“Our opinions in Lighting World, Inventio, Flo Healthcare and Apple have . . . established a heightened bar to overcoming the presumption that a limitation expressed in functional language without using the word ‘means’ is not subject to [35 U.S.C.] § 112, para. 6.” Is such a heightened bar or burden justified?
“Our consideration of this case has led us to conclude that such a heightened burden is unjustified and that we should abandon characterizing as ‘strong’ the presumption that a limitation lacking the word ‘means’ is not subject to § 112, para. 6. . . . Henceforth, we will apply the presumption as we have done prior to Lighting World, without requiring any heightened evidentiary showing and expressly overrule the characterization of that presumption as ‘strong.’ We also overrule the strict requirement of ‘a showing that the limitation essentially is devoid of anything that can be construed as structure.’”