Ergo Licensing, LLC v. Carefusion 303, Inc.
673 F.3d 1361
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Ergo alleged CareFusion infringed claims of the '412 patent on a multichannel infusion metering system.
- The district court deemed the terms “control means” and “programmable control means” indefinite for lack of disclosed corresponding structure.
- The parties stipulated these terms were means-plus-function elements with the function of controlling the adjusting means.
- The court held the specification failed to disclose corresponding structure for the means-plus-function terms.
- Ergo appealed, challenging the indefiniteness ruling and the panel’s approach to §112, ¶6.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed the indefiniteness holding as to both terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the means-plus-function terms have adequate corresponding structure. | Ergo contends the specification discloses a control device with processing, memory, and programming means. | CareFusion argues the disclosure is insufficient to define structure for “controlling the adjusting means.” | Yes; indefinite for lack of disclosed structure. |
| Whether a general-purpose computer suffices as structure without an algorithm. | Ergo argues a computer is sufficient structure (with alleged associated programming). | CareFusion contends an algorithm must be disclosed when a general computer is used. | No; algorithm disclosure required unless any general computer without programming could perform the function. |
| Whether the specification satisfies §112, ¶6 under the Katz/Biomedino framework. | Ergo asserts sufficient structure is described in the specification. | CareFusion asserts inadequate disclosure of structure for the claimed means. | Yes; the panel properly deemed the claims indefinite. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374 (Fed.Cir.1999) (requirement of a described structure for means-plus-function terms)
- Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946 (Fed.Cir.2007) (structure for means-plus-function must be disclosed in the specification)
- Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205 (Fed.Cir.2003) (structure must be described and linked to claimed function)
- In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed.Cir.2011) (narrow Katz exception; general-purpose computer requires explicit algorithm absent; coextensive structure)
- WMS Gaming Inc. v. International Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed.Cir.1999) (algorithm disclosed for computer-implemented means; structure limited to disclosed algorithm)
- Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241 (Fed.Cir.2005) (algorithm requirement for computer-implemented functions clarifies scope)
- Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 612 F.3d 1365 (Fed.Cir.2010) (specification must disclose adequate defining structure for ordinary artisan)
- Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Intl. Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed.Cir.2008) (general-purpose computer disclosures require limitations when necessary)
- Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311 (Fed.Cir.2004) (structure may be a class of devices recognizable to skilled artisan)