In Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc., [2017-1267] (June 1, 2018) the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court determination that claims of U.S. Patent Nos.\u00a07,818,691 and 8,549,443 were invalid for indefiniteness,\u00a0finding the district court failed to undertake the relevant\u00a0inquiry and make related factual findings to support its\u00a0conclusion that the asserted claims recited means-plus-function\u00a0terms.<\/p>\n
At issue were the limitations “program that can operate the movement\u00a0of the pointer (0)” and \u201cuser\u00a0interface code being configured to detect one or more\u00a0locations touched by a movement of the user\u2019s finger on\u00a0the screen without requiring the exertion of pressure and\u00a0determine therefrom a selected operation\u201d which the district court determined were means-plus-function limitations.<\/p>\n
To determine whether \u00a7 112, para. 6 applies to a\u00a0claim limitation, the presence or absence of the word “means” is important.\u00a0 The failure to\u00a0use the word \u201cmeans\u201d creates a rebuttable presumption\u00a0that \u00a7 112, \u00b6 6 does not apply. However, this presumption
\ncan be overcome, and \u00a7 112, \u00b6 6 will apply, if the challenger\u00a0demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite\u00a0sufficiently definite structure or else recites function\u00a0without reciting sufficient structure for performing that\u00a0function.\u00a0 The essential inquiry remains whether the\u00a0words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary\u00a0skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as\u00a0the name for structure.<\/p>\n
The Federal Circuit noted that\u00a0neither of the limitations at issue uses the word\u00a0\u201cmeans,\u201d so presumptively, \u00a7 112, \u00b6 6 does not\u00a0apply to the limitations.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit noted that while Apple argued that the limitations\u00a0must be construed under \u00a7 112, \u00b6 6, it provided no\u00a0evidentiary support for that position, and thus the presumption against
\nthe application of \u00a7 112, \u00b6 6 to the disputed limitations\u00a0remained unrebutted. The Federal Circuit found that the district court\u2019s discussion was\u00a0couched\u00a0in conclusory language, relying on Apple\u2019s\u00a0arguments, contrasting them against Zeroclick\u2019s contentions,\u00a0but pointing to no record evidence that supports its\u00a0ultimate conclusion that\u00a0 \u00a7 112, \u00b6 6 applies\u00a0to the asserted claims.<\/p>\n
The Federal Circuit said that the district court\u00a0legally erred by not giving effect\u00a0to the unrebutted presumption against the application of\u00a0\u00a7 112, \u00b6 6.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit noted that this was erroneous for at least three reasons: (1) the mere fact that the\u00a0disputed limitations incorporate functional language does\u00a0not automatically convert the words into means for performing\u00a0such functions; (2) the\u00a0court\u2019s analysis removed the terms from their context,\u00a0which otherwise strongly suggests the plain and ordinary\u00a0meaning of the terms; and (3)\u00a0the district court made no pertinent finding that compels the conclusion that a conventional\u00a0graphical user interface program or code is used in
\ncommon parlance as substitute for \u201cmeans.\u201d\u00a0 The Federal Circuit concluded that\u00a0the district court thus erred by effectively treating \u201cprogram\u201d and \u201cuser interface code\u201d as nonce\u00a0words and concluding in turn that the claims recited\u00a0\u00a7means-plus-function limitations.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc., [2017-1267] (June 1, 2018) the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court determination that claims of U.S. Patent Nos.\u00a07,818,691 and 8,549,443 were invalid for indefiniteness,\u00a0finding the district court failed to undertake the relevant\u00a0inquiry … Continue reading