Opinion ID: 207675
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Indefiniteness of the '684 Patent

Text: The district court granted summary judgment holding claim 17 of the '684 patent indefinite. See '684 Indefiniteness and '556 Noninfringement and Laches Opinion, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 29580, at -35. The court found the claim to be indefinite based on its recitation of the formula (C,K,N,M)4(A,F,Mn,P,T,S)3(cl,S), which the specification refers to as crystal X, and the formula C9S3S3Ca(f cl)2. Id. The court reasoned that the formula for crystal X is that of a solid solution, a crystalline compound in which various elements can substitute for one another at a particular site on the crystalline structure. Id. at . Thus, for example, the compound (Mg, Fe)2, (Mg = magnesium and Fe = iron) can have four different combinations because it can consist of Mg on both sites, Fe on both sites, Mg on the first site and Fe on the second, or Fe on the first site and Mg on the second. Id. According to the court-appointed expert, the formula for crystal X, with all of its possible permutations, yielded over 5000 possible different compounds. Id. at -27. The court declined to limit crystal X to a single compound and held that it was too broad and thus indefinite. [7] Id. at -30. The court also found the asserted claim indefinite because it lacked a comma between f and cl, indicating that both fluorine and chlorine needed to be present in the claimed compound C9S3S3Ca(f cl)2. Id. at -35. The court declined to correct the error, holding that it was not apparent on the face of the patent, even though it might be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, even though the neutral expert recognized that there should be a comma between f and cl, the court found that inconsistencies in the specification and the claims made the proper formulation debatable. Id. at -35. Ultimax argues that the district court erred in finding the '684 patent indefinite as a matter of law. According to Ultimax, there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the proper interpretations of both the formula for crystal X and the formulation (f cl), with even CTS's witness, its director of research, agreeing with Ultimax's proposed interpretations. Ultimax asserts that the '684 patent explains that the crystal X formula is a solid solution with substitutions, rather than allowing for 5000 distinct compounds or being overly broad. And, according to Ultimax, the specification also shows that (f, cl) is equivalent to the claimed (f cl), as the experts understood. CTS responds that the formula for crystal X encompasses over 5000 different, undisclosed compositions, such that one skilled in the art cannot determine the bounds of the claims. CTS also argues that the formula containing the notation (f cl) is insolubly ambiguous because of the error that results from the lack of a comma. Further, according to CTS, even if expert opinions conflict, the court correctly determined as a matter of law that an ordinarily skilled reader could not determine the bounds of the claims. We agree with Ultimax that the district court erred in granting summary judgment that claim 17 of the '684 patent is indefinite, as crystal X, even if construed to be as broad as the district court construed it to be, does not render the claim insolubly ambiguous, and the notation (f cl) must be viewed through the lens of one of ordinary skill in the art. We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, reapplying the standard applicable at the district court. Young v. Lumenis, Inc., 492 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed.Cir.2007). A determination that a patent claim is invalid for failing to meet the definiteness requirement in 35 U.S.C. § 112, [paragraph] 2 is a legal question [also] reviewed de novo.  Id. at 1344. A patent is presumed to be valid, so CTS further faces an evidentiary burden of clear and convincing evidence to show facts supporting a conclusion of invalidity. Id. at 1345. Summary judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention, which is known as the definiteness requirement. Id. Claims are considered indefinite when they are not amenable to construction or are insolubly ambiguous. Thus, the definiteness of claim terms depends on whether those terms can be given any reasonable meaning. Indefiniteness requires a determination whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed. Young, 492 F.3d at 1346 (internal citations and quotations marks omitted). The purpose of the definiteness requirement is to ensure that the claims, as interpreted in view of the written description, adequately perform their function of notifying the public of the scope of the patentee's right to exclude. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 341 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed.Cir. 2003) (quotation marks omitted). Regarding crystal X, as the district court pointed out, aided by Dr. Seible's expertise, [s]olid solutions are crystalline compounds where various elements can substitute for one another at a particular site on the crystalline structure. '684 Indefiniteness and '556 Noninfringement and Laches Opinion, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 29580, at . Thus, in the crystal X compound, (C,K,N,M)4(A,F,Mn,P,T,S)3(cl,S), C can be substituted by K, N, and M in such a way that [arguably] over 5000 possible combinations can come out of this formula. Id. at -27. However, a claim to a formula containing over 5000 possible combinations is not necessarily ambiguous if it sufficiently notifies the public of the scope of the claims. If a member of the public had made, for example, a compound of pure C4A3cl or one of C4A3cl with some K molecules substituted for some of the C molecules (using the '684 patent's notation), he would know that the compound fit within the set of compounds described by the claims. If, on the other hand, he made a compound with fluorine substituted for chlorine, written in the notation of the '684 patent as C4A3f, he would know that he did not infringe the literal scope of the claims. Merely claiming broadly does not render a claim insolubly ambiguous, nor does it prevent the public from understanding the scope of the patent. See In re Gardner, 57 C.C.P.A. 1207, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (1970) (Breadth is not indefiniteness.). Moreover, while the formula for crystal X is obviously complex, it is not necessarily indefinite. Thus, the presence of crystal X in the asserted claims does not render the claims indefinite. Ultimax has argued, to overcome the court's finding of indefiniteness, that a person of ordinary skill would read crystal X narrowly, based on the prosecution history, to be essentially limited to C4A3S. However, because the court's broader interpretation of crystal X is not indefinite as a matter of law, nor is the formula for crystal X indefinite under Ultimax's argued interpretation, we need not decide whether the term should in fact be construed more narrowly. As for the formula including the notation (f cl), the district court erred in declining to view the notation in light of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill. As the district court recognized, there was a possible drafting error in the '684 patent, namely, that there should be a comma between the symbols for fluorine and chlorine. '684 Indefiniteness and '556 Noninfringement and Laches Opinion, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 29580, at . The court recognized that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that there should be a comma between f and cl, as Dr. Seible did, but it held that it could not correct a typographical error if it was only clear based on the understanding of one of ordinary skill; it needed to be clear on the face of the patent. Id. at -35. According to the court, without a comma, both fluorine and chlorine must be present in the compound. A comma changes the possible makeup of the formula allowing for the presence of either fluoride or chloride or both, but not requiring the presence of both molecules. Id. at . We have held that [a] district court can correct a patent only if (1) the correction is not subject to reasonable debate based on consideration of the claim language and the specification and (2) the prosecution history does not suggest a different interpretation of the claims. Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed.Cir.2003). Those determinations must be made from the point of view of one skilled in the art. Claim definiteness is analyzed not in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. Energizer Holdings v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2006) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, although courts cannot rewrite claims to correct material errors, id., if the correction is not subject to reasonable debate to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, through claim language and the specification, and the prosecution history does not suggest a different interpretation, then a court can correct an obvious typographical error. In that regard, we note that the court has determined that the claimed formula C9S3S3Ca(f cl)2 corresponds to no known mineral, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the formula should contain a comma. We therefore reverse the district court's summary judgment determinations that the formula for crystal X and the compound including the notation (f cl) are indefinite. We also direct the court to enter summary judgment that claim 17 is not indefinite based on either formula.