The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, holding the patent in suit invalid for lack of enablement and anticipation. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., Case Nos. 06-1156, -1157 (Fed. Cir., Mar. 22, 2007) (Lourie, J.).
Liebel asserted four patents against Medrad: two were directed to "a front loading injector … for delivering a contrast agent to a patient" and two were directed to "a computer-controlled injector" for controlling a plunger in a syringe. As to the front loading injector patents, each matured from the identical specification that specifically mentioned that a "pressure jacket" was necessary to practice the claimed invention and that specifically taught away a "jacketless system" as being impractical. During prosecution, however, Liebel was informed that Medrad, a competitor, was using jacketless injectors. Liebel subsequently broadened several of its claims to read on Medrad’s
