United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________ 

INDIVIOR UK LIMITED,

Appellant

v.

DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A., DR. REDDY'S 

LABORATORIES, INC.,

Cross-Appellants

______________________ 

2020-2073, 2020-2142

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-

00329.

______________________ 

Decided: November 24, 2021

______________________ 

RICHARD L. RAINEY, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

JEFFREY B. ELIKAN, NICHOLAS LANE EVOY, MATTHEW 

AARON KUDZIN; PETER P. CHEN, Palo Alto, CA. 

 KEVIN PAUL MARTIN, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, 

MA, argued for cross-appellants. Also represented by 

ELAINE BLAIS, EDWINA CLARKE, ROBERT FREDERICKSON, III; 

IRA J. LEVY, ALEXANDRA D. VALENTI, New York, NY. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 20-2073 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 11/24/2021
2 INDIVIOR UK LIMITED v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A. 

Before LOURIE, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges. 

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge LOURIE. 

Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part filed by

Circuit Judge LINN. 

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. 

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, “DRL”) petitioned for inter partes

review of U.S. Patent 9,687,454 (the “’454 patent”), owned 

by Indivior UK Limited (“Indivior”). The United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board 

(the “Board”) held that claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 are unpatentable as anticipated, but that DRL failed to demonstrate that claim 8 is anticipated. See Dr. Reddy’s Lab’ys 

S.A. v. Indivior UK Ltd., No. IPR2019-00329, 2020 WL 

2891968 (P.T.A.B. June 2, 2020) (“Decision”). Indivior appeals from the Board’s decision holding that claims 1–5, 7, 

and 9–14 are unpatentable, and DRL cross-appeals the 

Board’s decision holding that DRL failed to demonstrate 

unpatentability of claim 8. For the reasons detailed below, 

we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Indivior owns the ’454 patent, which generally describes orally dissolvable films containing therapeutic 

agents. The ’454 patent issued as the fifth continuation of

U.S. Patent Application 12/537,571 (the “’571 application”),

which was filed on August 7, 2009. This appeal involves 

the question whether Indivior can get the benefit of that 

2009 filing date for the claims at issue.

DRL petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1–5 and 

7–14. DRL alleged that the polymer weight percentage

limitations, added to the claims by amendment, do not 

have written description support in the ’571 application as 

filed and thus are not entitled to the benefit of its filing 

date. DRL argued that claims 1–5 and 7–14 were

Case: 20-2073 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 11/24/2021
INDIVIOR UK LIMITED v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A. 3

anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0033541 (“Myers”), the February 10, 2011 publication of the ’571 application. Indivior had argued that the polymer weight 

percentage limitations were supported by the ’571 application and that the claims were therefore entitled to the ’571 

application’s priority date. Indivior did not dispute that, if 

the ’571 application lacked written description of the 

claims and hence that Myers was deemed prior art, Myers 

would anticipate claims 1–5 and 7–14. Indivior contended 

that Myers was not prior art to the ’454 patent, and therefore that DRL failed to demonstrate anticipation. 

Claims 1, 7, 8, and 12 of the ’454 patent are specifically 

relevant to this appeal because they include the polymer 

weight percentage limitations at issue. 

1. An oral, self-supporting, mucoadhesive film 

comprising:

(a) about 40 wt % to about 60 wt % of a watersoluble polymeric matrix; 

(b) about 2 mg to about 16 mg of buprenorphine or 

a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; 

(c) about 0.5 mg to about 4 mg of naloxone or a 

pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; and 

(d) an acidic buffer; 

wherein the film is mucoadhesive to the sublingual 

mucosa or the buccal mucosa; 

wherein the weight ratio of (b):(c) is about 4:1; 

wherein the weight ratio of (d):(b) is from 2:1 to 1:5; 

and 

wherein application of the film on the sublingual 

mucosa or the buccal mucosa results in differing 

absorption between buprenorphine and naloxone, 

with a buprenorphine Cmax from about 0.624 ng/ml 

to about 5.638 ng/ml and a buprenorphine AUC 

Case: 20-2073 Document: 45 Page: 3 Filed: 11/24/2021
4 INDIVIOR UK LIMITED v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A. 

from about 5.431 hr*ng/ml to about 56.238 

hr*ng/ml; and a naloxone Cmax from about 41.04 

pg/ml to about 323.75 pg/ml and a naloxone AUC 

from about 102.88 hr*pg/ml to about 812.00 

hr*pg/ml.

