Absolute But Not Indefinite: Court Upholds Outcome-Oriented Patent Language

In a recent decision that may surprise patent drafters and litigators alike, the Northern District of Illinois held that a patent claim using flexible, outcome-oriented language was not invalid for indefiniteness. In Xodus Medical Inc. et al. v. U.S. Surgitech, Inc., the court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rejecting the defendant's argument that certain claim language in surgical room slippage reduction patents was too vague to be enforceable. The ruling highlights an important and sometimes counterintuitive lesson: a term can be qualitative and still sufficiently definite if it provides an understandable boundary tied to a practical result.

The dispute centered on claim language requiring a component to move “sufficiently slow to maintain a depression for a desired period.” The accused infringer argued that phrases such as “sufficiently slow” and “desired period” were inherently subjective and failed to inform a skilled artisan of the