Blog July 6, 2021
N.D. Ga. Rejects Indefiniteness Argument under Nautilus v. Biosig
- Person title
Was Nautilus much ado about nothing? In the wake of the Supreme Court's June decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., many have speculated as to whether the Court's new formulation of the indefiniteness test would have significant impact. One early data point suggests Nautilus's impact may be limited.
In Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v. Kids II, Inc., Chief Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. recently denied Kids II's motion to reconsider his previous Markman ruling. In the earlier ruling, the court rejected Kids II's indefiniteness challenge, finding the patent claims not "insolubly ambiguous," under the Federal Circuit's then-governing standard.
The disputed patent claims a baby playpen with inner columns and outer columns, where the outer wall of the pen threads between the inner and outer columns. The supposedly indefinite limitation is "a distance between the two second columns [that is] larger than between the two first columns." Kids II argued that a skilled artisan cannot be reasonably certain how to measure that "distance between" because the claim is ambiguous as to which columns to use in measuring that distance. Using the illustration below, Kids II argued that one would not know whether to judge the distance between corners A and B, A and C, or A and D. The specification explains that the claimed distance is that between "opposite" columns. Kids II argued that all of corners B, C, and D are "opposite" from corner A, meaning a skilled artisan could not be reasonably certain about the claim scope.
Chief Judge Thrash was not persuaded, even under Nautilus's "reasonable certainty" standard. Emphasizing both the specification and the surrounding claim language, the court concluded that a skilled artisan would understand "opposite" to mean "diagonal." Thus, the court held that the "distance between" must be measured between columns diagonally across the playpen, and the claim is not indefinite.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog March 4, 2015
N.D. Ga. Grants Two Stays Pending IPRs, One Sua Sponte
Blog February 13, 2015
N.D. Ga. Refuses to Lift Stay Pending IPR, Despite Conclusion of Reissue and Reexamination
Blog December 4, 2023
Amended FRE 702 on Expert Testimony Effective December 1, 2023
Blog December 1, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: November 2023
Blog November 27, 2023
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up: Q3 2023
Blog November 15, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: October 2023
Blog November 9, 2023
Legal Alert: FTC Challenges More Than 100 Patents as Improperly Listed in Orange Book
Blog November 3, 2023
District of Delaware Finds Allergan Patents Invalid for Lack of Written Description and Obviousness-Type Double Patenting in Allergan v. MSN Labs
Blog October 31, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: October 2023
Blog October 30, 2023
District of Delaware Finds Non-Orange Book-Listed Patents Subject to the Same Pleading Standard as Listed Patents in ANDA Infringement Suit
Blog October 11, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: September 2023
Blog September 25, 2023
Federal Circuit Evaluates Enablement for Antibody Claims for the First Time Since Amgen v. Sanofi in Baxalta Inc. et al. v. Genentech, Inc.