'Optimal' Trap: CAFC Affirms Indefiniteness of Subjective Routing Criteria
Precision in patent drafting is not merely a stylistic preference; it is a statutory requirement. When patent claims employ terms of degree—words like “best,” “optimal,” or “efficient”—they invite scrutiny under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Without objective boundaries defined in the specification, such terms render claims invalid for indefiniteness.
On November 25, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reinforced this principle in a precedential opinion: Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. MediaPointe, Inc., No. 24-1571.
The court affirmed a district court’s judgment invalidating claims directed to determining “optimal” data routes and granting summary judgment of non-infringement on remaining claims.
This decision serves as a reminder to the intellectual property community: subjective optimization goals, without clear algorithmic guidance, are fatal to patent validity.
Background of the Dispute
The conflict centers on two patents owned by MediaPointe: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,559,426 and 9,426,195. These patents describe an “intelligent distribution network” designed to improve the delivery of streamed media content over the Internet.
The core problem identified in the patents is that “inefficient routing meant that a stream could become unacceptably delayed because its route contained either more hops than necessary or particular devices suffering bandwidth constraints” (p. 3). To solve this, the patents propose a management center equipped with a “mapping engine.”
This engine maps “trace routes” between the content source and the client. By analyzing these routes—specifically looking at the “Internet Protocol (IP) address of the hop’s endpoint device” and the “latency” associated with that device (p. 3)—the system purports to identify the “best performance” node or the “optimal” route for delivering the data (p. 3).
Akamai Technologies, a major player in content delivery networks, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking non-infringement. MediaPointe counterclaimed for infringement.
The case turned on two primary disputes: whether the claims reciting “optimal” and “best” routes were definite, and whether Akamai’s technology—specifically its Domain Name System (DNS) infrastructure—met the claim limitation requiring a management center to receive a “request for media content” (p. 2).
The Court’s Analysis: Unpacking the Central Legal Issues
The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Taranto, for a panel including Circuit Judges Stoll and Cunningham, addressed two distinct fatal flaws in MediaPointe’s case: indefiniteness and non-infringement.
1. Indefiniteness of “Optimal” and “Best”
The first issue was whether the claim terms “optimal” and “best” provided reasonable certainty to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The court observed that “the language at issue here plainly is language of degree with a facially discretionary standard” (p. 13).
MediaPointe argued that these terms were not indefinite because the claims required the use of “trace routes” to make the determination. The court rejected this argument, noting that “the requirement to use trace routes is, first of all, not exclusive” (p. 14). The court pointed to the specification, which allowed operators to consider “reasons intrinsic to their own operation such as time of day or other variances” (p. 14). Consequently, the requirement “does not provide a reasonably clear and exclusive definition” or “an objective boundary” for what constitutes an optimal route (pp. 13-14).
Furthermore, the court found that even relying on the specific metrics of hops and latency created ambiguity. The court explained that “although what route is best depends on hops, latency, and reliability, MediaPointe admits that the patent provides no guidance about which measure, or what combinations of measures, to rely on when they diverge” (pp. 14-15).
In a critical passage, the court highlighted the contradiction inherent in the specification:
“The specification itself shows that hops and latency, in a given case, could indicate different ‘best’ routes. ... We have repeatedly said that when ‘multiple methods’ for determining whether a claim limitation is met ‘lead[] to different results without guidance as to which method should be used,’ the claim is indefinite.” (p. 15)
MediaPointe’s counsel argued that the metrics generally “tend to run together,” but the court dismissed this, stating that “lawyer assertions do not erase the specification’s suggestion that latency and hops may diverge, so do not solve the indefiniteness problem” (pp. 15-16).
2. Non-Infringement: The Definition of a “Request”
For the claims that did not contain the “optimal” or “best” language (e.g., claims 1, 3–4, and 6–7 of the ’195 patent), the dispute shifted to infringement. The claims required a “management center” to receive a “request for media content” (p. 17). MediaPointe accused Akamai’s “Mapper” functionality, which resides on its DNS servers, of satisfying this element.
