October Term 2013 · Docket 13-369
Does a patent claim lack definiteness if it allows two reasonable readings?
The parties dispute whether a patent claim is definite when it permits two reasonable interpretations of its scope.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Nautilus contends the claim is not particular and distinct. It argues the claim is ambiguous after applying all interpretive tools.
Biosig contends the Federal Circuit correctly applied the definiteness test. It argues the claim provides reasonable notice of the invention's boundaries.
questions_and_answers
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 13-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 13-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 41-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 41-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-45
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case concerns a patent for a heart-rate monitor. The core issue is the legal standard for patent claim definiteness. One side argues the claim is ambiguous because it allows two reasonable readings. The other side argues the claim is definite because a skilled artisan understands its scope.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 41-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 41-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 39-39
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 28, 2014.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 39-39
What each side wants
Nautilus wants the court to reverse the lower court decision. It seeks a ruling that the patent claim is ambiguous and invalid.
Biosig wants the court to affirm the lower court decision. It seeks a ruling that the patent claim is definite and valid.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 41-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 41-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 39-39
What each side says
Nautilus argues the claim is ambiguous because it has two reasonable readings with different scopes.
Biosig argues the claim is definite because it gives a skilled artisan reasonable notice of the invention's boundaries.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 41-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 41-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 39-39
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked about the purpose of the invention if it only covered spacing without canceling EMG.
Justice Scalia asked about the limits on trial and error in determining electrode spacing for a patent claim.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 13-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 13-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-45
Why it matters
The outcome defines the legal standard for patent claim definiteness. It determines whether ambiguous claims remain enforceable. This affects patent holders and competitors in the technology sector.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 41-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 41-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 39-39
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 13-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 13-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-45
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 41-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 41-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 41-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 41-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 31-17 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 31-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 39-39
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.