Inventio v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Amercs

105 Citing cases

  1. Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

    899 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 49 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Discussing Inventio, 649 F.3d at 1359-60

    This case is therefore distinguishable from the cases on which the Commission and Hyosung rely. First, in Inventio AG v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Americas Corp. , 649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by Williamson , 792 F.3d at 1339, we found that the written descriptions of the patents "indicate[d] that the 'computing unit' connotes structure to skilled artisans" by expressly referring to the computing unit as "a commercially available personal computer or workstation" and by noting that the term includes "at least one processor and at least one data memory." Id. at 1359–60.

  2. Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.

    757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 468 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when deciding whether the means test is triggered, the question is whether "in view of the specification, prosecution history, etc.," the patent "still provide sufficient structure such that the presumption against means-plus-function claiming remains intact"

    Whether claim language invokes Section 112, ¶ 6 is a question of law that we review de novo. Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Americas Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed.Cir.2011); Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed.Cir.2004). Section 112, ¶ 6 states:

  3. Enocean GmbH v. Face Int'l Corp.

    742 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 11 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting "extensive evidence demonstrating that the term 'receiver' conveys known structure to the skilled person"

    A. Whether the Receiver Claims Invoke § 112, ¶ 6 It is well established that the use of the term “means” triggers a rebuttable presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 governs the construction of the claim term. Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams. Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed.Cir.2011) (citing TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259 (Fed.Cir.2008)). Conversely, where, as here, the claim language does not recite the term “means,” we presume that the limitation does not invoke § 112, ¶ 6.

  4. Corus Realty Holdings, Inc. v. Zillow Grp., Inc.

    CASE NO. C18-0847JLR (W.D. Wash. Jul. 2, 2019)

    Whether certain claim language invokes § 112, ¶ 6 is an exercise in claim construction and is therefore a question of law." See Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams. Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by Williamson, 792 F.3d 1339. The Federal Circuit explains the means-plus-function analysis as follows:

  5. WhitServe LLC v. GoDaddy.Com, Inc.

    65 F. Supp. 3d 317 (D. Conn. 2014)   Cited 2 times
    Finding "software executing on said computer" did not invoke ¶ 6

    To guide this inquiry, the Federal Circuit sets out a rebuttable presumption: if the claim term “actually uses the word ‘means,’ ” it is presumed to be a means-plus claim, if the claim term “does not use ‘means,’ ” it is presumed not to be. Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed.Cir.2004) (quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.Cir.2002) ). “[T]he presumption flowing from the absence of the term ‘means' is a strong one that is not readily overcome.” Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Americas Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed.Cir.2011).A. Rebutting the Presumption Against Means–Plus

  6. Signify N. Am. Corp. v. Lepro Innovation Inc.

    2:22-cv-02095-JAD-DJA (D. Nev. Dec. 5, 2023)

    See '138 Patent, Cl. 1 (noting that the controller is “coupled to the at least one LED and configured to receive a power-related signal from an alternating current (A.C.) power source that provides signals other than a standard A.C. line voltage” and is also “configured to provide power to the at least one LED based on the power-related signal”); '399 Patent, Cl. 7 (same). Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Americas Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by Williamson, 792 F.3d 1339; see also Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004). E.g., '399 Patent, Cl. 17.

  7. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC

    792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 638 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a means-plus-function term is indefinite "if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim"

    In Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed.Cir.2004), we applied for the first time a different standard to the presumption flowing from the absence of the word “means” and held that “the presumption flowing from the absence of the term ‘means' is a strong one that is not readily overcome ” (emphasis added), citing as examples, Al–Site Corp. v. VSI International, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1318–19 (Fed.Cir.1999) and Personalized Media Communications, 161 F.3d at 703–05. A few years later, we reiterated Lighting World 's characterization of the presumption as a “strong one that is not readily overcome” in Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Americas Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed.Cir.2011). In Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Kappos, 697 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2012), decided just a year after Inventio, we raised the bar even further, declaring that “[w]hen the claim drafter has not signaled his intent to invoke § 112, ¶ 6 by using the term ‘means,’ we are unwilling to apply that provision without a showing that the limitation essentially is devoid of anything that can be construed as structure ” (emphasis added), citing Masco Corp. v. United States, 303 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed.Cir.2002), a case involving the different term “step for” and the unusual circumstances in which § 112, para. 6 relates to the functional language of a method claim.

  8. Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc.

    Case No. 2:15-CV-1725-RWS LEAD CASE (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2017)

    "In undertaking this analysis, we ask if the claim language, read in light of the specification, recites sufficiently definite structure to avoid § 112, ¶ 6." Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 769 F.3d 1094, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Inventio AG v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Ams. Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). None of the claims recite the word "means."

  9. Triplay, Inc. v. Whatsapp, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 13-1703-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Jun. 30, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    "[I]t is proper to consult the intrinsic record, including the written description, when determining if a challenger has rebutted the presumption that a claim lacking the term 'means' recites sufficiently definite structure." Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams. Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by Williamson, 792 F.3d 1339; see also Apple, 757 F.3d at 1298. In Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit overruled prior precedent that had described this presumption as a "'strong'" one, and instead held that the presumption does not amount to a "heightened burden" nor does it require a "heightened evidentiary showing[.

  10. Guitar Apprentice, Inc. v. Ubisoft, Inc.

    97 F. Supp. 3d 965 (W.D. Tenn. 2015)

    The Federal Circuit has “repeatedly characterized this presumption as ‘strong’ and ‘not readily overcome’ and, as such, [has] ‘seldom’ held that a limitation without recitation of ‘means' is a means-plus-function limitation.” Id. (citing Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1358, 1362 (Fed.Cir.2004) ; Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams. Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed.Cir.2011) ). “The correct inquiry is ‘whether skilled artisans, after reading the patent, would conclude that a claim limitation is so devoid of structure that the drafter constructively engaged in means-plus-function claiming.’ ”