’454 patent col. 24, ll. 25–46 (emphasis added). 

7. The film of claim 1, wherein the film comprises 

about 48.2 wt % to about 58.6 wt % of the water 

soluble polymeric matrix.

Id. at col. 24, ll. 57–59 (emphasis added).

8. The film of claim 7, wherein the film comprises 

about 48.2 wt % of the water soluble polymeric 

matrix.

Id. at col. 24, ll. 60–61 (emphasis added). 

12. The film of claim 1, wherein the weight ratio of 

(d):(b) is from about 1:1 to 1:5; wherein the weight 

ratio of (b):(a) is from about 1:3 to about 1:11.5; and 

wherein the film comprises about 48.2 wt % to 

about 58.6 wt % of the water soluble polymeric 

matrix.

Id. at col. 25, ll. 3–7 (emphasis added).

In its review, the Board analyzed whether the challenged claims have written description support in the ’571 

application. Regarding claim 8’s polymer weight percentage limitation of “about 48.2 wt %,” the Board found that 

Tables 1 and 5 in the ’571 application disclose formulations 

from which a polymer weight of 48.2% could be calculated 

by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Decision at *27. 

The Board determined that DRL did not establish that the 

’571 application lacked written description of claim 8’s polymer weight percentage limitation and thus did not show 

that claim 8 is anticipated by Myers. Id. at *35.

Case: 20-2073 Document: 45 Page: 4 Filed: 11/24/2021
INDIVIOR UK LIMITED v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A. 5

In contrast, claims 1, 7, and 12 recite polymer weight 

percentage limitations as ranges: “about 40 wt % to about 

60 wt %” (claim 1) and “about 48.2 wt % to about 58.6 wt 

%” (claims 7 and 12). The Board found that the ’571 application does not “discuss or refer to bounded or closed ranges 

of polymer weight percentages.” Id. at *33. It found some 

of Indivior’s expert’s testimony regarding written description support for ranges to be not credible. Id. at *31. The 

Board also found that a person of ordinary skill would have 

been led away from a particular bounded range by the ’571 

application’s teaching that “[t]he film may contain any desired level of self-supporting film forming polymer.” Id. 

The Board determined that claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 do not 

have written description support in the ’571 application. 

Id. at *34. It therefore determined that Myers is prior art 

to claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 because the claims have an effective filing date of no earlier than June 21, 2013, the date 

of the ’454 patent’s next oldest application in the series. Id. 

The Board then evaluated Myers, noted that Indivior did 

not contest DRL’s anticipation arguments, and found that 

DRL showed that claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 are anticipated 

by Myers. Id. at *34–36. 

Indivior appealed, and DRL cross-appealed. The validity questions hinge on whether each of the ’454 patent 

claims is entitled to the benefit of the ’571 application’s filing date. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(4)(A). 

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo, In 

re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2004), but we review its factual findings underlying those determinations 

for substantial evidence, In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 

1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A finding is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind might accept the evidence as adequate to support the finding. Consol. Edison 

Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). Whether a claim 

Case: 20-2073 Document: 45 Page: 5 Filed: 11/24/2021
6 INDIVIOR UK LIMITED v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A. 

satisfies the written description requirement is a question 

of fact. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 

1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Anticipation is also 

a question of fact. In re Rambus, Inc., 753 F.3d 1253, 1256 

(Fed. Cir. 2014).

