Poly-America, L.P. v. Api Industries, Inc.
839 F.3d 1131 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An inventor disavows the full scope of a patent claim when the specification and prosecution history contain clear and unequivocal statements limiting the invention to a particular feature, such as by repeatedly describing that feature as a characteristic of 'the present invention' and distinguishing prior art based on its absence.
Facts:
- Poly-America, L.P. obtained U.S. Patent No. 8,702,308 for an elastic drawstring trash bag.
- The patent's specification repeatedly describes a key feature: inwardly extended 'short seals' at the upper corners that narrow the bag's opening relative to the bag's body.
- This narrowed opening, enabled by the inwardly extended seals, is described in the patent as an improvement over prior art that allows the bag to fit more securely on a trash receptacle.
- The patent specification explicitly states that a reduction in the upper width resulting from extended short seals is 'one of the characteristics of the present invention'.
- During the patent application process, Poly-America argued to the patent examiner that its invention was patentable over prior art (the Schneider patent) because Schneider's seals did not extend inwardly to narrow the opening, a feature Poly-America stated was 'required by Applicant's independent claims'.
- API Industries, Inc. produced and sold drawstring trash bags where the short seals were aligned with the side seals and did not extend inwardly.
Procedural Posture:
- Poly-America, L.P. sued API Industries, Inc. in federal district court, alleging infringement of claim 10 of its '308 patent.
- In the claim construction phase of the litigation, the district court construed the term 'short seal' to require that the seal extends inwardly from the side seal.
- Based on the district court's construction, Poly-America stipulated to non-infringement because API's product did not have inwardly extending seals.
- The district court entered a final judgment of non-infringement in favor of API.
- Poly-America, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with API as the appellee.
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 an inventor's clear and unequivocal statements in the patent specification and prosecution history, describing a feature as a key characteristic of the invention and distinguishing prior art based on that feature, serve to disavow claim scope and limit a claim to that feature, even if the claim's text does not explicitly recite it?
Opinions:
Majority - Reyna, Circuit Judge
Yes. An inventor disavows claim scope that does not include a particular feature when the patent's specification and prosecution history provide clear and unequivocal evidence of an intent to limit the invention to that feature. The court found that Poly-America's statements met the 'exacting' standard for disavowal. The specification consistently described the inwardly extended short seals and reduced opening as a fundamental characteristic of 'the present invention' and distinguished the invention from prior art based on this feature. Furthermore, during prosecution, Poly-America made a 'clear and unmistakable disavowal' by arguing to the examiner that a reduced opening width was 'required by Applicant’s independent claims' to overcome a rejection. The court dismissed Poly-America's claim differentiation argument, stating that it cannot override clear statements of disavowal found elsewhere in the intrinsic record.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical role of the specification and prosecution history in claim construction, particularly the doctrine of disavowal. It serves as a strong precedent that an inventor's consistent emphasis on a particular feature as the essence of their invention can narrow all claims, even those not explicitly reciting the feature. For patent prosecutors, it highlights the danger of making broad, limiting statements about 'the invention' or what is 'required' by the claims to overcome rejections. For litigators, it confirms that disavowal is a powerful defense against infringement, allowing them to limit claim scope based on the patentee's own prior statements.
