Nautilus Decision Turns Ten, Widely Misunderstood

Published June 3, 2024

Ten years ago, Klarquist attorneys Jim Geringer, John Vandenberg, and Jeff Love had the honor of representing our client Nautilus at the Supreme Court to successfully challenge the Federal Circuit’s then 13-year old test for determining whether a patent claim satisfies the Patent Act’s mandate that patent claims “particularly point out and distinctly claim” the invention. Under that test, patent claims merely had to be “amenable to construction” and not “insolubly ambiguous.” The Supreme Court rejected that test as not even relevant to the essential inquiry. Yet, ten years later, the spirit of the old, rejected test lives on in many circles, as explained in the linked article urging a fresh look at the Nautilus decision.

You can read the full article here or access the article from IP Law360 here: www.law360.com/ip/articles/1841645/3-infringement-defenses-to-consider-10-years-post-nautilus