Difficulty In Articulating Description Is Relevant To A Determination Of Indefiniteness
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.12.06
In Xerox Corp. v. 3Com Corp , (No. 04-1470), the Federal Circuit reverses in part, vacates in part and remands the district court's summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,596,656 (“the ‘656 patent'). Xerox brought suit against 3COM alleging infringement of the ‘656 patent by the “Graffiti” system used in 3Com's PalmPilot devices. The Federal Circuit, which had previously remanded this case on two separate occasions, finds that the district court erred in concluding the term “sloppiness space” is insolubly ambiguous and thereby invalid. The specification, although not considered as providing a rigorously precise description, is deemed nonetheless to provide adequate guidance, “particularly in light of the difficulty in articulating a more exact standard for the concept.”
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
