IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Del.: Licensing entity’s infringement lawsuit against Apple dismissed as impermissible single-means claim; asserted claim found invalid, (Feb 12, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., LL.B., LL.M.

The sole asserted claim in the patent at issue was an impermissible single-means claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and, therefore, invalid for lack of enablement.

The federal district court in Wilmington, Delaware, has granted Apple Inc.’s renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing a licensing entity’s infringement lawsuit. The court found that the licensing entity’s sole asserted patent claim was invalid for lack of enablement because it constituted an impermissible “single-means” claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Adopting a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full, the court concluded that the claim recited only a single means-plus-function element rather than a combination of elements, and that binding Federal Circuit precedent rendered such claims invalid as a matter of law (Immervision, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, Immervision, Inc., is a non-practicing entity. The defendant, Apple Inc., is a globally recognized company that designs and manufactures consumer electronics, including smartphones and other products that incorporate camera systems.

Immervision filed this lawsuit in 2021, alleging that Apple’s devices infringed claim 21 of its U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990 (the ’990 patent). Claim 21 depends on now-cancelled claim 17 and is drafted in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Claim 17 recites a “panoramic objective lens comprising: optical means for projecting a panorama into an image plane of the objective lens,” followed by functional language describing a non-linear image point distribution. Claim 21 further specifies that the lens “compresses the center of the image and the edges of the image, and expands an intermediate zone.” The parties agreed that claim 21 was a means-plus-function claim and, for purposes of the motion, that the preamble “panoramic objective lens” was limiting.

While the claim construction briefing was pending, Apple moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that claim 21 was invalid because it was a “single-means” claim. Apple contended that the claim recited only one functional “optical means” element and therefore failed to claim a combination, as required by § 112 ¶ 6.

The magistrate judge agreed and recommended granting the motion. Immervision objected, arguing that the claim was not a single-means claim; that enablement required a fact-intensive inquiry, and that Apple’s motion improperly circumvented claim construction briefing limits.

Single-means doctrine. The court began by addressing Immervision’s procedural non-compliance with the court’s Rule 72 Standing Order, but proceeded to the merits in light of the dispositive nature of the ruling. On the merits, the court explained that a “single-means” claim, which it called a "seldom-invoked doctrine of patent law" is one drafted in means-plus-function format that recites only a single element instead of a combination. Citing In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court reiterated that such claims are invalid because they cover every conceivable means for achieving the stated result, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor.

The court also cited Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 9 F. Supp. 3d 1126, 1129–30 (C.D. Cal. 2014), which invalidated a similarly structured claim that recited only one means element following comprising.

Applying that framework, the court focused on the actual claim language. Claim 17 recited “optical means for projecting a panorama,” followed by language describing characteristics of that optical means. Immervision conceded that the post-“optical means” language merely described characteristics of that single element. The court found that this descriptive language did not create additional elements.

Immervision argued that the limiting preamble—“a panoramic objective lens”—implicitly required additional structural components, such as a housing or other parts depicted in the patent figures. The court rejected that argument, holding that the single-means analysis must focus on elements actually claimed. Citing Hyatt, 708 F.2d at 715, the court emphasized that no provision “saves a claim drafted in means-plus-function format which is not drawn to a combination.” Because Immervision did not claim the additional structures it identified, the claim remained a single-means claim.

The court further noted that Immervision had characterized the compression and expansion language in claim 21 as a “property of the output” rather than as a separate functional element. That position undercut any argument that claim 21 recited a second means element. Accordingly, the court concluded that claim 21 recited only one “optical means” element and therefore qualified as a single-means claim.

Enablement and per se invalidity. Immervision argued that even if the claim were single-means, the court was required to conduct a fact-intensive enablement inquiry. The court disagreed.

Relying again on Hyatt, the court held that the proper statutory basis for rejecting a single-means claim is the enablement requirement of § 112’s first paragraph, and that the single-means defect itself is determinative. As Hyatt explained, enablement must be commensurate in scope with the claim; a single-means claim, by definition, sweeps more broadly than the disclosed structure.

The court also cited Enfish, 9 F. Supp. 3d at 1129, which stated that no separate enablement analysis is required once a claim is deemed single-means. Given that understanding, the court concluded that it did not need to conduct a traditional, fact-intensive enablement inquiry. Even assuming such an inquiry were required, the court observed that Immervision identified no specific factual disputes that would alter the outcome. Fact and expert discovery had already closed, and Immervision had submitted multiple expert reports without identifying any material enablement issues.

Scheduling and procedural objections. Finally, the court rejected Immervision’s contention that Apple’s Rule 12(c) motion violated claim construction page limits. The court found no authority requiring Apple to raise the single-means issue during the Markman briefing and concluded that deciding the issue did not require construing any disputed term. The claim was single-means under either party’s proposed constructions.

Conclusion. Having overruled Immervision’s objections, the court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, granted Apple’s renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings, and denied the parties’ claim construction motions as moot.

The Case is No. 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB.

Judge: Noreika, M.

Attorneys: John David Simmons (Panitich Schwarze Belisario & Nadel LLP) for Immervision, Inc. David Ellis Moore (Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP) for Apple Inc.

Companies: Immervision, Inc.; Apple Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Patent DelawareNews GCNNews