Gideon Korrell Explains 5 Key Lessons from LabCorp v. Qiagen
                     Gideon Korrell 
Explains 5 Key 
Lessons from 
LabCorp v. 
Qiagen
The Federal Circuit’s decision in LabCorp v. 
Qiagen shows that jury verdicts do not 
stand if they are based on stretched claim 
language or weak evidence. The court 
overturned a jury’s finding of willful 
infringement and ruled that Qiagen did not 
infringe either patent as a matter of law.
Gideon Korrell sees this case as a reminder 
that patent cases are decided by claims 
and proof not broad technical stories.
1. Judges, Not 
Juries, Define 
Patent Claims
One patent required a primer “identical” to 
another primer. The jury was allowed to 
decide whether “identical” could mean 
“partly identical.” The Federal Circuit said 
that was wrong. When there is a real 
dispute over what a claim term means, the 
judge must decide it.
2. Claim Words 
Mean What They 
Say
The patents used different language to 
describe full matches versus partial 
matches. Because the patentee chose 
the word “identical,” it could not later 
argue that a partial match was enough. 
Courts will enforce those word choices.
3. The Doctrine 
of Equivalents 
Has Limits
LabCorp argued that Qiagen’s 
product was “close enough” under 
the doctrine of equivalents. The 
court rejected this because the 
accused primer did not do the same 
job, in the same way, or get the 
same result as the claimed primer. 
General statements about similarity 
were not enough.
4. Parts Can’t Be 
Combined to 
Show 
IFonr tfher siencognd epamtente, LanbCtorp tried to 
show infringement by pointing to how 
multiple primers worked together. The 
court said that does not work when the 
claim requires one specific component to 
perform a specific function.
5. Courts Will 
Overturn Weak 
TVhe Ferdderail cCitrcsuit did not order a new trial. 
It ended the case by entering judgment of 
non-infringement. This shows that appellate 
courts will step in when a verdict is not 
supported by the claims or the evidence.
As Gideon Korrell explains, LabCorp v. 
Qiagen reinforces a simple rule of patent 
law: clear claim language and solid proof 
matter more than persuasive stories.
Thank You