Means-Plus-Function: The Risk of Losing Your Way

​​Patently Strategic - Patent Strategy for Startups

Send us a text

Word choice matters a great deal in the world of patenting. You’re using the English language to draw a picture around highly technical concepts. The precision with which this is done, down to the semantic level, can make all of the difference when it comes to your patent application being rejected or granted – and the future likelihood of your ability to assert your rights or defend against invalidation. Word choice too narrow or overly specific – and you can easily be designed around by competitors. Word choice too broad and only describing what something is vs. what it does and you risk rejection or invalidation for what will be ruled as linguistic tricks to get more coverage than what you actually invented. The tension is real and the case law interpretation is fluid, but it all still comes down to determining if the chosen words will enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out an invention – in the interest of other inventors being able to build on the idea, while also avoiding trespassing with infringement.
One very particular place this tension between breadth of coverage and specificity in enablement arises is with the concept of means-plus-function claim language. In this month’s episode, Dr. Ashley Sloat, President and Director of Patent Strategy here at Aurora, leads a discussion, along with our all star patent panel, into the nuanced world of means-plus-function claiming. The group digs into the statute, explores relevant case law in an analysis of the kinds of word choices that have and haven’t caused problems for inventors, and also provides some great drafting tips for de-risking the use of means-plus-function claim language.
Ashley is joined today by our always exceptional group of IP experts including:
⦿ Kristen Hansen, Patent Strategist at Aurora
⦿ Dr. David Jackrel, President of Jackrel Consulting
⦿ David Cohen, Principal at Cohen Sciences
⦿ Shelley Couturier, Patent Strategist and Search Specialist
Before jumping into the deep with the panel, we also provide a quick primer on key concepts including specification vs claims, Section 112 enablement, functional claim language, and nonce words.
** Resources **
⦿ Show Notes
⦿ Slides
** Follow Aurora Consulting **
⦿ Home
⦿ Twitter
⦿ LinkedIn
⦿ Facebook
⦿ Instagram

And as always, thanks for listening!
---
Note: The contents of this podcast do not constitute legal advice.

Chapters

1. Intro (00:00:00)

2. Means-plus-function Primer (00:03:19)

3. Specification vs Claims (00:03:29)

4. Section 112 (00:03:56)

5. Section 112(f) - Functional Language (00:04:32)

6. Why “Means-Plus-Function”? (00:04:57)

7. Nonce Words (00:05:41)

8. Discussion Panel Intro (00:06:47)

9. Means-plus-function: When Applicable (00:08:03)

10. How is claim construction carried out? (00:08:34)

11. Getting around Means-plus-function (00:10:00)

12. Case law: Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker (00:10:38)

13. Case Law: Williamson v. Citrix Online (00:12:58)

14. Contemporary software patent practice (00:15:31)

15. Nonce Words (00:18:48)

16. Case Law: Gregory Baran v. Medical Device Technologies (00:22:54)

17. Case Law: Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc. (00:24:44)

18. Tools for checking whether 112f applies (00:26:11)

19. Softare MPF (00:27:27)

20. Case Law: Media Rights Capital v. Capital One Financial Corporation (00:35:56)

21. Case Law: TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. (00:37:26)

22. Caselaw: Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc. (00:39:11)

23. Drafting Tips (00:40:51)

24. Outro (00:50:05)