Federal Circuit Reiterates Strong Presumption Against Means-Plus-Function Claiming For Claim Limitations That Fail To Use The Word 'Means'

In Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, No. 13-1130 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2014), the Federal Circuit vacated a stipulated judgment of noninfringement and invalidity, finding that the district court erroneously construed "graphical display" limitations to require a pictorial map and the term "distributed learning control module" as a means-plus-function expression.

Richard A. Williamson, as trustee for the At Home Corporation Bondholders' Liquidating Trust, owns U.S. Patent No. 6,155,840 ("the '840 patent"). The '840 patent describes methods and systems for distributed learning that create a virtual classroom to connect presenters with geographically remote audiences. Williamson accused Citrix Online, LLC and others (collectively "Citrix") of infringing the '840 patent based on various systems and methods of online collaboration. The district court construed "graphical display" limitations in claims 1 and 17 of the '840 patent as requiring a pictorial map and the "distributed learning control module" in claim 8 as a means-plus-function term. Williamson conceded that the district court's construction rendered claims 1-7 and 17-24 not infringed and claims 8-16 invalid as indefinite. The parties stipulated to final judgment. Williamson appealed.

"This court has repeatedly 'cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.'" Slip op. at 10 (quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).

"[W]e have seldom held that a limitation not using the term 'means' must be considered to be in means-plus-function form, and the circumstances must be [unusual] to overcome the presumption." Id. at 14 (alterations in original) (quoting Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in both claim constructions. Regarding the construction of the "graphical display" limitations, the Court explained that it "has repeatedly 'cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.'" Slip op. at 10 (quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). While the '840 patent specification discloses examples and embodiments depicting the visual classroom as a "map" or "seating chart," the Court explained that the specification does not...