Home » Patent » Claim Construction » “spaced relationship” held to be sufficiently definite

“spaced relationship” held to be sufficiently definite

Biosig Instruments v. Nautilus, Case No. 2012-1289, Slip Op. (Fed. Cir. Apr. 26, 2013)

Biosig sued Nautilus for infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 5,337,753.  Claim 1 of the ‘753 patent was held to be invalid for indefiniteness by the trial court because the term “spaced relationship” was indefinite as a matter of law.  While the the trial court held that the term was amenable to construction, it determined that it was “insolubly ambiguous.”  The Federal Circuit reversed.

In particular, the Federal Circuit determined that the problems raised by the trial court dealt with breadth, and not definiteness.  For example, the trial court could not determine if 1 inch, or 1/2 inch would satisfy the claim term.  However, the Federal Circuit determined that the intrinsic record contained inherent parameters that would help a skilled artisan understand the boundaries of the term.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: