Federal Circuit issues clarifying opinion on Definiteness vs Indefiniteness test

The Federal Circuit recently clarified its interpretation of a major Supreme Court case involving the standard of definiteness and when a patent may be determined indefinite. Previously the Federal Circuit has held that a claim is indefinite “only when it is ‘not amenable to construction’ or ‘insolubly ambiguous.’”  In Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.  The Supreme Court, motivated by a fear that indefinite patents and language run afoul and create “an innovation-discouraging zone of uncertainty,” explicitly rejected that terminology, or specific wording, as the de-facto test of “definiteness.” The Supreme Court mandated that future tests of definiteness be performed by the “reasonable certainty test.” The Federal Circuit, on remand, issued a new opinion in which they held the same outcome, that “spaced relationship” parameters were definite to one skilled in the art when viewed in light of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. Interestingly the Federal Circuit used a nautical metaphor that “we will now steer by the bright star of ‘reasonable certainty,’ rather than the unreliable compass of ‘insoluble ambiguity” indicating that although The Supreme Court mandated a more precise standard the target for definiteness did not change.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply