Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

Background

An inventor named Dr. Gregory Lekhtman, whose patent is owned by a company, described a heart-rate monitor built into an exercise bar that uses paired electrodes on each hand to cancel muscle-generated electrical noise (EMG). The patent claims require electrodes to be "in spaced relationship" so a difference amplifier removes the EMG signals. The patent owner accused a fitness-equipment company of copying the device, leading to a lawsuit, a Patent Office reexamination, and conflicting lower-court rulings about the claim language.

Reasoning

The central question was what standard ensures a patent claim is definite enough. The Federal Circuit had said a claim survives unless it is "not amenable to construction" or is "insolubly ambiguous." The Court rejected that approach and held that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness when its claims, read in light of the specification and the prosecution history (the record with the Patent Office), do not inform skilled artisans of the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. The Court did not decide whether this patent is invalid; it vacated the Federal Circuit decision and sent the case back for reconsideration under the proper standard.

Real world impact

The ruling tightens how clearly patents must describe what they claim. Inventors and patent drafters must avoid ambiguous claim language so skilled practitioners get clear notice. Courts and the Patent Office will apply the new "reasonable certainty" test when evaluating claims. Because the Supreme Court remanded without deciding validity, this case's practical outcome depends on further proceedings in the lower courts.