No, not the heavy metal band - they just had a useful logo.
Multiple opinions from ED judges in recent weeks on the subject of indefinitness under the new standard set forth in Nautilus. As you might expect, the outcomes are dependent on the specific claims at issue. As I posted several weeks ago, one court has already found all the remaining asserted claims in a case indefinite (another has found some where, but others were not), while several others in both Marshall and Tyler have found that the asserted claims were not indefinite, even under the new standard.
In multiple cases the courts did so by rejecting the argument for indefiniteness, concluding that the terms at issue were fact "easily understood" by those skilled in the art. In others the judges rejected claims that an expert was somehow not applying the new standard correctly, or characterized the argument as simply disagreeing with an expert's opinion as to what a person of ordinary skill would understand. In yet others, the court invalidated claims indicating that even absent Nautilus the claims were likely indefinite under the old "insolubly ambiguous" standard.
Procedurally, it is not clear whether Nautilus means expert declarations are more necessary than in the past- but at least one case makes clear that if they are, the provisions in the local patent rules require that they be provided under the schedule set for in the local patent rules.
MCS1676; MCS5917; MCS165; MCS3219; MCS1718