112(f) Means Plus Function

Fintiv v. PayPal Holdings: “handler” is a nonce term

The Federal Circuit held that the district court correctly analogized “handler” with the nonce term, “module” which was previously determined to be a generic description of software or hardware that performs a specified function. The prefix “payment” (for “payment handler”) did not impart structure and merely describes the function of the handler: to perform payment functions. The Federal Circuit further agreed with the district court that the specifications of the asserted patents do not disclose any algorithm to perform the recited function, and held the payment-handler terms indefinite.

Read more

Optis Cellular Technology v. Apple: District court's reasoning that “selecting unit” does not invoke § 112 ¶ 6 failed to explain how the selecting unit operates

The Federal Circuit held that “selecting unit” invoked § 112 ¶ 6 and remanded for the corresponding structure and indefiniteness analysis. More specifically, the court found that a “unit” term modified only by functional language (e.g., “selecting”/“configured to randomly select”) is a nonce term that fails to connote sufficiently definite structure and therefore invokes § 112 ¶ 6; remand is appropriate for the district court to determine whether the specification discloses adequate corresponding structure (and resulting definiteness).

Steuben Foods v. Shibuya Hoppmann: District court's JMOL reversed; infringement found under § 112 ¶ 6 “equivalents” standard

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court's JMOL of noninfringement for a § 112 ¶ 6 “means for filling” limitation where substantial evidence supported that accused structures were equivalent in the context of the claimed function. For a § 112 ¶ 6 limitation, structural differences must be assessed in the context of the claimed function and the overall corresponding structure; substantial evidence can support equivalence where accused components perform the identical function in substantially the same way with substantially the same result, even if component-level details differ.