Federal Circuit Finds Written Description Support for Narrow Claim Range via Disclosure of Broader Ranges, Vacates PTAB Decision

March 15, 2024

Reading Time : 3 min

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a PTAB decision that claims of an “e-cigarette” patent were unpatentable for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The question on appeal was whether a claimed range was adequately supported by the disclosure of broader ranges. In this case, the answer was “yes.”

The patent-at-issue—RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 10,492,542—generally relates to “electrically powered smoking articles,” or “e-cigarettes.”  In 2020, Philip Morris Products S.A. sought post grant review of the ’542 Patent, asserting (among other grounds) that dependent claims 10 and 27 were invalid for lack of written description. Those claims recited, in relevant part, a “heating member” with “a length of about 75% to about 85% of a length of [a] disposable aerosol forming substance.”

At the PTAB, Philip Morris argued that the claimed range of “about 75% to about 85%” lacked written description support because the specification disclosed only ranges of 75–125%, 80–120%, 85–115% and 90–110%. According to Philip Morris and its expert, those disclosures did not support the claimed range because (1) they were all “substantially narrower” than the claimed range, (2) none of them recited “an upper limit of 85%” as claimed and (3) they all “centered on” 100%, unlike the claim, which centered on 80%. RAI countered that the disclosed ranges of 75–125% and 85–115% together supported the claim because they expressly include “both ends of the claim range,” i.e., 75% and 85%. Nonetheless, the PTAB agreed with Philip Morris and found the claims unpatentable. RAI appealed.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s decision, concluding that the facts more closely aligned with decisions finding written description support for a claim range. In re Wertheim, for example, held that the disclosure of coffee grounds with “25% to 60%” solid coffee extract supported a claim range of “between 35% and 60%.” 541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976). Importantly, the Wertheim court found no evidence that the “broad described range pertain[ed] to a different invention than the narrower (and subsumed) claimed range.” 

Here, the Federal Circuit likewise saw no evidence—including from Philip Morris’s expert—that the disclosed ranges were “different inventions” than the claimed range. That is, “nothing in the specification indicate[d] that changing the length of the heating member changes the invention, whether as to operability, effectiveness, or any other parameter.” Although the specification did not disclose the claimed range, it did expressly disclose both endpoints of the claimed range. Moreover, the “predictability of electro-mechanical inventions” such as e-cigarettes further supported the Federal Circuit’s ruling, as predictable art requires “a lower level of detail” to satisfy written description than unpredictable art.

The Court also grappled with cases that found a lack of written description on somewhat similar facts, most notably Indivior UK Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A., 18 F. 4th 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The Indivior claims recited a therapeutic film comprising “about 48.2 wt % to about 58.6 wt %” polymers. The specification, meanwhile, disclosed a table with a 48.2 wt % polymer and a 58.6 wt % polymer—the endpoints of the claimed range. However, unlike the present case, in Indivior, there was a “lack of persuasive evidence that a skilled artisan would have understood the application as disclosing an invention with the range between these endpoints.” The Indivior patent also differed in that it involved an unpredictable art and the specification made “inconsistent statements regarding the desired amount of polymer.”

Finally, in coming to its conclusion, the Federal Circuit repeatedly emphasized that written description is assessed on a case-by-case basis and that “broadly articulated rules are particularly inappropriate in this area.” Instead, one must consider the technology at issue, the predictability of the art, the complexity of the claim limitation and the knowledge gained by a person skilled in the art reading the specification. Thus, while the Court relied on prior cases for support and guidance, its ruling was ultimately “based on the unique facts of this case.”

Practice Tip: Although claims directed to ranges that are not explicitly disclosed in the specification may be susceptible to written description attacks, particularly in arts regarded as unpredictable, the RAI case shows that such claims may be adequately supported if the disclosed and claim ranges are not shown to be “different inventions.” Parties asserting and defending against such attacks should focus arguments on the specific facts of the case and, if possible, provide expert testimony that addresses how exactly the claim range is (or is not) a different invention from the ranges disclosed in the patent.

RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Philip Morris Products S.A., No. 22-1862 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2024)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 21, 2025

Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. unanimously construed “defendant’s profits” in 35 USC § 1117(a) to mean that only the named defendant’s profits can be awarded, not the profits of other related corporate entities. The Court, however, left open the possibility that other language in § 1117(a) may allow for damages linked to the profits of related entities, if properly raised and supported.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 13, 2025

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited reference met the test.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 4, 2025

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding former Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The 2022 memorandum effectively narrowed the application of discretionary denials in cases with parallel district court litigation by specifying instances where discretionary denial could not be issued. With the withdrawal of the memorandum, individual PTAB panels will regain flexibility in weighing discretionary denials. While the long-term effect of that increased flexibility is not yet known, the immediate effect is likely to be a shift towards the discretionary analysis applied by PTAB panels before the issuance of the memorandum.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 3, 2025

A District of Delaware judge recently granted a defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in its proposed protective order after determining that litigation counsel’s ability to practice before the Patent Office—without ever having represented the plaintiffs at the Patent Office in the past—weighed heavily in favor of the bar.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit explained that written description and enablement are evaluated based on the subject matter that is claimed, not the products that practice those claims. As a result, the patentee was not required to describe unclaimed, later-discovered features of the accused products despite the broad language in the claims that undisputedly covered the products.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 24, 2025

The District of Delaware recently rejected a patentee’s argument that non-production of an opinion letter from counsel, combined with knowledge of the patent, warranted a finding that defendant induced infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 17, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint involving gene editing technology that sought relief under the Safe Harbor Provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Specifically, the court found the patentee’s complaint sufficiently alleged at least some uses of the claimed technology that, when taken as true, were not solely uses of a “patented invention” that were “reasonably related” to an FDA submission.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.