Limiting Effect Of Specification And Prosecution History Trumps Ordinary Meaning Rule

Acknowledging its recent case law on claim construction is "unfortunately complex and inconsistent," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s finding of infringement by finding error in the failure to recognize the limiting effect of the patent specification and prosecution history. AstraZeneca AB. v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc., Case Nos. 04-1100 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2004) (Michel, J.).

AstraZeneca sued Mutual under § 271(e)(2), under which it is an "act of infringement" to submit an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to obtain approval to market a drug that is claimed in a unexpired patent. AstraZeneca alleged Mutual infringed its patent by submitting an ANDA seeking approval of extended-release felodipine tablets, which AstraZeneca markets as PLENDIL. After construing the asserted patent claims, the district court granted AstraZeneca’s motions for summary judgment on infringement and