A Change In What 'Means' Means: The En Banc Federal Circuit Reverses Itself

The Federal Circuit panel deciding Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 770 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014), in November 2014 overturned a district court claim construction that treated the term "distributed learning control module" as a means-plus-function expression under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,155,840 ("the '840 patent"), describes methods and systems for distributed or distance learning, enabling presenters to connect to audiences via virtual classrooms. The patent owner conceded that the district court's construction rendered the relevant claims invalid as indefinite, and stipulated to final judgment, followed by an appeal.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit panel held, in line with precedent existing since 2004, that because "distributed learning control module" did not use the word "means," there exists a strong rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. To rebut the presumption, "it must be demonstrated that 'skilled artisans, after reading the patent, would conclude that [the] claim limitation is so devoid of structure that the drafter constructively engaged in means-plus-function claiming.'" Id. at 1378 (alteration in original) (quoting Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams. Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). In this case, the court found that the word "module" is not the equivalent of "means," because "module" is a structural term, and that the district court did not consider and give weight to the language of the entire claim.

Accordingly, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court's entry of final judgment against Williamson and remanded the case to the district court. On June 16, 2015, the Federal Circuit withdrew its opinion and substituted a new one, including an en banc section (Part II.C.1) addressing the means-plus-function issue. The en banc court reversed the precedent creating a "strong" presumption based on the presence or absence of the word "means." Instead, the court held that the standard is "whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, No. 2013-1130, slip op. at 14 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015).

As before, if the claim language does not meet the standard, § 112, ¶ 6 (now § 112(f)) applies. Whereas previously, the analysis appeared almost strictly literal, precedent nevertheless included the notion that...