By Jason Rantanen
Rather than just write short blog posts about the Federal Circuit’s recent claim construction decisions, I put together a longer piece that examines both indefiniteness after Nautilus v. Biosig and claim construction after Teva v. Sandoz. In the essay, I argue that despite an expectation that Nautilus and Teva would have a substantial impact on the Federal Circuit’s jurisprudence in these areas, very little has actually changed either in outcome or in the court’s formal analytical framework.
Nevertheless, I conclude, the potential for substantial change still remains, both for claim construction and indefiniteness. In a nutshell, I suggest that Teva’s real effect may be to expose a fundamental crack in the Federal Circuit’s claim construction methodology, one that could ultimately result in meaningful change. And while indefiniteness might appear frozen, there are cracks beneath the surface on which perceptive advocates will inevitably push.
The essay is available here. As this is a draft, I welcome reasonable comments.