Federal Circuit: Silence is Rarely Sufficient to Meet Written Description Requirement for Negative Claim Limitation

Jul 15, 2022

Reading Time : 2 min

Novartis sued HEC Pharm Co. Ltd. for infringement of its method of treating multiple sclerosis using fingolimod under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The asserted claims all include a daily dosage of fingolimod absent an immediately preceding loading dose regimen. The requirement that the methods lack an immediately preceding loading dose was added during prosecution to overcome prior art. Following a bench trial, the district court found that HEC’s abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) infringed the asserted claims and, inter alia, was not invalid for lack of written description. Specifically, the district court found that because the loading dose was not recited anywhere in the specification, the limitation directed to a no-loading dose was supported.

The Federal Circuit—in an opinion written by the now-retired Judge O’Malley, to which Judge Linn joined—affirmed the district court’s judgment on appeal. Chief Judge Moore dissented. HEC petitioned for rehearing with respect to the written description finding. 

On rehearing, the panel—now comprising Chief Judge Moore, Judge Hughes and Judge Linn (now dissenting)—reversed the district court and held the asserted claims invalid for lack of written description. The court reasoned that because the specification made no mention of a loading dose, it failed to adequately describe a method that affirmatively excluded a loading dose. The specification’s silence was not enough in this instance to satisfy the written description requirement because there was no evidence that a person skilled in the art would understand the claimed method necessarily excluded a loading dose. According to the majority, there must be some evidence that the inventor intended to exclude the limitation. Such evidence may include a discussion of its disadvantages or alternatives. But silence was not enough. 

In his dissent, Judge Linn criticized the majority opinion for applying a heightened written description standard that required a showing that the negative claim limitation was necessarily excluded. Judge Linn noted that while a negative limitation can be supported by describing a reason to exclude that limitation, that is not the only way the written description requirement can be met. Rather, the critical inquiry on written description for all limitations, including negative limitations, is whether the disclosure reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. And how that inquiry is resolved must depend on the particular facts of a case as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Here, in Judge Linn’s view, the specification implied that a loading dose was not present and expert testimony supported the conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the methods excluded one. Moreover, there was no reason for the majority to read something into the fact that the negative limitation was added during prosecution—the patentee was merely making explicit through an amendment what was already implicit before it.

Practice Point: As the history of this case demonstrates, negative claim limitations can be a ripe target for 112 challenges in litigation. While they may seem like a useful strategy to overcome a prior art rejection during prosecution, care should be taken to make a clear record and provide support for such limitations, particularly when the negative limitation is not expressly discussed in the specification.

Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2022)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

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

© 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.