Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01565/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01565-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SCRIPTPRO LLC, SCRIPTPRO USA, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

INNOVATION ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1565

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas in No. 2:06-cv-02468-CM, Judge Carlos 

Murguia.

______________________ 

Decided: August 15, 2016

______________________ 

 TRAVIS W. MCCALLON, Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Kansas 

City, MO, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by ROBERT CAMERON GARRISON; R. SCOTT BEELER, 

Overland Park, KS. 

 ANGELA DAWN MITCHELL, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, 

LLP, Kansas City, MO, argued for defendant-appellee. 

Also represented by BASIL TRENT WEBB. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-1565 Document: 39-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/15/2016
2 SCRIPTPRO LLC v. INNOVATION ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Before MOORE, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge. 

ScriptPro, LLC and ScriptPro USA, Inc. (collectively 

“ScriptPro”) appeal the United States District Court for 

the District of Kansas’s grant of summary judgment that 

claims 1, 2, 4, and 8 (“asserted claims”) of U.S. Patent 

No. 6,910,601 are invalid for lack of written description. 

We reverse and remand for further proceedings. 

BACKGROUND

The ’601 patent is directed to a “collating unit” used 

with a control center and an automatic dispensing system

(“ADS”) to store prescription containers after a medication 

has been dispensed into the containers. At issue in this 

appeal is whether the ’601 patent’s specification limits the 

invention to a collating unit that sorts and stores prescription containers by patient-identifying information 

and slot availability. In the decision appealed from, the 

district court determined that the specification was limiting and that the asserted claims, which are not so limited, 

are invalid for lack of written description. 

The ’601 patent explains that the claimed invention 

“provides a distinct advance in the art of automated 

storage units for use with static control centers cooperating with [ADSs].” ’601 patent, 4:15–17. Specifically, it 

notes that the claimed collating units “may be used with 

an existing static control center to automatically store 

prescription containers” and that such storage occurs 

“according to a storage algorithm that is dependent on a 

patient name for whom a container is intended and an 

availability of an open storage position in the collating 

unit.” Id. at 4:19–25. It explains that, “[i]n operation, a 

prescription for a patient is entered into the control 

system of the ADS along with identifying information for 

the prescription, such as the patient’s name.” Id. at 5:40–

42. After the ADS dispenses the medication, the filled 

Case: 15-1565 Document: 39-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/15/2016
SCRIPTPRO LLC v. INNOVATION ASSOCIATES, INC. 3

prescription container is transported to the collating unit, 

where the control system determines where to store the 

container by taking into account “whether previous containers for the patient have been stored in the collating 

unit and not yet retrieved,” id. at 5:47–49, and “if the 

holding area is full,” id. at 5:54–59. When an operator 

wishes to retrieve a patient’s filled prescriptions, “the 

operator may input the identifying information for the 

prescription, such as the patient’s name, into the control 

system,” which can then indicate the holding area for that 

patient’s prescriptions. Id. at 6:11–20. The ’601 patent 

identifies a number of advantages of the claimed collating 

unit, including the unit’s ability to automatically store 

containers, eliminate errors associated with manual 

retrieval and storage of containers, hold more than one 

container in a holding area, store containers based on a 

patient’s name, store multiple containers for a patient 

together in the same area, and decrease operating costs 

for pharmacies by eliminating the need for multiple 

operators to retrieve and store containers. Id. at 6:21–45. 

The parties agree that claim 8 is representative of the 

asserted claims. This claim recites:

8. A collating unit for automatically storing 

prescription containers dispensed by an automatic 

dispensing system, the collating unit comprising: 

an infeed conveyor for transporting the containers from the automatic dispensing system to the collating unit; 

a collating unit conveyor positioned generally 

adjacent to the infeed conveyor; 

a frame substantially surrounding and covering the infeed conveyor and the collating

unit conveyor; 

a plurality of holding areas formed within the 

frame for holding the containers; 

Case: 15-1565 Document: 39-2 Page: 3 Filed: 08/15/2016
4 SCRIPTPRO LLC v. INNOVATION ASSOCIATES, INC. 

a plurality of guide arms mounted between the 

infeed conveyor and the collating unit conveyor and operable to maneuver the containers from the infeed conveyor into the 

plurality of holding areas; and 

a control system for controlling operation of 

the infeed conveyor, the collating unit conveyor, and the plurality of guide arms.

