Addressing indefiniteness under Nautilus, the US Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's
finding that the claim term "effective for catalyzing"
was indefinite even though the claim did not specify a way of
measuring or a standard for determining "effectiveness."
BASF Corporation v. Johnson Matthey Inc., Case No. 16-1770
(Fed. Cir., Nov. 20, 2017) (Taranto, J).
BASF sued Johnson Matthey for
infringement of a patent directed to systems for performing
catalytic conversion of nitrogen oxides in an exhaust gas stream.
The claimed systems included a novel arrangement of two catalytic
surfaces, one coated with "material composition A" and
the other with "material composition B." Each of these
materials was claimed as being "effective for catalyzing"
or "effective to catalyze" respective chemical reactions.
The district court found the claims indefinite because they did not
recite a minimum level of function necessary to meet the
"effective"
