Means-Plus-Function Claims in Patent Eligibility and Infringement Analyses

by Dennis Crouch

Means-plus-function claims have generally been disfavored because of the tendency of courts to  either (1) narrowly construe their scope when corresponding structure is detailed in the specification or (2) render them invalid as indefinite when the specification lacks sufficient corresponding structure. If Impact Engine’s petition is well received, there is a good chance that this historically popular claim style will see a revival. 

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Impact Engine v. Google has again raised the issue of over the proper treatment of MPF, this time regarding patent eligibility and infringement analyses. Appeal No. 22-2291  (Fed. Cir. July 3, 2024).  I had skipped a write-up of the non-precedential decision, but now Impact Engine has petitioned for en banc review, arguing that MPF claims having specific corresponding structure should be deemed per se eligible (or at least presumptively so).

• Impact Engine Fed Cir Decision
• Impact Engine en Banc Petition

Impact Engine sued Google back in 2019, alleging infringement of a family of patents stemming from an April 2005 provisional filing date.   See, U.S.

Continue reading Means-Plus-Function Claims in Patent Eligibility and Infringement Analyses at Patently-O.