ScriptPro sued Innovation Associates, Inc. (“Innovation”) for patent infringement in 2006.1 This is the second 

appeal addressing whether the asserted claims of the ’601 

patent are invalid for lack of written description. In the 

first appeal, we reversed the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment that the asserted claims are invalid

for lack of written description. ScriptPro, LLC v. Innovation Assocs., Inc., 762 F.3d 1355, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

(“ScriptPro I”). The district court had erroneously determined that the specification limits the invention to a 

collating unit that requires use of sensors to determine 

whether a holding unit is full. We explained that “[t]here 

is no sufficiently clear language in the specification that 

limits the invention to a collating unit with the (slotchecking) sensors,” id. at 1359, and that other language in 

the specification “positively suggests that slot sensors are 

an optional, though desirable, feature of the contemplated 

collating unit,” id. at 1360. We also explained that the 

original claims that were filed as part of the application 

 

1 After ScriptPro filed suit, Innovation petitioned 

for, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office 

(“PTO”) instituted, inter partes reexamination. During 

reexamination ScriptPro amended the asserted claims, 

adding language to claims 1 and 2, and rewriting claim 4

into independent format. Claim 8 was not amended. The 

PTO confirmed the asserted claims as amended. These 

changes do not impact the issues in this appeal. 

Case: 15-1565 Document: 39-2 Page: 4 Filed: 08/15/2016
SCRIPTPRO LLC v. INNOVATION ASSOCIATES, INC. 5

for the ’601 patent did not require sensors. We stated 

that these original claims, which are part of the specification and can provide written description support for later 

issued claims, further support reading the specification as 

describing sensors as optional. Id. at 1361. Although not 

at issue in the first appeal, we noted that it was “not 

immediately apparent” whether any claim language 

required tracking which slots are open and what slots are 

being used for a particular customer. Id. at 1359. 

On remand, Innovation moved again for summary 

judgment that the asserted claims are invalid for lack of 

written description. This time Innovation argued that the 

specification “unambiguously limits the manner in which 

the collating unit achieves automated storage of prescription containers . . . based on the availability of an open 

storage position and patient-identifying information” but 

the asserted claims “broadly claim a collating unit for 

‘automatically storing’ absent any limitation that makes 

[them] commensurate with the invention” as described in 

the specification. J.A. 5191–92. In response, ScriptPro 

argued that the specification describes associating stored 

containers with a specific patient as one, but not the only, 

goal of the ’601 patent, such that the specification does 

not limit the claimed invention to sorting and storing 

based on patient-identifying information. 

The district court granted Innovation’s motion. It 

quoted our concern expressed in ScriptPro I, and, citing

Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. 

Cir. 1988) and ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Systems, Inc., 558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009), it concluded 

that the asserted claims are invalid for lack of written 

description. ScriptPro LLC v. Innovation Assocs., Inc., 96 

F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1205–07 (D. Kan. 2015) (“ScriptPro II”). 

The district court explained that the specification describes the collating unit as using an algorithm based on 

patient names and availability of open slots to store 

containers and that “one of [the patent’s] central purposes 

Case: 15-1565 Document: 39-2 Page: 5 Filed: 08/15/2016
6 SCRIPTPRO LLC v. INNOVATION ASSOCIATES, INC. 

is to collate and store prescriptions by patient.” Id. at 

1206 (citing ’601 patent, 4:21–25). It determined that the 

claims are broader than the description because they “do 

not limit the ways in which the prescription containers 

are stored” such that no reasonable jury could find the 

written description requirement met. It concluded that,

“[w]ithout including a limitation to address the storage by 

patient name, the claims are simply too broad to be valid.” 

