## Facts

- Atlantic Research owned a patent and reissue patent directed to a sleeve-style firearm handguard.
- The original disclosure described a handguard supported at two points on the firearm: near the receiver and at the barrel nut.
- In reissue, Atlantic Research added claims 31–36 attempting to cover a sleeve-style handguard supported only at a single point (the barrel nut), without changing the specification.
- Stephen Troy, formerly associated with Atlantic Research under confidentiality obligations, later developed competing handguards using barrel-nut-only support.
- Atlantic Research sued Troy for infringement of the reissue patent; Troy asserted invalidity of claims 31–36 for lack of written description (and also raised best mode).
- The parties also litigated state-law claims, including trade secret misappropriation, arising from the parties’ business relationship and subsequent competition.

## Issues

1. Whether reissue claims 31–36 were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description where the specification disclosed only a two-point supported handguard but the claims covered a one-point supported handguard.
2. Whether the appellate court needed to review invalidity based on best mode after affirming invalidity on written description.
3. Whether the district court erred in denying JMOL on the state-law claims tried to the jury.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a mistrial based on alleged jury taint and related trial-management concerns.

## Decision

- Affirmed summary judgment that claims 31–36 were invalid for lack of written description.
- Declined to reach the best mode issue because written description invalidity was sufficient to affirm.
- Affirmed the denial of JMOL on the state-law claims.
- Vacated the jury verdict and reversed the denial of a mistrial because the jury-taint issue was not properly addressed.
- Declined to address remittitur in light of the vacatur of the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- A patent specification must demonstrate that the inventor possessed the full scope of the claimed invention as of the filing date; claim scope cannot exceed what the written description supports.
- Broadening claims in a reissue patent does not supply written description support; new claims must be supported by the unchanged original disclosure.
- Where the disclosure is limited to a particular structural configuration, claims covering a materially different configuration may be invalid for lack of written description as a matter of law.
- JMOL is inappropriate if, viewing the evidence in the verdict winner’s favor, a reasonable jury could find for that party on the state-law claims.
- A trial court must adequately investigate and remedy credible allegations of juror impartiality problems; failure to do so can require vacatur of the verdict and a new trial.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that broadened reissue claims covering a one-point supported handguard were invalid because the specification disclosed only a two-point design, and it ordered a new trial on the state-law verdict after concluding that the district court did not properly handle alleged jury taint.


Atlantic Research Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Troy, 659 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011)