ARTICLE
1 December 2015

What's In A Claim? IPR Can Be Denied For Indefiniteness

FH
Foley Hoag LLP

Contributor

Foley Hoag provides innovative, strategic legal services to public, private and government clients. We have premier capabilities in the life sciences, healthcare, technology, energy, professional services and private funds fields, and in cross-border disputes. The diverse experiences of our lawyers contribute to the exceptional senior-level service we deliver to clients.
In its recent decision Samsung Display Co. v. Funai Electric Co. (IPR 2015-01452), the PTAB declined to institute an IPR because the claims were indefinite.
United States Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Petitioners challenging patents with known indefiniteness issues must carefully consider their options when filing an IPR, which may address only a claim's patentability in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103 — not under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The PTAB also requires an IPR petition to explain "[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed." 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Thus for claim terms to be construed under §112 ¶6, an IPR petitioner must stake out a position to "identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function." Id. In the event the PTAB finds the challenged claim indefinite, no IPR will be instituted, and the petitioner will be left with no assessment of patentability but definitive claim constructions positions it may not want to be locked into at an early stage of litigation.

In its recent decision Samsung Display Co. v. Funai Electric Co. (IPR 2015-01452), the PTAB declined to institute an IPR because the claims were indefinite. There was much agreement between the Petitioner and Patent Owner. Both agreed that the claim was not supported by the specification. Both parties also agreed on the corrective course of action: rewriting the claim. However, the Petitioner and the Patent Owner proposed divergent ways to rewrite the claim. In its opinion, the PTAB noted that neither party cited legal authority for such action. Relying on Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) the PTAB declined to rewrite the claim to preserve its validity and thus declined to institute an IPR.

Although the denial of an IPR petition on indefiniteness grounds provides no findings regarding prior art, it may serve the useful function of facilitating settlement. In the event the litigation goes forward either party may entertain a motion in limine to exclude the IPR decision from evidence.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

ARTICLE
1 December 2015

What's In A Claim? IPR Can Be Denied For Indefiniteness

United States Intellectual Property

Contributor

Foley Hoag provides innovative, strategic legal services to public, private and government clients. We have premier capabilities in the life sciences, healthcare, technology, energy, professional services and private funds fields, and in cross-border disputes. The diverse experiences of our lawyers contribute to the exceptional senior-level service we deliver to clients.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More