I. INDIVIOR’S APPEAL

Indivior argues that the Board erred in finding that the 

polymer range limitations in claims 1, 7, and 12 lack written description support in the ’571 application. Indivior argues that Tables 1 and 5 disclose formulations with 

48.2 wt % and 58.6 wt % polymer. It notes that the ’571 

application also discloses that “the film composition contains a film forming polymer in an amount of at least 25% 

by weight of the composition.” ’571 application ¶ 65. Indivior argues that the combination of these disclosures encompasses the claimed ranges. DRL, on the other hand,

contends that a skilled artisan would not have discerned 

the claimed ranges because the ’571 application does not 

disclose any bounded range, only a lower endpoint and 

some exemplary formulations. DRL contends that a skilled 

artisan would not have discerned any upper range endpoint. 

Case: 20-2073 Document: 45 Page: 6 Filed: 11/24/2021
INDIVIOR UK LIMITED v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A. 7

Tables 1 and 5 are as follows:

Case: 20-2073 Document: 45 Page: 7 Filed: 11/24/2021
8 INDIVIOR UK LIMITED v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A. 

Regarding claim 1, we agree with the Board that there 

is no written description support in the ’571 application for 

the range of “about 40 wt % to about 60 wt %.” First, the 

range was not expressly claimed in the ’571 application; if 

it had been, that could have constituted written description

support. Furthermore, the values of “40 wt %” and 

“60 wt %” are not stated in the ’571 application. Most importantly, neither is a range of 40 wt % to 60 wt %.

What is needed to satisfy written description in patent 

law is highly fact-dependent, but the contours are wellknown. Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, “[t]he specification shall 

Case: 20-2073 Document: 45 Page: 8 Filed: 11/24/2021
INDIVIOR UK LIMITED v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A. 9

contain a written description of the invention.” The test for 

adequate written description “is 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 

Pharms., 598 F.3d at 1351. We have said that it is not necessary that the limitations of a claim be set forth in haec 

verba, id. at 1352, or, presumably, in the case where numbers, not words, are at issue, in haec numera. But the specification must indicate with some clarity what the claim 

recites. In the case of a claimed range, a skilled artisan 

must be able to reasonably discern a disclosure of that 

range. No range of “about 40 wt % to about 60 wt %” appears in the ’571 application. Moreover, various other indications of the polymeric content of the film are present in 

the ’571 application, rendering it even less clear that an 

invention of “about 40 wt % to about 60 wt %” was contemplated as an aspect of the invention. 

As the Board noted, the ’571 application’s paragraph 65 

states that “[t]he film may contain any desired level of . . . 

polymer.” That statement is contrary to Indivior’s assertion that the level of polymer should be closed and between 

“about 40 wt % to about 60 wt %.” In the same paragraph, 

one embodiment is stated as containing “at least 25%,” 

quite out of the range of “about 40 wt % to about 60 wt %.” 

That paragraph also refers to “at least 50%” as an alternative, this time, being right within the “about 40 wt % to 

about 60 wt %” range, but hardly clear support in light of 

other inconsistent language.

Neither Table 1 nor Table 5 describes the claimed 

ranges. It is true that in Table 1 there are four polymer 

components of the described formulations, polyethylene oxide, NF (MW 200,000); polyethylene oxide, NF (MW 

100,000); polyethylene oxide, NF (MW 900,000); and 

HPMC, and when they are added up, each total is within 

the “about 40 wt % to about 60 wt %” range, but these values do not constitute ranges; they are only specific, 

Case: 20-2073 Document: 45 Page: 9 Filed: 11/24/2021
10 INDIVIOR UK LIMITED v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A. 

particular examples. For written description support of a 

claimed range, more clarity is required. Here, one must 

select several components, add up the individual values, 

determine the aggregate percentages, and then couple 

those aggregate percentages with other examples in the 

’571 application to create an otherwise unstated range. 

That is not a written description of the claimed range. The 

same shortcoming exists with Table 5, where four separate 

components are listed as “polymer.”

