Indefiniteness

News & Analysis as of

Pyrrhic Victory: IPR Petition Denied Because Claims Indefinite

Patent Owner won a Pyrrhic victory in Facebook v. TLI Communications, IPR2014-00566, wherein the Board denied the Petition, but for a reason that calls into question the future viability of the patent-in-suit. Namely, the...more

California Federal Judge Invalidates Spinal Surgery Patents Due to Lack of Objective Boundaries

On November 19, 2014, a federal district court in California invalidated claims in two spinal surgery patents, finding the claims indefinite under the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Nautilus standard. In Abdou v. Alphatec Spine,...more

Corresponding Structure Required to Avoid Indefiniteness

Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On, Inc. - In the context of addressing claim indefiniteness under § 112, ¶ 2, for lack of disclosure correspondence to a means plus function claim element (under § 112, ¶ 6) the U.S. Court of...more

Indefiniteness: Are You Reasonably Certain?

The indefiniteness standard has, until recently, been very high—only an “insolubly ambiguous claim” was considered indefinite (see, e.g., Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. International Trade, 341 F. 3d 1332, 1338–9 (Fed. Cir....more

Motion to Reconsider Claim Construction Order on Indefiniteness after Nautilus Denied Where District Court Found Term Definite

Defendant Stealth Cam, LLC ("Stealth Cam") requested that the district court reconsider its Claim Construction Order holding that the term "extending parallel" was not indefinite. The district court first noted that...more

Patent Update for IT and Biotech Companies: New Pieces to the Patent Puzzle

In This Presentation: - PATENT ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER: LIFE IN SOFTWARE/IT AFTER ALICE CORPORATION V. CLS BANK (AND OTHER RECENT 101 DECISIONS) - A Brief History with respect to Software and Biz...more

Terms of Degree Must Provide Objective Boundaries

Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. - Providing further elaboration on the “reasonable certainty” standard in an indefiniteness analysis involving a term of degree, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...more

Patent Law Developments: Indefiniteness and Damages

Interval Licensing v. AOL, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)- The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Interval Licensing v. AOL, Inc. is the first case interpreting the general (and highly criticized) standard...more

Court Denies Summary Judgment Motion as Premature Prior to Markman Hearing

Pipeline Technologies Inc. ("Pipeline") filed a patent infringement action against Telog Instruments Inc. ("Telog"). Telog filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking summary judgment on the ground that the disputed claims...more

Court Finds Patent Indefiniteness In Unobtrusive Claims

In Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., the Federal Circuit applied the test for patent indefiniteness set forth in the recent Supreme Court decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, and found that claims reciting an...more

Ongoing Developments in Patent Law: Claim Construction on Appeal, Indefiniteness, and PTAB Decisions

There are a few patent cases to keep track of in the future that may have an impact on claim construction, indefiniteness, and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions. ...more

Supreme Court's Decision on Indefiniteness Constitutes Basis to Reconsider Prior Claim Construction Order But Does Not Result in...

In this patent infringement action, Defendant Lighthouse Photonics Corporation's ("Lighthouse") moved to reconsider the Court's Claim Construction Order. Lighthouse argued three reasons for reconsideration: "first, Newport...more

Identifying Class of Algorithms Insufficient To Satisfy Means-Plus-Function Structure Requirement

Triton Tech of Texas, LLC v. Nintendo of America, Inc. - Addressing whether a patent specification provided adequate specificity to satisfy indefiniteness scrutiny of a means-plus-function claim, the U.S. Court of...more

Federal Circuit Review - Nautilus, Limelight, and Alice (July 2014)

Supreme Court Sets New Indefiniteness Standard - In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., Appeal No. 13-169, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded Federal Circuit’s reversal of summary judgment because the...more

Motion to Stay Pending CBM Review Granted Where Non-Practicing Entity Did Not Seek Preliminary Injunction

Boku, Inc. ("Boku") filed a CBM petition with the PTAB seeking review of the patentability of Plaintiff's U.S. Patent No. 7,273,168 (the "'168 patent"). The petition challenged all claims of the '168 patent on grounds that...more

IP Newsflash - July 2014 #2

New Nautilus Indefiniteness Standard Justifies Submission of Expert Evidence at Markman Hearing - The court granted defendants' motion to supplement their claim construction briefing with an expert declaration...more

Recent SCOTUS Decisions in Intellectual Property Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court heard a landmark number of intellectual property cases during its 2013-2014 term. Below is a summary of recent decisions issued in 2014....more

Lessons from Nautilus v. Biosig at the Supreme Court  [Video]

David K.S. Cornwell, director at the intellectual property law firm Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, P.L.L.C., discusses the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. He examines the...more

Indefiniteness Standard During Prosecution

In re Packard - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision upholding an examiner’s indefiniteness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), invoking the...more

Supreme Court Corner - Q2 2014

Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. - Patent: Decided: April 29, 2014 - Holding: A patent case is “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 when it “stands out from others with respect to the...more

Supreme Court's Indefiniteness Ruling Has Immediate Impact at ITC

After a hearing in an Investigation occurred between February 24 and March 7, 2014 and with the parties having submitted their opening post-hearing briefs on March 21, 2014 and their reply post-hearing briefs on March 28,...more

Further Guidance on Indefiniteness Following the Supreme Court's Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. Decision

The Supreme Court's decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., No. 13-369 (2014) appeared to raise the bar for patent clarity. However, the true effects of the decision will not be seen for some time, if ever. In...more

In Nautilus, Supreme Court Relaxes Standard for Finding Patents Invalid for Indefiniteness

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Nautilus v. Biosig, recently reversed a Federal Circuit ruling that a patent is valid as long as the description of what it claims is not “insolubly ambiguous.” The Supreme Court’s decision, which...more

Inconsistent Figures Render Two Design Patents Indefinite

Spanx, Inc. v. Times Three Clothier, LLC - Case Number: 1:13-cv-02157-DLC (Dkt. 58) - Judge Cote construed claims in six design patents, and determined that two of the patents were indefinite. The patents at...more

Supreme Court Sets Forth New Standard for Indefiniteness, Requiring Greater Precision in Claim Terms than the Standard Long Used...

For over a decade, to show that a claim term is invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶2, the Federal Circuit has required that such terms be "not amenable to construction" or "insolubly ambiguous." The Supreme Court in...more

66 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3