indefiniteness

Federal Circuit Holds Patent Claims to Software Functionality Indefinite: Rain Computing, Inc. v . Samsung Electronics Co., LTD

The Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity based on indefiniteness under 35 USC § 112(b) of patent claims “directed to delivering software application packages to a client terminal in a network based on user demands.” Rain C… Read More

Is Inconsistency Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112? TVnGo Ltd. V. LG Electronics, Inc.

Claims of five patents directed to toggling between television and Internet content have been held invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) based on indefiniteness of claim terms directed to content “overlays” on a display screen. TV… Read More

Functional Claim Language Not Indefinite Says Federal Circuit: Nevro Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp.

Four functional patent claim terms were not indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosign Instruments, Inc. (S. Ct. 2014), leading the Federal Circuit to vacate a District Court’s claim constructions and holdin… Read More

112 and the Zone of Uncertainty

In consolidated cases Niazi Licensing Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp. and Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Medical S.C. Inc. the district court found U.S. Patent 6,638,268 (“the ‘268 patent”) to be invalid under 35 U.S.C.… Read More

Indefiniteness Challenges Hinge On Textual Support

Whether a court holds a patent claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C § 112 can depend on textual support in the body of the claim or in the patent specification. In Luminati Networks, Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet, no. 2:18-cv-299 (E.D. Tex. Aug… Read More