IP Blog
indefinite
Conflicting Interpretations Invalidate Patent for Indefiniteness: Infinity Computer Prods., Inc. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc.
What is a computer, when recited in a patent claim? The Federal Circuit recently discussed whether a recitation of a “computer” in a claim was indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in light of conflicting interpretations by the patentee. Infinity Computer Prods., Inc. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc. 2020-1189 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2021). Plaintiff Infinity asserted several patents against...
Lack of Algorithm in Specification Renders Means-Plus-Function Claim Indefinite
The Eastern District of Texas held that the only asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,452,515 was indefinite because “the term ‘[means] for encoding these labels in a random order’” (alterations in original) invokes 35 USC § 112 ¶ 6, and “the specification of the ‘515 Patent does not disclose an algorithm for performing the encoding function required by this...
Means-Plus-Function Claim Construction of “Customization Module” Results in Indefinite Finding
In William Grecia v. Samsung Electronics (Fed. Cir. 2019) the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of invalidity for U.S. Patent 8,533,860 (the ‘860 patent) under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2 (indefinite). The invalidly determination for the ‘860 patent was arrived at by the Court after a means-plus-analysis and invocation of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6. Claim 21, the only claim...
Claim term “Processor” does not invoke MPF Construction
In a tentative ruling, a court held the claim term “processor” did not invoke means-plus-function construction and was not governed by 35 U.S.C. §112¶6. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc., No. cv 18-9344-GW(JCx) (C.D. CA, July 25, 2019. Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (“Realtime”) brought an action against Defendants Google LLC and YouTube LLC (collectively “Google Defendants”) alleging...
Patent Claims Held Indefinite for Mixed Apparatus and Method
In a Claim Construction Memorandum and Order, a court recently held a claim term indefinite for mixing an apparatus and a method. Wireless IP Holdings, L.P., v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. No. 2:18-CV-28-JRG, (E.D. Texas, Jan. 29, 2019). Plaintiff Wireless IP Holdings alleged infringement of United States Patents No. 8,014,284 (“the ‘284 Patent”), 8,559,312 (“the ‘312 Patent”), and 9,392,638 (“the ‘638...
“Minimal Redundancy” Makes Patent Claim Indefinite under § 112
The phrase “minimal redundancy” in a patent claim was indefinite under 35 USC § 112 where the patent specification inconsistently described levels of redundancy achieved by its system. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. Feb 8, 2017) (precedential) (opinion by Judge Moore, joined by Judges Taranto and Stoll). Accordingly, the court affirmed a district court’s summary judgment that...
“Substantially” in a Patent Claim is Substantially OK
U.S. Patent No. 5,987,863 (“the ‘863 patent”), owned by the Exmark Manufacturing Company (“Exmark”), recently survived a challenge to its claim 1 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶2 for inclusion of the phrase “elongated and substantially straight.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the Federal Circuit”) affirmed a refusal by the United States District Court...
PTAB: Filled May Be Indefinite, Unfilled Is Adequately Described
Tinnus Enterprises, LLC (“Tinnus”), owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,527,612 B2 (“the ‘612 patent”) recently suffered a setback when the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board ordered institution of a post-grant review of the ‘612 patent on the ground of indefiniteness. Responsive to a petition by Telebrands Corp. (“Telebrands”) for a post-grant review of the ‘612 patent on 35 U.S.C....