Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> Patently Obvious
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Patent Law
: Patently ObviousMeans-Plus-Function Claims
By Dennis Crouch, Esq.
In December 2009, the USPTO issued 16,000+ utility patents. I used a software program to tally those patents that include claims with means-plus-function (MPF) claim language by looking for the terms 'means for' or 'means of' in the claims.
Only about 15% of the issued patent included at least one claim an MPF limitation. Of patents that include an MPF limitation, half recite fewer than five such limitations. It appears that attorneys are using MPF claim language primarily as a back-up. Longer claim-sets are more likely to include means-plus function language. Thus 21% of patents with above-average-sized claimsets (by character count) include a means-plus-function limitation while only 11% of patents with below-average-sized claimsets include an MPF limitation.
Means-plus-function terms are also also associated with non-assigned patents (usually individual inventors). 23% of non-assigned patents included an MPF limitation compared with 14% of assigned patents.
Patents arising from certain countries are much more likely to include MPF limitations. The chart below looks at the most common foreign filing jurisdiction for priority claims and reports the percentage of US patents arising from those foreign filings that include MPF limitations.
Means-plus-function claiming is primarily focused outside of the chemical and biotech art units. Thus, only 2% of patents examined in TC1600 (Biotech & Organic Chemistry) and 7% of patents examined in TC1700 (Chemical & Materials Engineering) include MPF limitations. The remaining technology centers averaged over 18% of patents including MPF limitations.
Notes: My search is likely both over and under inclusive. Although a claimed element that uses the terms 'means for' is usually interpreted as an MPF claim, it is not always so interpreted. Likewise claim terms written in functional language without any structure in the claims can be interpreted as means plus function even if the absence of the 'means for' language. Also, 'step for' language is typically when a method step is functionally claimed.
Full post as published by Patently Obvious on January 06, 2010 (boomark / email).
Paxil Lawsuit
Paxil Claims, Lawsuits, and Injuries
False Claims
Attorney Robert Arledge ordered to pay $5.8 million after making false Fen Phen settlement claims.
LINA - Cigna Life Insurance Company of North America Disability Claims
LINA Insurance alleging violations of disability insurance claims.
Bayer to Pay $3.3 Million To Settle One A Day Vitamin Claims
Bayer to Pay $3.3 Million To Settle One A Day Vitamin Claims
Archdiocese of Denver
Settles 5.5 million in claims
BP
Settles More Claims From Texas Refinery Explosion
Warranty Parts Claims
Delphi Corp. must pay GM $200 million.

Use of mechanism in claim without more may result in means-plus-function interpretation
Computer-implemented means-plus-function claim invalid when no algorithm disclosed in specification
CAFC Creates Potential Conflict in De Nove Review of MPF Claims









