News & Analysis as of

Patents Means-Plus-Function Indefiniteness

WilmerHale

Disclosure of Antibody’s Equivalents Not Necessary to Satisfy Written Description and Indefiniteness Requirements for a...

WilmerHale on

The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) Appeals Review Panel (“the Panel”) recently clarified that means-plus-function claims do not require that the specification disclose equivalents. See Ex parte...more

Goodwin

The Appeals Review Panel’s In Re Xencor Decision: The USPTO Provides Its Position on Written Description and Means-Plus-Function...

Goodwin on

On May 17, 2024, an Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) released its decision in Ex parte Chamberlain (referred to in Federal Circuit proceedings as In re Xencor;...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Federal Circuitry

Recently in the Federal Circuit: More on Indefiniteness in IPRs

Means-plus-function claim elements can be a sticky wicket during an inter partes review, to borrow a phrase from the cricket lovers out there. These are claim elements drafted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (or its predecessor...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter - March 2022: Federal Circuit Rules on Two Means-Plus-Function/Indefinite Cases

The Federal Circuit issued two cases this week providing more clarity to when a functional claim feature should be considered a de facto means-plus-function claim that requires structural detail to meet the indefiniteness...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter - March 2022

The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Not a Bullseye: Defendant Must Rebut Presumption That Claims Lacking “Means” Language Don’t Fall Under § 112 ¶ 6

McDermott Will & Emery on

Reversing a district court finding of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the district court erred by ignoring unrebutted evidence that the challenged claim...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - March 2022 #4

Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GMBH, Appeal Nos. 2020-2163, -2191 (Fed. Cir. March 24, 2022) - In a notable review of the USPTO’s new Precedential Opinions Panel, the Federal Circuit discussed the...more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Indefiniteness Does Not Necessarily End PTAB’s Patentability Inquiry

On December 28, in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may not decline to consider the patentability of a claim challenged in an inter partes review (IPR)...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Means-Plus-Function Claims: Don’t Forget the “Way”

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court’s findings of noninfringement, in part because the plaintiff had failed to prove the “way” element of the function-way-result test for a first...more

WilmerHale

CAFC Patent Cases - October 2021

WilmerHale on

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions KANNUU PTY LTD. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. [OPINION] (2021-1638, 10/7/21) (Newman, Prost, Chen) - Chen, J. Denying motion for preliminary injunction. Patentee sought to compel...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

User Identification Module Held Means-Plus-Function Element, Lacked Structure/Algorithm and Invalid

In Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the claimed language “user identification module” was a means-plus-function element with no corresponding structure disclosed in the...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Failing to Adequately Support a Means-Plus-Function Claim Term Renders a Claim Invalid

Claim language is important. Particularly when dealing with software systems, claims may be held invalid as being indefinite when the claim language is characterized as “means-plus-function” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶ 6...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - March 2021

Knobbe Martens on

Corresponding Structure Snafu: Lack of Algorithm Renders Claims Indefinite - In Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Appeal No. 20-1646, the Federal Circuit held that the structure for performing a...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Federal Circuitry

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (March 1-5): Purely Functional Claiming And Means-Plus-Function Elements

Last week was argument week, and the Federal Circuit previewed its new YouTube channel for streaming live arguments (sadly, audio only for now).  Still, that didn’t slow the Federal Circuit down in issuing opinions, including...more

Knobbe Martens

Corresponding Structure Snafu: Lack of Algorithm Renders Claims Indefinite

Knobbe Martens on

RAIN COMPUTING, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. Before Lourie, Dyk, and Moore. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Summary:  The structure for performing a function of...more

Jones Day

CAFC Holds PTAB May Not Cancel Claims For Indefiniteness In An IPR

Jones Day on

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., — F.3d —, 2020 WL 543427, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4. 2020), could not be more clear: “[W]e hold that the Board may not...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

PTAB Cannot Invalidate Challenged Claims for Indefiniteness in an IPR

Foley & Lardner LLP on

The Federal Circuit definitively rejected arguments to cancel challenged claims for reasons other than anticipation or obviousness in an inter partes review proceeding. In Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Prisua...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit Addresses Indefiniteness and Mean-Plus-Function Claiming in Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the PTAB

The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) decision declining to analyze patent claims as anticipated or obvious in an inter partes review (IPR) where the Board found the...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

Jones Day

After SAS, Indefinite Claims Can Be A Definite Problem For IPR Petitioners

Jones Day on

The definiteness requirement for patent claims is set forth in Section 112(b), mandating that a patent specification conclude with one or more claims “particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming subject matter which 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

Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. ITC

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, Bryson, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”). Summary: Evidence intrinsic to a patent may be sufficient to overcome the presumption...more

Knobbe Martens

Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc.

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Reyna, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the Northern District of California. Summary: Failure to use the word “means” creates a rebuttable presumption that the term is not a...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

With Software Patents and Means-Plus-Function, “Structure” Takes On a New Meaning

Functional Claiming in Software Patents - Software patents are generally directed to a sequence of steps or rules, i.e., an algorithm, performed by a computer programmed to carry out the algorithm. Because algorithms are...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

2017 and Early 2018 Supreme Court and Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more

36 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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