Subscription Center  


In a June 2, 2014 article, Law360 quoted Venable partner Michael Sartori on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments Inc. The Court determined that the Federal Circuit's longtime precedent for proving a patent indefinite grants too much ambiguity.

“In Nautilus, the Supreme Court casts off the ‘amenable to construction’ and ‘insolubly ambiguous’ standards for determining indefiniteness under Section 112, second paragraph," said Sartori. “The Supreme Court is apparently concerned that the Federal Circuit’s standard can foster too much ambiguity in claims. The Supreme Court replaces the Federal Circuit’s standard with one that requires more precision in the hopes of reducing a ‘zone of uncertainty’ that can arise in claim drafting. The Supreme Court’s decision today apparently requires more precise claim drafting and may offer a greater chance of invalidating patent claims as being indefinite. However, with the Supreme Court’s decision in Nautilus, new jurisprudence will be required by the Federal Circuit to sort out this new standard for determining indefiniteness.”