Graphical Indicator Patent Gets “Definite” Win Under § 112

Authors: Shayda Shahbazi
Editor: Kevin D. Rodkey

In Sonix Technology Co., Ltd. v. Publications International, Ltd., No. 16-1449 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 5, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision that the claim term “visually negligible” rendered the claims indefinite.

Sonix brought suit against Publications International, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,328,845, which is directed to using a “graphical indicator” to encode information on the surface of an object that can be read using an optical device to output additional information. The asserted claims of the ’845 patent recite that the indicator is “visually negligible.” The district court granted summary judgment, finding the term “visually negligible” indefinite, concluding that it relied on the user’s perception with no objective standard to measure the scope of the term.

Sonix appealed and the Federal Circuit reversed, finding that “visually negligible” was not purely subjective and a skilled artisan would understand its scope. The court explained that whether something is “visually negligible” involves “what can be seen by the normal human eye,” which provides an objective baseline to interpret the claims. According to the court, the term’s scope was explained in the examples and written description. The court also found persuasive that Publications International did not question the definiteness of “visually negligible” during the first several years in litigation and both parties’ experts applied this term to prior art and accused products.

The court clarified the scope of its opinion, explaining that examples and requirements in a specification do not always render a claim definite, and also that an expert applying a term without difficulty does not “render a claim immune from an indefiniteness challenge.” Rather, “whether a claim is indefinite must be judged ‘in light of the specification and prosecution history’ of the patent in which it appears.”

 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Tagged

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: