MagSil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Inc.
687 F.3d 1377 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, a patent specification must enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Claims with open-ended ranges, such as "at least X," are invalid for lack of enablement if the specification only enables a narrow portion of that range.
Facts:
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) was assigned U.S. Patent No. 5,629,922 for a tri-layer tunnel junction device, a component for computer hard drive read-write sensors.
- The invention utilizes a quantum mechanical effect where electrical resistance changes in response to magnetic fields.
- Prior to the invention, scientists had only achieved a 2.7% change in resistance at room temperature.
- The inventors of the '922 patent developed a device achieving a resistance change of up to 11.8% at room temperature.
- The patent application, filed in March 1995, claimed a device that causes 'a change in the resistance by at least 10% at room temperature,' a term with a lower bound but no upper limit.
- The patent's specification described the method to achieve the 11.8% change but did not provide teachings on how to achieve significantly higher values.
- In the years following the patent filing, other researchers developed devices achieving resistance changes far greater than 11.8%, eventually exceeding 600%.
- MagSil Corporation became the exclusive licensee of the '922 patent.
Procedural Posture:
- MagSil Corporation and MIT sued Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Inc. and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for patent infringement.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment after the court conducted claim construction proceedings.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Hitachi, ruling that the asserted patent claims were invalid as a matter of law for lack of enablement.
- MagSil (appellant) appealed the district court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a patent claim with an open-ended functional limitation, such as 'a change in the resistance by at least 10%,' fail for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 when the patent specification only teaches how to achieve a result slightly above the claimed minimum and does not enable the full, potentially infinite, scope of the claim without undue experimentation?
Opinions:
Majority - Rader, Chief Judge
Yes. A patent claim is invalid for lack of enablement if the scope of the claim is not commensurate with the scope of the enablement provided in the specification. The '922 patent claims a device with a resistance change of 'at least 10%,' which covers an infinite range from 10% upwards. However, the specification only teaches how to achieve an 11.8% change. Following the precedent of In re Fisher, the court found that the specification did not enable a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (1995) to practice the full scope of the claim—including the 100%, 600%, and higher resistance changes later achieved—without undue experimentation. The twelve years of subsequent innovation required to reach such high values demonstrated that the original patent did not enable these results. A patentee who chooses broad claim language does so at the peril of the claim being invalidated if the enabling disclosure is disproportionately narrow.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical patent law doctrine that the scope of enablement must correspond to the scope of the claims. It serves as a significant warning to patent drafters against using broad, open-ended functional language (e.g., 'at least X') unless the specification provides a disclosure that enables a skilled artisan to practice the invention across that entire range. The ruling protects subsequent innovators by preventing early patent holders from claiming rights to future, substantial improvements that they themselves did not invent or teach. This preserves the patent system's quid pro quo: a limited monopoly in exchange for a full and complete disclosure of the invention.
Unlock the full brief for MagSil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Inc.