Id. at 1207. ScriptPro appeals. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

“A district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity for lack of written description is reviewed de novo.” 

Atl. Research Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Troy, 659 F.3d 1345, 1353 

(Fed. Cir. 2011). “Compliance with the written description requirement is a question of fact but is amenable to 

summary judgment in cases where no reasonable fact 

finder could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” 

PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 

1307 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In determining whether the written description requirement is met, we consider “whether 

the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably 

conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had 

possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing 

date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 

1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). 

In this appeal, ScriptPro argues that the district court 

erred by interpreting the ’601 patent’s specification as 

limited to sorting by patient-identifying information. The 

problem, according to ScriptPro, is that the district court’s 

focus on one purpose of the ’601 patent—to “keep[] track 

of slot use by particular customers and slot availability,” 

ScriptPro II, 96 F. Supp. 3d at 1207—caused it to erroneously conclude that the ’601 patent’s invention is limited 

to a collating unit that “achiev[es] the singular purpose of 

storing prescription containers” by patient-identifying 

Case: 15-1565 Document: 39-2 Page: 6 Filed: 08/15/2016
SCRIPTPRO LLC v. INNOVATION ASSOCIATES, INC. 7

information, specifically by patient name. Appellant’s Br. 

23. According to ScriptPro, only if the specification is 

read to limit the claimed invention to sorting and storing 

prescription containers by patient-identifying information 

can the asserted claims be “too broad” for failing to include such a limitation. ScriptPro argues that the specification does not limit the invention in this manner. 

We agree with ScriptPro that the specification does 

not limit the claimed invention to sorting and storing 

prescription containers by patient-identifying information. The ’601 patent discloses multiple problems that 

the invention solves, including working with existing 

ADSs, “stor[ing] more than one container in a holding 

area,” “collat[ing] multiple containers for a patient in one 

holding area,” “stor[ing] a container for a patient based on 

the patient’s name, as opposed to a prescription number 

associated with the patient,” and grouping together 

“multiple prescriptions for a patient, whether in the form 

of prescription vials, unit-of-use packages, or a combination thereof” for easy retrieval. ’601 patent, 3:59–4:9; see

id. at 6:21–45. And while some, indeed many, of these 

solved problems involve sorting prescription containers by 

patient-identifying information, not all of them do. For 

example, storing more than one prescription container in 

a holding area does not necessarily require that all the 

containers in that holding area be for the same patient. 

The prescription containers could be sorted into different 

holding areas based on the medicament dispensed (e.g., 

sorting all containers for a specific antibiotic into the 

same holding area, regardless of the patient for whom it is 

prescribed), by the date the prescription was filled, or 

some other sorting scheme. In fact, the ’601 patent expressly states that containers can be sorted and stored “by 

patient, prescription, or other predetermined storage 

scheme without input or handling by the operator.” ’601 

patent, 8:21–24 (emphasis added). 

Case: 15-1565 Document: 39-2 Page: 7 Filed: 08/15/2016
8 SCRIPTPRO LLC v. INNOVATION ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Consistent with this express disclosure, the original 

claims filed as part of the application from which the ’601

patent issued were not limited to sorting and storing 

prescription containers by patient-identifying information. Rather, these original claims, like the asserted 

claims, recite a collating unit that automatically stores 

prescription containers dispensed by an ADS. As we have 

explained, “[o]riginal claims are part of the specification 

and in many cases will satisfy the written description 

requirement.” Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal 

Beverage Container Corp., 635 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 

2011) (citing Ariad Pharm., 598 F.3d at 1349). 

