Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc.

Use of Functional Claiming Insufficient Basis for Invoking § 112, ¶ 6

Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc., __ F.3d __, 2018 WL 2450496 (Fed. Cir. June 1, 2018) (Reyna, Taranto, HUGHES) (N.D. Cal.: Tigar) (3 of 5 stars)

Fed Cir vacates judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness. The district court erred in construing two terms not using the term “means” as “means-plus-function” limitations. Per Williamson, such terms are presumptively not means-plus-function limitations, and as Apple presented no evidentiary support for its argument in rebuttal. It was inappropriate for the district court to treat terms like “program” and “user interface code” as nonce words, and the opinion reasons that they meant “specific references to conventional . . . programs or code, existing in prior art at the time of the invention.” Op. at 8. “The mere fact that the disputed limitations incorporate functional language does not automatically convert the words into means for performing such functions.” Id. at 8. The opinion also notes that the district court had made no finding that “code” or “program” were used in common parlance as a substitute for “means.”

KEYWORDS: INDEFINITENESS; MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION (NO)