IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Deere & Co. loses on appeal, indefiniteness ruling against crop-harvester control patent reversed, (Mar 11, 2026)

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

The district court improperly excluded disclosed structure for a means-plus-function limitation and wrongly required algorithm disclosure.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a federal district court’s ruling that invalidated a crop-harvester header control patent for indefiniteness and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court held that the district court incorrectly excluded a disclosed embodiment as corresponding structure for a means-plus-function limitation and therefore erred in concluding that the patent lacked sufficient structural disclosure under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Because the specification identified at least one adequate structure capable of performing the claimed function, the Federal Circuit determined that the asserted claims were not indefinite (Gramm v. Deere & Co., No. 24-1598 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 11, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiffs/appellants, Richard Gramm and Reaper Solutions LLC (formerly Headsight, Inc.), are associated with agricultural sensing technology used in crop harvesting equipment. Gramm is the sole inventor and owner of the asserted patent and licenses it exclusively to Reaper Solutions. The defendant/appellee, Deere & Company, is a major U.S. manufacturer of agricultural machinery, including combines and related harvesting equipment.

The dispute involved U.S. Patent No. 6,202,395 (the ’395 patent). The patent describes an apparatus for maintaining the header of a crop harvester at a designated height above the ground as the machine moves across a field. The system includes a flexible sensing arm and an angular deflection sensing mechanism that generates signals used to adjust the header’s position. Independent claim 12 of the patent includes a “control means” limitation that directs the raising or lowering of the header in response to the sensed signals.

Gramm and Reaper filed the infringement action in 2014, alleging that certain Deere header sensor kits infringed the ’395 patent. The case was initially filed in the Northern District of Indiana and later transferred to the Southern District of Iowa. During the course of the litigation, Deere challenged the patent through inter partes review proceedings, after which only independent claim 12 and some dependent claims remained asserted. During claim construction, the parties agreed that the “control means” limitation invoked means-plus-function treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The parties also agreed that the relevant function was raising and lowering the header to maintain a designated height above the soil. However, Deere argued that the patent specification failed to disclose sufficient structure to perform the function and that the claim was therefore indefinite. The district court accepted Deere’s argument, held claim 12 invalid for indefiniteness, and entered judgment in Deere’s favor. The plaintiffs appealed.

Means-plus-function. The Federal Circuit began its analysis by explaining the legal framework governing means-plus-function claims. Such claims allow patentees to recite a function rather than a specific structure but limit the claim to the structures disclosed in the specification that perform that function and their equivalents. Citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the appellate court reiterated that courts must first identify the claimed function and then determine the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification that performs that function.

If the specification fails to disclose adequate structure corresponding to the claimed function, the claim is indefinite under § 112. However, the court emphasized that the analysis focuses on whether at least one structure capable of performing the function is disclosed.

Corresponding structure. The Federal Circuit next addressed the parties’ dispute concerning the “head controller” component identified in the specification as part of the structure associated with the “control means.” The record showed that, at the relevant time, Deere combines used commercially available controllers known as Dial-A-Matic Versions #1, #2, and #3. Deere argued that only Versions #2 and #3 could qualify as corresponding structures because they controlled both header height and lateral position. The district court accepted this argument and excluded Version #1 on the grounds that it could not control lateral position.

The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court’s reasoning was flawed. The appellate court explained that the claim itself required only the function of raising and lowering the header to maintain the designated height. Because Dial-A-Matic Version #1 could perform that function, the district court erred in excluding it as a possible corresponding structure.

Algorithm requirement. The district court’s exclusion of Dial-A-Matic Version #1 led it to treat the remaining controllers as general-purpose computers or microprocessors and to require disclosure of a specific algorithm in the specification. When the specification failed to disclose such an algorithm, the district court found the claim indefinite.

The Federal Circuit rejected that approach. Once Dial-A-Matic Version #1 was properly considered as a corresponding structure, the specification disclosed a concrete structural embodiment capable of performing the claimed function. The court noted that its precedent permits commercially available devices referenced in a specification to serve as a corresponding structure where a skilled artisan would understand the device’s operation. The appellate court cited Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001), which held that references to commercially available components can satisfy the structural disclosure requirement.

Because the specification disclosed sufficient structure through the head controller and associated components, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claim satisfied the definiteness requirement.

The Federal Circuit, therefore, reversed the district court’s judgment that claim 12 of the ’395 patent was indefinite and invalid and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The Case is No. 24-1598.

Judge: Reyna, J.

Attorneys: Christopher A. Young (Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.) for Richard Gramm. Laura A. Lydigsen (Crowell & Moring LLP) for Deere & Co.

Companies: Deere & Co.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews GCNNews