April 6, 2022
Authored and Edited by Angeline L. Premraj; Sydney R. Kestle; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., No. 21-1725 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2022), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s determination that certain claim limitations were in means-plus-function format, and its resulting determination that the claims were indefinite because the specification failed to disclose sufficient corresponding structure.
Dyfan asserted two patents against Target describing systems for delivering messages to users based on their locations. The asserted claims included several “code”/”application” terms and “system” terms. The district court held the “code”/”application” terms were means-plus-function terms and assigned a “special purpose computer function” as their corresponding structure. The court nevertheless held that the claims were indefinite because the specification failed to recite an algorithm for that “special purpose computer.” The court also found the “system” terms were means-plus-function terms because they recited purely functional language, and it was “unclear which of the recited components perform[ed] the specified function.” The court held the relevant claims were also indefinite for lack of corresponding structure in the specification.
The Federal Circuit reversed and held neither the “code”/”application” terms nor the “system” terms were means-plus-function terms. For the “code”/”application” terms, the Federal Circuit found the district court erred by ignoring unrebutted expert testimony showing that the skilled artisan would have understood these terms to be structural. In particular, the expert opined that “application” is commonly understood to mean a “computer program intended to provide some service to a user,” and developers could have selected off-the-shelf software to perform specific services/functions. The expert also opined that “code,” when coupled with language describing its operation, connotes structure, i.e., “a bunch of software instructions.” For the “system” terms, the Federal Circuit acknowledged, “in a vacuum, the term ‘system’ may well be a nonce term.” But in this case, the claim language defined the “system” to include specific structure (including a building having a first broadcast short-range communications unit, a second broadcast short-range communications unit, code executed by at least one mobile device, at least one server), bringing it beyond the purview of means-plus-function claiming.
Copyright © 2022 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Hybrid Conference
2024 California Intellectual Property Law Institute
October 21-22,2024
San Francisco
Conference
2024 Licensing Executives Society USA – Canada Annual Meeting
October 20-23, 2024
New Orleans
Conference
4th Annual Passport to Proficiency on the Essentials of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA
October 8-24, 2024
Virtual
Conference
2024 Corporate Counsel Women of Color: Career Strategies Conference
October 2-5, 2024
Las Vegas
Hybrid Conference
2024 New York Intellectual Property Law Institute
September 30 - October 1, 2024
New York
Seminar
Intellectual Property in the Age of AI: What Do You Own and How Do You Balance Risks?
September 25, 2024
Boston
Due to international data regulations, we’ve 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.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.