small-logo
ProfessionalsCapabilitiesInsights & NewsCareersLocations
About UsAlumniOpportunity & InclusionPro BonoCorporate Social Responsibility
Stay Connected:
facebookinstagramlinkedintwitteryoutube
  1. Insights & News

Client Alert

Interpretation of a Means-Plus-Function Claim Involves Two Distinct Steps That Must Not Be Conflated: Determining Whether the Limitation Is Drafted in Means-Plus-Function Format, and Then Identifying the Corresponding Structure

  • PDFPDF
    • Email
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    Share this page
  • PDFPDF
    • Email
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    Share this page

Client Alert

Interpretation of a Means-Plus-Function Claim Involves Two Distinct Steps That Must Not Be Conflated: Determining Whether the Limitation Is Drafted in Means-Plus-Function Format, and Then Identifying the Corresponding Structure

  • PDFPDF
    • Email
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    Share this page

1 Min Read

Author

Alison King

Related Locations

Charlotte
Chicago
Los Angeles
Silicon Valley

Related Topics

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
Obviousness Standards for Patents

Related Capabilities

Intellectual Property
Patent Litigation

August 13, 2019

MTD Prods. Inc. v. Iancu, 933 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2019)

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidated a patent as obvious, concluding that the term “mechanical control assembly” was not a means-plus-function term. The Federal Circuit reversed, saying that the PTAB conducted its analysis incorrectly under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and remanded to reconsider the obviousness question.

Interpretation of an asserted means-plus-function limitation involves two inquiries: (1) is the claim limitation drafted in means-plus-function format—i.e., does the limitation connote sufficiently definite structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art; and (2) if so, what is the corresponding structure identified in the specification.

The patentee introduced expert testimony that the term at issue was a generic one that could be used to describe any number of parts on a vehicle, and so does not connote sufficiently definite structure. The petitioner did not contradict this testimony, but instead argued that statements made in the specification and prosecution history gave the term a specific structure. The PTAB held that the term was not a means-plus-function term based on the structure defined in the specification and prosecution history, despite agreeing that the claim itself favored a means-plus-function interpretation.

The Federal Circuit rejected this analysis for conflating the two distinct inquiries, and for suggesting that disclosure of a corresponding structure in the specification or prosecution history demonstrates that a term is sufficiently definite so as to not invoke § 112 ¶ 6. If this were the standard, § 112 ¶ 6 would have no application, because the statute itself requires that means-plus-function terms have a corresponding structure in the specification. Rather, the specification does play a role in assessing claim language, but only to the extent that it renders the term at issue sufficiently structural to a person of ordinary skill in the art.

 

A copy of the opinion can be found here.

Related Professionals

Related Professionals

Alison King

David Enzminger

Ivan Poullaos

Mike Rueckheim

Danielle Williams

Alison King

David Enzminger

Ivan Poullaos

Mike Rueckheim

Danielle Williams

Logo
facebookinstagramlinkedintwitteryoutube

Copyright © 2025. Winston & Strawn LLP

AlumniCorporate Transparency Act Task ForceDEI Compliance Task ForceEqual Rights AmendmentLaw GlossaryThe Oval UpdateWinston MinutePrivacy PolicyCookie PolicyFraud & Scam AlertsNoticesSubscribeAttorney Advertising