CALL US: 206.533.3854
CALL US  206.533.3854
AEON Law logo full color transparent
By Cjs112358 - I drew it with Microsoft Visio, CC BY-SA 3.0,

Federal Circuit Clarifies Indefiniteness Standard

Federal Circuit
construes “indefiniteness”
in CRM case

The Federal Circuit has clarified what “indefiniteness” means in a patent case involving certain mixed subject matter claims.

MasterMine sued Microsoft Corporation for infringement of its two related patents for methods “that allow[] a user to easily mine and report data maintained by a customer relationship management (CRM) application.”

CRM applications “are used to manage all aspects of customer relations by integrating a company’s sales force, processes, sales channels and customers into one environment.”

The patents describe a process to automatically create an electronic worksheet. Within the worksheet, a multi-dimensional analysis table, called a pivot table, lets the user summarize or view CRM data.

One issue in the litigation was the meaning of the term “pivot table,” which the district court construed to mean “an interactive set of data displayed in rows and columns that can be rotated and filtered to summarize or view the data in different ways.”

Another issue was whether the patent claims were indefinite for claiming two different types of subject matter:  an apparatus and a method for using the apparatus.

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding of indefiniteness, citing the case of IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v., Inc.

In IPXL, the court held that “a single claim covering both an apparatus and a method of use of that apparatus is indefinite…”

The court noted that:

The concern underlying our holding in IPXL Holdings was that claiming both an apparatus and method of using the apparatus within a single claim can make it “unclear whether infringement. . . occurs when one creates a[n infringing] system, or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses [the system in an infringing manner].”

However, the court held that under IPXL creating an apparatus is enough for a finding of infringement. It’s not required to show that a patented apparatus is being used:

Because the claims merely use permissible functional language to describe the capabilities of the claimed system, it is clear that infringement occurs when one makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells the claimed system.

The case is Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. 

To receive poetic updates on IP law, sign up for our monthly collection of patent haikus and news here:

Related Articles

Supreme Court: No Time Limit on Monetary Recovery in Copyright Cases

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Sherman Nealy, a record producer who sued Warner Music for copyright infringement over a 2008 song by ...
Read More

Patent Office Requests Public Comment on AI Prior Art

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has published a request for comment (RFC) on “how AI could affect evaluations of how the level of ordinary skills ...
Read More

FTC Bans Employee Non-Compete Agreements

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has voted to approve a proposed rule that would ban employers from using non-compete agreements with nearly all employees. The ...
Read More

Let's work together.

Contact us to set up a meeting with an attorney or team member.

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive Patent Poetry—a monthly roundup of key IP issues in our signature haiku format. Four articles (only 68 syllables); zero hassle.



Artificial Intelligence

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

Computer Technology & Software

Consumer Electronics

Electrical Devices



Mechanical Devices

Consumer & Retail Products

Hardware & Tools

Toys & Games



Chemical Compounds

Digital Health

Healthcare Products



Books & Publications

Brand Creation

Luxury Products

Photography & Video

Product Design