Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc (572 U.S. 898)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 2, 2014 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 572 U.S. 898 · 134 S. Ct. 2120
- Decided
- June 2, 2014
- Term
- October Term 2013
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Ginsburg
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 , 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus NAUTILUS, INC. v. BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 13–369. Argued April 28, 2014—Decided June 2, 2014 The Patent Act requires that a patent specification “conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as [the] invention.” 35 U.S. C . §112, ¶2. This case concerns the proper reading of the stat ute’s clarity and precision demand. Assigned to respondent Biosig Instruments, Inc., the patent in dis pute (the ’753 patent) involves a heart-rate monitor used with exer cise equipment. Prior heart-rate monitors, the patent asserts, were often inaccurate in measuring the electrical signals accompanying each heartbeat (electrocardiograph or ECG signals) because of the presence of other electrical signals (electromyogram or EMG signals), generated by the user’s skeletal muscles, that can…
Excerpt of a 35,186-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.