Archive | Section 112

Software Means-Plus-Function Claims Held Indefinite

Software patent claims were held indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 where the patent specification failed to provide any algorithm for performing the recited function.  Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 10-5378 (D. N.J., Sept. 5, 2012).  The claims recited “computational means” and thus were means-plus-function claims within the ambit of 35 U.S.C. […]

Continue Reading

Functional Language Renders Claims Indefinite

Patent claims broadly reciting functions of a “controller” are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, according to the court in Markem-Imaje Corp. v. Zipher, Ltd., Civil No. 07-cv-00006-PB (D. N.H. Aug. 9, 2012).  The court therefore granted accused infringer Markem’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity. A representative patent claim recited a tape […]

Continue Reading

Indefiniteness of Software Patent Claims; Certificates of Correction

Whether means-plus-function claims were indefinite, and the effect of a certificate of correction on correcting a patent’s priority date, were two of the interesting issues discussed by the court in Carotek, Inc. v. Event Capturing Systems, Inc., Nos. 07 Civ. 11163 (NRB), 08 Civ. 5706 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y. Nune 28, 2012).  The court held that one […]

Continue Reading

Software Patent Means Claims Held Indefinite

A software patent means-plus-function claim is indefinite where the specification fails to disclose an algorithm that performs the recited function.  The Federal Circuit has now held that where a means limitation is associated with multiple functions, a claim is indefinite where the patent specification discloses only one of the functions.  Noah Systems, Inc v. Intuit, […]

Continue Reading

Mixing a System and Method Steps in a Single Patent Claim

A recent Eastern District of Texas opinion holds that a patent claim can recite a system that performs method steps without being indefinite under 35 U.S.C.  § 112, ¶ 2.  Oasis Research v. AT&T Corp, 2012 U.S. No. 4:10-CV-00435 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2012).  Magistrate Judge Mazzant acknowledged “various cases holding that mixed apparatus and […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes