The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s construction of the claim phrase: “A comprises at least three carbon atoms and represents at least one component of a signaling moiety capable of producing a detectable signal.” The district court construed the phrase to mean that “A . . . is one or more parts of a signaling moiety, which includes, in some instances, the whole signaling moiety” and thus would permit both direct and indirect detection. The Federal Circuit reversed, limiting the construction to a signaling moiety composed of components, of which at least one is “A,” because to construe the term to permit direct detection would impermissibly broaden the claim by eliminating limitations and would be contrary to the specification, which taught only indirect detection. Judge Newman dissented, arguing that the phrase “at least one of” cannot be construed to mean “two or more,” as the majority’s construction would require.
Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Applera Corp., Case No. 2014-1321 (March 16, 2015); Opinion by: Prost, joined by Linn; Dissent by Newman; Appealed From: District Court for the District of Connecticut, Arterton, J. Read the full opinion here.
If you have questions or need more information, please contact info@mckoolsmith.com.
