Ipxl Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding indefinite a claim covering both an apparatus and a method of using that apparatus
• holding that a claim that “recite[d| both a system and the method for using that system” was invalid as indefinite under Section 112 because it “does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope”
• holding that a claim that \recite[d] both a system and the method for using that system\ was invalid as indefinite under Section 112 because it \does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope\
• explaining that claims that “recite[] both a system and the method for using that system” are indefinite because it is unclear whether . infringement requires the method to be performed
• “[I]t is unclear whether infringement of claim 25 occurs when one creates a system that allows the user to [practice the claimed method step], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually [practices the method step].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).