资讯

The Court emphasized two points. First, a proper indefiniteness analysis is directed to the claims as a whole and not to isolated terms therein.
The indefiniteness standard has, until recently, been very high—only an “insolubly ambiguous claim” was considered indefinite (see, e.g., Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. International Trade, 341 ...
The court noted its “decision here is limited to IPXL -type indefiniteness and does not affect claims that are indefinite for other reasons,” and “does not affect the disposition of cases in ...
On January 6, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published a Memorandum that changed the indefiniteness analysis under 35 U.S.C. §112 that the Patent Trial and ...
Terms of degree, while posing a risk of indefiniteness, are not inherently indefinite: “Claim language employing terms of degree has long been found definite where it provided enough certainty ...
The Federal Circuit reversed the PTO’s indefiniteness finding ruling that the claim term “substantially filled” was not indefinite under either the Nautilus or Packard standard.
Patent Indefiniteness After 'Nautilus' Ognian V. Shentov of Jones Day provides background and reports on some recent developments to help navigate the changing landscape in the law on indefiniteness.
Last week, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued binding indefiniteness guidance in a memorandum from Director Andrei Iancu that addresses confusion about which ...
Over a year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments, 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014), replacing the Federal Circuit's “insolubly ambiguous” standard with a “reasonable ...
More information: Yu Guo et al, Experimental Demonstration of Input-Output Indefiniteness in a Single Quantum Device, Physical Review Letters (2024). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.160201 ...