Judge Bryson: “Reasonable Certainty” Portion of Nautilus Indefiniteness Standard Not Significant

The court denied defendant's motion to strike the declaration of plaintiff's claim construction expert and rejected the argument that the expert relied on an improper indefiniteness standard. "The distinction that the defendants draw between the Supreme Court’s standard and the standard articulated in [plaintiff's expert's] declaration is a narrow one. [Plaintiff's expert] understood that a claim is not indefinite 'if a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope of the claim.' The Supreme Court [in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014)] held that a claim is not indefinite if the claim would 'inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.' This Court does not regard the difference between those two standards as being significant. To say that a person of ordinary skill would understand the scope of the claim implies that the claim would inform such a person of the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty."

Freeny et al v Apple Inc., 2-13-cv-00361 (TXED July 29, 2014, Order) (Bryson, C.J.)