Re:What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple
by rhino369 on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @05:18PM
(#14303882)
I've come to the same conclusion you have re: software patents. And it is the courts' fault. The use of functional language in patent claims is allowed without applying means-plus-funtion case law.
If you say "engine means for creating torque" in your patent claim, when you try to enforce your claim the court will look at the actual engine you disclosed in your patent's specification. You can't disclose a crank and flywheel and then assert it against sun and planet.
But if you call it an "engine module configured to provide torque" courts will let you assert that claim against pretty much anything vaguely like an engine that provides torque.
If you say "engine means for creating torque" in your patent claim, when you try to enforce your claim the court will look at the actual engine you disclosed in your patent's specification. You can't disclose a crank and flywheel and then assert it against sun and planet.
But if you call it an "engine module configured to provide torque" courts will let you assert that claim against pretty much anything vaguely like an engine that provides torque.