News & Analysis as of

Patents › Indefiniteness › Ambiguous

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Sterne Kessler’s Reissue, Reexamination, and Supplemental Examination Practice Tips – January 2025

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on

In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Court Finds Dow Claims Clearly Indefinite

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corp., the Federal Circuit held claims reciting a limitation that could be calculated in several ways indefinite where the patent claims, specification, and prosecution history failed to...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

In re Packard (Fed. Cir. 2014)

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on

Often times it appears that, serendipitously or by design, the Federal Circuit issues an opinion on an aspect of patent law that the Supreme Court is also considering. And sometimes the shadow of the Court's impending...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Federal Circuit Holds That Patent Indefiniteness Requires Insoluble Ambiguousness

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding that the claims at issue were invalid as indefinite, because the claims were not “insolubly ambiguous.” This case...more

4 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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide