Federal Circuit IP

Gramm v. Deere & Company

By John Schmitz Published April 15, 2026

Gramm v. Deere & Company

Case No. 2024-1598, decided March 11, 2026

(Reyna, Lourie, Cunningham)

 

Issues: Whether the district court erred in holding a means-plus-function limitation indefinite for lack of an algorithm; whether corresponding structure may be excluded because it does not perform an additional, unclaimed function.

Overview: The Federal Circuit reversed a judgment holding the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,202,395 invalid as indefinite. The decision clarifies that, in means-plus-function indefiniteness analysis, courts must identify corresponding structure tied to the claimed function itself and may not exclude disclosed structure merely because it does not perform an additional, unclaimed function.

Background

  • The ’395 patent concerns apparatus for maintaining a crop harvester header at a desired height.
  • The parties agreed that “control means” is a means-plus-function limitation under § 112(f), and that the claimed function is raising and lowering the header to maintain a designated height.
  • The specification referenced a “head controller 20,” including a specific embodiment “as incorporated in a Deere combine.”
  • The parties disputed whether the corresponding structure was sufficiently definite. Deere argued that the relevant Deere controllers were microprocessor-based and therefore required disclosure of an algorithm.
  • The district court agreed, excluded Dial-A-Matic Version #1 as corresponding structure because it lacked lateral-position control, and held the claim indefinite for failure to disclose an algorithm.

Federal Circuit Analysis

  • Means-plus-function analysis requires identifying the claimed function first and then identifying only the structure corresponding to that claimed function.
  • The district court erred by discounting structure that performed the claimed header-height function solely because it did not also perform the unclaimed function of controlling lateral position.
  • Dial-A-Matic Version #1 was commercially available at the relevant time and, by Deere’s own admissions, used diodes, switches, and integrated circuits rather than a microprocessor.
  • Because circuitry-based structure does not trigger the algorithm requirement applicable to general-purpose computers or microprocessors, Version #1 constituted adequate corresponding structure.
  • The Court agreed, however, that Versions #2 and #3 were microprocessor-based and that the specification did not disclose an adequate prose algorithm for those embodiments. That did not matter, because one disclosed embodiment with adequate structure is enough to avoid indefiniteness.

Holding: Reversed and remanded. The district court erred in holding the claims indefinite because it improperly excluded corresponding structure that performed the claimed function.

Takeaways

  • Litigators: On §112(f), keep the court tightly focused on the claimed function, and do not let the other side smuggle in extra capabilities from the specification to knock out the claim as indefinite.
  • Prosecutors: If your means plus function claim requires a computer, make sure you are sufficiently disclosing an algorithm.