On August 6, 2014, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in ScriptPro, LLC v. Innovation Associates, Inc. In 2006, the Petitioner ScriptPro, LLC sued Innovation Associates, Inc. for infringement of claims 1, 2, 4, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,910,601 ("the '601 patent"). The '601 patent describes a "collating unit" that uses sensors to automatically dispense and organize prescriptions according to individual patients. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Innovation Associates filed an Inter Partes Reexamination with the USPTO, and the district court stayed the proceedings pending the result of the re-exam. In January of 2011, the USPTO concluded its reexamination of the claims of the '601 patent, confirming claims 1, 2, 4, and 8.
The district court resumed proceedings and Innovation Associates moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were invalid under section 112 on the grounds that the patent's specification did not describe the subject matter of the asserted claims. The claims at issue did not require the use of sensors. However, the district court agreed with Innovation Associates that the specification of the '601 patent implied that the use of "sensors" is critical to the functionality of the machine. Specifically, the court held, "no reasonable jury could find that the inventors were in possession of a collating unit that operated without sensors." Accordingly, the district court granted Innovation Associate's motion for summary judgment of invalidity for failure to satisfy the written description requirements of § 112.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed de novo the language of the specification and—after pointing to several places in the specification suggesting the sensor may or may not be used—found that the wording of the specifications made the sensors an "optional, though desirable," feature of the invention. The Court also pointed to the original claims as filed and noted "[w]hen a specification is ambiguous about which of several features are stand-alone inventions, the original claims can help resolve the ambiguity, though even original claims may be insufficient as descriptions or be insufficiently supported by the rest of the specification." The Federal Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment holding that, ScriptPro could establish that a person of skill in the art would be able to tell from description of the specification that "the inventor[s] actually invented the invention claimed." The Court concluded that, although the machine would be more efficient with the sensors, it could be fully functional without them and, therefore, the written description was sufficient.