{"id":178,"date":"2014-06-02T16:48:50","date_gmt":"2014-06-02T20:48:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=178"},"modified":"2015-03-29T16:51:26","modified_gmt":"2015-03-29T20:51:26","slug":"supreme-court-claims-must-inform-with-reasonable-certainty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=178","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court: Claims Must Inform, with Reasonable Certainty"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>Nautlius, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.<\/em>, &#8212; U.S. &#8212;, (2014), the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit\u2019s \u201cinsolubly ambiguous\u201d test for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7112, holding that \u201ca patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.\u201d The case arrived at the Supreme Court after the Federal Circuit reversed a district court finding that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,337,753 on a heart rate monitor, which claimed electrodes contained the language \u201cspaced relationship\u201d were indefinite. The Supreme Court \u201ccognizant of the competing concerns\u201d read Section 112 to require that a patent\u2019s claims , viewed in light of the prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope\u00a0of the invention with reasonable certainty.\u201d The Supreme Court explained that this standard \u201cmandates clarity, while recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable\u201d and accords with the Court\u2019s decisions that the certainty that the law requires of patents \u201cis not greater than is reasonable, having regard to their subject-matter.\u201d The Court declined to apply the standard to the claims, remanding the case for further consideration.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Nautlius, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., &#8212; U.S. &#8212;, (2014), the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit\u2019s \u201cinsolubly ambiguous\u201d test for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7112, holding that \u201ca patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=178\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-178","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=178"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":179,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178\/revisions\/179"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=178"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=178"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=178"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}