By Dennis Crouch
Ibormeith IP v. Mercedes-Benz (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Ibormeith’s patent covers a “sleepiness monitor” intended to sense when a vehicle driver is getting sleepy. This is obviously an important topic that results in thousands of annual traffic accidents. Ibormeith’s solution is to monitor both the time-of-day (circadian rhythm inputs) and unusual steering movement (vehicle inputs) and then use an algorithm to determine the likelihood of sleepy driving. The result then could be to warn the driver by beeping or perhaps taking more automated control of the vehicle. The patent (No 6,313,749) was issued back in 2001 around the time when attorneys were coming-round to the notion that means-plus-function claims lead to trouble – either comedy or tragedy depending upon your point-of-view.
The patent statute allows for patent claims to be written as a “means for” accomplishing a particular function. 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). When written in claim form, a “means for” claim appears extremely broad because it suggests coverage of all possible means or mechanisms for accomplishing the stated goal. However, the statute says otherwise. Rather than covering all possible mechanisms, Section 112(f) requires that the limitation be construed to only cover the “corresponding structure … described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Since 1994, the Federal Circuit has supported this narrow construction. See In re Donaldson, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir.1994). As Judge Taranto writes in this case “The price of using this form of claim … is that the claim be tied to a structure defined with sufficient particularity in the specification.”
Taking all of this a step further, the courts have also repeatedly held that a patent is invalid as indefinite under Section 112(b) if a claimed “means” if no particular corresponding structure is disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., Function Media, LLC v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Here, the patent claims at issue all include a “computational means” that figure out whether or not someone is sleepy. And, on summary judgment, the district court found the claims indefinite because the claimed computational means were not supported by structure in the specification. That decision has been affirmed in a unanimous opinion written by Judge Taranto. Oddly, adequate disclosure under § 112(b) is a question of law reviewed de novo on appeal. That lower standard still did not carry the day for the patentee.
As in so many cases, the claimed “means” is really an algorithm being run on a computer to accomplish some particular goal. The court has ruled that the algorithm needs to be one that is “sufficiently defined to render the bounds of the claim . . . understandable to the implementer.” Here, the specification defines a set of input variables and a “sleep propensity algorithm” that is the sum of those variables. The specification also indicates the potential for various warning thresholds associated with the sleep propensity algorithm. However, the specification does not include any real examples for how the algorithm would work.
For Judge Taranto, the decision is largely about litigation strategy. The patentee argued that the algorithm is very broadly defined by the specification. The point of that argument was to ensure broad claim scope. However, the results is a finding that the algorithm is not particularly defined and therefore that the claim is invalid.
With means-plus-function claiming, the narrower the disclosed structure in the specification, the narrower the claim coverage. To succeed in ultimately proving that the “computational means” elements cover the accused Mercedes products … Ibormeith’s [argued that the algorithm of] Table 10 … is broad enough to reach the accused products. With consequences of such importance, Ibormeith’s position as to Table 10’s breadth is fairly treated as a binding admission. . . . That position, however, fails in the necessary attempt to steer a course that permits proof of infringement yet avoids invalidity.
Judge Taranto’s analysis here makes sense within the context of litigation strategy and holding parties to their litigation admissions. The major problem with this approach, however, is that allows patentees to hold-in and maintain ambiguity until the point of litigation.
= = = = =
The patent at issue here is based upon the invention by Dr. Louise Reyner and Dr. Jim Horne who are both sleep researchers at Loughborough University in the UK and who won the Queen’s prize in 2007 for their work on road death reduction through their work on driver sleepiness research. In March 2010, the UK company Astid Ltd. recorded its ownership of the patent and that same day Ibomeith was formed that is one of Michael Connelly‘s companies.