Regarding claims 7 and 12, we also agree with the 

Board that there is no written description support for the 

range of “about 48.2 wt % to about 58.6 wt %” in the ’571 

application. This range also does not appear in the ’571 

application. Indivior argues that if one looks to Tables 1 

and 5, plucks out the polymer components and creates a 

range from the percentage totals (while ignoring contradictory statements in paragraph 65), then one has obtained 

the range recited in claim 7. But that amounts to cobbling 

together numbers after the fact. Indivior failed to provide 

persuasive evidence demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill would have understood from reading the ’571 application that it disclosed an invention with a range of 

48.2 wt % to 58.6 wt %. A written description sufficient to 

satisfy the requirement of the law requires a statement of 

an invention, not an invitation to go on a hunting expedition to patch together after the fact a synthetic definition 

of an invention. “[A] patent is not a hunting license. It is 

not a reward for the search, but compensation for its successful conclusion.” Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 536 

(1966). The Board thus had substantial evidence on which 

to base its conclusion that the ’571 application did not provide written description support for claims 1, 7, and 12. 

Indivior argues that our case law supports its position. 

See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. 3–6, 31–47, 63–66 (citing Nalpropion Pharms., Inc. v. Actavis Labs. FL, Inc., 934 F.3d 

1344 (Fed. Cir. 2019); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 (CCPA 

1976)). But written description cases are intensively factCase: 20-2073 Document: 45 Page: 10 Filed: 11/24/2021
INDIVIOR UK LIMITED v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A. 11

oriented, and the cases vary, just as ranges vary. Wertheim

specified that the court was “not creating a rule applicable 

to all description requirement cases involving ranges” and 

that “[b]roadly articulated rules are particularly inappropriate in this area.” Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263–65 (Rich, 

J.). “Mere comparison of ranges is not enough, nor are mechanical rules a substitute for an analysis of each case on 

its facts to determine whether an application conveys to 

those skilled in the art the information that the applicant 

invented the subject matter of the claims. In other words, 

we must decide whether the invention appellants seek to 

protect by their claims is part of the invention that appellants have described as theirs in the specification.” Id. at

263. Thus, no case, with necessarily varied facts, controls 

the resolution of the written description issue in this case.

Indivior has not contested that Myers would anticipate 

claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 if Myers is deemed prior art. See, 

e.g., Appellant’s Br. 21–22; Cross Appellants’ Br. 6. Indeed, 

the only arguments against anticipation that Indivior presents on appeal concern whether the ’454 patent claims 

were entitled to the ’571 application’s filing date, thus disqualifying Myers as prior art based on its publication date. 

Since we conclude that the Board properly determined that 

claims 1, 7, and 12 do not have written description support 

in the ’571 application, we must affirm the Board’s anticipation determination.

Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s decision that 

claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 are anticipated by Myers.

II. DRL’S CROSS-APPEAL

DRL argues that the Board erred in finding that the 

’571 application contains written description support for 

claim 8. DRL asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the 

art would not have immediately discerned that the ’571 application discloses a polymer component comprising

48.2 wt % of a film because the tables do not state the total 

polymer weight of various formulations. Indivior contends 

Case: 20-2073 Document: 45 Page: 11 Filed: 11/24/2021
12 INDIVIOR UK LIMITED v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A. 

that the Board’s determination was supported by substantial evidence. Indivior states that the Board’s finding was 

based on Tables 1 and 5 but also supported by admissions 

of DRL and its expert.

The Board upheld the validity of claim 8, which recites 

“about 48.2 wt %” as the amount of polymer. We affirm 

that determination, even though, as DRL argues, the number “48.2 wt %” is not explicitly set forth in the ’571 application. We do so out of deference to the Board’s factfinding, even though one might see some inconsistency between this result and our above holding concerning the 

principal appeal. But, given that claim 8 does not recite a 

range, but only a specific amount, which can be derived by 

selection and addition of the amounts of selected, but identified, components, we accept that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision concerning claim 8.

Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s decision that the 

’571 application provides written description support for 

claim 8 and that, since claim 8 is entitled to the ’571 application’s filing date, DRL failed to demonstrate that Myers 

anticipates claim 8. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments 

but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we 

affirm the Board’s decision.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 20-2073 Document: 45 Page: 12 Filed: 11/24/2021
United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

INDIVIOR UK LIMITED,

Appellant

v.

DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A., DR. REDDY'S 

LABORATORIES, INC.,

Cross-Appellants

______________________ 

2020-2073, 2020-2142

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-

00329.

______________________ 

LINN, Circuit Judge, concurring-in-part and dissenting-inpart.

The majority—dismissing the long-standing guidance 

on written description support for claimed ranges in In re 

Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976) and ignoring the 

factually indistinguishable case of Nalpropion Pharms., 

Inc. v. Actavis Labs. FL, Inc., 934 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 

2019)—incorrectly concludes that claims 1, 7 and 12 of the 

’454 patent do not have written description support in the 

‘571 application and are thus anticipated by Myers. Because the majority’s decision rests on an improper reading 

of paragraph 65 and the embodiments disclosed in Tables 

1 and 5 of the ’571 application, applies an overly 

Case: 20-2073 Document: 45 Page: 13 Filed: 11/24/2021
2 INDIVIOR UK LIMITED v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A. 

demanding standard for written description for ranges, 

and fails to follow our precedent in Wertheim and Nalpropion, I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority’s opinion.

The majority takes from paragraph 65 of the ‘571 application the truncated text “[t]he film may contain any desired level of ... polymer” to wrongly suggest that the 

statements about film polymer levels of “at least 25%” or 

“at least 50%” fail to provide clear support for the claimed 

“about 40 wt % to about 60 wt %” range. Maj. Op. at 9:19-

29. But the quoted passage is taken out of context and ignores the remaining part of the sentence, which expressly

links the aggregate polymer percentage to the key claimed 

characteristics of mucoadhesion and rate of film dissolution shared by films having the stated polymer levels. The 

full text from paragraph 65 reads as follows: “The film may 

contain any desired level of self-supporting film forming 

polymer, such that a self-supporting film composition is 

provided . . . . As explained above, any film forming polymers that impart the desired mucoadhesion and rate of film 

dissolution may be used as desired.” J.A.3367 (emphasis 

added). Properly read in its entirety, this statement does 

not suggest that any polymer percentage is acceptable or 

that the specified polymer levels are unrelated to the invention. To the contrary, the disclosed paragraph explicitly identifies the essential desired characteristics 

possessed by the films of the claimed invention and identifies the polymer levels needed to impart those characteristics. 

As the majority recognizes, paragraph 65 also identifies two preferred aggregate polymer percentage ranges: 

“at least 25%” or, alternatively, “at least 50%.” J.A.3367. 

Both claimed ranges are within that expressly disclosed 

preference. The majority acknowledges that the “at least 

50%” range is “right within” the ranges recited in the 

claims, but rejects this support “in light of other inconsistent language.” Maj. Op. at 9:26-29. But the referenced 

Case: 20-2073 Document: 45 Page: 14 Filed: 11/24/2021
INDIVIOR UK LIMITED v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A. 3

“inconsistent language” is nowhere to be found. Disclosures of “at least 25%” and “at least 50%” are not “contrary 

to Indivior’s assertion that the level of polymer should be 

closed” or “inconsistent” with the selection of a particular 

claimed range. See Maj. Op. at 9:21, 9:29. Rather, the 

“about 40 wt % to about 60 wt %” polymer range in claim 1 

and the “about 48.2 wt % to about 58.6 wt” in claims 7 and 

12 are selections of aggregate polymer ranges that a reasonable artisan would understand endow the film with the 

identified and desired properties.

Moreover, the majority cites no authority that written 

description support for a “closed range” requires a disclosure of a closed range rather than discrete values, and 

there is no logical reason why such a disclosure should be 

required as a strict rule to show possession. As recognized 

in Wertheim, “[b]roadly articulated rules are particularly 

inappropriate in this area.” Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263-65 

(Rich, J.). An obvious example would be a disclosure with 

express embodiments of 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9% and 10% of a 

particular substance, and a continuation application that 

claims a range of 5-10%. More importantly, the disclosure 

in paragraph 65 does disclose a closed range of “at least 

25%” and “at least 50%.” Those ranges are no different

than if restated as “25%-100%” and “50%-100%,” respectively.

