The recent en banc Federal Circuit decision in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC could change how courts interpret an entire class of patent claim features. The Williamson court held that a claimed "distributed learning module" was a means-plus-function term having its construction governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (or pre-AIA § 112, ¶ 6), despite that term not using the traditional "means for" language that presumptively triggers means-plus-function treatment. In doing so, the en banc court provided a new standard for determining which types of claim features should be considered means-plus-function limitations. In this article, Finnegan attorneys Jason E. Stach and James D. Stein discuss how this new regime presents pitfalls and opportunities for those litigating and drafting patent claims. It may also renew practitioners' interest in computer-readable medium claims, which may avoid some of the issues created by Williamson while providing additional infringement benefits.
Previously published in IP Litigator
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
