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).

Topics:  Indefiniteness, Patent Infringement, Patent Litigation, Patents

Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, Intellectual Property Updates

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, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »