## Facts

- Orthokinetics manufactured specialized pediatric wheelchairs and owned two patents: a scoliosis-pad wheelchair patent (’586) and a collapsible pediatric travel-chair patent (’867).
- The ’586 patent covered a wheelchair with laterally and vertically adjustable scoliosis pads designed to apply therapeutic forces to a seated user’s trunk.
- The ’867 patent covered a collapsible travel chair intended to facilitate moving a child into an automobile; a key limitation described a front leg portion “so dimensioned” as to fit through the space between a car doorframe and a seat.
- Orthokinetics introduced its travel chair in 1973; Safety began selling similar chairs in 1978.
- Orthokinetics sued Safety for infringement; Safety denied infringement and asserted invalidity and patent misuse; Orthokinetics sought findings of willful infringement and officer liability for inducement.
- A jury found the asserted claims valid and infringed, found no misuse, found willful infringement, and found certain corporate officers personally liable for inducing infringement.
- The district court granted JNOV for Safety, holding the asserted claims invalid (including for indefiniteness of the “so dimensioned” limitation), set aside willfulness and officer liability findings, and conditionally granted a new trial.
- Orthokinetics appealed the JNOV and conditional new-trial order; Safety cross-appealed issues including infringement and misuse.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings that the asserted claims of the ’586 and ’867 patents were valid (including against anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness challenges).
2. Whether the ’867 claim limitation using relative/functional language (“so dimensioned as to be insertable” between an automobile doorframe and seat) satisfied 35 U.S.C. § 112 definiteness.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings of infringement of the asserted claims.
4. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of willful infringement.
5. Whether corporate officers could be held personally liable for actively inducing infringement and whether the evidence supported that finding.
6. Whether the district court properly conditionally granted a new trial and whether patent misuse was established.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s JNOV and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury’s verdicts.
- The court held there was substantial evidence supporting validity of claims 5–6 of the ’586 patent and claims 1–5 of the ’867 patent, including rejection of the indefiniteness ruling.
- The court held the “so dimensioned” limitation was sufficiently definite because skilled artisans could understand the claim scope when read in light of the specification and prior art, even though automobile dimensions vary.
- The court upheld the jury’s findings of infringement and rejected Safety’s challenges to those findings.
- The court reinstated the jury’s finding of willful infringement, citing evidence including failure to seek legal advice after learning of changed circumstances affecting prior invalidity positions.
- The court reinstated personal liability findings against corporate officers based on evidence of active participation and direction of infringing activity.
- The court affirmed rejection of patent misuse and held the district court abused its discretion in conditionally granting a new trial where the verdict was supported by substantial evidence and instructions were adequate.

## Legal Principles

- A patent claim satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 112 definiteness if, read in light of the specification and the prior art, it reasonably informs skilled artisans of the claim’s scope.
- Relative or functional claim language (including words of degree) is not indefinite per se; it may be acceptable where greater precision is impracticable and skilled artisans can determine the boundaries with reasonable certainty.
- JNOV is improper where the jury’s verdict is supported by substantial evidence; credibility determinations and resolution of evidentiary conflicts belong to the jury.
- Willful infringement is fact-dependent and may be supported by evidence such as failure to obtain competent legal advice after notice of relevant patent-risk developments.
- Corporate officers may be personally liable for actively inducing their corporation’s infringement when they direct or participate in infringing conduct.
- Patent misuse requires proof of conduct that impermissibly broadens the patent’s scope; absent such proof, misuse is not established.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit reinstated the jury’s findings that Safety infringed valid patent claims and acted willfully, that certain corporate officers induced infringement, and that no patent misuse occurred, and it held that the ’867 patent’s relative “so dimensioned” limitation met § 112 definiteness because skilled artisans could ascertain claim scope without enumerating precise dimensions for every automobile.


Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986)