Indefiniteness is Definitely Not That Easy to Show


Cognex Corporation et al. v. Microscan Systems, Inc. et al.

Case Number: 11:13-cv-02027-JSR (Dkt. 175)

Judge Rakoff denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment that two claims were indefinite. He had previously refused to grant summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to these claims, and the defendants argued that his inability to grant summary judgment of non-infringement means that the claims are necessarily indefinite. After all, according to defendants, if the court could not determine non-infringement, then defendants could not, and the claim is indefinite. The court supported his denial with this: “[t]he test for indefiniteness does not depend on a potential infringer’s ability to ascertain the nature of its own accused product to determine infringement, but instead on whether the claim delineates to a skilled artisan the bounds of the invention.” SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1340-–41 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Robins Kaplan LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Robins Kaplan LLP on:

Popular Topics
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.