Bottom line: Software patent specifications require disclosure of an algorithm for all means-plus-function limitations. Otherwise, the claim may be invalid for being indefinite. The problem may not be related solely to means limitations since a non-means limitation could be impliedly construed as a means-plus-function limitation even without using the trigger word … [Read more...]
Patent laws require the claims to be definite or to particularly and distinctly claim the invention. Otherwise, the claim is indefinite and invalid. Infringers attempt to invalidate a patent to avoid patent infringement liability.
In AGIS, Inc. v. Life360, Inc. (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2016), AGIS (patent owner) held a patent directed to a cellular communication system that allows multiple cellular phone users to monitor the location of others and their status via a visual display. Symbols generated on the visual display (e.g., user’s cellular phone) represented the locations of the other users. In the … [Read more...]
Bottom line: A claim with a means plus function limitation may invalidate the claim if the claim and the specification are not properly drafted. As such, it may be prudent to avoid language that implicates means plus function such as solely functional language and the operative trigger term “means.” Moreover, this case (Media Rights Technologies v. Capital One Financial … [Read more...]
In Interval Licensing, LLC v. AOL, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 10, 2014), the Federal Circuit invalidated a patent claim as being indefinite under a new standard set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in Biosig v. Nautilus (S. Ct. April 28, 2014). Interval Licensing is instructional not just for evaluating indefiniteness under the new standard, but also on how to write … [Read more...]
Recently, there has been a push for clarity in patents because non-practicing entities and patent trolls have been accused of taking patents with ambiguous claim terms and construing those ambiguous terms to cover things beyond what is disclosed in the patent. Since patent litigation costs are very high and even prohibitive, many businesses would rather settle than fight. The … [Read more...]
The claims in a patent are supposed to inform others about the scope of patent protection afforded under the patent so people know what the can and cannot be marketed regarding the patent. In particular, the Patent Act requires that a patent specification “conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant … [Read more...]
The Federal Circuit in Takeda v. Zydus (Fed. Cir. Feb. 20, 2014) resolved issues in relation to claim construction, infringement and invalidity. The patent was directed to an orally ingestable tablet that disintegrated in your mouth where the formulation contains granules small enough (i.e., 400 µm or less) to avoid a feeling of roughness in the patient’s mouth upon … [Read more...]