The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today held that certain claims of a patent for a system to protect against identity theft and fraud were invalid for indefiniteness. Judge Schall dissented-in-part, explaining that he would not have found the claims indefinite based on the intrinsic evidence. U.S. Patent No. 9,361,658 is owned by Mantissa Corporation and is titled “System and Method for Enhanced Protection and Control Over the Use of Identity.” Mantissa sued First Financial Corporation and First Financial Bank, N.A. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging infringement of certain claims. The parties mainly disputed two terms during claim construction: (1) “transaction partner” and (2) “OFF.” The district court relied on First Financial’s expert testimony to conclude that “transaction partner” was indefinite, after finding that the expert used was a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA).
Recent Posts
- Can State Law Contracts Limit the Right to Repair Even When Patent Protections Exhaust?
- Scarcity or Abundance Mindset? How Scarcity-Minded Leaders Undermine Team Culture and Potential
- ParkerVision v. Rule 36 | Patently Strategic Podcast
- Treading Carefully: How to Navigate the Common Law Research Exemption and the Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor
- Five Tactics to Improve PTAB Appeal Results for Your Clients