Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC
+1 (702) 462-5973
ask@bayramoglu-legal.com
Twitter
  • HOME
  • ABOUT US
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • PATENT
    • TRADEMARK
    • COPYRIGHT
    • LITIGATION
    • BUSINESS LAW
  • TEAM
  • NEWS
  • CAREERS
  • CONTACT

Blog

Indefiniteness Analysis – BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS, INC. v. NAUTILUS, INC.

June 23, 2016adminNewsNo Comments

Biosig Instruments was granted a patent for a heart rate monitor that reduces noise during the detection of heart rate. Upon being sued for patent infringement, Nautilius filed a motion for summary judgment to have the patent invalidated for indefiniteness.

The district court found that the claimed invention “is not a description of any invention but a desired outcome, therefore, violates the requirement of specificity in Section 112”. The district court also found that, “a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, after reading this patent would not have known how to design the claimed invention”. Biosig appealed the district court’s decision granting Nautilus’s motion.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed and noted that when “a claim limitation is defined in functional terms, determining whether the limitation is sufficiently definite depends on the disclosure in the specification and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” The Federal Circuit also cited the precedent that “a claim is indefinite only when it is ‘not amenable to construction’ or ‘insolubly ambiguous.’”

The Federal Circuit held that under the rule of U.S.C.§ 112, a patent is invalid for indefiniteness when those of ordinary skill in the art, having read the patent specifications and see into the prosecution history, would not be able to identify the scope of protection.

Using this standard, Federal Circuit determined that the patent survived indefiniteness review. Supreme Court granted certiorari, rejecting this standard and vacated and remanded the case.

admin
Previous Post Nexus Analysis – SOUTH ALABAMA MEDICAL SCIENCE V GNOSIS S.P.A. Next Post Subject-Matter Analysis – ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., et al. v. SEQUENOM, INC., et al.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Archives

  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • October 2020
  • July 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • May 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • December 2017
  • June 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • April 2016
  • December 2014
  • September 2014
  • July 2014

Every Person Who Walks Through Our Door Is
Important To Us

Request Consultatıon
Our Expertises

º Patent
º Trademark
º Copyright
º Litigation Srv.
º Business Law

USA

1540 W.Warm Springs Road
Suite: 100 Henderson,
Nevada 89104 USA
Phone: +1 (702) 462 5973
ask@bayramoglu-legal.com

605 North Michigan Avenue
4th Floor – #5456
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: +1 (702) 462 5973
ask@bayramoglu-legal.com

EUROPE

Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Bulvarı,
5387.Cadde Beytepe, 06800,
Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey

CHINA

Room C503 5/F, SCE Building No:212, Gaoqi Nanwu Road, Huli District, Xiamen City, Fujian Province, China

HOME PAGE

SITE MAP

CONTACT

© 2021 | bayramoglu-legal.com | Designed by ANL Creative