Despite the willingness of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to interpret means-plus-function claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 6, that tribunal has practically gone out of its way to avoid interpreting step-plus-function claim limitations. Even though the court finally defined step-plus-function limitations nearly two years ago, [FOOTNOTE 1]no other Federal Circuit decision had revisited this issue until the recent ruling in Seal-Flex Inc. v. Athletic Track and Court Construction. [FOOTNOTE 2]

The Federal Circuit’s per curiam opinion, however, avoided the issue by assuming — as did both the parties and the U.S. district court in Detroit–that the disputed claim element was subject to � 112, para. 6 without explaining how. [FOOTNOTE 3]Nevertheless, Judge Randall R. Rader’s concurring opinion, albeit technically dicta, may show where the Federal Circuit is headed. [FOOTNOTE 4]

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]