直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Reissue Claims That Broaden Scope of Original Claims in View of Prior Claim Construction Held Invalid

June 10, 2015

Authored and Edited by Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Michael Liu Su, Jeff T. Watson

In ArcelorMittal France v. AK Steel Corp., No. 14-1189 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. RE44,153E (“the RE153 patent”) were invalid as impermissibly broadened, but reversed the district court’s determination of invalidity with respect to other claims that were not broadened.

The RE153 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,296,805 (“the ’805 patent”). In a previous appeal regarding the ’805 patent, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s construction of a claim term and remanded the case. While that appeal was pending, ArcelorMittal sought to correct that construction through a reissue application, which led to the RE153 patent. On remand, ArcelorMittal substituted the ’805 patent for the RE153 patent. The district court granted summary judgment that all claims of the RE153 patent were invalid.

In the present appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the law-of-the-case doctrine prohibited the district court from revisiting its original construction; thus, it affirmed the district court’s finding that claims that were broadened in view of that construction were invalid. The Court also noted, however, that invalidity based on impermissible broadening must be analyzed on a claim-by-claim basis. Accordingly, the Court held that the district court erred in invalidating two claims that did not broaden the scope of the original claims.

Tags

summary judgment

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2015 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Conference

19th Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation in Europe

May 19-20, 2026

Amsterdam

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP