Navigation
CAFC Precedential - 2025 - § 112 INDEFINITENESS
Akamai Tech. v. MediaPointe: Objective boundaries needed for “optimal” or “best” in claim
Claim 1. A system [. . .] wherein the management center comprising a mapping engine that is configured to map trace routes between the management center, at least one of the nodes, and at least the first client so as to determine one or more optimal routes. . . .“
The Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity where degree terms (“optimal,” “best”) lacked objective boundaries in the intrinsic record, despite reference to trace-route measurements. The court held that terms of degree are indefinite unless the specification/prosecution history supply objective boundaries that allow a skilled artisan to determine scope with reasonable certainty; merely requiring use of trace-route data does not cure indefiniteness where the intrinsic record leaves open-ended which factors apply and how to resolve tradeoffs among metrics that can diverge. A claim’s requirement to use a tool or dataset (here, trace routes) does not provide an objective boundary if it is non-exclusive (other factors may be considered) and does not specify how to choose among multiple potentially conflicting measurement methods or combinations.
Canatext Completion Solutions v. Wellmatics: Antecedent basis error non-fatal
The Federal Circuit reversed an indefiniteness holding based on missing antecedent basis error by concluding the claim contained an obvious error that can be judicially corrected. Because the issue was resolved on intrinsic evidence without fact findings, the court treated the matter as de novo claim interpretation and rejected reliance on expert testimony not supplying extrinsic facts. The court also confirmed that the judicial correction is unavailable if the prosecution history suggests a different interpretation, and found no such prosecution-history indication here.
The court held that it may judicially correct claim language only under a demanding standard: the error must be evident on the face of the patent to a skilled artisan, the correction must not be subject to reasonable debate based on the claims and specification, and the prosecution history must not suggest a different interpretation (and, at least here, the correct is a simple or minor textual change).