claim indefiniteness is a legal conclusion that is drawn from the court’s performance of its duty as the construer of patent claims.” Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 705 (Fed.Cir.1998). To the extent there are any factual findings upon which a trial court’s indefiniteness conclusion depends, they must be proven by the challenger by clear and convincing evidence. Intel, 319 F.3d at 1366 (citing Budde, 250 F.3d at 1376-77). Though we review the ultimate question of indefiniteness without deference to the trial court, Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 702, any factual findings made by the court in a bench trial in support of that conclusion are reviewed for clear error, see Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1343-44 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the parties agree that video
holding that the district courts findings of fact when ruling on a 12b1 motion are reviewed for clear error holding that the issue of discriminatory intent in a race discrimination case is a factual question for the trier of fact whose findings are reviewed only for clear error holding that district courts factual findings for purposes of obstruction enhancement are reviewed for clear error holding that factual findings in sentencing context are reviewed for clear error holding that findings of fact from a bench trial are reviewed for clear error