Relative Terms Sufficient For Reasonable Certainty

• Published date: 25 April 2022
• Law Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
• Author: Ms Caitlin E. O'Connell, Adriana L. Burgy, Melanie Magdun, Angeline Premraj, Barbara C. McCurdy, Stacy Lewis and Thomas L. Irving

Holding

In Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc., No. 21-1864 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 11, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") reversed the district court's holding that the claim terms "resilient" and "pliable" were indefinite. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to resolve the infringement issue and any remaining invalidity defenses. While the Federal Circuit addressed several other issues, this post analyzes the portion of the opinion related to the indefiniteness issue.

Background

Niazi sued St. Jude for infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 6,638,268 ("the '268 patent") directed to a double catheter for cannulating the coronary sinus without significant manipulation. Representative claim 1 reads:

1. A double catheter, comprising: an outer, resilient catheter having shape memory and a hook shaped distal end configured for cannulation of the coronary sinus with at least one curved bend; an inner, pliable catheter slidably disposed in the outer catheter and of greater length than the outer catheter so that a distal end portion of the inner catheter can be extended or retracted from a...