Definitely not: Patent rejected for indefiniteness

Description

Abstract: To satisfy the definiteness standard, a patent must provide objective boundaries that convey the invention’s scope to those skilled in the field with reasonable certainty. But how do courts make such a determination? This article discusses an infringement case in which a district court found the patents invalid because terms used in the patent claims’ language — “in an unobtrusive manner” and “does not distract” — were indefinite. The appeals court noted that, while terms of degree aren’t inherently indefinite, the ones used in this case were indeed too subjective. A sidebar explains how the simple use of the term “e.g.,” instead of “i.e.,” played a role in the outcome. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., Nos. 2013-1282, -1283, -1284, -1285, Sept. 10, 2014 (Fed. Cir.) Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., No. 13-369, June 2, 2014 (Supreme Court)