## Facts

- Datamize owned U.S. Patent No. 6,014,137 covering software for authoring user interfaces for electronic kiosks using predefined screen elements with limited variation.
- The patent described constraining customization to maintain “good standards of aesthetics and user friendliness,” referencing design specialists and studies, but did not specify measurable criteria for aesthetic quality.
- Claim 1 required element types that permit limited variation “in conformity with a desired uniform and aesthetically pleasing look and feel” across kiosk interface screens.
- Plumtree provided software for creating user interfaces and was accused of infringing the patent.
- Plumtree sought summary judgment that the asserted claims were invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 because “aesthetically pleasing” lacked definitional boundaries.
- The district court granted summary judgment, holding all asserted claims invalid for indefiniteness, and Datamize appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the claim limitation requiring a “uniform and aesthetically pleasing look and feel” particularly points out and distinctly claims the invention under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
2. Whether a subjective term like “aesthetically pleasing” can be definite when the intrinsic record does not provide an objective standard for determining compliance.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment that the asserted claims were invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
- The court held “aesthetically pleasing” is a purely subjective term and the intrinsic record supplied no objective standard to measure whether an interface satisfies the requirement.
- Contextual language (including “uniform” and constraints to predefined elements) did not supply claim boundaries because it did not define what qualifies as “aesthetically pleasing.”
- Because no construction could provide a reasonably definite boundary between infringing and non-infringing interfaces, the claims were “insolubly ambiguous.”

## Legal Principles

- Claims must “particularly point out and distinctly claim” the invention to distinguish from prior art and give public notice of what is excluded from the public domain.  
- A claim is indefinite if it is “insolubly ambiguous” and not amenable to construction; difficulty in construction alone does not establish indefiniteness.
- Purely subjective claim terms are indefinite when the patent’s intrinsic record fails to provide a standard for measuring the subjective requirement.
- References to expert opinions, user studies, or limited design options do not cure indefiniteness unless the patent discloses the actual criteria or boundaries that determine compliance.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held the patent claims invalid because the requirement that the interface be “aesthetically pleasing” depended on subjective judgment and the patent record provided no objective criteria by which skilled artisans could determine the scope of the claims.


Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)