)
[Appealed from D. Conn., Judge Arterton]

In Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., No. 09-1281 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2010), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's ruling that the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,328,824 ("the '824 patent"), 5,449,767 ("the '767 patent"), and 5,476,928 ("the '928 patent") were indefinite. Finding a genuine issue of material fact, the Federal Circuit also reversed the SJ of anticipation as to the '824 and '767 patents, but the Court affirmed the district court's judgment of anticipation as to the '928 patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of noninfringement as to U.S. Patent No. 5,082,830 ("the '830 patent"). The Court remanded the case to determine whether the '824 and '767 patents were anticipated.