Short Summary: Finding of non-infringement affirmed; finding of indefiniteness reversed.

Case: Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC., No. 2013-1326 (Fed. Cir. April 7, 2014) (precedential). On appeal from N.D. Ill.  Before Radar, Reyna, and Wallach.

Procedural Posture: Declaratory judgment defendant appealed the district court’s pretrial rulings that led to its stipulation of non-infringement and a finding of indefiniteness. CAFC affirmed the finding of non-infringement and reversed the finding of indefiniteness.

  • Infringement: Patent holder argued that the district court precluded its ability to prove direct infringement by limiting the accused products to one of the two products at issue. Patent holder further argued that it was legal error for the district court judge to propose jury instruction that required a finding the two products at issue were independent from each other. The Federal Circuit held that the district court’s characterization of one product as the accused product did not limit the patent holder’s ability to prove infringement. The Federal Circuit further held that the district court correctly framed the factual issue for the jury by requiring the patent holder to prove the products were independent because the limitations of the claims required such independence.
  • Indefiniteness: The district court erred in finding claim 2 indefinite because the specification discloses sufficient support. Claim 2 was a means-plus-function claim in which the disputed language was “means for matching.” The Federal Circuit held that the specification disclosed the algorithm in sufficient detail that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to understand the claim.