11 Cited authorities

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
572 U.S. 898 (2014) Cited 1,345 times 91 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims are not indefinite if, "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [they] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"
Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.
755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 447 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that claim terms should be given plain and ordinary meaning unless patentee acts as own lexicographer or disavows claim scope in specification or prosecution history
Halliburton Energy v. M-I LLC
514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 445 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim is "indefinite if a [claim] term does not have proper antecedent basis"
Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc.
520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 212 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, while there is a presumption that a claim term will be construed consistently when used throughout the claims, there is no requirement that a claim term be construed uniformly, particularly if it would lead to a “nonsensical reading”
Bancorp Serv., L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co.
359 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 187 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim will not be held invalid if the "meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree"
In re Schreiber
128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 148 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency
Funai Electric v. Daewoo Elec. Corp.
616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 95 times
Finding "We believe that your products infringe one or more claims of the aforementioned patents . . ." to constitute actual notice
Halliburton Co. v. Walker
329 U.S. 1 (1946) Cited 165 times 4 Legal Analyses
In Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1, 71 USPQ 175 (1946), the Supreme Court held invalid a claim that was drafted in means-plus-function fashion.
Invensys Sys., Inc. v. Emerson Elec. Co.
63 F. Supp. 3d 663 (E.D. Tex. 2014) Cited 5 times
Finding the term "system disturbance" not indefinite where the patent provided several examples of "system disturbance"
Application of Swinehart
439 F.2d 210 (C.C.P.A. 1971) Cited 42 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the term "transparent" was definite because the disclosure, which showed that a substantial amount of infrared radiation was always transmitted even though the precise degree of transparency varied depending on certain factors, was sufficiently clear
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,278 times 1023 Legal Analyses
Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc. et al

11 Cited authorities

Holding that claims are not indefinite if, "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [they] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"

Holding that claim terms should be given plain and ordinary meaning unless patentee acts as own lexicographer or disavows claim scope in specification or prosecution history

Holding that a claim is "indefinite if a [claim] term does not have proper antecedent basis"

Holding that, while there is a presumption that a claim term will be construed consistently when used throughout the claims, there is no requirement that a claim term be construed uniformly, particularly if it would lead to a “nonsensical reading”

Holding that a claim will not be held invalid if the "meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree"

Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency

Finding "We believe that your products infringe one or more claims of the aforementioned patents . . ." to constitute actual notice

In Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1, 71 USPQ 175 (1946), the Supreme Court held invalid a claim that was drafted in means-plus-function fashion.

Finding the term "system disturbance" not indefinite where the patent provided several examples of "system disturbance"

Holding that the term "transparent" was definite because the disclosure, which showed that a substantial amount of infrared radiation was always transmitted even though the precise degree of transparency varied depending on certain factors, was sufficiently clear

Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it