By: Mel R. Quintos
Introduction: The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “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.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014).
Background: In the recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case of Bushnell Hawthorne, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 2019-2191 (Fed. Cir. 2020), Bushnell appealed a decision of the district court holding that Bushnell’s U.S. Patent No. 7,933,951 (“‘951 patent”) is invalid as indefinite pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §112(b). The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of invalidity pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
The ‘951 patent is concerned with the redirecting of internet traffic for, for example, generating advertising revenue. The invention redirects only certain types of communication traffic of interest, while permitting other types of communication to pass without redirection. Figure 1, below, illustrates a block diagram of the method and system of the invention, which redirects only certain desired types of internet communication traffic.
