Nautilus, Inc v. Biosig Instruments Inc.
Issues
How specific and clear must a patent be to balance the Patent Act’s purposes of (1) protecting inventors and the public and (2) avoiding excess costs and litigation?
Since the 1990s, Nautilus and Biosig Instruments have had a series of patent disputes. Their current dispute involves a new model of heart rate monitors mounted onto exercise equipment. Nautilus contends that Biosig’s patent is indefinite as a matter of law and therefore invalid. Further, Nautilus argues that patents must provide sufficiently clear notice to protect the public, promote innovation, and reduce costs to the judicial system. Biosig counters that its patent is valid because it is sufficiently clear and specific to meet the standards of definiteness set by precedent. Biosig further argues that a patent should be broad enough to protect innovators and their still-developing products. The Federal Circuit held that Biosig’s patent was valid because it was not “insolubly ambiguous.” The Supreme Court’s decision will impact the requirements inventors and drafters must meet to patent new technologies.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
- Does the Federal Circuit’s acceptance of ambiguous patent claims with multiple reasonable interpretations—so long as the ambiguity is not “insoluble” by a court—defeat the statutory requirement of particular and distinct patent claiming?
- Does the presumption of validity dilute the requirement of particular and distinct patent claiming?
- Whether a patent claim is invalid for indefiniteness where the traditional tools of claim construction establish its meaning, simply because lawyers may devise other interpretations, years after issuance, that are not “outlandish” or “implausible”?
- Whether an accused infringer challenging a patent claim as indefinite may overcome the statutory presumption of validity, 35 U.S.C § 282(a), without introducing any evidence that a person skilled in the art would have been unable to understand the claim’s meaning?
Facts
Biosig Instruments, Inc. and Nautilus, Inc. have had an ongoing dispute since the late 1990s, when Nautilus’ predecessor, StairMaster Company, began selling exercise equipment that Biosig claims infringes its patented technology. See Biosig Instruments, Inc. v.
Edited by
- Dennis Crouch, Is “Insolubly Ambiguous” the Correct Standard for Indefiniteness?, Patently-O, Sept. 21, 2013.
- Ryan Davis, High Court Told Tighter Rules Needed on Ambiguous Patents, Law360, Mar. 3, 2014.