Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

572 U.S. 898 (2014)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Biosig owns the ’753 patent. It concerns a heart-rate monitor for use during exercise. The invention focuses on a key difference between EMG and ECG waveforms: While ECG signals detected from a user’s left hand have a polarity opposite to that of the signals detected from her right hand, EMG signals from each hand have the same polarity. The patented device works by measuring equalized EMG signals detected at each hand and then using circuitry to subtract the identical EMG signals from each other, thus filtering out the EMG interference. The ’753 patent describes a heart-rate monitor contained in a hollow cylindrical bar that a user grips with both hands, such that each hand comes into contact with two electrodes, one “live” and one “common.” Claim 1 refers to a “heart rate monitor for use by a user in association with exercise apparatus and/or exercise procedures.” The elements are an “elongate member” (cylindrical bar) with a display device; “electronic circuitry including a difference amplifier”; and, on each half of the cylindrical bar, a live electrode and a common electrode “mounted . . . in spaced relationship with each other.” P sued D alleging that D, without ever obtaining a license, sold exercise machines that included the patented technology. D asked PTO to reexamine the ’753 patent. P submitted a declaration from Dr. Lekhtman attesting that the ’753 patent sufficiently informed a person skilled in the art how to configure the detecting electrodes so as “to produce equal EMG [signals] from the left and right hands.” Dr. Lekhtman explained, a skilled artisan could undertake a “trial and error” process of equalization. This would entail experimentation with different electrode configurations in order to optimize EMG signal cancellation. The PTO issued a determination confirming the patentability of the ’753 patent’s claims. In court, P claimed that “spaced relationship” referred to the distance between the live electrode and the common electrode in each electrode pair. The Court ultimately construed the term to mean “there is a defined relationship between the live electrode and the common electrode on one side of the cylindrical bar and the same or a different defined relationship between the live electrode and the common electrode on the other side of the cylindrical bar,” without any reference to the electrodes’ width. D moved for summary judgment; the term “spaced relationship,” as construed, was indefinite under §112, P2. The District Court granted the motion. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. It held that a claim is indefinite “only when it is ‘not amenable to construction’ or ‘insolubly ambiguous.’”