• Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Firm
  • Careers
  • Tools
Finnegan
    • AIA Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • IP FDA Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Articles
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
  • Events
  • Webinars
  • Books

Article

The Role of Intrinsic Evidence in Construing Means-Plus-Function After Williamson

March/April 2020

IP Litigator

By Daniel C. Cooley; Alexander E. Harding

Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (or pre- AIA § 112 ¶ 6), claims can be written in a “means-plus-function” format. In a typical case, means-plus-function claims recite a “means for [performing some function]” and cover only those structures in the patent’s specification capable of performing that function. Limitations that do not use the word “means” can still be treated as means-plus-function limitations if they do not “recite sufficiently definite structure.” This can be a problem if the patent drafter did not intend its claim terms to be treated as “means-plus-function” and failed to disclose the necessary structure in the specification. In such cases, a means-plus-function construction can be fatal.

Until 2015, there was a “strong presumption” that claim limitations, which did not expressly recite the word “means” or “step” should not invoke means-plus-function treatment under § 112(f). But in the face of increasingly functional software claiming, an en-banc Federal Circuit in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC removed the heightened evidentiary showing. Under Williamson, “the presumption can be overcome and § 112, ¶ 6 will apply if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’” In the immediate aftermath of Williamson, some practitioners noted the court’s holding may “affect the scope and validity of claims for tens of thousands of patents in a way unintended by the drafters of those claims.”

Now five years later, various cases have relied on Williamson and applied Williamson’s standards to specific fact patterns. In this article, Finnegan attorneys Dan Cooley and Alex Harding explore the nuances of two such cases where the Federal Circuit analyzed the intrinsic record—the claim language, specification, and prosecution history—to reach different conclusions under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).

Read the full article here. 

Tags

means-plus-function claim, Williamson v. Citrix Online

Downloadable Files

  • PUBLISHED - IP Litigator - The Role of Intrinsic Evidence in Con

Related Practices

Patent Litigation

Appeals

Related Professionals

Daniel_Cooley
Daniel C. Cooley
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2778
Email
Alexander E. Harding
Associate
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 408 4324
Email

Reprinted with permission from the IP Litigator, published by Wolters Kluwer. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.

Related Insights

Conference

Best Practices in Intellectual Property 2021

June 14-15, 2021

Tel Aviv

Webinar

Patent Law Institute 2021: Critical Issues & Best Practices

April 29-30, 2021

Webinar

Webinar

Patent Law Institute 2021: Critical Issues & Best Practices

April 1-2, 2021

Webinar

Webinar

Patent Year in Review: Key Decisions, Trends, and Strategies

February 25, 2021

Webinar

Conference

Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation in Europe

February 23-25, 2021

Virtual

Webinar

Building Company Value With Cybersecurity Patents

February 8, 2021

Webinar

Conference

2021 AIPLA Virtual Mid-Winter Institute

February 1-5, 2021

Virtual

Webinar

Comparison of EPO Oppositions and USPTO PTAB Proceedings

January 28, 2021

Webinar

European IP Blog

Subject-Matter Eligibility at the EPO: Life Sciences

January 25, 2021

Due to international data regulations, we’ve recently updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • EEO Statement

© 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP