Skip to content
  • About
  • Services
    • Phone Interview
    • Initial Meeting
    • Invention Analysis
    • Plan of Action
    • Invention Design
    • 2D/3D Illustrations
    • Invention Engineering
    • Patent Protection
    • Market Research
    • Manufacturers Search
    • Invention Brochures
    • Licensing & Royalties
  • Submit
  • Benefits
  • Blog
  • Contact
Menu
  • About
  • Services
    • Phone Interview
    • Initial Meeting
    • Invention Analysis
    • Plan of Action
    • Invention Design
    • 2D/3D Illustrations
    • Invention Engineering
    • Patent Protection
    • Market Research
    • Manufacturers Search
    • Invention Brochures
    • Licensing & Royalties
  • Submit
  • Benefits
  • Blog
  • Contact

972-402-0000

Irving, Texas

  • About
  • Services
    • Phone Interview
    • Initial Meeting
    • Invention Analysis
    • Plan of Action
    • Invention Design
    • 2D/3D Illustrations
    • Invention Engineering
    • Patent Protection
    • Market Research
    • Manufacturers Search
    • Invention Brochures
    • Licensing & Royalties
  • Submit
  • Benefits
  • Blog
  • Contact
Menu
  • About
  • Services
    • Phone Interview
    • Initial Meeting
    • Invention Analysis
    • Plan of Action
    • Invention Design
    • 2D/3D Illustrations
    • Invention Engineering
    • Patent Protection
    • Market Research
    • Manufacturers Search
    • Invention Brochures
    • Licensing & Royalties
  • Submit
  • Benefits
  • Blog
  • Contact
Free Invention Analysis

Assessing Vague Patents

  • February 17, 2015

In April 2014 the US Supreme Court dealt with the issue of vague patents.  A vague patent is one that is written so that it can be somewhat open to interpretation.  There is either too much or not enough written describing the invention so that it appears that a single invention or concept can span over multiple interpretations.  This has led to an increase in patent trolling.

Patent troll is a name given to a company that usually operates under a shell company and buys patents on inventions they have no intention of manufacturing.  They then will sue companies that do manufacture similar inventions, claiming infringement.  As this problem has continued to grow, the US Supreme Court, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and the US Government has had to take a deeper look at the situation to determine how to solve the increasing number of lawsuits by patent trolls and those benefitting from vague patent descriptions.

Both Nautilus, Inc. and Biosig Instruments Inc., have been entangled in a court case spanning a decade involving built-in monitors in exercise equipment, such as a treadmill that measures heart rates through a user’s hands.  It is important to note that neither company is considered a patent troll.  The US Supreme Court is studying the outcome of this case closely as it may be used in the future as an example to invalidate other patents that are seen as too vague.

In 2004 Biosig sued Nautilus for infringement.  The District Court ruled that the patent, granted in 1994, was “indefinite,” and therefore was invalid.  For a patent to be ruled definite, it must be understood by an individual in the trade with at least a rudimentary understanding of the invention.  The term “indefinite” was one used throughout the trial and incited much speculation over how future patent related cases will be tried.

Later, the US Appeals Court of the Federal Circuit overturned the ruling citing that it was not “insolubly ambiguous,” meaning that a reasonable interpretation of the patent wasn’t out of the question. Another phrase born out of these particular trials was “spaced relationship”.  This was specific to this case and referred to the amount of space between a user’s hands on the heart monitor plate where electrodes measure the heart rate.

Nautilus argued that the wording used in the patent was too indefinite because it does not reflect how much distance there should be between the hands.   This caught the attention of Justice Sonia Sotomayer, who stated that the US Appeals Court should have taken into consideration whether the patent in question was understandable to the individuals with the technological knowledge of the concept.

Arguments were heard by Biosig’s attorney; Mark Harris, who claimed that the patent was able to be easily manufactured from the description provided and therefore did not leave room for further interpretation.  However, in June 2014 the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the patent held by Biosig was indeed invalid.  While it was recognized that patents almost always are not relegated to one complete interpretation, they should at least contain concise terms so that the interpretation is not too broad.

This case was brought back to the US Appeals Court in November 2014.  A ruling has yet to be made.

  • Patents
Inventions
Tech

Latest Posts

New patent reveals Facebook is exploring a modular phone
New patent reveals Facebook is exploring a modular phone
Facebook is exploring new handheld gadget with interchangeable parts that could used like a smartphone or portable speaker, a new ...
Should the Patent and Trademark Office Be Allowed to Change Its Mind?
Should the Patent and Trademark Office Be Allowed to Change Its Mind?
A patent on one-click checkout? On a method for exercising a cat? On a lawn bag that looks like a ...
Provisional Patent Applications: To File or Not File
Provisional Patent Applications: To File or Not File
Since 1995, the United States has allowed patent applicants to file provisional applications as an alternative to filing non-provisional utility ...
Joint 3D scanning-3D printing device officially receives US patent
Joint 3D scanning-3D printing device officially receives US patent
Separate devices for 3D scanning and 3D printing could soon be a thing of the past, according to a new ...
Facebook seeks patent for payment system
Facebook seeks patent for payment system
Facebook has moved the country’s patent office seeking patent for its invention relating to a transactional payment system that allows ...
Practical Pointers for managing Patents
Practical Pointers for managing Patents
Adopting good house keeping practices is a prerequisite to efficient management of patents. To avoid costly mistakes while prosecuting and ...
Previous
Next
View all Posts

What's on Your Mind?

Submit your Idea for your Free
Patent Search Now.

FREE PATENT SEARCH
  • 972.402.0000
  • [email protected]

What's on Your Mind?

Submit your Idea for your Free
Patent Search Now.

FREE PATENT SEARCH
  • 972.402.0000
  • [email protected]

Give Us a Call

972.402.0000

Evaluate

  • Phone Interview
  • Initial Meeting
  • Invention Analysis
  • Plan of Action

Develop

  • Invention Design
  • 2D/3D Illustrations
  • Invention Engineering
  • Patent Protection

Launch

  • Market Research
  • Manufacturers Search
  • Invention Brochures
  • Licensing & Royalties

Address

6565 N.MacArthur Blvd, Irving, Texas 75039

Phone

972.402.0000

800.962.3032

972.402.0095

Email

[email protected]

Evaluate

  • Phone Interview
  • Office Meeting
  • Invention Analysis
  • Plan of Action

Develop

  • Invention Design
  • 2D/3D Illustrations
  • Invention Engineering
  • Patent Protection

Launch

  • Market Research
  • Manufacturers Search
  • Invention Brochures
  • Licensing & Royalties

Follow Us

Facebook-f Instagram Linkedin-in Pinterest-p Twitter
© 2022, Lonestar Patent Services, Inc.

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

Free Invention Analysis

×

Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)

This agreement keeps your idea safe between you and Lonestar Patent Services.

I understand that the product idea information I submit cannot be used, disclosed or sold without my express written permission. I also understand that all Lonestar Patent Services employees are required to sign an ethics and confidentiality agreement for my protection. I believe that I am the original inventor of the idea described herein. I authorize Lonestar Patent Services to review my idea and contact me in 3 to 5 business days with the results. I acknowledge that Lonestar Patent Services monitors and records telephone calls for quality assurance. I understand that Lonestar Patent Services does not promise any financial gain from the development of any new product idea.

By clicking the “submit” button below as my electronic signature, I expressly consent to being contacted about Lonestar Patent Services by phone call, auto-dialed phone call including prerecorded voice messages, text messages or email at any number or email address I provide. I understand that my consent is not a requirement for purchase of services.

Fee based service.