{"id":245,"date":"2015-08-28T12:55:42","date_gmt":"2015-08-28T16:55:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=245"},"modified":"2015-08-31T13:25:15","modified_gmt":"2015-08-31T17:25:15","slug":"a-defined-numerical-parameter-can-still-be-indefinite-if-its-not-clear-how-to-measure-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=245","title":{"rendered":"A Defined Numerical Parameter Can Still Be Indefinite, If It’s Not Clear How to Measure It"},"content":{"rendered":"

In The Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (Canada), [2014-1431, 2014-1462] (August 28, 2015) the Federal Circuit applied the change of law exception to reject Dow’s bid for supplemental damages for infringements occurring after the original judgment — the change of law being the change of the standard of indefiniteness resulting from the Supreme Court decision in\u00a0Nautilus,\u00a0Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.<\/em>, 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014).<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit found that its original decision would have been different under the new Nautilus<\/em> standard. \u00a0The claims at issue require\u00a0\u201ca slope of\u00a0strain hardening coefficient greater than or equal to 1.3.\u201d \u00a0The patent explained that the\u00a0slope of strain hardening
\ncoefficient was a new Dow construct not previously known in the prior art, and is calculated by a given formula from the slope of strain hardening curve. \u00a0However, it turns out that the strain hardening curve is in fact curve, meaning it does not have a single slope. \u00a0.Nova complained that the patent fails to teach where and how the slope of strain hardening should be measured. \u00a0The Federal Circuit found that there were four\u00a0ways to measure the slope, and that\u00a0each of these four methods\u00a0may produce different results, and because the methods do\u00a0not always produce the same results, the method chosen
\nfor calculating the slope of strain hardening could affect\u00a0whether or not a given product infringes the claims.<\/p>\n

Under Nautilus a\u00a0patent\u00a0is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light\u00a0of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution\u00a0history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty,those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. \u00a0The Federal Circuit held that “the required guidance is not provided\u00a0by the claims, specification, and prosecution history.” \u00a0The Federal Circuit said that a\u00a0claim term is indefinite if it \u201cleave[s] the skilled artisan to\u00a0consult the \u2018unpredictable vagaries of any one person\u2019s\u00a0opinion.\u2019\u201d The Federal Circuit concluded that the claims here are invalid as indefinite, and the\u00a0award of supplemental damages must be reversed.<\/p>\n

While measured parameters with numerical values at first appear to be definite, patent drafters must be clear about how those parameters are measured — at least where the value can vary depending upon the method used.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In The Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (Canada), [2014-1431, 2014-1462] (August 28, 2015) the Federal Circuit applied the change of law exception to reject Dow’s bid for supplemental damages for infringements occurring after the original judgment — the … Continue reading →<\/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":[5,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-245","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-drafting-tips","category-patent-law"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245","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=245"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":246,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245\/revisions\/246"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=245"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=245"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=245"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}