Supreme Court’s New Indefiniteness Standard Does Not Require Reconsideration Of Claim Construction

The court denied plaintiffs' motion for supplemental claim construction following Nautilus, Inc. v. BioSig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. ___, No. 13-369, slip op. (June 2, 2014) addressing indefiniteness. "Plaintiffs are correct that the Supreme Court recently announced a new standard for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Although Plaintiffs raise concerns regarding the indefinite nature of 'central area' in their motion for supplemental construction, that argument was not presented in their opening claim construction memorandum and Plaintiffs have failed to provide a sufficient justification for this untimely argument. . . . The Federal Circuit has since affirmed the Court’s construction of one of the terms identified in Plaintiffs’ motion and the Court is not inclined to revisit any of its constructions at this time."

Radio Systems Corporation et al v. Lalor et al, 2-10-cv-00828 (WAWD June 17, 2014, Order) (Lasnik, J.)