Results for Means-plus-function

Dyfan, LLC, v. Target Corporation

Case Number: CLB0496

Date: 03.24.2022

The overall means-plus-function analysis is a two-step process (1) determine whether a claim limitation is drafted in means-plus-function format (2) determine what structure if any disclosed in the specification corresponds to claim function.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Rain Computing, Inc. vs. Samsung, Inc.

Case Number: CLB0472

Date: 03.02.2021

Claims may invoke § 112 ¶ 6 and be held indefinite if, read in light of the specification, the claims fail to provide sufficient structure for performing a function. In cases where the function is performed by a general purpose computer, an algorithm may be required to disclose how the computer performs to accomplish the function.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Sony Corp. v. Iancu

Case Number: CLB0432

Date: 05.22.2019

The patentee has a right to defend its patent against cancellation by the USPTO even after expiration — and up to the six-year timeline for back-damages. Means-plus-function language can be interpreted as being directed to software if an algorithm is described in the specification and hardware is not fully described.

view Case Detail Download PDF

In re Raymond Giannelli

Case Number: CLB0311

Date: 01.13.2014

Claims reciting a product adapted to perform a particular intended use are not necessarily obvious over a reference disclosing a known product that is physically capable of performing said intended function

view Case Detail Download PDF

Hearing Components Inc. v. Shure Inc.

Case Number: CLB0253

Date: 04.01.2010

The Federal Circuit holds that the claim recitation “readily installed” is not indefinite, and that an interference fit (in a hearing aid) is equivalent to a threaded joint, ball and socket joint, and adhesive joint for purposes of interpreting means-plus-function claims.

view Case Detail Download PDF