CALL US: 206.533.3854
CALL US  206.533.3854
AEON Law logo full color transparent

Federal Circuit Reverses Patent Rejection for Indefiniteness

Federal Circuit
reverses district court on
indefiniteness

The Federal Circuit has reversed a district court’s ruling that a patent’s claims were indefinite and thus that the patent was invalid.

Sonix Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd. is a case involving Sonix’s patent for a system and method for using a “graphical indicator” (e.g., a matrix of small dots) to encode information on the surface of an object.

The dots can be arranged in a matrix, and each cell in the matrix either contains or doesn’t contain a dot, “resulting in a unique pattern that can store information.”

For example, the system can be used with an optical device to “read” information in a children’s book.

The Federal Circuit noted that

Of course, encoding information on the surface of an object is not new. The ’845 patent admits that information has been recorded on the surface of objects “[d]ating back to ancient time[s],” and lists a bar code as a “conventional” example of a graphical indicator, … The ’845 patent purports to improve on conventional methods by rendering the graphical indicator “visually negligible.”

In 2010, Sonix claimed that children’s books using dot patterns produced by GeneralPlus, a Taiwanese company, infringed the ’845 patent. In response, the defendant’s parent company requested an ex parte reexamination of the patent.

The case turned on whether the phrase “visually negligible” was indefinite, because “it depends on the visual acuity of the observer.’”

The district court

rejected Sonix’s argument that “visually negligible” means “something that may be visible, but does not interfere with the user’s perception of other visual information on a surface,” concluding that defining the term “as reliant on the user’s perception provides no objective standard by which to measure the scope of the term—the user’s perception becomes the measure and this is insufficient.”

However, the Federal Circuit agreed with Sonix that

a skilled artisan would understand, with reasonable certainty, what it means for an indicator in the claimed invention to be “visually negligible.”

The Federal Circuit noted that:

Because language is limited, we have rejected the proposition that claims involving terms of degree are inherently indefinite. Thus, “a patentee need not define his invention with mathematical precision in order to comply with the definiteness requirement.”

Related Articles

Just Because It’s on the Internet Doesn’t Mean It’s “Publicly Accessible”

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) has denied institution of a petition for inter partes review (IPR) because the petitioner failed to ...
Read More

Trademark Denied for “ChatGPT”

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has denied OpenAI’s applications to trademark “ChatGPT” and “GPT.” The Final Office Action states, “Registration is refused because the applied-for mark ...
Read More

Federal Circuit: “Improving User Experience” Isn’t Patentable

The Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court decision that patent claims for methods and systems for improving how search results are displayed to users ...
Read More

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.

SECTORS

HIGH
TECHNOLOGY

Artificial Intelligence

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

Computer Technology & Software

Consumer Electronics

Electrical Devices

MECHANICAL
& PRODUCTS​

Cleantech

Mechanical Devices

Consumer & Retail Products

Hardware & Tools

Toys & Games

LIFE SCIENCES
& CHEMISTRY​

Biotechnology

Chemical Compounds

Digital Health

Healthcare Products

Pharmaceuticals

BRANDING
& CREATIVE​

Books & Publications

Brand Creation

Luxury Products

Photography & Video

Product Design

SERVICES

PROTECT

DEAL

DEFEND