United States: If No Generic Claim Is Finally Held Allowable, Election Of A Species Creates A Restriction Under 35 U.S.C. § 121

In St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Access Closure, Inc., No. 12-1452 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2013), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's safe harbor ruling regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,008,439 ("the Janzen patent"), determined that the district court's rulings on claim constructions in the Janzen patent were moot, and affirmed the district court's ruling that U.S. Patent Nos. 5,275,616 and 5,716,375 (collectively "the Fowler patents") are nonobvious and not shown to be invalid.

St. Jude Medical, Inc. and St. Jude Medical Puerto Rico, LLC (collectively "St. Jude") own the Janzen patent and the Fowler patents, which relate to methods and devices for sealing a vascular puncture. During prosecution of the Janzen patent's grandparent application, the examiner required restriction of the application under 35 U.S.C. § 121 to Group I (device) or Group II (method) and an election of Species A, B, or C. The applicant elected Group I, Species B. Subsequently, the applicant filed U.S. Patent Application No. 08/318,380 ("the parent application") as a divisional of the grandparent application. Before the parent application issued, the applicant filed U.S. Patent Application No. 08/399,535 ("the Janzen application") as a continuation of the parent application. The Janzen patent ultimately issued with both device and method claims. The applicant also filed another continuation based on the parent application, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 5,725,498 ("the sibling patent").

St. Jude sued Access Closure, Inc. ("ACI"), alleging that ACI infringed several patents, including the Janzen patent and the Fowler patents. The jury found that ACI had infringed the Janzen patent, but that the Janzen patent was invalid for double patenting in light of the sibling patent. Subsequently, the district court determined that the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 121 prevented the claims of the Janzen patent from being invalidated, and overturned the jury's finding of invalidity. The jury also found that ACI infringed the Fowler patents, and that those claims were valid. After the verdict, ACI filed a renewed JMOL motion on various claims in the Fowler patents, but the district court denied the motion. ACI appealed three of the district court's rulings: (1) that the safe harbor provision of § 121 protects the Janzen patent from invalidity for double patenting; (2) the construction of key terms in the Janzen patent; and (3) that ACI was not entitled to JMOL that the Fowler patents are invalid for obviousness.

"Since no generic claim was applied for, and no such claim was finally held allowable, that is what occurred: the election of species in the grandparent created a restriction." Slip op. at 15.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit first reversed the district court's ruling that the safe harbor provision of § 121 applied to the Janzen patent. The Court explained that the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 121 provides that a patent issuing on an application to which a restriction requirement was made, or an application filed as a result of such requirement, shall not be used as a reference in either the PTO or the courts "against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them if the divisional is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application." Slip op. at 11 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 121). The Court noted that the safe harbor provision arose from difficulties created by restriction requirements imposed by the PTO during examination, followed by double patenting challenges in the courts. The Court explained the "judicially-created consonance concept," which derives from the safe harbor's "as a result of" requirement and specifies that the "line of demarcation between the 'independent and distinct inventions' that prompted the restriction requirement be maintained." Id. at 11-12 (quoting Gerber Garment Tech., Inc. v. Lectra Sys., Inc., 916 F.2d 683, 688 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). The Court explained that "[c]onsonance in a case like this requires that the challenged patent, the reference patent, and the patent in which the restriction requirement was imposed (the restricted patent) do no claim any of the same inventions identified by the examiner." Id. at 12.

The Court first considered the grandparent application (the restricted patent). According to ACI, during prosecution of the grandparent application, the examiner defined two inventions: the device of Group I and the method of Group II. ACI agreed that the method/device restriction in the grandparent application affected the line of demarcation, but argued that the election of species did not affect the line because an election of species is inherently different from a restriction requirement. According to St. Jude, the restriction imposed was a multilevel restriction, which demarcated six different inventions: Group I, Species A; Group I, Species B; Group I, Species C; Group II, Species A; Group II, Species B; and Group II, Species C. St. Jude asserted that the claims of the Janzen patent maintained consonance since the Janzen patent included claims to Group I, Species C and Group II, Species C, which did not overlap with the inventions, Group I, Species B, pursued in the grandparent application.

The Federal Circuit found that ACI's argument overlooked a critical point—that the grandparent application lacked a generic claim and that the applicant was required under § 121 to elect a single disclosed species to which the claims would be restricted if no generic claim was finally held allowable. The Court concluded that, as no generic claim was applied for or finally held allowable, the election of the species in the grandparent created a restriction. Thus, the Court found that "there were two restriction requirements imposed on the grandparent application: the original device/method restriction, and the second restriction that resulted from the election of species." Id. at 15.

With the line of demarcation settled, the Court next determined whether that line was honored, i.e., whether any of the same restricted inventions were claimed in the challenged patent (the Janzen patent), the reference patent (the sibling patent), or the restricted patent (the grandparent application). The Court found that the line of demarcation was maintained with respect to the grandparent application and the Janzen patent, but not with respect to the sibling patent. The Court explained that the sibling patent "pursued a claim generic to all of the Species in Group II, and therefore overlapped Group II, Species C found in the Janzen patent." Id. at 16-17. Consequently, the Court concluded that "the Janzen patent and the sibling patent did not maintain consonance, and therefore the safe harbor provision cannot apply." Id. at 17. Because the jury found that claims 7-9 of the Janzen patent were not patently distinct from the claims of the sibling patent, and the safe harbor provision could not apply, the Federal Circuit held claims 7-9 of the Janzen patent invalid for double patenting.

Because the Court held the claims invalid for double patenting, it concluded that the claim construction issues on appeal were moot. The Court also saw no error in the district court's legal conclusion of nonobviousness. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's denial of ACI's renewed motion for JMOL.

Judge Lourie concurred, stating that "this case is resolved by the failure of the granted Janzen and '498 (sibling) patents to maintain consonance with the original restriction requirement." Lourie Concurrence at 1. Judge Lourie further stated that "[t]he restriction requirement required dividing claims to devices from claims to methods, and the Janzen patent contains both device and method claims. It is the opposite of consonant." Id. at 2. Judge Lourie opined that "the district court and the majority err in even considering the effect of the requirement for election of species in this case." Id. at 3.

Judges: Lourie (concurring), Plager (author), Wallach

[Appealed from W.D. Ark., Senior Judge Barnes]

This article previously appeared in Last Month at the Federal Circuit, October 2013.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
22 Jan 2019, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

As part of Strafford Publications’ webinar series, Finnegan partners Shana Cyr and Mark Feldstein will provide essential updates on FDA practice and patent law relating to biologics and biosimilars.

27 Jan 2019, Other, Washington, DC, United States

Finnegan is a sponsor of the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel Winter Meeting. Finnegan partner Erika Arner will join the panel discussion “PTAB Review & Litigation.”

27 Jan 2019, Other, Florida, United States

Finnegan is a sponsor of the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel Winter Meeting. Finnegan partner Erika Arner will join the panel discussion “PTAB Review & Litigation.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions