The phrase “substantially centered” does not render a patent claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, according to the court in the ongoing Apple-Samsung patent litigation. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK (Jan 29, 2013, N.D. Cal.). At issue was claim 50 of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,163 (reproduced in full at the end of […]
Archive | Section 112
Patent Claims Indefinite: No Structure Supports Recited Software Means
The Federal Circuit has held patent claims indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 where the claims recited “means for processing,” but the patent specification failed to disclose any structure that performed the recited means. Eplus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Nos. 2011-1396, -1456, -1554 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2012). This case continues a line of Section […]
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. […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]