Today the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., No. 13-369, which was previously discussed . The unanimous court, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg that looked to the language of the statute and Supreme Court precedent articulated the following standard:
[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.
Recognizing its role as a 鈥渃ourt of review, not of first view,鈥 the Supreme Court declined to apply the standard to the facts at issue, remanding the issue to the Federal Circuit.
The opinion makes clear that the Federal Circuit鈥檚 prior standard, which upheld claims as definite so long as they were 鈥渁menable to construction鈥 and not 鈥渋nsolubly ambiguous鈥 once construed, 鈥渄oes not satisfy the statute鈥檚 definiteness requirement.鈥 The Supreme Court did however acknowledge that some Federal Circuit decisions, despite using the 鈥漚menable to construction鈥 and 鈥渋nsolubly ambiguous鈥 language 鈥渃ome closer to tracking the statutory prescription.鈥
The Supreme Court鈥檚 decision in Nautilus will likely have broad implications for all currently pending patent cases where definiteness is at issue.