Opinion ID: 778740
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Contours of the Best Mode Requirement

Text: 78 The best mode requirement appears in the patent statutes at 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph: The specification... shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. The best mode requirement creates a statutory bargained-for exchange by which a patentee obtains the right to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention for a certain time period, and the public receives knowledge of the preferred embodiments for practicing the claimed invention. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 963, 58 USPQ2d 1869, 1874 (Fed.Cir.2001), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 913, 151 L.Ed.2d 879 (2002). 79 The purpose of the best mode requirement is to restrain inventors from applying for patents while at the same time concealing from the public preferred embodiments of the inventions they have in fact conceived. See Transco Prods. Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 560, 32 USPQ2d 1077, 1084 (Fed.Cir. 1994). A holding of invalidity for failure to disclose the best mode requires clear and convincing evidence that the inventor both knew of and concealed a better mode of carrying out the claimed invention than that set forth in the specification. Id. 80 We have acknowledged that the term `mode' and the phrase `carrying out the invention' are not definable with precision. Wahl Instruments, Inc. v. Acvious, Inc., 950 F.2d 1575, 1579, 21 USPQ2d 1123, 1126 (Fed.Cir.1991). However, in explaining its purpose we have described the best mode requirement as separate and distinct from the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph: 81 Manifestly, the sole purpose of this [best mode] requirement is to restrain inventors from applying for patents while at the same time concealing from the public preferred embodiments of their inventions which they have in fact conceived. 82 In re Gay, 50 C.C.P.A. 725, 309 F.2d 769, 772, 135 USPQ 311, 315 (1962), quoted in Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d 1524, 1532, 3 USPQ2d 1737, 1742 (Fed.Cir.1987). Indeed, this court has repeatedly disclaimed a link between enablement and best mode. See, e.g., Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1050, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1569 (Fed.Cir.1995) (distinguishing between enablement and best mode). 83 Compliance with the best mode requirement is a question of fact which involves a two-pronged inquiry. N. Telecom Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 215 F.3d 1281, 1286, 55 USPQ2d 1065, 1068 (Fed. Cir.2000). The first prong is subjective, focusing on the inventor's state of mind at the time he filed the patent application, and asks whether the inventor considered a particular mode of practicing the invention to be superior to all other modes at the time of filing. Id. The second prong is objective and asks whether the inventor adequately disclosed the mode he considered to be superior. See Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1212, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1025-26 (Fed.Cir.1991). 84 With respect to both the first and second prongs, [t]he best mode inquiry is directed to what the applicant regards as the invention, which in turn is measured by the claims. Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 946 F.2d 1528, 1531, 20 USPQ2d 1300, 1302 (Fed.Cir.1991). Accord N. Telecom, 215 F.3d at 1286, 55 USPQ2d at 1068 (As we have repeatedly held, the contours of the best mode requirement are defined by the scope of the claimed invention.... the party asserting invalidity must show that the asserted best mode relates directly to the claimed invention.); Eli Lilly, 251 F.3d at 963, 58 USPQ2d at 1874 ([T]he extent of information that an inventor must disclose depends on the scope of the claimed invention.); Chemcast, 913 F.2d at 927, 16 USPQ2d at 1036 (The other objective limitation on the extent of the disclosure required to comply with the best mode requirement is, of course, the scope of the claimed invention.); Randomex, Inc. v. Scopus Corp., 849 F.2d 585, 588, 7 USPQ2d 1050, 1053 (Fed.Cir.1988) (It is concealment of the best mode of practicing the claimed invention that section 112 ¶ 1 is designed to prohibit.); Zygo Corp. v. Wyko Corp., 79 F.3d 1563, 1567, 38 USPQ2d 1281, 1284 (Fed.Cir.1996) (The focus of a section 112 inquiry is not what a particular user decides to make and sell or even in what field the invention is most likely to find success. Rather, in keeping with the statutory mandate, our precedent is clear that the parameters of a section 112 inquiry are set by the claims. ); Christianson, 822 F.2d at 1563, 3 USPQ2d at 1255 ([T]he `best mode' is that of practicing the claimed invention.). 85 Although we have found violations of the best mode requirement for failure to disclose subject matter not strictly within the bounds of the claims, even in these cases the alleged best mode information bore a strong relationship to the claimed invention or implicated questions of concealment. See Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 141 F.3d 1059, 1065, 46 USPQ2d 1097, 1101 (Fed.Cir.1998) (critical to the production of a functional implant); Great N. Corp. v. Henry Molded Prods., Inc., 94 F.3d 1569, 1572, 39 USPQ2d 1997, 1999 (Fed.Cir.1996) (critical to practicing the claimed invention); Dana Corp. v. IPC Ltd. P'ship, 860 F.2d 415, 420, 8 USPQ2d 1692, 1695 (Fed.Cir. 1988) (necessary to satisfactory performance); Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d 1524, 1537, 3 USPQ2d 1737, 1746 (Fed.Cir.1987) (necessary to the enjoyment of the invention); see also Engel Indus., 946 F.2d at 1531, 20 USPQ2d at 1302 (Unclaimed subject matter is not subject to the disclosure requirements of § 112; the reasons are pragmatic: the disclosure would be boundless, and the pitfalls endless.); DeGeorge v. Bernier, 768 F.2d 1318, 1325, 226 USPQ 758, 763 (Fed.Cir.1985). 86 In DeGeorge, the specification failed to disclose a particular engineering level of MT/ST [word processor] and the Board of Patent Interferences found a violation of the best mode requirement. Id. We reversed: 87 The board found no best mode in the DeGeorge applications. The board's analysis, however, was influenced by its erroneous count construction.... Because the properly construed count does not include a word processor, failure to meet the best mode requirement here should not arise from an absence of information on the word processor. 88 Id. 89 The best mode requirement does not extend to production details, including commercial considerations such as equipment on hand, availability of materials, relationships with suppliers, or customer requirements. Young Dental Mfg. Co. v. Q3 Special Prods., Inc., 112 F.3d 1137, 1144, 42 USPQ2d 1589, 1594-95 (Fed.Cir.1997); Wahl Instruments, 950 F.2d at 1579, 21 USPQ2d at 1126; Christianson, 822 F.2d at 1563, 3 USPQ2d at 1255. Further, the best mode requirement does not extend to routine details apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Eli Lilly, 251 F.3d at 963, 58 USPQ2d at 1874; Young Dental, 112 F.3d at 1144, 42 USPQ2d at 1595. Routine details need not be disclosed because one skilled in the art is aware of alternative means for accomplishing the routine detail that would still produce the best mode of the claimed invention. Eli Lilly, 251 F.3d at 966, 58 USPQ2d at 1877.