1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |“Near” Not Indefinite if Adequately Defined

“Near” Not Indefinite if Adequately Defined

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.03.07

In Young v. Lumenis, Inc. (No. 06-1455; Fed. Cir. 2007), a Federal Circuit reverses a district court decision and holds that the term “near” is not indefinite in view of the specification.

In finding the patent claim indefinite under Section 112, second paragraph, the district court relied on prior case law for the principle that a word of degree, such as “near,” can be indefinite when it fails to distinguish the invention over the prior art and does not permit one of ordinary skill to know what activity constitutes infringement. However, the Federal Circuit distinguishes that case law, finding that the intrinsic evidence here provides ample guidance on the meaning of “near.” Unlike a situation in which “at least about” precedes a term that was defined in the specification only by a broad range, the Young panel finds that the patent specification describes a narrow window within which to practice the claimed method and, in that unique context, the term “near” adequately notifies the public as to what conduct will constitute infringement.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.03.26

Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases

In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices....

View All Insights