MEDIA RIGHTS TECHNOLOGIES v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Inter-connection among components of a system is not by itself sufficient to avoid means plus function

by | Sep 4, 2015 | [sub] invocation, Means Plus Function

Inter-connection among claimed components of a system is not by itself sufficient to avoid the application of § 112, ¶ 6. Here, for example, the claimed “compliance mechanism” was found to invoke application of § 112, ¶ 6 even though the specification describes how...

RICHARD WILLIAMSON v. CITRIX ONLINE, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P, en banc) – No heightened bar for overcoming presumption that a limitation without the word “means” escapes § 112, ¶ 6

by | Jun 16, 2015 | [sub] invocation, Means Plus Function

Despite a decade of precedent to the contrary, the heightened bar to overcoming the presumption that a limitation expressed in functional language without using the word “means” is not subject to § 112, ¶ 6 has been overruled. Here, for example, the claimed...

WILLIAMSON v. CITRIX ONLINE, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – (1) Terms of mere preference such as “preferably” and “exemplary” indicate that a feature is not required & (2) the term “module” connotes either hardware or software structure and is not a nonce word per se

by | Nov 5, 2014 | [sub] importing limitations, [sub] invocation, Claim Interpretation, Means Plus Function

(1) Terms of mere preference such as “preferably” and “exemplary” may be used in the specification to indicate that a particular feature is not required. Here, for example, the disclosure of an “exemplary” display that “preferably” depicts a classroom map was found to...

ROBERT BOSCH, LLC v. SNAP-ON INCORPORATED (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Solely functional descriptions in specification are insufficient to link a claim element to any particular structure

by | Oct 14, 2014 | [sub] invocation, Means Plus Function

Solely functional descriptions of non-well-known claim elements in the specification are not sufficient to link them to any particular structure and therefore require invocation of a means-plus-function interpretation. Here, for example, the lack of any structural...

APPLE INC. v. MOTOROLA, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Contextual aspects of a claim element as connoting sufficient structure to avoid means-plus-function interpretation

by | Apr 25, 2014 | [sub] invocation, Means Plus Function

This now appears to be the seminal case regarding invocation of means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6. In summing up the case law to this point, it states that “[t]hese cases teach that, if a limitation recites a term with a known structural...