Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8486
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- Biosig owns the '753 patent directed to a heart rate monitor that subtracts EMG noise from ECG signals in exercise contexts.
- The invention uses spaced live and common electrodes on opposite halves of an elongate member to detect EMG/ECG signals.
- Nautilus challenged the patent in district court and sought summary judgment that claims were indefinite under §112, ¶2.
- The district court held claim 1’s “spaced relationship” indefinite.
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the term not indefinite and sufficiently defined by intrinsic evidence and ordinary skill in the art.
- The court analyzed the intrinsic record and relevant reexamination history to determine bounds of “spaced relationship.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “spaced relationship” is indefinite under §112, ¶2. | Biosig argues the term is sufficiently definite. | Nautilus contends the term is insolubly ambiguous. | Not indefinite; term amenable to construction and sufficiently definite. |
| Whether the intrinsic record supports a workable construction of the term. | Biosig points to specification and the reexamination to define bounds. | Nautilus asserts lack of clear bounds. | Intrinsic evidence provides practical metes and bounds for the term. |
| Whether the district court erred by treating the function of EMG removal as controlling the spacing term. | Biosig contends functional context informs meaning. | Nautilus argues no functional limitation should redefine spacing. | Error to require functional linkage beyond the spacing limitation itself; analysis focused on intrinsic evidence and ordinary skill. |
| Whether the claim recites impermissibly both an apparatus and a method of use. | Biosig contends apparatus claims with functional limitation are valid. | Nautilus argues IPXL-like indefiniteness. | Not indefinite; no improper apparatus-plus-method claiming with current claim scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (indefiniteness standards for insolubly ambiguous terms; usefulness of context and standard for measuring degree)
- Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (earlier Star Scientific decision on definiteness with degree terms)
- Exxon Research & Eng’g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claims may be definite even with some experimentation; enablement considerations)
- Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (definiteness requires amenability to construction or insolubly ambiguous terms)
- Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (distinguishing from indefiniteness where functional breadth lacks upper bound)
- Exxon, 265 F.3d 1371, (Fed. Cir. 2001) () (discussion of indefiniteness and enablement interplay)