STEUBEN FOODS, INC. v. NESTLE USA, INC.

Editor: Paul Stewart

Federal Circuit Summaries

Before Dyk, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Summary: In an inter partes review proceeding, broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term must encompass all embodiments unless there is a support for a narrower interpretation.

Nestlé requested an inter partes review of a patent owned by Steuben. The claims at issue were directed to an aseptic packaging sterilization tunnel compartmentalized into zones with varying sterilant concentration levels recited as ratios (e.g., 5 to 1). In construing the claim term “sterilant concentration levels,” Steuben contended that the proper construction was “the amount of sterilant in the volume of pressurized gas within the zone.” Instead, the PTAB used the broadest reasonable interpretation and construed the concentration level to be “at any point within the sterilization tunnel” including the residual concentration on bottle surfaces. The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision. Steuben’s proposed construction restricted the claim term to a specific embodiment disclosed in the specification. However, the specification also disclosed residual concentration of sterilant on the lids of bottles. Stueben failed to point to any language in the claims or the specification that support that the claims encompass one embodiment, but not the other. Thus, the broadest reasonable construction of a term must encompass both the sterilant concentration level in air as well as on the bottle surfaces. Because Steuben’s interpretation would impermissibly restrict the claim term to a specific embodiment, the Court affirmed.

This case is: STEUBEN FOODS INC., v. NESTLE USA, INC.