I also disagree with the majority’s reading of the polymer percentage levels disclosed in Tables 1 and 5. Those 

Tables disclose 48.2% and 58.6% aggregate polymer percentages. Identifying the 48.2% and 58.6% values in the 

embodiments in Tables 1 and 5 does not require “pluck[ing] 

out the polymer components,” or “cobbling together numbers after the fact” as the majority states. Maj. Op. at 

10:14–19. An ordinary artisan need not “select several 

components, add up the individual values, determine the 

aggregate percentages, and then couple those aggregate 

percentages with other examples in the ’571 application to 

create an otherwise unstated range.” Maj. Op. at 10:2–6. 

Case: 20-2073 Document: 45 Page: 15 Filed: 11/24/2021
4 INDIVIOR UK LIMITED v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A. 

There is no selection of polymers that must be made to 

reach those values—the aggregate sum of all polymers in 

every embodiment in Tables 1 and 5 is either 48.2% or 

58.6%. As noted above, paragraph 65 unambiguously focuses on the aggregate polymer percentage as an important 

characteristic for mucoadhesion and rate of film dissolution. Summing the values to reach an identified characteristic is not an obstacle to possession, and neither is dividing 

the aggregate sum of polymers by the total composition 

weight. And that simple mathematical calculation is well 

within the capabilities of the experienced person with a 

Master’s or Ph.D. in pharmaceutical sciences found by the 

Board to be the person of ordinary skill in this case.

Finally, I disagree with the majority’s rejection of 

Wertheim and its failure to address Nalpropion. I consider 

both cases directly on point. In Wertheim, the specification 

disclosed a solids content range of 25-60% and included 

specific embodiments showing 36% and 50%. Wertheim, 

541 F.2d at 265. Our predecessor court held in that case 

that claims that included solids content of “between 35% 

and 60%” had written description support, id. at 264, even

though the 36% and 50% embodiments were discrete values and not identified as range endpoints. Similarly here, 

the “at least 25%” disclosure in paragraph 65 coupled with 

the 48.2% and 58.6% embodiments provide ample written 

description support.

In Nalpropion, this court came to the same result in a 

substantially identical circumstance. In that case, the 

claims called for a sustained release formulation with a 

one-hour release of “between 39% and 70%” and a two-hour 

release of “between 62% and 90%). Nalpropion, 934 F.3d 

at 1349. We affirmed the district courts determination that 

these claims had written description support based on entries in two tables in the specification that showed discrete 

dissolution values of 39% and 67% at 1 hour, and 62% and 

85% at 2 hours. Id. The specification also disclosed release 

rates of “less than about 80% or than about 70% in about 1 

Case: 20-2073 Document: 45 Page: 16 Filed: 11/24/2021
INDIVIOR UK LIMITED v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A. 5

hour,” and “less than about 90%, or less than about 80%, in 

2 hours.” U.S. Pat. No. 8,916,195 (13:35-43). We specifically held that the disclosure of the discrete examples provided written description support for the claimed ranges. 

So should the discrete examples and the disclosed range 

here. The majority does not address this decision, and I see 

no basis on which to distinguish it. 

For the above reasons, I would reverse the Board’s 

holding that claims 1, 7 and 12 do not have written description support in the ‘571 application and are thus anticipated by Myers. 

The majority correctly recognizes that Indivior was in 

possession of a film with 48.2 wt % polymeric matrix as 

claimed in claim 8, tacitly acknowledging that the mathematical calculation needed to discern that percentage from 

the written description in the Tables of the ‘571 application 

is within the grasp of the ordinary artisan. For that reason, I am pleased to join that part of the majority’s opinion.

Case: 20-2073 Document: 45 Page: 17 Filed: 11/24/2021