Topic
Patent Indefiniteness
16 published works
IP IQ
Fowl Play: Federal Circuit Rules “About” Too Vague to Fly
In a recent precedential decision from the Federal Circuit, the appellate court explained that words of approximation like “about” are not inherently definite or indefinite — but when a patentee…
SWIPLit Blog
Federal Circuit Rejects “Unanswered Questions” Indefiniteness Standard
By Dan Staren
By Emily Parker and David Barker Last week, a split Federal Circuit panel reversed a decision invalidating certain computer-aided-design patent claims because the district court used an incorrect indefiniteness standard.…
PTABWatch
PTAB Declines to Institute IPR on Immersion’s Indefinite Means Plus Function Claims
Petitioners are finding themselves caught in a Catch-22. The PTAB declares claims too indefinite under Section 112 to construe, but then declines to address the patentabilty of the claims. Section…
Prosecution First Blog
Ex Parte Gutta: Computer means-plus-function claims may be indefinite for failure to adequately disclosed a supporting algorithm
Ex parte Gutta, Appeal 2008-4366 (August 10, 2009)Read more
IP Intelligence
A Split Panel of the Federal Circuit Debates the Standards for Definiteness
By Allen Sokal
In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co. LP, Appeal No. 2016-1013 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016), the panel, consisting of Chief Judge Prost (authoring the opinion) and Judges Newman…
BioLoquitur
Dow Chemical Confirms, “Measure Twice — Just Make Sure to Define Once”
The recent decision in Dow Chemical confirmed the Federal Circuit’s earlier position in Teva Pharma, that in instances where multiple methods of measurement exist for a parameter, a patentee must…
Global IP & Technology Law Blog
Fuzzy Boundaries not allowed: ‘in proximity to’ indefinite according to California court
A surgical apparatus placed “in proximity to … [a] first vertebral bone” did not give sufficient notice of the degree of proximity that would infringe the claim in Abdou v.…
New England IP Blog
The Blurred Lines of the Indefiniteness Road Map
As lower courts begin to apply the Supreme Court’s reworded standard for indefiniteness as set forth in Nautilus, Inc. v. BioSig Instruments, Inc., they have grappled with the question of…
WinTech
Patent Definiteness Requirement Update
By Winstead
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 Instruments,…
Re:Marks on Trademark and Copyright
Supreme Court eases standard for proving patent definiteness – or does it?
By Andrew N. Stein Section 112, paragraph 2 of the Patent Act requires that a patent “conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject…