Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co. (No. 2016-2576, -2577, -2578, -2579, -2580, -2581, -2582, -2591, -2592, -2593, -2594, -2595, 7/25/18) (Prost, Moore, Reyna)
Prost, J. Reversing JMOL decision after jury trial and finding claims non-enabled as a matter of law. The claim covered “six permutations for the relationship” between two lawyers of a LED semiconductor device. The specification did not include any teaching of how to achieve one of these permutations, although others had successfully done so. However, “the inquiry is not whether it was, or is, possible to make the full scope of the claimed device—a scope that here covers a monocrystalline growth layer directly on an amorphous layer. The inquiry is whether the patent’s specification taught one of skill in the art how to make such a device without undue experimentation as of the patent’s effective filing date.” “[G]ap filing [reliance on what is known in the art] is merely supplemental; it cannot substitute for a basic enabling disclosure.”