• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

Billups Rothenberg Inc. Vs. Associated Regional and University Pathologists Inc. (Doing business as Arup Laboratories) and Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. (Decided on 29.04.2011)

Patent — Infringement of U.S Patent Nos. 5,674,681 ("681 patent") and 6,355,425 ("425 patent") — District Court denied Plaintiff-Appellant's motion for summary judgment of infringement, on ground that the asserted claims of the '681 patent were invalid for lack of written description and the asserted claims of the '425 patent were invalid as anticipated because U.S. Patent No. 6,025,130 ("130 patent") — Hence this appeal —  Whether "level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology

Held that the eventual discovery of only one species  the C282Y mutation within the claimed genus does not constitute adequate written description of that genus. Because the district court properly granted summary judgment that the '681 patent does not satisfy the written description requirement, it was not erroneous for it to decline to rule upon whether the '681 patent satisfied the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. A patent claim is anticipated if each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference. The asserted claims of the '425 patent are invalid because they are anticipated by the '130 patent. Because the district court properly granted summary judgment to Appellees that the asserted claims of the '681 patent are invalid for lack of written description and the asserted claims of the '425 patent are invalid as anticipated, judgment of the district court affirmed.

• CRIMINAL LAWS

Supreme Court of The United States

David bobby, warden Vs. Harry mitts (Decided on 02.05.2011)

Death Penalty — Ohio Jury convicted the Respondent on two counts of aggravated murder and two counts of attempted murder and sentenced him to death — Whether state of Ohio proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances with which Respondent was found guilty of committing outweigh the mitigating factors

Held, the jurors in Respondent's case could not have plausibly thought that if they declined to recommend the death penalty Mitts would "escape all penalties for his alleged participation in the crime." They had just convicted him on two counts of aggravated murder and two counts of attempted murder. They were specifically instructed that if they did not find that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors and therefore did not recommend the death penalty they would choose from two life sentence options. There is accordingly no reason to believe that the jurors in this case, could have been improperly influenced by a fear that a decision short of death would have resulted in Respondent walking free. Hence, the jury instructions was unconstitutional for reason, that the instructions 'required the jury to unanimously reject a death sentence before considering other sentencing alternatives. The petition for certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is Reversed.