Skip to content
Hansen IP Law
  • Home
  • About
    • Practice Areas
    • About the Firm
    • About the Attorneys
    • About the Paralegals
  • Articles
  • News
  • Patents
  • Blog
  • Contact

Tag: Indefiniteness

Claim Construction, Patent Invalidity, Patent Litigation

District Court Claim Construction Factual Findings Reviewable for “Clear Error”

January 26, 2015stevehansenclaim construction, extrinsic evidence, Indefiniteness, Patent litigation

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
Read More

Patent Invalidity, Patent Litigation

Procedural Mechanisms for Invalidating Patent Claims Due to Indefiniteness

September 16, 2014September 16, 2014stevehansenIndefiniteness, patent invalidity, Patent litigation

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
Read More

Patent Invalidity

Indefiniteness – Patent Claims Must “Inform Those Skilled in the Art With Reasonable Certainty” About the Scope of the Invention

June 24, 2014stevehansenIndefiniteness

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,
Read More

Invalidity, Patent Preparation and Prosecution

Avoiding Indefiniteness Traps – Specifying Measurement Standards and Providing Examples

November 5, 2012November 16, 2012stevehansenIndefiniteness

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
Read More

Categories

Archives

Tags

AIA (4) America Invents Act (4) America Invents Act (AIA) (2) Business Methods (2) claim construction (7) copyright (2) cosmetics (1) declaratory judgment (3) design patents (3) direct Infringement (2) discovery (4) divided infringement (2) enablement (3) expedited examination (2) foreign patents (2) green technology (1) hair care (1) Indefiniteness (4) Inducement of Infringement (4) inequitable conduct (2) interrogatories (2) inventorship (2) licensing (1) non-obviousness (2) non-practicing entities (2) NPEs (2) obviousness (2) patent (3) patentability (4) patent invalidity (4) patent lawyer (1) Patent litigation (13) Patent Ownership (2) patent portfolio development (5) patent prosecution (7) patents (7) patent search (3) provisional patent application (2) reexamination (2) right to use (2) software (2) Statutory Subject Matter (12) trade dress (1) willful infringement (3) written description (3)

Recent Posts

  • Defending the Patent Case – Make Sure to Serve This Interrogatory
    by stevehansen
    September 16, 2020
  • Can I Patent a New Way of Using an Existing Product?
    by stevehansen
    September 16, 2020

Tag Cloud

Claim Construction (13) Infringement (12) Invalidity (26) Patentability (15) Patent Invalidity (11) Patent Litigation (39) Patent Preparation and Prosecution (34) Patents (40) Portfolio Development and Innovation (33) Reexamination and Post Grant Review (6) Uncategorized (5)

Contact Info

Our Location:

PO Box 300069,
Waterford, MI 48330


Contact Info:

Phone: (248) 504-4849
Fax: (248) 504-4213
srh@hanseniplaw.com

Contact Form

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2022 Hansen IP Law. All Rights Reserved.

Lawyer Zone by Acme Themes

Request a Quote