Opinion ID: 2801691
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Indefiniteness of Claim 50 of the ’163 Patent

Text: Claim 50 of the ’163 patent relates to a user interface feature in which a user’s double tapping on a portion of an electronic document causes the portion to be enlarged and “substantially centered” on the display. ’163 patent, claim 50. Samsung contends that claim 50 is indefinite because the ’163 patent provides “no objective standard to measure the scope of the term ‘substantially centered.’” Appellants’ Br. 66. Samsung’s complaint about a lack of an “objective standard [of] measure” is seeking a level of precision that exceeds the definiteness required of valid patents. “The definiteness requirement . . . mandates clarity, while recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). Given this recognition, “a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specifiAPPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 29 cation delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Id. at 2124. Samsung, however, points to no evidence showing that skilled artisans would find the element “substantially centered” as lacking reasonable certainty in its scope. In contrast, Apple’s expert explained that the “padding” allowed in the ’163 patent provides skilled artisans with enough information to understand what “substantially centered” means in the patent. J.A. 41907-09. Apple’s expert cites a discussion in the specification of an embodiment referring to the figure reproduced below where the enlarged portion of the document is essentially centered except for “a predefined amount of padding along the sides of the display.” See ’163 patent col. 17 ll. 26-30. Apple thus presented evidence to show that skilled artisans would interpret “substantially centered” in the ’163 patent to mean essentially centered except for a marginal spacing to accommodate ancillary graphical user interface elements. We are not persuaded by Samsung’s attempt to discredit this expert testimony. We therefore agree with the district court that Samsung failed to carry its burden 30 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. in challenging the validity of claim 50 of the ’163 patent for indefiniteness.