The case of Northrup Grumman Corp. v. Intel Corp. saw a return to the question of what is meant by 35 USC 112, paragraph 6, which has been troubling the Federal Circuit and practitioners for much of the past decade. In this case, the issue was what is meant by the term “corresponding structure” in the provision that a means plus function claim “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material or acts described in the specification, and equivalents thereof.”

In a previous case, B. Braun Med Inc. v. Abbott Labs, it had been held that structure disclosed in the specification is “corresponding” structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.

In Northrup, the court has made it clear that what is regarded as “corresponding structure” is confined to that part of what is described that is needed to perform the stated function and not expanded to incorporate other limitations into the claim.