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

Christine M. Akagi
Law Clerk
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4478
Email
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

FCBA Bench & Bar Conference 2026

June 17-20, 2026

Boca Raton

Charitable

TopGolf for the Troops 2026

June 11, 2026

Ashburn

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Reinforces Injury-in-Fact Requirement in Appeals from Post-Grant Proceedings

June 10, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – June 2026

June 8, 2026

European IP Blog

UPC Central Division Revokes Patent Covering Covid-19 Treatment Remdesivir

8 June 2026

Articles

California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data

June 4, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 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