US Court of Appeals Archives - Page 2 of 133

US Court of Appeals

No Article III Appellate Standing Under the Sun

by Anisa Noorassa | May 15, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed Incyte’s appeal of a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision, holding that a disappointed validity challenger lacked appellate standing to challenge the Board’s final written decision. Incyte Corp. v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries, Inc., Case No. 23-1300 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2025) (Moore, C.J.; Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.) (Hughes, J., concurring).

After the Board upheld the validity of challenged claims of a patent owned by Sun Pharmaceuticals in a post-grant review proceeding (PGR), Incyte appealed and sought a determination that the claims were unpatentable. Sun Pharmaceuticals challenged whether Incyte had Article III standing to support an appeal to the Federal Circuit based on a lack of injury-in-fact.

The Federal Circuit focused on its jurisdiction to hear the appeal as a threshold issue and whether Incyte, as the party seeking review, met its burden of establishing Article III standing at the time it filed its appeal.

As context, the Federal Circuit noted that standing requires a concrete, actual, or imminent injury that is traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by the court’s decision. Incyte asserted it had standing to appeal based on potential infringement liability and under the competitor standing doctrine.

Addressing potential infringement liability, the Federal Circuit noted Incyte’s reliance on a supplemental declaration from an in-house business development leader submitted during briefing. Noting that Incyte’s Article III standing was “not self-evident,” the Court ruled that Incyte should have presented evidence prior to its reply brief and declined to consider the supplemental evidence. Incyte was on notice that its appellate standing was challenged, and that evidence of its standing should have been submitted at the earliest possible opportunity. Finding no good cause for the delay, the Court declined to exercise its discretion to consider Incyte’s supplemental evidence and, based only on earlier submitted evidence, found that Incyte failed to establish that it had “concrete plans for future activity” that would create a “substantial risk of future infringement.”

In its discussion of the competitor standing doctrine, which allows competitors to challenge patents that could harm their competitive position, the Federal Circuit found the doctrine inapplicable because Incyte failed to show it would suffer economic harm from the Board’s ruling on patent validity. Rather, the Board’s ruling upholding specific patent claims “does not, by the operation of ordinary economic forces, naturally harm a [challenger] just because it is a competitor in the same market as the beneficiary of the government action (the patentee).” As the Court explained, “it is not enough to show a benefit to a competitor to establish injury in fact; the party seeking to establish standing must show a concrete injury to itself.”

The Federal Circuit held that because Incyte had not shown it was currently engaged in or had non-speculative plans to engage in conduct covered by the challenged patent, it was unable to establish injury-in-fact.

In his concurrence, Judge Hughes stated that while Incyte lacked Article III standing, he believed that Federal Circuit precedent was [...]

Continue Reading

False Connection: Post-Application Date Evidence Can Be Considered

by Ashley K. Justice | May 15, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s refusal to register a mark on the grounds of false connection, explaining that the false connection inquiry can include evidence that arises during the examination after filing. In re Thomas D. Foster, APC, Case No. 23-1527 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2025) (Moore, Prost, Stoll, JJ.)

Under § 2(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)), a trademark can be refused registration if it “falsely suggests a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.” To determine if a mark falsely suggests a connection, the Board can use a non-exhaustive four-part test that inquires whether:

The mark is the same, or a close approximation of, the name previously used by another person or institution.
The mark points uniquely or unmistakably to that person or institution.
That person or institution is not connected with the activities performed by the applicant under the mark.
The fame or reputation of the person or institution is such that, when the mark is used with the applicant’s goods or services, a connection with the person or institution would be presumed.

Here, Thomas D. Foster filed a trademark application for the mark US SPACE FORCE on March 19, 2018, six days after President Trump proposed forming a “Space Force.” Registration was refused on the grounds of a false suggestion of a connection with the US government. The Board affirmed and denied reconsideration. Foster appealed.

Foster argued that the Board improperly considered evidence that post-dated the application’s filing date and that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s findings under the first two elements of the four-part false connections test.

Regarding Foster’s first argument, the Federal Circuit found it permissible to use facts that arise after an application’s filing date and during the examination process to assess a false connection. The Court reasoned that this was consistent with other § 2 inquiries that consider evidence that arises through the date the Board issues its decision, such as likelihood of confusion (§ 2(d)) and distinctiveness (§ 2(f)). Therefore, the Court found that the Board did not err in its consideration of evidence that arose during the examination process.

The Federal Circuit disagreed with Foster’s second argument, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings under the false connection test. Under the first part of the test, the Board found that US SPACE FORCE was the same as, or a close approximation of, a name or identity of the United States. The Court concluded that this was supported by substantial evidence, specifically pre-application evidence (President Trump’s announcement and national news articles discussing the formation of the US Space Force) and post-application evidence (the official establishment of the US Space Force and national news articles). Under the second part of the test, the Board had found that US SPACE FORCE pointed uniquely and unmistakably to the United States. The Board again relied on news coverage and the fact that [...]

Continue Reading

Breaking New Grounds to Limits of IPR Estoppel

by Amol Parikh | May 15, 2025 | Patents

In a matter of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel does not preclude a petitioner from relying on the same patents and printed publications as evidence in asserting a ground that could not have been raised during the IPR proceeding, such as that the claimed invention was known or used by others, on sale, or in public use. Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, Case No. 23-1367 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2025) (Dyk, Prost, Hughes, JJ.)

IOENGINE owns patents directed to a portable device, such as a USB thumb drive, that includes a processor that causes communications to be sent to a network server in response to user interaction with an interface on a terminal. Ingenico filed a declaratory judgment action against IOENGINE after one of Ingenico’s customers was sued for infringement based on Ingenico’s products. Ingenico filed IPR petitions challenging the asserted patents, which resulted in final written decisions that held most of the challenged claims unpatentable.

Back at the district court, IOENGINE proceeded with the remaining claims. At summary judgment, IOENGINE moved, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), to preclude Ingenico from relying on “documentation related to DiskOnKey Upgrade software,” arguing that Ingenico reasonably could have been expected to raise that prior art during the IPR proceedings. The district court ruled that “Ingenico will be estopped from relying on those documents [to prove invalidity] except to the extent . . . that they form part of a substantively different combination of references that could not reasonably have been raised in the IPRs.”

At trial, Ingenico introduced evidence of a prior art USB device known as the DiskOnKey. The DiskOnKey device was offered with various software applications, including an application called Firmware Upgrader, and was equipped with capabilities described in a Software Development Kit (together, the DiskOnKey system). Ingenico argued that the DiskOnKey system invalidated the asserted claims as anticipated or obvious because it was either “on sale” or “in public use” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), or “known or used by others . . . before the date of the invention” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). The jury returned a verdict finding the patents were infringed but invalid as anticipated and obvious. Both parties appealed.

IOENGINE did not dispute the jury’s finding that the DiskOnKey system invalidated the claims-at-issue as anticipated or obvious if the DiskOnKey system was prior art, but instead argued that the jury’s finding that the Firmware Upgrader portion of the DiskOnKey system was either “on sale” or “in public use,” or “known or used by others . . . before the invention.”

The Federal Circuit found that the jury’s finding that the Firmware Upgrader was accessible to the public was supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Ingenico had introduced a press release promoting the launch of the Firmware Upgrader and a website from which the Firmware Upgrader was available for download. IOENGINE argued that this evidence did not show actual use, but the Court rejected [...]

Continue Reading

Hatch-Waxman or Not, Clinical Trials Aren’t Subject to Injunction

by Christopher M. Bruno | May 15, 2025 | Patents

Analyzing the permissible scope of an injunction under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s prohibitions on an open-label extension (OLE) of a then-running clinical trial and new clinical trials and remanded for further consideration of whether prohibiting a request for an additional indication was appropriate. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals LLC, Case No. 24-2274 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2025) (Lourie, Reyna, Taranto, JJ.)

This appeal is one of several disputes between Jazz and Avadel regarding their competing sodium oxybate products. Jazz markets two such products: Xyrem, approved for treating excessive daytime sleepiness and certain cataplexy, and Xywav, which, in addition to Xyrem’s indications, also may be used for treating idiopathic hypersomnia. Avadel filed a § 505(b)(2) new drug application (NDA) to market its own product, Lumryz. During the pendency of the Lumryz application, Jazz obtained a patent and asserted that Avadel infringed it under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), part of the Hatch-Waxman Act, based on its filing of the Lumryz NDA. The patent was never Orange Book listed, so Avadel did not need to submit any patent certification.

The US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approved Lumryz. Avadel launched the product, and Jazz amended its complaint to assert traditional § 271(a) – (c) infringement. Ultimately, Avadel and Jazz stipulated infringement, the patent was determined not invalid, and the jury awarded damages based on the post-launch infringement. After further proceedings, the district court permanently enjoined Avadel from seeking an idiopathic hypersomnia indication for Lumryz, offering an OLE phase of its then-running Lumryz idiopathic hypersomnia clinical trial, and against initiating new clinical trials. Avadel appealed, arguing that each of these restrictions was improper.

The Federal Circuit largely agreed with Avadel, reversing the first two prohibitions, and remanded the case back to the district court for further consideration of the prohibition against any new clinical trials. Turning first to the prohibition on new clinical trials, the Court held that initiating new trials for the purposes of submission to the FDA fell squarely within the Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor for experimentation (under § 271(e)(1)) and thus could not be enjoined (per §271(e)(3)). Jazz unsuccessfully argued that Avadel had waived its Safe Harbor position, which required factual development.

Next, the Federal Circuit rejected the district court’s injunction against an OLE, concluding that the district court had not applied the Supreme Court’s four-factor eBay (2006) test for injunctions when deciding the appropriateness of such extraordinary relief. Refusing to determine whether an OLE extension qualified as safe-harbored activity in the first instance, the Court explained that only if such activity were deemed to be infringing on an appropriate record could it be enjoined.

Finally, with respect to prohibiting Avadel from seeking an idiopathic hypersomnia indication for Lumryz, the Federal Circuit concluded that the propriety of that restriction may turn on whether the infringement qualified under the Hatch-Waxman Act, reasoning that an injunction might run afoul of the § 271(e)(4) limitation on the scope of injunctive relief. [...]

Continue Reading

No Protectable Code: No Literal or Nonliteral Copying

by Keval Amin | May 15, 2025 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a plaintiff failed to establish copyright protection for its software platforms, drawing a distinction between “literal” copying (direct duplication of source code) and “nonliteral” copying (reproduction of structure, sequence, or user interface). InfoDeli, LLC v. Western Robidoux, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-2146 (8th Cir. May 5, 2025) (Gruender, Kelly, Grasz, JJ.)

InfoDeli partnered with Western Robidoux, Inc. (WRI), a commercial printing and fulfillment firm co-owned by family members, in 2009 to form a joint venture. The agreement leveraged InfoDeli’s expertise in developing custom webstore platforms and WRI’s capacity for printing and fulfillment. Their collaboration served major clients such as Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Inc. (BIVI) and CEVA Animal Health, LLC, both providers of animal health products. InfoDeli built webstores enabling the companies’ sales teams to order promotional materials, which WRI then fulfilled. InfoDeli developed the Vectra Rebate platform for CEVA, allowing marketing staff to issue customer coupons that were also fulfilled by WRI.

By early 2014, tensions emerged. Without informing InfoDeli, WRI hired a competitor, Engage Mobile Solutions, to replace InfoDeli’s platforms for CEVA and BIVI. Engage used open-source software, in contrast to InfoDeli’s proprietary systems. WRI also shared InfoDeli-developed content with Engage to aid the transition. Shortly thereafter, WRI abruptly terminated its joint venture with InfoDeli.

InfoDeli sued WRI, CEVA, BIVI, and Engage for copyright infringement, tortious interference, and violations of the Missouri Computer Tampering Act related to certain webstores. The defendants counterclaimed conversion and tortious interference. The district court ruled in favor of the defendants on the copyright claims and denied InfoDeli’s motion on the counterclaims. After a jury sided with the defendants, InfoDeli filed motions for judgment and a new trial, both of which were denied. InfoDeli appealed.

The Eighth Circuit found that InfoDeli failed to prove its platforms were protected by copyright. The Court distinguished between “literal” and “nonliteral” copying, explaining that literal copying referred to direct duplication of original source code while nonliteral copying involved reproducing the overall structure or user interface. The district court had already determined that the nonliteral elements of InfoDeli’s platforms were not copyrightable. On appeal, InfoDeli did not challenge this determination regarding the individual elements. Instead, InfoDeli argued that the platforms should be protected “as a whole,” claiming that the interrelationship of elements made them protectable. However, the Eighth Circuit found that InfoDeli did not explain how the elements’ arrangement exhibited the required creativity for copyright protection.

InfoDeli further argued that the district court erred in not considering the verbatim copying of its source code. However, since InfoDeli’s complaint only alleged infringement of nonliteral elements, the Eighth Circuit found that the district court properly focused on those claims.

InfoDeli also argued that the district court erred by relying on InfoDeli’s expert’s list of protectable elements for the BIVI platform. However, the Court rejected this claim, pointing to precedent holding that when a plaintiff identifies specific elements as protectable, it effectively concedes that the remaining elements [...]

Continue Reading

No Supremacy Clause Preemption Where State Statute Doesn’t Conflict With Federal

by Lois D. Mermelstein | May 8, 2025 | Life Sciences

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit explained that ordinarily, when state law contradicts with federal law, the state law may be preempted by the federal law under the US Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. However, under Supreme Court precedent, state unfair-competition laws that accurately mirror the relevant provisions of federal law are not subject to preemption. Zyla Life Sciences, LLC v. Wells Pharma of Houston, LLC, Case No. 23-20533 (5th Cir. April 10, 2025) (Oldham, Ho, Duncan, JJ.)

Under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., no one may sell any new drug without prior approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Because compounded drugs are not new but are merely remixed versions of existing drugs, registered compounding facilities are allowed to sell compounded drugs as long as they satisfy additional criteria specified in the FDCA. Six states mirror federal law by making it illegal to sell any new drug without FDA approval and provide for suit under traditional state unfair-competition law if a party sells drugs in violation of these state laws.

Zyla and Wells Pharma are competitors. Zyla sells FDA-approved suppositories containing indomethacin, a drug used to treat various ailments such as rheumatoid arthritis. Wells Pharma sells compounded indomethacin suppositories that are not FDA approved, but Wells Pharma is a registered compounding facility and thus satisfies at least one provision of the exemption. Zyla, seeking to enjoin Wells Pharma from manufacturing and selling its compounded suppositories in the six states mirroring the FDCA, filed suit under those states’ unfair-competition laws. Wells Pharma moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6), arguing that the state laws were preempted. After the district granted the motion, Zyla appealed.

The issue before the Fifth Circuit was whether the state laws conflict with the FDCA by incorporating it. As the Court explained, a state triggers implied “[o]bstacles-and-purposes preemption . . . when state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Here, (quoting the California statute) the six state statutes at issue bar selling a “new drug” that has not been approved “under Section 505 of the [FDCA].” The Fifth Circuit, citing the 1949 Supreme Court decision in California v. Zook as controlling, concluded that where there is no conflict in statutory terms between the state and federal statutes, there is no preemption. Both a state and the federal government may regulate the same conduct – whether a state has provided an additional remedy in state law is irrelevant – and the FDCA itself permits states to regulate conduct related to drug safety and effectiveness concurrently with the federal government.

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting Wells Pharma’s motion to dismiss and remanded the case.

Paint It White: No Sovereign Immunity in Economic Espionage Case

by Hannah Hurley | May 8, 2025 | Trade Secrets

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of foreign sovereign immunity to a Chinese company accused of stealing trade secrets related to the production of proprietary metallurgy technology. United States v. Pangang Grp. Co., Ltd., Case No. 22-10058 (9th Cir. Apr. 29, 2025) (Wardlaw, Collins, Bress, JJ.)

Pangang is a manufacturer of steel, vanadium, and titanium. E.I. du Pont de Nemours (DuPont) had a proprietary chloride-route technology used for producing TiO₂, a valuable white pigment used in paints, plastics, and paper. Pangang allegedly conspired with others to obtain DuPont’s trade secrets related to TiO₂ production through economic espionage in order to use the stolen information to start a titanium production plant in China. The US government filed a criminal lawsuit.

In defense, Pangang invoked the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and federal common law, arguing that it was entitled to foreign sovereign immunity from criminal prosecution in the United States because it was ultimately owned and controlled by the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In a prior appeal, the Ninth Circuit had found that Pangang failed to make a prima facie showing that it fell within the FSIA’s domain of covered entities. On remand, the district court again rejected Pangang’s remaining claims of foreign sovereign immunity, including its claims based on federal common law.

While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Turkiye Halk Bankasi v. United States clarified that common law, not the FSIA, governs whether foreign states and their instrumentalities are entitled to foreign sovereign immunity from criminal prosecution in US courts. This led to a rebriefing of the present appeal to focus on the now-controlling issues concerning the extent to which Pangang enjoys foreign sovereign immunity under federal common law. Under federal common law, an entity must satisfy two conditions to enjoy foreign sovereign immunity from suit:

It must be the kind of entity eligible for immunity.
Its conduct must fall within the scope of the immunity conferred.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that Pangang did not make a prima facie showing that it exercised functions comparable to those of an agency of the PRC and therefore was not eligible for foreign sovereign immunity from criminal prosecution. The Court also found that “[t]he mere fact that a foreign state owns and controls a corporation is not sufficient to bring the corporation within the ambit of [sovereign immunity].” Since Pangang’s commercial activities were not governmental functions, there was no evidence that sovereign immunity should be applied. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity.

RAW Confusion? No Error Where Trial Court Declines to Clarify Agreed Jury Instruction

by Connor M. Larson | May 8, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s jury verdict that found trade dress infringement and liability under state deceptive practices law, and the court’s order entering a nationwide permanent injunction. The Seventh Circuit found the district court’s agreed jury instruction accurate and determined that there was no error in refusing to further clarify the instruction for the jury. Republic Techs. (NA), LLC v. BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP, Case No. 23-2973 (7th Cir. Apr. 25, 2025) (Hamilton, Scudder, Lee, JJ.)

Republic Technologies and BBK Tobacco are competitors in the business of organic, hemp-based rolling papers for cigarettes. Republic manufactures and markets its own papers under the name OCB, and BBK markets papers manufactured by others, including its house brand, RAW. After BBK formally requested that Republic change its OCB trade dress to avoid potential confusion with the RAW trade dress, Republic sued for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, unfair competition, and deceptive advertisement under the federal Lanham Act, Illinois common law, and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (IUDTPA). BBK filed a counterclaim for trade dress infringement and copyright infringement.

At trial, the parties agreed on the jury instruction for the Lanham Act false advertising claim. However, during deliberations, the jury asked for clarification on the definition of “consumer.” Over Republic’s objection, the district court answered the jury’s question by stating that “the answers are contained in the instructions,” and directed the jury “to refer to and review all the instructions.” The jury returned a mixed verdict, finding against Republic on the federal false advertising claims but finding for Republic on its common law and IUDTPA claims. Republic then sought, and the district court granted, a permanent injunction that set limitations on the statements BBK was permitted to make in its advertisements.

On BBK’s counterclaim of trade dress infringement, the jury found that Republic’s trade dress for its OCB papers infringed BBK’s trade dress for its RAW papers. Republic moved for judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement and for a new trial on its false advertising claim based on the disputed answer to the jury’s question. The court denied both motions. Both parties appealed.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed on all issues. First, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its response to the jury’s question or in denying the request for a new trial because a trial judge’s responsibility is to strike “a balance between giving the jury all it needs but without unnecessary detail” and the judge’s answer in this case did not result in the prejudice necessary for a reversal.

Second, the Seventh Circuit reviewed the evidence presented to the jury concerning the trade dress infringement claim and determined that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict and the verdict was not irrational. Republic argued that it was not reasonable to confuse the OCB packaging with the RAW packaging “given the prominent display of the brand names in great big letters [...]

Continue Reading

No Green Light to Register Color Mark for Medical Gloves

by Eleanor B. Atkins | May 8, 2025 | Trademarks

Addressing for the first time the test for determining whether a color mark is generic, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit adopted the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s Milwaukee test as the appropriate standard, affirming the Board’s determination that a dark green color mark used on medical examination gloves was generic. In re PT Medisafe Technologies, Case No. 2023-1573 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2025) (Prost, Clevenger, Stark, JJ.)

PT Medisafe filed an application to register a dark green color mark for use in connection with medical examination gloves:

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) examining attorney refused registration, alleging that the mark was not inherently distinctive and therefore required a showing of acquired distinctiveness. In response, Medisafe submitted evidence in support of acquired distinctiveness, including a declaration from a Medisafe vice president, promotional literature, and examples of competitive goods. The examining attorney was not swayed, issuing another office action stating that the mark had not acquired distinctiveness and was generic. Medisafe submitted additional evidence in support of acquired distinctiveness, including additional declarations, but the examining attorney ultimately issued a final office action refusing registration.

On appeal, the Board applied a two-step test to determine whether the applied-for color mark was generic:

What is the genus of the goods or services at issue?
Is the color “so common within the relevant genus that consumers would primarily associate it with the genus rather than as indicating a unique source of goods [or services] within the genus?”

This test, which was first articulated in the Board’s 2019 decision in Milwaukee Electric Tool v. Freud America, is a “slight variation” of the standard test for genericness set forth in the Federal Circuit’s 1986 decision in H. Marvin Ginn v. International Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, modified for use specifically with color marks.

The Board found that the appropriate genus was “all chloroprene medical examination gloves” and the relevant public included “all such people or businesses who do or may purchase chloroprene medical examination gloves.” The Board likewise agreed with the examining attorney that the color mark was generic because “it is so common in the chloroprene medical examination glove industry that it cannot identify a single source.”

The Board cited 25 examples of third parties using the same or a similar dark green color on medical examination gloves. Medisafe claimed that 15 of those 25 examples were Medisafe gloves, but the Board nonetheless affirmed the refusal, noting that “Medisafe made no such claim as to the other 10,” and “all 25 screenshots [are] probative of genericness because the relevant consumer – even including unspecified ‘authorized resellers’ – could be exposed to . . . gloves that appear under a large number of third-party marks without identifying [Medisafe] as the source or manufacturer.” Medisafe appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Medisafe argued that the Board applied the wrong standard in determining that [...]

Continue Reading

“Payment Handler”: A Nonce Term Without Instructions

by Jodi Benassi | May 8, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a software term was a “nonce” term that invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (i.e., a means-plus-function claim element). The Court further found that the patent specification did not recite sufficient corresponding structure, rendering the claim element indefinite. Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., Case No. 23-2312 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2025) (Prost, Taranto, Stark JJ.)

Fintiv sued PayPal for infringing four patents related to cloud-based transaction systems, also known as “mobile wallet platforms,” “mobile financial services platforms,” or “electronic payment systems.” During claim construction, the district court ruled that the terms “payment handler” and “payment handler service” were indefinite. The court concluded that both terms were means-plus-function limitations governed by § 112, sixth paragraph. Although the claims did not use the word “means,” the district court found that PayPal had demonstrated that the terms were drafted in a format consistent with traditional means-plus-function language, effectively substituting “payment handler” for the word “means.” The court also found that the patent specifications failed to disclose corresponding structure capable of performing the claimed functions. As a result, the court held the claims invalid for indefiniteness and entered final judgment. Fintiv appealed.

Fintiv argued that the district court erred in concluding that the payment handler terms invoked § 112(f) and that the specifications failed to disclose the structure for the claimed functions. The Federal Circuit disagreed.

The Federal Circuit analyzed the “payment-handler” terms, which did not explicitly use the word “means.” Under § 112(f), there is a rebuttable presumption that a claim term does not invoke means-plus-function treatment unless the challenger can show that the term is a nonce term that lacks “sufficiently definite structure” or only recites a function without providing enough structure to perform that function. Fintiv contended that the payment handler terms, both individually and collectively, identified the required structure. However, the Court found that PayPal had successfully rebutted the presumption since the payment handler terms recited functions without reciting sufficient structure to perform those functions. The Court agreed with the district court that the term “handler” did not convey sufficient structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art.

Having determined that the payment handler terms invoked § 112(f), the Federal Circuit sought to identify the corresponding structure described in the specifications for performing the payment handler function but found none. The Court concluded that “without an algorithm to achieve these functionalities – and, more generally, given the specifications’ failure to disclose adequate corresponding structure – we hold the payment-handler terms indefinite.”

Older Posts »

« Newer Posts

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS