EN BANC FEDERAL CIRCUIT
ABANDONS “STRONG” PRESUMPTION
THAT A LIMITATION IS NOT SUBJECT
TO 35 U.S.C. § 112, PARAGRAPH 6
By Richard S.J. Hung and Ryan J. Gatzemeyer
On June 16, 2015, the Federal Circuit revisited its
prior precedent regarding when a claim limitation is
subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6. In Williamson
v. Citrix Online, LLC, No. 13-1130 (“Citrix”),1 the en
banc court held that the absence of the word “means”
gives rise only to a rebuttable presumption—not a
“strong” presumption—that Section 112, paragraph 6
does not apply to the limitation.
BACKGROUND
Section 112, paragraph 62 allows a patentee to recite a claim limitation
as a “means or step for performing a specified function,” but “without the
recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof.” Claim limitations
drafted in this format, known as “means-plus-function” limitations,
are “construed to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts
described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”3 If the specification
fails to disclose sufficient structure for performing the corresponding
function of a means-plus-function limitation, the claim is invalid as
Under prior Federal Circuit precedent, the absence of the term “means”
gave rise to a “strong” presumption that Section 112, paragraph 6 does
not apply.5 Overcoming this presumption required a “showing that the
limitation essentially [was] devoid of anything that [could] be construed
as structure.”6
THE ORIGINAL PANEL DECISION
Citrix involved U.S. Patent No. 6,155,840, which concerns a method
and system for conducting distributed learning over a computer
network. Asserted claim 8 of the ’840 patent recites the following
“distributed learning control module” limitation:
a distributed learning control module for receiving
communications transmitted between the presenter
Attorney Advertising
continued on page 2
IP NEWSLETTER
MOFO July 2015
IN THIS ISSUE
En Banc Federal Circuit Abandons “Strong”
Presumption That a Limitation Is Not
Subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, Paragraph 6
Page 1
Supreme Court Rejects Belief of
Invalidity Defense for Inducement
in Commil v. Cisco
Page 4
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Grants
Rare Motion to Amend Claims in Inter
Partes Review
Page 6
Europe’s New Unitary Patent and
Unified Patent Court System
Page 7
Japanese Patent Opposition System
Page 9
Disparaging Trademarks and Free
Speech: The Cases of THE REDSKINS
and THE SLANTS
Page 11
Ryan J. Gatzemeyer
rgatzemeyer@mofo.com
Sabrina Larson
slarson@mofo.com
Esther Kim
ekim@mofo.com
Matthew I. Kreeger
mkreeger@mofo.com
Otis Littlefield
olittlefield@mofo.com
Scott F. Llewellyn
sllewellyn@mofo.com
Alistair Maughan
amaughan@mofo.com
Joseph R. Palmore
jpalmore@mofo.com
Rufus Pichler
rpichler@mofo.com
Kirk A. Sigmon
ksigmon@mofo.com
Jennifer Lee Taylor
jtaylor@mofo.com
Chie Yakura
cyakura@mofo.com
CONTRIBUTORS
EDITORS
Rachel Krevans
rkrevans@mofo.com
Richard S.J. Hung
rhung@mofo.com
Nathan Sabri
nsabri@mofo.com
