"Supreme Court Relaxes Standard for Patent Indefiniteness"

by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

In a decision issued on June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court lowered the bar for parties arguing patent indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., No. 13-369 (U.S. June 2, 2014). The unanimous decision, authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, rejected the standard promulgated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that a patent claim is indefinite “only when it is ‘not amenable to construction’ or ‘insolubly ambiguous.’” 715 F.3d 891, 899 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 26, 2013). Instead, the Supreme Court ruled that a patent claim is invalid where it fails to “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable clarity.” Nautilus, Inc., No. 13-369 at 11. Though the precise contours of the new “reasonable clarity” standard remain uncertain, this decision will allow parties to more easily challenge the validity of vague or ambiguous patent claims.

Summary of the Nautilus Case

Patent assignee Biosig Instruments, Inc. (Biosig) filed suit against Nautilus, Inc. (Nautilus) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in 2004 alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,337,753 (the ’753 patent) by the heart monitors in certain of Nautilus’ StairMaster exercise machines. The ’753 patent claims a heart monitor apparatus comprising a bar with two hand grips, each of which contain two electrodes. The claim language at issue states that each pair of electrodes is “in a spaced relationship with each other.”

After construing this claim term to mean that “there is a defined relationship between the [electrodes in each pair],” the district court nevertheless granted summary judgment in Nautilus’ favor that the term “spaced relationship” was indefinite as construed. Nautilus, Inc., No. 13-369 at 6. Specifically, the district court concluded that the construction failed to explain “‘what precisely the space should be,’ or even supply ‘any parameters’ for determining the appropriate spacing.” Nautilus, Inc., No. 13-369 at 6-7.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed, reasoning that a skilled artisan could infer from the claim language, specification and prosecution history certain limitations on the spaced relationship necessary to maintain the heart monitoring functionality. Nautilus, Inc., No. 13-369 at 7. For instance, the space between the electrodes must be shorter than the width of a user’s hand to enable the user to simultaneously grip both electrodes. Nautilus, Inc., No. 13-369 at 7. Similarly, the space between the electrodes must not be zero, or the electrodes would come into electrical contact with each other. Nautilus, Inc., No. 13-369 at 7. Because these inferences place an outer limit on the “spaced relationship,” the Federal Circuit reasoned that the claim language was not “insolubly ambiguous,” and therefore not indefinite. Nautilus, Inc., No. 13-369 at 7-8.

Summary of the Supreme Court’s Decision

In the Nautilus decision, the Supreme Court ruled that 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires that “a patent’s claims, viewed in the light of the specification and the prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc., No. 13-369 at 11. In formulating this relaxed standard, the Court attempted to maintain a “delicate balance” between “the inherent limitations of language” and the need to “apprise the public of what is still open to them.” Nautilus, Inc., No. 13-369 at 9-10 (internal quotations omitted). In particular, the Court appeared to give credence to warnings that “absent a meaningful definiteness check ... patent applicants face powerful incentives to inject ambiguity into their claims.” Nautilus, Inc., No. 13-369 at 10. Partly because “the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity,” the Court shifted the balance in favor of defendants. Nautilus, Inc., No. 13-369 at 10-11. As Justice Ginsburg explained, the “reasonable certainty” standard aims to reconcile the competing concerns by “mandating clarity, while recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable.” Nautilus, Inc., No. 13-369 at 11.

The Court further explained that the “insolubly ambiguous” standard was “more amorphous than the statutory definiteness requirement allows.” Nautilus, Inc., No. 13-369 at 14. For instance, the Court noted that the “insolubly ambiguous” standard had “bred lower court confusion,” such as rulings that terms amenable to multiple plausible constructions, though ambiguous, were not insolubly ambiguous. Nautilus, Inc., No. 13-369 at 11, n.8. Because “tolerating imprecision just short of that rendering a claim ‘insolubly ambiguous’ would diminish the definiteness requirement’s public-notice function and foster the innovation-discouraging ‘zone of uncertainty,’” the Court reasoned that the Federal Circuit’s standard was inappropriate.

Though the Court clearly articulated the policy rationale for its decision, it declined to apply the “reasonable certainty” standard to the ’753 patent and instead remanded to the Federal Circuit for reconsideration. Thus, while it is clear that the Supreme Court relaxed the standard for establishing indefiniteness, it did not provide a tangible example of the new standard in action. Moreover, the Court left open the possibility that this standard is not drastically different than its predecessor by hinting that, while the phrase “insolubly ambiguous” is deficient, the Federal Circuit’s application of the “insolubly ambiguous” standard may be acceptable. Nautilus, Inc., No. 13-369 at 12 (“The Federal Circuit’s fuller explications of the term ‘insolubly ambiguous,’ we recognize, may come closer to tracking the statutory prescription.”).

Implications for Patent Litigants

Although it remains to be seen how district courts and the Federal Circuit will apply this decision, it will surely lead to greater scrutiny of arguably unclear claim terms:

  • Litigants should reevaluate any pending actions involving arguably indefinite claim terms, even claims amenable to some construction, and especially claim terms amenable to multiple competing constructions.
  • Litigants should monitor the Federal Circuit’s decision on remand, as it will begin to build a tangible framework around the “reasonable certainty” standard absent from the Supreme Court’s decision.
  • The Supreme Court declined to consider “whether factual findings subsidiary to the ultimate question of definiteness trigger the clear-and-convincing evidence standard.” Nautilus, Inc., No. 13-369 at 13, n.10. In the absence of a ruling on this issue, plaintiffs likely will continue to marshal the “clear-and-convincing” burden of proof to counteract the newly articulated standard for establishing indefiniteness.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling soon on the last pending patent case of the term, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International.

Download PDF

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.

© Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*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.