LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
CAFC Sends Conflicting Messages to PTAB on Indefiniteness Standard

Pre-Issuance vs. Post Issuance…PTAB Does Both Yesterday, the CAFC explored the proper standard for a USPTO indefiniteness analysis in In re Packard ( here ) [ an enhanced version of this opinion is available to lexis.com subscribers ]. Given that the Supreme Court has taken up the other side...

Supreme Court Defines Standard For Holding a Patent Indefinite

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey's) Vacating an April 2013 ruling by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court held June 2 that “a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform...

Nautilus Decision to Drive PGR and CBM Filings

Decision Indirectly Highlights Value of Post-Grant Challenges Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided that the Federal Circuit’s “insolubly ambiguous” framework for analyzing indefiniteness was, well…. indefinite. In Nautilus Inc. v Biosig Instruments, Inc., the court found that...

Fitch Even IP Alert: Supreme Court Addresses Definiteness Requirement for Patent Claims

The U.S. Patent Act requires that a patent specification “conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctively claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.” In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. , the U.S. Supreme Court addressed...