Sitrick v. Dreamworks (Fed. Cir. 2008)
Sitrick’s patented invention involves a method for a integrating user-generated audio and visual effects into a video game or movie. The solo-inventor sued Dreamworks and other defendants who use the “ReVoice Studio” software to allow users to add their own voice to the imagery. The issue on appeal is whether the asserted claims are enabled under 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 1.
Full Scope Enablement: Although loosely tied to the patent statute — the enablement requirement continues to grow and develop through Federal Circuit panel opinions. Generally, the “requirement is satisfied when one skilled in the art, after reading the specification, could practice the claimed invention without undue experimentation.”
When analyzing enablement, the court looks to ensure that the “full scope of the invention” is enabled — and thus looking beyond whether the particular accused design is enabled. The “full scope” doctrine has recently been applied by the Federal Circuit to invalidate several patents. (See below)
Broad Claim Narrow Disclosure: It is easy to criticize patentees who attempt to enforce broad claims supported only by a narrow disclosure. This is especially true in cases such as Liebel’s where the claim scope had been expanded well after filing the original application. (i.e., “late claiming”).
However, the “full scope” doctrine has serious deficiencies. The most notable are the potentially chaotic results from applying the doctrine to claims that include the comprising transition language. The problem arises because the comprising transition allows a claim to implicitly encompass a wide variety of add on limitations that might be found in an infringing device. See, for example Automotive Technologies Int’l v. BMW (Fed. Cir. 2007) (claim scope that implicitly covered both mechanical and electrical sensor was not enabled by description of mechanical sensor); Liebel-Flarsheim v. Medrad (Fed. Cir. 2007) (claim scope that implicitly covered both jacketed and jacket-free needle holders was not enabled by description of jacketed needle holders).
Here, the asserted claims were construed as covering both movies and video games. Thus, the patent must enable both types of applications. Here, the CAFC confirmed that Sitrick had failed to enable its use in movies — and thus that the claims are not fully enabled.
- Buyer Beware: As with other recent enablement cases, this one may be best seen through the lens of the claim construction process. In each case, the patentee requested (or at least did not challenge) broad claim construction. Consequently, the court was not sympathetic to enablement arguments that could have been avoided by a narrower construction of the claims. This line of thinking was spelled out by Judge Laurie in the Liebel case: “The irony of this situation is that Liebel successfully pressed to have its claims include a jacketless system, but, having won that battle, it then had to show that such a claim was fully enabled, a challenge it could not meet. The motto, “beware of what one asks for,” might be applicable here.” This buyer beware theory is also useful to break the potential analytical morass of full scope enablement of claims drafted with comprising transitions.
- Don’t Begin with the Specification: One aspect of enablement that is continually bothersome. In the opinion, the court noted that “enablement analysis begins with the disclosure in the specification.” That approach unduly confuses enablement with written description. Rather, I would contend that enablement should begin with the knowledge of one skilled in the art and move forward from there.
- Johnson v. M’Intosh: In my property law class, we recently discussed Johnson v. M’Intosh and the doctrine of of sovereign authorized discovery of land. In those empire building years, we also saw over-zealous claiming.
- David Sitrick: The inventor, David Sitrick, is a Skokie based patent attorney registered with the firm of Sitrick & Sitrick. (Reg. No. 29349). Mr. Sitrick prosecuted the patent himself. His son, Greg Sitrick, is an associate at the Bell Boyd firm in Chicago. (Reg. No. 57195).