直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms Indefiniteness of the Term “About”

June 10, 2026

Authored and Edited by Christine M. Akagi; Ryan V. McDonnell; Sonja W. Sahlsten

In Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc., v. Safe Foods Corp., No. 2024-2160 (Fed. Cir. May 4, 2026), the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s determination that all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,912,321 were invalid as indefinite.

Enviro Tech sued Safe Foods for infringement of the ’321 patent, which relates to methods of treating poultry during processing to increase weight. The asserted claims recite “a pH of about 7.6 to 10,” and Safe Foods argued that the term “about” is indefinite. The district court agreed, determining that the intrinsic evidence failed to inform a skilled artisan as to the scope of “about” with reasonable certainty.

The Federal Circuit affirmed. First, the Court determined that the claims themselves provided no guidance as to the degree of deviation encompassed by “about.” Second, the Court found that the specification provided conflicting guidance on acceptable pH variance that “about” could encompass because it applied differing deviations in pH ranges across experiments. Third, the Court concluded that statements made during prosecution did not clarify the scope of “about” because Enviro Tech neither defined the term nor applied it consistently, at times arguing it was material to some claims and immaterial to others. The Court also noted that amendments narrowing the claimed pH range to overcome prior art heightened the need for clarity in defining the scope of “about,” reinforcing its conclusion that the claim term is indefinite.

Tags

indefiniteness (35 USC § 112)

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

Patent Litigation and Trials

Related Industries

Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials

Chemical

Consumer Goods and Services

Food and Beverage

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Ryan V. McDonnell
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4167
Email
Sonja W. Sahlsten
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4329
Email

Copyright © 2026 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.

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 4, 2026

Paris

Articles

This Article Was Written Entirely by AI — Welcome to Synthetic Patent Litigation

July/August 2026

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Articles

When the Classroom Goes Dark: Lessons from the Canvas Breach for Corporate Cyber Preparedness

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 2026

Webinar

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

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

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP