Brown v. Baylor Healthcare System

9 Citing cases

  1. Inventio v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Amercs

    649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 105 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding "modernizing device" denoted sufficient structure based on surrounding claim language

    ThyssenKrupp also argues, quoting Brown v. Baylor Healthcare System, that even if a “computing unit” is read to mean a computer, simply disclosing “a general processor without more” is not enough “to perform the claimed function” and avoid the application of § 112, ¶ 6. 381 Fed.Appx. 981, 983–84 (Fed.Cir.2010) (nonprecedential decision). We agree with Inventio that the “computing unit” here connotes sufficiently definite structure.

  2. Alarm.com Inc. v. Ipdatatel, LLC

    CIVIL ACTION NO. H-18-2108 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2018)

    Brown v. Baylor Health Care Sys., 662 F. Supp. 2d 669, 681 (S.D. Tex. 2009), aff'd sub nom. Brown v. Baylor Healthcare Sys., 381 F. App'x 981 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A patentee may express an algorithm "in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure."

  3. Auto-Dril, Inc. v. Nat'l Oilwell Varco, Lp.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-280 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2018)

    The Federal Circuit does not impose a "lofty standard" for the disclosure required to avoid indefiniteness for means-plus-function claims involving computers that must be specially programmed to perform the recited functions. Brown v. Baylor Health Care Sys., 662 F. Supp. 2d 669 (S.D. Tex. 2009), aff'd sub nom. Brown v. Baylor Healthcare Sys., 381 F. App'x 981 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A patentee may express an algorithm "in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure."

  4. Auto-Dril, Inc. v. Nat'l Oilwell Varco, LP.

    304 F. Supp. 3d 587 (S.D. Tex. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    The Federal Circuit does not impose a "lofty standard" for the disclosure required to avoid indefiniteness for means-plus-function claims involving computers that must be specially programmed to perform the recited functions. Brown v. Baylor Health Care Sys. , 662 F.Supp.2d 669 (S.D. Tex. 2009), aff'd sub nom.Brown v. Baylor Healthcare Sys. , 381 Fed.Appx. 981 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A patentee may express an algorithm "in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure."

  5. Auto-Dril, Inc. v. Nat'l Oilwell Varco, Lp.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-280 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2018)

    The Federal Circuit does not impose a "lofty standard" for the disclosure required to avoid indefiniteness for means-plus-function claims involving computers that must be specially programmed to perform the recited functions. Brown v. Baylor Health Care Sys., 662 F. Supp. 2d 669 (S.D. Tex. 2009), aff'd sub nom. Brown v. Baylor Healthcare Sys., 381 F. App'x 981 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A patentee may express an algorithm "in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure."

  6. Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publications Int'l, Ltd.

    No. 13-cv-2082 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    In conducting this inquiry, a court may make findings of fact regarding indefiniteness, but indefiniteness remains a matter of law. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 831, 841, ___L.Ed.2d ___ (2014); Brown v. Baylor Healthcare Sys., 381 Fed. Appx. 981, 982 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 is [] a matter of law ..."); see also Fujitsu Ltd. v. Tellabs Ops., Inc., 782 F.Supp.2d 635, 644-45 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (explaining indefiniteness is determined by the court as a matter of law). B. The '845 Patent

  7. Dunnhumby U.S., LLC v. Emnos U.S. Corp.

    No. 13-cv-0399 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 1, 2015)   Cited 4 times

    The Court further indicated, however, that it would consider dunnhumby's indefiniteness arguments because indefiniteness is a determination made by the court as a matter of law. See e.g., Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732, 734 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Claim construction and indefiniteness are matters of law ..."); Brown v. Baylor Healthcare Sys., 381 Fed. Appx. 981, 982 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 is also a matter of law ..."); Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("Indefiniteness is a matter of claim construction, and the same principles that generally govern claim construction are application to determining whether allegedly indefinite claim language is subject to construction."); see also Fujitsu Ltd. v. Tellabs Operations, Inc., 782 F.Supp.2d 635, 644-45 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (explaining indefiniteness is determined by the court as a matter of law). Accordingly, the Court asked the parties for supplemental briefing related to the alleged indefiniteness of the disputed claim terms of the '442 Patent and reserved ruling on the validity of the '442 Patent claim terms based on an analysis of the written description.

  8. Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp.

    876 F. Supp. 2d 857 (S.D. Tex. 2012)   Cited 13 times

    However, “the question is not whether one of skill in the art would be capable of implementing a structure to perform the function, but whether that person would understand the written description itself to disclose such a structure.” Brown v. Baylor Health Care Sys., 662 F.Supp.2d 669, 677 (S.D.Tex.2009), aff'd sub nom. Brown v. Baylor Healthcare Sys., 381 Fed.Appx. 981 (Fed.Cir.2010) (citing Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953 (Fed.Cir.2007)).2. Written description

  9. WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp.

    CASE NO. 4:09-CV-1827 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 11, 2012)

    However, "the question is not whether one of skill in the art would be capable of implementing a structure to perform the function, but whether that person would understand the written description itself to disclose such a structure." Brown v. Baylor Health Care Sys., 662 F. Supp. 2d 669, 677 (S.D. Tex. 2009), aff'd sub nom. Brown v. Baylor Healthcare Sys., 381 F. App'x 981 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). 2.