Tag Archives: Indefiniteness

Supreme Court Adopts Reasonable Certainty Test For Definiteness

On June 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., rejecting the Federal Circuit’s “insolubly ambiguous” test for patent claim indefiniteness under 35 USC § 112, and instead adopting a “reasonable certainty test.” The Court vacated the Federal Circuit decision rendered under the “insolubly ambiguous” test, and remanded for … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Keeps Burden Of Patent Clarity On Applicants On Issues Of Patent Indefiniteness

In In re Packard, the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision upholding the rejection of Packard’s claims for indefiniteness. The per curiam decision approaches the issue from the perspective of the USPTO’s examination function, while steering clear of the issues raised in the Nautilus v. Biosig case pending before … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Finds "Molecular Weight" To Be Insolubly Ambiguous

Please welcome Daniel Shelton, an associate in the Chemical, Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Practice of Foley & Lardner LLP, as a new author for PharmaPatentsBlog. In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Federal Circuit invalidated a number of claims directed to a polymer defined by its “molecular weight” because the term was ambiguous, and … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Holds That Patent Indefiniteness Requires Insoluble Ambiguousness

In Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding that the claims at issue were invalid as indefinite, because the claims were not “insolubly ambiguous.” This case underscores the difficulty of challenging a patent under 35 USC § 112, second paragraph.… Continue reading this entry

USPTO Releases Examination Guidelines On "Definiteness"

On February 9, 2011, the USPTO issued “Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. § 112” and “Supplemental Information for Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations.” The Guidelines have immediate effect, but the USPTO will consider written comments received by April 11, 2011. 35 USC § 112, Second Paragraph The Guidelines relate primarily to the “definiteness” … Continue reading this entry