Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
732 F.3d 1376
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- Ibormeith IP, LLC appeals a district court’s summary judgment of indefiniteness against Mercedes‑Benz USA, LLC and Daimler AG on the ’749 patent’s computational means.
- The ’749 patent covers a sleepiness monitor for drivers, weighing circadian rhythm, steering actions, cabin conditions, road monotony, and driving duration to warn of sleepiness.
- Some factors are sensor-based for at‑drive conditions; others (circadian rhythm, sleep patterns, alcohol use) are input by programmer or driver.
- Claims 1 and 9 contain a “computational means” element subject to 112(f) and require an algorithm structure to perform the functions.
- The district court held the claimed computational means indefinite for lack of an adequately disclosed algorithm, including portable disclosure in Table 10 and Figures 3 and 17.
- The court concluded that the specification fails to define steps to derive a sleepiness score or a warning output.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ‘computational means’ in claims 1 and 9 is adequately disclosed as an algorithm under 112(f). | Ibormeith contends Table 10 (and Figures 3, 17) disclose an algorithm or sufficient structure. | Mercedes argues the specification lacks a concrete algorithm to perform the claimed functions. | No; the algorithm is not adequately disclosed, rendering the claims indefinite. |
| Whether Tables/Figures supply sufficient structure to define the computational means. | Ibormeith asserts Tables/Figures provide algorithmic guidance. | Mercedes asserts the material does not specify steps to weight or combine inputs. | Not sufficient; reading Table 10 does not define a concrete algorithm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (requirement for a disclosed algorithm in means-plus-function claims)
- In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237 (C.C.P.A. 1978) (algorithm/structure requirement under 112(f))
- Functional Media, LLC v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (structure must be defined for claims to cover equivalents)
- AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Comm’cns, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (extent of 112(f) structure and definiteness)
- WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Intl. Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (algorithm disclosed by figure relating to inputs)