DYFAN, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, 28 F.4th 1360

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-The district court erred by holding that the disputed patent claims were invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C.S. § 112 because the claim limitations were not drafted in means-plus-function format, and the district court erred by concluding otherwise, because the "code"/"application" limitations would have connoted sufficiently definite structure to persons of ordinary skill in the art based on the testimony of defendant's expert; [2]-Defendant failed to rebut the presumption that § 112, para. 6 did not apply since the disputed limitation did not recite "means" because the "system" limitations connoted sufficiently definite structure to persons of ordinary skill in the art.