Supreme Court Rejects Federal Circuit’s Indefiniteness Standard in Nautilus v. Biosig

more+
less-

On June 2, 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., No. 13-369 (June 2, 2014) (“Nautilus”), that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness “if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” The Supreme Court has thus rejected the Federal Circuit’s “insolubly ambiguous” standard, and has lowered the bar for invalidating patents for indefiniteness.

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S OLD STANDARD -

Section 112(b) of the Patent Act, as amended, requires that a patent “conclude with one or more claims that particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.” A claim that is not definite may be held invalid as indefinite.

Please see full alert below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Topics:  Indefiniteness, Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Patent Infringement, Patent Litigation, Patents, Reasonable Certainty Standard, Reasonableness Factors, SCOTUS

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.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP | 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 »