Prior rulings on invalidity for lack of written description and indefiniteness are not recommended
Corning Inc., et al., v. SRU BioSystems, et al., No. 03-633-JJF, Jan. 20, 2006.
Farnan, J. Motion for reconsideration of prior rulings on invalidity for lack of written description and indefiniteness is denied.
This opinion clearly and concisely draws a distinction between motions for reconsideration and motions for reargument under Del. L.R. 7.1.5. Denying motion for reconsideration regarding the exclusion from evidence the ‘248 patent, the Court found the moving party had raised the same argument previously and they had already been considered. The Court also noted the motion to exclude the evidence was too late.
Regarding the motion to reconsider the decision regarding invalidity of the ‘843 patent based on lack of written description, the Court found the arguments had previously been made and that the moving party had not demonstrated that reconsideration was warranted.
The defendant also moved for reconsideration on the invalidity of the ‘843 patent on the grounds of indefiniteness in light of the Federal Circuit’s then recent decision in IPXL Holding, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com. In IPXL, the Court held an invention to be invalid for indefiniteness if it is a combination of two statutory classes of the invention. The Court denied reconsideration on the grounds the issue was not new and the defendant failed to raise the indefiniteness argument previously, and the argument has been waived.
