Defining Definiteness: "Nautilus" And Further Exercise

For more than a decade, the Federal Circuit has construed 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 to require that claims be "amenable to construction" and not "insolubly ambiguous."  See Exxon Research & Eng'g Co v. U.S., 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  In June, however, the Supreme Court declared that these standards are apt to "breed lower court confusion," and thus a refinement of this standard was warranted.  According to the Court, "a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention."  Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014).  Since the Nautilus decision, the Federal Circuit has had further opportunities to address the definiteness requirement of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (now 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)).  Each decision has important implications for patent