This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California. The opinion reversed the district court’s determination that certain patent claims were invalid as indefinite. The Federal Circuit concluded the district court erred with respect to the legal standard for indefiniteness. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented. Here are the introductions to the opinion and dissent.
Nature Simulation Systems Inc. v. Autodesk, Inc. (Precedential)
Nature Simulation Systems, Inc. (“NSS”) is the owner of United States Patents No. 10,120,961 (“the ’961 patent”) and No. 10,109,105 (“the ’105 patent”), both entitled “Method for Immediate Boolean Operations Using Geometric Facets.” The patents relate to methods of packaging computer-aided data for three-dimensional objects.
NSS brought suit for infringement against Autodesk, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. At issue are claims 1 and 8 of the ’961 patent and claim 1 of the ’105 patent. The district court held a claim construction (Markman) hearing, and ruled the claims invalid on the ground of claim indefiniteness, 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). That decision is the subject of this appeal.
We conclude that the district court erred on the legal standard for claim indefiniteness, and that on the correct standard the claims are not indefinite. The decision of invalidity on this ground is reversed.
DYK, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Contrary to the majority, I think that the asserted claims are invalid because they are indefinite. The fact that a patent examiner introduced the indefinite language does not absolve the claims from the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. I respectfully dissent.