Source: https://www.straffordpub.com/products/means-plus-function-patent-claims-treatment-in-prosecution-litigation-and-post-grant-proceedings-2018-06-26
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 21:35:19+00:00

Document:
This CLE webinar will provide patent counsel with a review of the impact of the Williamson decision on means-plus-function and/or functional claims, and the benefits and risks of using means-plus-function and/or functional claims given district court litigation, actual patent claims issued by the USPTO, and PTAB post-grant proceedings. The panel will offer their experiences and best practices for overcoming the challenges of means-plus-function claims and leveraging §112(f) and functional claims for maximum patent protection.
Section 112(f) provides a statutory tool allowing the patent drafter to write claims reciting a function and refer to the specification for details of the structures, materials, and acts associated with that claimed function. While having a claim construed as a means-plus-function claim may mean a narrower construction (since the patent owner is limited to the structure disclosed in the specification “and equivalents thereof”), the claim format may be useful when the subject matter claimed is best described functionally.
Nearly every technological field uses means-plus-function claiming. Practitioners in all technologies should consider means-plus-function claims with their built-in literal equivalents as a claiming alternative.
Counsel should weigh the pros and cons of such claims as they are limited to the subject matter described in the specification as being linked to the materials, structures and uses for accomplishing the function recited in the claims and statutory, i.e., literal, equivalents thereof. Omitting the term “means” apparently no longer provides a “strong” presumption that §112(f) is not applicable, according to the en banc portion of Williamson v. Citrix Online L.L.C. (Fed. Cir. 2015). And the MPEP expressly condones the use of “nonce words,” such as “components for,” as place holders in lieu of “means for”.
There is also a danger that failure to identify the structure, materials, or acts corresponding to the claimed function under a §112(f) scenario may result in an invalidated indefinite claim under §112(b).
Listen as our authoritative panel examines how both means-plus-function and “functional” claims are used in different fields. The panel will discuss the benefits and risks involved with using means-plus-function and functional claims given litigation in the district courts, IPRs before the PTAB, and patents issued in a USPTO ex parte prosecution. The panel will offer best practices for leveraging §112(f) and functional claims for maximum patent protection.
When does §112(f) apply even though no “means” language is present?
How are means-plus-function claims being used since the Williamson decision?
What are the benefits and limitations of using means-plus-function patent claims?
What practices can counsel employ to leverage §112(f) to increase the likelihood of surviving IPRs, PGRs and district court litigation?
Mr. Gutowski focuses on client counseling, patent procurement, and patent enforcement. He advises clients on patent matters relating to infringement, validity, due diligence, and licensing. He also focuses his practice on strategic patent portfolio growth, management, and utilization. He has prepared and prosecuted patent applications to patent issuance and has significant experience in securing patent protection outside the U.S. He has developed vast experience in complex USPTO proceedings such as interferences, appeals, reissues, and reexaminations.
Mr. Rash practices all aspects of patent-related work, including litigation, post-grant proceedings, appeals, and client counseling. His broad experience spans from pre-litigation investigation through trial and appeal, including taking and defending depositions; preparing and arguing discovery, claim construction, and pre-trial motions; presenting and defending witnesses at trial; authoring summary judgment and post-trial motions and appellate briefs; managing fact and expert discovery; and participating in settlement negotiations. He concentrates in the areas of electronics, computer hardware and software, Internet and network communications, semiconductors, and wireless technologies.

References: §112
 §112
 v. 
 §112
 §112
 §112
 §112
 §112