Insights

Federal Circuit Upends Presumption for Means-Plus-Function Claiming

Federal Circuit Upends Presumption for Means-Plus-Function Claiming

Since at least 1998, the Federal Circuit has held that when a patent uses the word "means" in a claim element, that creates a "rebuttable presumption" that the limitation is a means-plus-function limitation to which Paragraph 6 of 35 U.S.C. § 112 applies. The converse also creates a presumption—if the claim fails to use the word "means," it is presumed not to be a means-plus-function element.

Starting with its 2004 decision in Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the Federal Circuit's opinions began characterizing the presumption that flowed from the absence of the word "means" as "a strong one that is not readily overcome," thereby making the presumption virtually conclusive in many, if not most, cases.

However, on June 16, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued a revised opinion in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, No. 13-1130, overruling prior decisions characterizing this presumption as "strong" and holding that the court "will apply the presumption as we have done prior to" its decision in Lighting World, "without requiring any heightened evidentiary showing." The court also "overrule[d] the strict requirement of 'a showing that the limitation essentially is devoid of anything that can be construed as structure.'"

Instead, the standard is now to be "whether the words of a claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." The presumption that a claim term lacking the word "means" does not invoke paragraph 6 of section 112, therefore, can be overcome "if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to 'recite sufficiently definite structure' or else recites 'function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.'" The converse rebuttable presumption, that a claim limitation containing the word "means" is to be construed as a means-plus-function limitation, remains unaffected.

Because it involved overruling prior precedent, the Federal Circuit reached this decision by resolving this limited legal issue with the full en banc court. Judge Newman, alone, dissented.

This decision will have important consequences not only in litigation but in claim drafting as well, particularly in areas like computer software and the electronic arts, where means-plus-function claiming is prominently used.

Lawyer Contacts

For further information, please contact your principal Firm representative or one of the lawyers listed below. General email messages may be sent using our "Contact Us" form, which can be found at www.jonesday.com/contactus/.

Gregory A. Castanias
Washington
+1.202.879.3639
gcastanias@jonesday.com

David B. Cochran
Cleveland
+1.216.586.7029
dcochran@jonesday.com

David M. Maiorana
Cleveland
+1.216.586.7499
dmaiorana@jonesday.com

Sasha Mayergoyz
Chicago
+1.312.269.1572
smayergoyz@jonesday.com

Jones Day publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our "Contact Us" form, which can be found on our website at www.jonesday.com. The mailing of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.

We use cookies to deliver our online services. Details of the cookies and other tracking technologies we use and instructions on how to disable them are set out in our Cookies Policy. By using this website you consent to our use of cookies.