• Clarifying § 112 "Indefiniteness" in a post-Nautilius World
  • April 8, 2015
  • Law Firm: Staas Halsey LLP - Washington Office
  • On September 10, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (“District Court”) judgment of claim indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112. Interval Licensing LLC (“Interval”) sued AOL, Inc.; Apple, Inc.; Google, Inc.; and Yahoo! Inc. (collectively “Defendants”). Interval alleged that Defendants had infringed its patents directed to an “attention manager for occupying the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device.” The District Court held a claim construction hearing. It found that twenty-one of the twenty-five claims were indefinite because they used the phrase “in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user” as a limitation on “image.” The parties stipulated to non-infringement on the remaining four claims due to the claim construction, and Interval appealed to the Federal Circuit.