The indefiniteness standard has, until recently, been very
high—only an "insolubly ambiguous claim" was
considered indefinite (see, e.g., Honeywell Intern.,
Inc. v. International Trade, 341 F. 3d 1332, 1338–9
(Fed. Cir. 2003))—but recent events have made it easier to
invalidate a claim as being indefinite. In Nautilus, Inc.
v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,the Supreme Court instituted
potentially drastic changes to the jurisprudence of indefiniteness
by eliminating the "insolubly ambiguous standard" and
instead requiring that claims must inform a person of skill in the
art as to their scope "with reasonable certainty."
134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). Questions immediately arose as
to how courts were going to apply this new test, as the Supreme
Court provided no substantive discussion when laying it out.
The Federal Circuit has given insight into its interpretation
of this new standard with its first post-Nautilus
indefiniteness decision, Interval Licensing LLC v.
AOL. 2