It is true, as Innovation argues, that much of the ’601 

patent’s specification focuses on embodiments employing 

a sorting and storage scheme based on patient-identifying 

information. See, e.g., ’601 patent, 4:21–25 (“[t]he unit 

stores prescription containers according to a storage 

algorithm that is dependent on a patient name for whom 

a container is intended”), 5:40–47 (“a prescription for a 

patient is entered into the control system of the ADS 

along with identifying information for the prescription, 

such as the patient name . . . [t]he control system next 

determines in which holding area to store the container”), 

6:36–37 (“[t]he collating unit is also operable to associate 

a stored container with a patient based on the patient’s 

name”). And it is also true that the specification explains 

that prior art automated control centers that store containers “based on a prescription number associated with 

the container, as opposed to storing the container based 

on a patient name” are “especially inconvenient for several reasons.” ’601 patent, 3:6–11. But a specification’s

focus on one particular embodiment or purpose cannot 

limit the described invention where that specification 

expressly contemplates other embodiments or purposes. 

This is especially true in cases such as this, where the 

originally filed claims are not limited to the embodiment 

or purpose that is the focus of the specification. Similarly, 

Case: 15-1565 Document: 39-2 Page: 8 Filed: 08/15/2016
SCRIPTPRO LLC v. INNOVATION ASSOCIATES, INC. 9

mere recognition in the specification that an aspect of a 

prior art system is “inconvenient” does not constitute 

“disparagement” sufficient to limit the described invention—especially where the same specification expressly 

contemplates that some embodiments of the described 

invention incorporate the “inconvenient” aspect. 

The ’601 patent’s express disclosure that sorting and 

storing can be done in a number of ways distinguishes 

this case from Gentry Gallery and ICU Medical. In those 

cases, the specifications clearly limited the scope of the 

inventions in ways that the claims clearly did not. Gentry 

Gallery, 134 F.3d at 1479 (“the original disclosure clearly 

identifies the console as the only possible location for the 

controls” and the claims did not limit the location of the 

controls); ICU Med., 558 F.3d at 1378 (“the specification 

describes only medical valves with spikes” and the claims 

did not include a spike limitation). Such is not the case 

here. The ’601 specification does not limit the sorting and 

storing of prescription containers by patient-identifying 

information alone—any “predetermined storage scheme” 

will do. ’601 patent, 8:21–24. And, as explained above, 

the ’601 patent’s specification does not identify the single 

purpose for the described invention as sorting and storing 

prescription containers by patient-identifying information. Multiple purposes are described, including 

storing multiple prescription containers together according to some storage scheme and creating a collating unit 

that is easy to install with existing ADSs. It is certainly 

reasonable that different claims could be directed to 

covering these different aspects of the invention. Not 

every claim must contain every limitation or achieve 

every disclosed purpose. Here, the original claims filed as 

part of the application for the ’601 patent did not include 

a requirement that sorting and storing be done by use of 

patient-identifying information. The district court erred 

when it determined that the specification limited the 

invention to storing prescription containers based on 

Case: 15-1565 Document: 39-2 Page: 9 Filed: 08/15/2016
10 SCRIPTPRO LLC v. INNOVATION ASSOCIATES, INC. 

patient name and slot availability. Because the specification does not limit the scope of the invention in the manner the district court described, the asserted claims are 

not invalid for lacking such a limitation.2

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment that the asserted 

claims are invalid for lack of written description and 

remand the case for further proceedings.3

REVERSED AND REMANDED 

COSTS

Costs to ScriptPro.

 

2 Because we determine that the district court erred 

in its conclusion that the invention disclosed in the specification was limited to sorting and storing prescription 

containers by patient name and slot availability, we need 

not reach ScriptPro’s alternative argument that “collating 

unit” should be construed to require patient-specific 

collation. 

3 Though we see no triable issue of fact here, the 

patentee did not move for summary judgment on this 

issue before the district court. Thus, we remand this case 

to the district court which is best situated to determine 

how to move forward. 

Case: 15-1565 Document: 39-2 Page: 10 Filed: 08/15/2016