wrap film of claim 1, wherein at least one said inner layer comprises low density polyethylene homopolymers [ (LDPE) ].” ’055 patent col. 10 ll. 13-15. In its opening brief Multilayer conceded that LDPE is not encompassed by LLDPE or the other types of resin recited in element (b). “[T]here can be no dispute that LDPE refers to a different category of resins than those listed in claim 1.” Appellant’s Br. at 29; see also id. at 31 (“The intrinsic evidence thus confirms that ... LDPE may be blended with the resins claimed in the inner layer Markush gr ., 438 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting that a dependent claim can be invalid for failing to comply with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4); see also Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>); Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., 299 F.3d
holding that claims that were internally contradictory were invalid as indefinite holding that tort claims were arbitrable because they arose out of and were related to contract holding that claims for a refund of invalid export tax brought under a statute other than  7422 were barred holding that claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite holding the state law claims were not preempted