News & Analysis as of

Definiteness

Freiberger Haber LLP

Second Department Holds That Material Term of Contract For Sale of Real Property (i.e., the Property Description) Was Too...

Freiberger Haber LLP on

This BLOG has written numerous times on issues related to contract formation. See, e.g., [here], [here], [here], [here] and [here]. Briefly stated, “[t]o create a binding contract, there must be a manifestation of mutual...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Federal Circuit Confirms That “Magnetic Fuzz” Is Too Fuzzy for a Patent Claim

Fenwick & West LLP on

On September 15, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in IQASR v. Wendt, found that a district court did not err in its scrutiny of the extrinsic and intrinsic evidence presented to find U.S. Patent No....more

Knobbe Martens

Infringement Need Not Be Ex Ante Determinable for Claim to Be Definite

Knobbe Martens on

NEVRO CORPORATION v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION - Before Moore, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: Functional claim term directed at avoiding a side...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Means-Plus-Function Structure – Can be it Incorporated by Reference?

In its recent decision, Fiber, LLC. v. Ciena Corp., No. 2019-1005 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued a reminder that the structure necessary to satisfy the...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Definiteness, Drug Labels and Diclofenac, Oh My

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s invalidity and infringement judgments for patents directed to a topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, finding that a patent claim reciting a...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

The Risk of Using “Consisting Essentially of” in Patent Claims

The legal meaning of the transition language “consisting essentially of” is well-established in Federal Circuit case law and is generally construed to mean that the composition or formulation (a) necessarily includes the...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - August 2018

WilmerHale on

Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (No. 2017-1521, 8/27/18) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) Reyna, J. - Vacating and remanding the PTAB’s IPR decision because the PTAB erred in not considering portions of the petitioner’s...more

Knobbe Martens

In Re Maatita

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Dyk, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A two-dimensional drawing of a three-dimensional object may meet the enablement and definiteness...more

Fish & Richardson

The Federal Circuit Trend to Strengthen the Standard for Definiteness

Fish & Richardson on

In Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corp., 803 F.3d 620 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit directly acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Nautilus Standard Sinks Dow Patents

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) lost a ruling that competitor NOVA Chemical Corporation and NOVA Chemicals Inc. (collectively “NOVA”) infringed claims of two Dow patents when the Federal Circuit applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s...more

Locke Lord LLP

Locke Lord QuickStudy: Means-Plus-Function Software Claims - Always, Always, (Almost) Always Disclose an Algorithm

Locke Lord LLP on

On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2014-1393, clarifying that for meeting the definiteness requirement of claims, a general...more

Snell & Wilmer

Federal Circuit Holds Biosig’s Patent Definite Under New Standard

Snell & Wilmer on

Applying the Supreme Court’s new “reasonable certainty” standard for patent definiteness in Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc. (2015) (Nautilus III), the Federal Circuit again held that Biosig’s patent for a heart...more

Moore & Van Allen PLLC

Congress Takes Up Patent Litigation Reform – Innovation Act Reintroduced, Supreme Court Cases Examined

Congress v SCtPatent litigation reform has been on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee agenda, with the recent reintroduction of legislation seeking to address patent litigation abuses and a hearing examining recent U.S....more

Winstead PC

Patent Definiteness Requirement Update

Winstead PC on

The Supreme Court recently “conclude[d] that the Federal Circuit’s formulation, which tolerates some ambiguous claims but not others, does not satisfy the statute’s definiteness requirement.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig...more

Knobbe Martens

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

Knobbe Martens on

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

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

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

Goodwin

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

Goodwin on

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

Robins Kaplan LLP

Inconsistent Figures Render Two Design Patents Indefinite

Robins Kaplan LLP on

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

King & Spalding

ITC Section 337 Update

King & Spalding on

U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Federal Circuit Standards For Patent Inducement Infringement And Indefiniteness – In two decisions on June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court materially changed the standards for patent...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Supreme Court Adopts Reasonable Certainty Test for Definiteness

Foley & Lardner LLP on

On June 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., rejecting the Federal Circuit’s “insolubly ambiguous” test for patent claim indefiniteness under 35 USC § 112, and...more

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Federal Circuit Standards for Indefiniteness and Induced Infringement

The US Supreme Court issued two anticipated decisions on June 2, 2014, relating to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's standards for indefiniteness and induced infringement. In the first, Nautilus, Inc....more

McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court: Patent Claims Must Provide “Clear Notice” To What Is Claimed

On June 2, 2014, the unanimous Supreme Court of the United States, in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., a case that focused on the standard for compliance with the “definiteness” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2,...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Supreme Court Strengthens the Definiteness Requirement for Patent Claims

On June 2, 2014, in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., No. 13-369, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Federal Circuit’s test for determining indefiniteness of a patent claim as “lack[ing] the precision that §...more

23 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

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