April 14, 2020
Authored and Edited by Safiya Aguilar; Samhitha Muralidhar Medatia; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Nevro Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s determination that various claims were invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
At the district court, defendant argued that certain claims were invalid under § 112 because infringement could only be determined after using the alleged infringing device or method. Defendant further argued that the specification failed to explain how to achieve the claimed therapeutic result with reasonable certainty and that the claims were susceptible to different interpretations.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit determined that the district court failed to apply the correct test for indefiniteness and held that the appealed claims were not indefinite under § 112. Applying Nautilus, the Court found that the specification was sufficient to inform a skilled artisan, with reasonable certainty, as to the scope of each of the contested claim terms. Defendant’s argument that a potential infringer might be unable to determine whether a particular device or act constituted infringement until after using the device or performing the act, was irrelevant to the indefiniteness analysis. As to Defendant’s argument that certain claim terms were indefinite because they were susceptible to different constructions, the Court affirmed that a claim does not fail for indefiniteness solely because it is susceptible to different constructions.
Copyright © 2020 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.
Conference
4th Annual Passport to Proficiency on the Essentials of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA
October 8-24, 2024
Virtual
Seminar
Intellectual Property in the Age of AI: What Do You Own and How Do You Balance Risks?
September 25, 2024
Boston
Webinar
September 10, 2024
Webinar
Virtual Seminar
U.S. Patent Application & Litigation Practice Development and Response
September 6, 2024
Virtual
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.