The technical reality of the Internet proved insurmountable for MediaPointe’s theory. A user seeking content types a URL into a browser, triggering a DNS query. Akamai’s Mapper receives this DNS query, but later, the user’s computer sends a separate HTTP GET message to retrieve the actual content. MediaPointe argued that “request for media content” should be interpreted broadly to include the user’s “attempt” to access media, which initiates the DNS query process (p. 17).
The CAFC panel rejected this abstraction, holding that “a relevant artisan could not reasonably have understood the claim language... to refer to anything other than a computer message” (p. 18).
Judge Taranto wrote:
“This is unmistakably language about messages, which are what are sent (or entered) and received. ... It is not language about the activity of ‘attempts,’ which are not ‘received by’ a management center...” (p. 18)
Since Akamai’s Mapper only receives a DNS query—which does not contain the specific request for the media file—it does not receive a “request for media content.”
As the court concluded, “request’ is limited to, at most, those types of things capable of being received by a management center” (p. 19).
Key Takeaways and Practical Implications
The Akamai decision reinforces the high bar for definiteness in software and system patents, particularly those involving optimization logic. For practitioners and IP owners, the ruling offers specific actionable guidance.
Avoid Subjective Terms of Degree (Without Details)
Drafters must exercise extreme caution when using terms like “optimal,” “best,” “nearest,” or “most efficient.” The court made clear that a term is not definite “merely because the specification ‘identif[ies] some standard for measuring the scope of the [term]’” (p. 13).
If such terms are necessary, the patent must explain how to calculate the result when factors push in opposite directions. A weighted formula or a defined hierarchy can remedy such indefiniteness. If multiple ways are disclosed, a clarifying “wherein” clause might be warranted.
Technical Precision in Infringement Theories
This case highlights the danger of relying on broad concepts during litigation. MediaPointe attempted to equate a “DNS query” with a “content request” because they are steps in the same user-initiated process.
The Federal Circuit adhered to the technical distinction, noting that “a DNS query itself is not the request for content described in the ‘195 patent” (p. 10). Litigators must ensure their infringement theories respect the technical definitions of the data structures involved. Early consultations with subject matter experts can be invaluable.
The Risk of “Kitchen Sink” Specifications
Patents that list every possible variable an invention might consider—without committing to how they are used—can backfire. Here, the specification’s mention that operators could also consider “cost,” “historical performance,” or “time of day” hurt MediaPointe (p. 8). To the panel, it confirmed that “optimal” was a subjective target moving at the operator’s whim.
Drafters need to strategize as to whether they should focus on the specific technical solution rather than trying to cover every conceivable implementation variable or use precise language (e.g., “wherein…”) to guide the public on the true boundaries of the claim.
Conclusion
Akamai v. MediaPointe is a reminder that patent claims must be precise enough to warn the public of what is infringing behavior. With this precedential decision, the Federal Circuit has clarified that a patentee cannot claim the result of being “optimal” without disclosing and identifying the specific path to achieve it.
As the court noted, ignoring the requirement for objective boundaries would “nullif[y] those very terms” (p. 16). By invalidating claims that rely on subjective assessments of network performance, the court protects the public from facing liability based on ambiguous standards and sends a message to applicants and practitioners that precision is a requirement not a .
As technology becomes more complex, the requirement for clarity in drafting—specifically regarding algorithmic selection and optimization—remains a fundamental gatekeeper of patent validity.
Disclaimer: This is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. To the extent there are any opinions in this article, they are the author’s alone and do not represent the beliefs of his firm or clients. The strategies expressed are purely speculation based on publicly available information. The information expressed is subject to change at any time and should be checked for completeness, accuracy and current applicability. For advice, consult a suitably licensed attorney and/or patent professional.