FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2104447345> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2104447345 abstract "On 2 June 2014, the US Supreme Court unanimously overturned the long-standing jurisprudence of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the standard for evaluating a patent claim's definiteness under 35 USC §112, ¶2, and established a new ‘reasonable certainty’ standard that patent claims must satisfy. Legal Context 35 USC § 112(2), requires a patent specification to ‘conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as [the] invention’. Before the Supreme Court's decision in Nautilus, the Federal Circuit applied an ‘insolubly ambiguous’ standard of review for determining whether a claim was indefinite under 35 USC § 112, ¶2: ‘[i]f a claim is insolubly ambiguous, and no narrowing construction can properly be adopted’, then the district court should find the claim to be indefinite. However, ‘[i]f the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree’, the claim should be held to be ‘sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds’. Exxon Research & Eng?g Co v United States, 265 F3d 1371, 1375 (Fed Cir 2001). Thus Exxon Research made clear that claims should be construed to preserve validity, and that as long as the claims are ‘amenable to construction’, they should be deemed definite in a patent invalidity determination. In Nautilus, the Supreme Court considered and rejected this rule. Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP / 90 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10016 / www.ARElaw.com © Copyright Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstien LLP. All rights reserved. Facts In 2004, Biosig filed suit against Nautilus in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Biosig sought judgment against Nautilus for infringing Biosig's US Patent No 5,337,753 (the ‘753 patent’). Nautilus moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claim limitation, ‘spaced relationship’, was indefinite under § 112, ¶2. The district court found that claim limitation to be indefinite. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The Federal Circuit applied the ‘insolubly ambiguous’ standard as crafted in Exxon Research, and found the claim limitation to be definite and ‘amendable to construction’. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. Analysis Justice Ginsburg delivered the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Nautilus, which held that the Federal Circuit's ‘insoluble ambiguity’ test ‘breed[s] lower court confusion’. The court reasoned that ‘[t]o tolerate imprecision just short of that rendering a claim “insolubly ambiguous” would diminish the definiteness requirement's public-notice function and foster the innovation-discouraging “zone of uncertainty”’. In place of the ‘insolubly ambiguous’ standard, the court clarified that [A] patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention (ibid, 1). The court reasoned that § 112 ‘entails a delicate balance’ between the ambiguity of the ‘inherent limitations of language’ and the ‘zone of uncertainty which enterprise and experimentation may enter only at the risk of infringement claims’. In assessing these ‘concerns that tug in opposite directions’, the court expressed the principle that ‘[t]he definiteness requirement, so understood, mandates clarity’. Moreover, ‘[i]t cannot be sufficient that a court can ascribe some meaning to a patent's claims; the definiteness inquiry trains on the understanding of a skilled artisan at the time of the patent application, not that of a court viewing matters post hoc’. Thus Nautilus reversed the Federal Circuit's ‘insolubly ambiguous’ standard to determine whether a claim is definite under § 112, ¶2 in favour of a ‘reasonable certainty’ analysis. Under the new analysis, a patent claim is indefinite if it does not inform those skilled in the art of the field of the invention with ‘reasonable certainty’. The court further clarified that the evaluation should entail ‘the necessarily sophisticated analysis of the whole document’. Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP / 90 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10016 / www.ARElaw.com © Copyright Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstien LLP. All rights reserved. In addition to establishing a new standard for claim definiteness evaluation, the court in Nautilus noted that two issues ‘subsidiary to the ultimate issue of definiteness’ remain: (1) ‘whether factual findings ... trigger the clear-and-convincing evidence standard’; and (2) ‘whether deference is due to the PTO's resolution of disputed issues of fact’. These issues have been left for another day. Practical Significance Nautilus, at least arguably, lowers the requirement to establish indefiniteness of a patent claim under 35 USC § 112, ¶2 by replacing the Federal Circuit ‘insolubly ambiguous’ standard with a ‘reasonable certainty’ test. Shortly after Nautilus issued, numerous courts reopened briefing on questions regarding claim definiteness in view of the new test. Whether Nautilus results in more claims being found indefinite, only time will tell. Charles Macedo is a partner and Reena Jain is an associate at Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP. Their practice specializes in intellectual property issues including litigating patent, copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property disputes. They may be reached at cmacedo@arelaw.com , and rjain@arelaw.com. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP / 90 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10016 / www.ARElaw.com © Copyright Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstien LLP. All rights reserved." @default.
• W2104447345 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2104447345 creator A5017503134 @default.
• W2104447345 creator A5020284776 @default.
• W2104447345 creator A5044221007 @default.
• W2104447345 date "2014-09-15" @default.
• W2104447345 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2104447345 title "US Supreme Court rewrites standard for claim indefiniteness analysis" @default.
• W2104447345 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpu152" @default.
• W2104447345 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2104447345 type Work @default.
• W2104447345 sameAs 2104447345 @default.
• W2104447345 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2104447345 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2104447345 hasAuthorship W2104447345A5017503134 @default.
• W2104447345 hasAuthorship W2104447345A5020284776 @default.
• W2104447345 hasAuthorship W2104447345A5044221007 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConcept C2524010 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConcept C2777855551 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConcept C2780876879 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConcept C2781442640 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConcept C46415393 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConcept C71043370 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConcept C7493553 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConcept C87501996 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConceptScore W2104447345C111472728 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConceptScore W2104447345C138885662 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConceptScore W2104447345C161191863 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConceptScore W2104447345C166957645 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConceptScore W2104447345C17744445 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConceptScore W2104447345C199539241 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConceptScore W2104447345C2524010 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConceptScore W2104447345C2777855551 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConceptScore W2104447345C2778272461 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConceptScore W2104447345C2779343474 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConceptScore W2104447345C2780876879 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConceptScore W2104447345C2781442640 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConceptScore W2104447345C33923547 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConceptScore W2104447345C41008148 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConceptScore W2104447345C46415393 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConceptScore W2104447345C71043370 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConceptScore W2104447345C7493553 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConceptScore W2104447345C87501996 @default.
• W2104447345 hasConceptScore W2104447345C95457728 @default.
• W2104447345 hasLocation W21044473451 @default.
• W2104447345 hasOpenAccess W2104447345 @default.
• W2104447345 hasPrimaryLocation W21044473451 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W1519103104 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W1523232743 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W1585650039 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W1607620322 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W1828541802 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W2004165143 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W2274152786 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W2388585760 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W258108287 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W2613439749 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W299475155 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W3121898705 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W3122952535 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W3123220705 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W3124858338 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W3124991464 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W3125879772 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W3126011687 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W3186706188 @default.
• W2104447345 hasRelatedWork W70368087 @default.
• W2104447345 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2104447345 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2104447345 magId "2104447345" @default.
• W2104447345 workType "article" @default.