Source: http://cafc.whda.com/tag/means-plus-function-2/
Timestamp: 2018-01-17 09:02:30
Document Index: 704709936

Matched Legal Cases: ['§112', '§112', '§112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§112', '§112']

means-plus-function : CAFC Alert
In a post-Williamson decision, “compliance mechanism” is a means-plus-function element that does not comply with the requirements under §112.
Cindy Chen | January 20, 2016
Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corp.
Before O’Malley, Plager, and Taranto. Opinion by O’Malley.
In Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, the Federal Circuit relaxed the presumption against interpreting a claim element as a means-plus-function element in the absence of the word “means”. In this first decision applying the Williamson standard, the Federal Circuit interpreted the claim term “compliance mechanism” as a means-plus-function element within the scope of §112, 6th paragraph.
Tags: claim construction > means-plus-function
Divided Claim Construction Leads to Reversal of Jury Verdict Against Alleged Infringer
Cindy Chen | April 17, 2013
Panel: Lourie, Moore, and O’Malley. Opinion by Lourie. Concurrence Opinions by Moore and O’Malley.
The Federal Circuit reversed a $482 million jury verdict against Cordis, a member of the Johnson & Johnson family. The reversal came as a result of the Federal Circuit’s significant narrowing of the district court’s construction of two key claim limitations. One claim term was narrowed because the Federal Circuit found that the patentee’s arguments made during prosecution of the asserted patent, for the purpose of distinguishing over cited prior art, amounted to prosecution disclaimer. Meanwhile, a structure identified in the specification by the patentee as the corresponding structure to a means-plus-function limitation was disregarded as such, because the specification failed to link the identified structure to the recited function with sufficient specificity.
Category: Case Summary, Claim Construction, Claim Issues, Infringement, Means plus function
Tags: Cindy Chen > claim construction > infringement > means-plus-function > prosecution argument > prosecution disclaimer > prosecution history estoppel
Applicant’s failure to request claim construction under §112, 6th paragraph may invoke waiver of such claim construction
Yoshiya Nakamura | January 23, 2013
In re Avid Identification Systems, Inc.
Panel: Lourie, Clevenger and Bryson. Opinion by Lourie. Dissent by Clevenger.
The Examiner rejected claims of a patent at issue, and the PTO board maintained the rejection finding that a means-plus function limitation was found in prior art where its broadest reasonable meaning was given. CAFC affirmed the PTO decision, and denied the Applicants’ request for a claim construction under § 112, 6th paragraph, instead of the broadest reasonable interpretation. CAFC reasoned that the Applicants waived that claim construction by failing to raise the issue during the procedure in the PTO. The dissenting opinion pointed out that the claim construction according to § 112, 6th paragraph is mandatory as the statutory requirement where the claim term clearly invokes the application of § 112, 6th paragraph.
出願人はクレームが自明であるとして拒絶した特許庁審判部の判断を不服として、ＣＡＦＣに控訴した。問題のクレームには、ミーンズプラスファンクション（”means for”の用語を用いた限定 ）を記載がある。そのような記載があると通常、特許法112条第6パラグラフの適用があり、その機能限定は明細書に開示されている構造もしくはそれと均等な構造を記載していると限定解釈される。しかしながら、本件では、特許庁審査官および審判部は、そのミーンズプラスファンクションの限定を、一般的な構造限定のときのように合理的な範囲で最も広い意味（broadest reasonable meaning）の基準を用いて解釈した。この広い解釈に基づいてその機能限定は先行技術に記載されていると特許庁は判断した。この経緯に関してＣＡＦＣは、出願人は特許庁の手続きにおいて112条第6パラグラフの適用を自ら主張しなかったためその機会を放棄したと判断し、出願人の主張を退けた。ＣＡＦＣ裁判官の１人は、112条第6パラグラフの適用は制定法上の要求であり、出願人や審査官が同法に基づく限定解釈を要求しなくても先ずその解釈を採用すべきであるとの反対意見を述べた。
Category: Case Summary, Claim Construction, Claim Issues, Indefiniteness, Japanese, Means plus function, Procedural Issues, Specification Issues, Written Description
Tags: means > means-plus-function > procedural issues > waiver > YoshiyaNakamura
John Kong | November 28, 2012
Category: Case Summary, Claim Issues, Enablement, Indefiniteness, Means plus function, Specification Issues, Written Description
Tags: §112 > §112 sixth paragraph > Aristocrat > claims drafting > indefiniteness > johnkong > means > means-plus-function
CAFC discusses interplay between means-plus-function and claim differentiation
Thomas Brown | November 19, 2012
Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Octane Fitness, LLC.
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. (“ICON”) owner of USP 6,019,710 (the “’710 patent”) sued Octane Fitness (“Octane”) for infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The District Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement of claims 1–5, 7, and 9–10 of the ’710 patent by concluding that the “stroke rail” and “means for connecting” limitations were absent in Octane’s Q45 and Q47 machines. On appeal, the CAFC agreed with the District Court’s claim construction and affirmed the District Court’s holding of non-infringement.
Category: Case Summary, Claim Construction, Claim Issues, Means plus function
Tags: claim differentiation > means > means-plus-function > Tho
Means-Plus-Function: The Achilles’ Heel
Thomas Brown | May 9, 2012
Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc.
Panel: Rader, O’Malley and Reyna. Opinion by Judge O’Malley
This decision illustrates that a patent could become invalidated even after surviving challenges of reexamination, which strengthen the presumption of validity, when a challenger discovers the Achilles’ Heel of a means-plus-function claim element resulting in a summary judgment of invalidity by the CAFC. Noah appeals the granting, by the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (DC), of Intuit’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of USP 5,875,435 (the ‘435 patent) based on indefiniteness for a means-plus-function claim element without the DC hearing evidence of how one of skill in the art would view the specification. The CAFC affirms by finding that the specification discloses no algorithm when the specification discloses an algorithm that only accomplishes one of two identifiable functions performed by the means-plus-function limitation.
Category: Case Summary, Claim Construction, Claim Issues, Indefiniteness, Means plus function, Specification Issues, Written Description
Tags: accounting > algorithm > expert testimony > financial > indefiniteness > invalidity > means-plus-function > software > summary judgment > ThomasBrown
Computer-implemented “control means” requires description of step-by-step algorithm even if not key feature of claimed invention
Nicolas Seckel | April 4, 2012
Ergo Licensing, LLC v. Carefusion 303, Inc.
Panel: Newman, Linn and Moore. Opinion by Moore. Dissent by Newman.
Another reminder that under US patent law, a “means-plus-function” element recited in a patent claim covers only the corresponding structures described in the specification and their equivalents. If insufficient or no corresponding structures are described in the specification, the claim is invalid as indefinite. The rule is strictly applied even if the functional element is only a peripheral aspect of the invention. Here, the patent claims were directed to a multichannel drug infusion system. A “control means” was recited (for controlling the motor that adjusts the drug dosage). The Federal Circuit affirms the invalidity of the claims. The specification disclosed a “control device,” but no “step-by-step process.” Since the recited function could not be performed by a general computer without special programming, disclosure of an algorithm was required to avoid “pure functional claiming.”
Category: Indefiniteness, Means plus function, Specification Issues
Tags: algorithm > computer > indefiniteness > means-plus-function > NicolasSeckel
The Patent Court revisits IPXL doctrine regarding prohibition on hybrid claiming
Rob Raheja | February 29, 2012
HTC Corporation v. IPCom GmbH & Co.
Panel: Bryson, Linn and O’Malley. Opinion by O’Malley.
HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. sued IPCom GmbH & Co., KG seeking a declaration that it did not infringe claims of IPCom patents. IPCom counterclaimed alleging infringement. HTC moved for summary judgment of invalidity on the ground that claims 1 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,879,830 owned by IPCom were indefinite because (1) they claimed both an apparatus and method steps; and (2) the means-plus-function limitation “arrangement for reactivating,” found in the last paragraph of claims 1 and 18, was indefinite because the patent failed to disclose structure corresponding to the claimed function. On summary judgment, the district court agreed with HTC that claims 1 and 18 were indefinite based on the Federal Circuit’s precedent in IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc prohibiting hybrid claiming of apparatus and method steps in the same claim, but rejected HTC’s argument that the claims were indefinite for failing to disclose the structure corresponding to the means-plus-function limitation. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment of invalidity based on hybrid claiming, but did not disturb the district court’s finding regarding the means-plus-function limitation. The Federal Circuit held that the district court misconstrued the asserted claims and that the patent did not describe any improper hybrid claiming of apparatus and method steps in the same claim because the claims, when properly construed, were drawn to only an apparatus and the prohibition on hybrid claiming under IPXL was inapplicable to claims 1 and 18.
Tags: claim construction > hybrid claiming > indefiniteness > means-plus-function > preamble-within-a-preamble > RobertRaheja