Tag Archives: Indefiniteness

Board Decision Grants Motion to Amend With Respect to One Substitute Claim and Denies Motion to Amend With Respect to Other Substitute Claim

The Board’s recent decision in Veeam Software Corp. v. Veritas Technologies, LLC, Case No. IPR2014-00090 (PTAB July 17, 2017), provides patent practitioners with a framework for analyzing proposed substitute claims.  The Board’s decision, granting patent owner’s motion to amend in part, should be considered in conjunction with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Veritas Technologies LLC … Continue Reading

PTAB Declines to Institute IPR on Immersion’s Indefinite Means Plus Function Claims

Petitioners are finding themselves caught in a Catch-22.  The PTAB declares claims too indefinite under Section 112 to construe, but then declines to address the patentabilty of the claims.  Section 112 deficiencies are not grounds to challenge a patent in an IPR, but the PTAB has authority to find such deficiencies. Recently, the PTAB decided … Continue Reading

District Court Rejects Indefiniteness Argument Despite Board Finding of No Corresponding Structure for Means-Plus-Function Claim

A pair of recent decisions, one from a federal district court and another from the PTAB, highlight the potential of inconsistent results regarding patent validity. In Microwave Vision, S.A. v. ETS-Lindgren Inc., Civ. Action No. 1:14-CV-1153-SCJ (D. Ga. Sept. 20, 2016), the court denied an accused infringer’s (ETS’s) motion for summary judgment of invalidity, after … Continue Reading
LexBlog