property law

On April
Instrume
distinct p
the heartb
compares
gripped b

Nautilus
placed in
appropria
removed
define th

The distr
112, seco
inform “w
should be

The Fede
for a skil
artisan co
substanti
standard
construct
that the “

The Supr
Circuit’s
long as th
particular
requirem

Nautilus
subject to
ruled ind

Justic

l 28, 2014, th

ents, Inc. inv

patent claimi

beat of an in

s electrical w

by the right e

contended th

n a “spaced r

ate spacing i

so that it is

e particular

rict court agr

ond paragrap

what precise

e the same a

eral Circuit r

lled artisan to

ould apply a

ially removin

under which

tion. Judge

“spaced relat

reme Court g

acceptance

he ambiguity

r and distinc

ment of partic

argued that

o more than

definite. Nau

Intel

ces Set to

he U.S. Supr

olving the st

ing. The pat

ndividual wh

waves from a

end in order

hat the paten

relationship”

is provided b

possible to d

magnitude o

reed with Na

ph. The distr

ely the space

as the spaced

reversed, con

o understand

test and det

ng EMG sign

h claims sho

Schall concu

tionship” is d

granted certi

of ambiguou

y is not “inso

ct patent clai

cular and dis

whenever, a

one reasona

utilus argued

lectual

o Rule on

By Pa

reme Court h

tatutory requ

tent at issue

hile exercisin

an electrode

to calculate

nt is indefini

” to the live e

between the

determine he

of the spacin

autilus and ru

rict court ex

e should be”

d relationship

ncluding tha

d the bounds

termine the ‘

nals.” The F

uld not be ru

urred, agreei

defined by th

iorari to con

us patent cla

oluble” by a

iming; and ( 2

tinct patent

after applyin

able construc

d that patent

Prope

Test for P

aul M. Rivar

heard argum

uirement in 3

relates to a h

ng without at

gripped by

the individu

ite based on

electrodes th

electrodes, i

eart rate. Na

ng between th

uled that the

plained that

or “whether

p on the righ

at “the claims

s of ‘spaced

spaced relat

Federal Circ

uled indefini

ing that the c

he function o

nsider the qu

aims with mu

court – defe

2 ) whether th

claiming.

g the tools o

ction, i.e., wh

attorneys ca

erty Ale

Patent Ind

rd

ments in Naut

3 5 U.S.C. §

heart rate mo

ttaching elec

the left hand

ual’s heart ra

a feature tha

hat record the

interfering “

autilus urged

he electrode

e patent was

the term “sp

r the spaced

ht side.”

s provide inh

relationship

tionship’ as p

cuit reiterated

ite as long a

claims are no

of removing

uestions of ( 1

ultiple reaso

eats the statu

he presumpt

of claim cons

henever it is

an easily dra

ert:

definitene

tilus, Inc. v.

112, second

onitor capab

ctrodes. The

d to those fro

ate.

at common e

e signals. W

noise” signa

d that the pat

s renders it f

invalid unde

paced relatio

relationship

herent param

.’ In additio

pertaining to

d its “insolub

s they are am

ot indefinite

g EMG signa

1 ) whether th

onable interp

utory require

tion of valid

struction, a p

s ambiguous,

aft claims wh

ss

Biosig

d paragraph f

ble of measur

e device

om an electr

electrodes ar

When an

als can be

tent’s failure

fatally defec

er 35 U.S.C.

onship” did n

p on the left s

meters suffic

on, a skilled

o the functio

bly ambiguo

menable to

e but disagree

als.

he Federal

pretations – s

ement of

ity dilutes th

patent claim

, it should be

hich are not

for

ring

rode

re

e to

ctive.

. §
not
side

cient

on of

ous”

eing

so

he

is

e