The Business of Patents
The claims of a U.S. Patent define the scope of the patent holder’s right to exclude. In its 1996 Markman decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that disputes over the meaning of claim terms are an issue of law to be decided by a judge, not by a jury. A substantial percentage of patent verdicts are appealed […]
Read more →One of the defenses available to an accused infringer is that the asserted patent claims are invalid for indefiniteness. The Patent Statute requires that the claims of a patent “particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) (formerly 35 U.S.C. § 112, […]
Read more →In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s holding that claims directed to a heart rate monitor were sufficiently definite to avoid invalidation and remanded the case to the Federal Circuit. For a copy of the opinion, click here. The patent claims at issue concerned a heart monitor that includes a […]
Read more →U.S. Patent Law requires that patent claims be sufficiently definite such that one of ordinary skill in the art could ascertain their metes and bounds. Accused infringers may seek to invalidate claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 if the claims are not definite. In considering such issues, the courts typically look at whether […]
Read more →