Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<i>Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.</i>
In Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., __ F.3d __, 106 USPQ2d 1554, 2013 WL 1776745 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit held that the functional claim language of “spaced relationship” was definite in view of the inherent parameters of the claimed apparatus, notwithstanding the lack of any specific quantification of exactly how wide the spacing should be. In addition, the Federal Circuit held that functional language may be used to limit patent claims without resorting to the means-plus-function format and that it was acceptable to define “spaced relationship” in terms of the function the spacing was intended to provide.
Biosig Instruments, Inc. (“Biosig”) is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 5,337,753 (“the '753 patent”), which relates to grip activated heart rate monitors associated with exercise equipment, which are now ubiquitous on treadmills, step climbers and excercycles. The invention purportedly eliminates noise signals that interfere with the process of detecting a user's heart rate. Prior art monitors allegedly did not eliminate signals given off by skeletal muscles (“electromyogram” or “EMG” signals), which are caused when users move their arms or squeeze the monitor with their fingers. Because EMG signals are of the same frequency range as electrical signals generated by the heart (“electrocardiograph” or “ECG” signals), EMG signals can interfere with ECG signals, making it difficult to determine heart rate during exercise.
The '753 patent discloses a heart rate monitor mounted on exercise equipment. A user's left and right hands each contact both a live electrode and a common electrode on a cylindrical member. The distance between the live electrode and the common electrode is not quantified in terms of a range of distances. Rather, the claims merely require that the two electrodes be in a “spaced relationship”:
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?