May 2010

Top Ten Most Cited Patent Cases 2007-2010

Patent

In the common law tradition, virtually every written opinion from the Federal Circuit cites to prior precedent. I looked at the past few years of Federal Circuit decision to discover the most cited patent cases.

The following list is ranked based on citations found in Federal Circuit patent decisions that were decided January 1, 2007 – May 26, 2010. The ranking is a combined score of both (1) the number of times a case was cited and (2) the depth-of-analysis associated with the citation. I excluded non-patent cases from the list.

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.Cir. 2005).
  2. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed.Cir. 1998).
  3. KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
  4. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed.Cir. 1995).
  5. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 86 S.Ct. 684 (1966).
  6. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed.Cir. 1996).
  7. In re Calmar, Inc., 854 F.2d 461 (Fed.Cir. 1988).
  8. Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 117 S.Ct. 1040 (1997).
  9. MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 764 (2007).
  10. Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 108 S.Ct. 2166 (1988).
  11. Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc., 863 F.2d 867 (Fed.Cir. 1988).
  12. Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., Inc., 56 F.3d 1538 (Fed.Cir. 1995).
  13. In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed.Cir. 2007).

Transition: Chief Judge Michel –> Chief Judge Rader

Patent, ,

Transition: May 31 is Chief Judge Paul Michel’s last day on the bench.  Judge Randall Rader will become the next Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

The Court today released two interesting patent opinions authored by the Chief: Dow Jones v. Ablaise (finding patent invalid as obvious) and Leviton v. Universal Security Instruments (vacating summary judgment of inequitable conduct). 

There are several pending en banc cases, including Princo v. ITC (patent pools and antitrust), Hyatt v. Kappos (Admissibility of new evidence in a Section 145 action), Therasense v. BD (standards of inequitable conduct), and TiVo v. EchoStar (contempt proceedings against adjuged infringer who introduced new infringing products). 

Combinatorics: With Chief Judge Michel gone, it may be more difficult for en banc panels to overturn prior precedent.  With Chief Judge Michel, the court has 11 members and needs a 6–judge majority to overturn prior precedent. Without the Chief, the court will have only 10 members but will still need 6–judges for such a “majority.” With the 11–judge panel, half of the potential outcomes result in majority panel sufficient to overturn prior precedent. With a 10–judge panel, only 38% of the potential outcomes have the same result. (This assumes a binary yes/no on the potential majority position).  Chief Judge Michel is particularly important because of his tendancy to side with the majority. In the past decade, Judge Michel has filed fewer dissinting opinions than any other Judge on the Circuit except for Judge Moore (who has only been on the bench for three years).  (Judge Newman has filed the most dissenting opinions.)

Next Vacancies: Several other Federal Circuit judges are currently eligible to take senior status. These include Judges Newman, Mayer, Lourie, Gajarsa, and Dyk. Judge Byrson will be eligible in August 2010.

Next Chief Judge After Judge Rader: Judge Kimberly Moore sits as the heir apparent following Judge Rader — assuming that he remains Chief Judge for a full seven years. If Judge Rader vacates the Chief position within six-years, Judge Prost would become Chief.

JOTWELL: Journal of Things we Like (LOTS)

Patent

[JOTWELL] Many of us enjoy legal theory of all sorts (even that outside of patent law) but we do not have time to sift through the several thoursand law review articles published each year. 

A new project headed by Professor Michael Froomkin (Miami) focuses attention on legal scholarship that is new and noteworthy — and does so in digestable 1,000 word essays.

[Patent Utility Redux] In a recent JOTWELL essay, Professor John Duffy (GWU) discusses a new article by Professer Michael Risch (soon to be Villanova). Risch’s article is titled Reinvinting Usefulness and is forthcoming in the BYU Law Review (SSRN Draft). Duffy writes:

Michael Risch reexamines patent utility doctrine and advances creative and insightful arguments for requiring that all inventions demonstrate “commercial utility” prior to patenting.  The highest compliment I can pay this article is not that I agree with it—I’m still somewhat doubtful—but that the article has forced me to think hard about an area I foolishly thought to be largely barren.  The article is memorable precisely because its thesis is unsettling; it demands rethinking of utility doctrine and other aspects of the patent law.

The JOTWELL IP section can be followed here: http://ip.jotwell.com/.

Notes:

 

 

 

Judge Plager: “The Walls Surrounding the Claimed Invention [Should] be Made of Something Other than Quicksand”

Patent, , ,

Enzo Biochem and Yale University v. Applera Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2010)

The district court initially held Enzo’s patent claims invalid as indefinite because of the ill-defined term “not interfering substantially.” On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed — finding that the someone of skill in the art “would understand what is claimed.”

Applera requested a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc which the Federal Circuit recently denied. However, as part of that denial, Judge Plager penned an important dissent — arguing that indefiniteness law should be given more teeth and that claim construction commands too large of a role in the litigation process.

“In my view, this court’s definiteness doctrine could go considerably further in promoting that objective than it currently does, with the not inconsequential benefit of shifting the focus from litigation over claim construction to clarity in claim drafting. . . . The court now spends a substantial amount of judicial resources trying to make sense of unclear, over-broad, and sometimes incoherent claim terms. It is time for us to move beyond sticking our fingers in the never-ending leaks in the dike that supposedly defines and figuratively surrounds a claimed invention. Instead, we might spend some time figuring out how to support the PTO in requiring that the walls surrounding the claimed invention be made of something other than quicksand.”

PatentLawPic990Read the full dissent here:

Judge Plager: I respectfully dissent from the denial of the petition for panel rehearing on the question of indefiniteness.

Despite the varying formulations that this court has used over the years in describing its “indefiniteness” jurisprudence . . . , the general conclusion from our law seems to be this: if a person of ordinary skill in the art can come up with a plausible meaning for a disputed claim term in a patent, that term, and therefore the claim, is not indefinite. At least not so indefinite as to run afoul of the statutory requirement that claims shall “particularly point[ ] out and distinctly claim[ ] the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.

The corollary derived from this understanding is that if several persons of ordinary skill come up with competing but plausible interpretations of a disputed terms is typically the case with competing “expert witnesses” in patent infringement litigation—the problem is not one of an inherently ambiguous and potentially indefinite claim term, but rather the problem becomes simply one of picking the “right” interpretation for that term. Since picking the “right” interpretation—claim construction—is a matter of law over which this court rules, and since the view of the trial judge hearing the case is given little weight, so that the trial judge’s view on appeal becomes just a part of the cacophony before this court, it is not until three court of appeals judges randomly selected for that purpose pick the “right” interpretation that the public, not to mention the patentee and its competitors, know what the patent actually claims. The inefficiencies of this system, and its potential inequities, are well known in the trade.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), by contrast, appears to be taking steps to give the statutory requirement real meaning. In 2008, the patent examining corps was given a five-page instruction on “Indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” The memo initially observes that “[t]he primary purpose of the definiteness requirement for claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so that the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent.” The memo reviews in detail a recent opinion of this court, following which the memo states the position of the PTO: “If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpre-tation then a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate.”

This memo was followed later in the year by a rare precedential opinion issued by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) in Ex parte Miyazaki. The Board noted that this court has in post-issuance patent infringement cases held “that the definiteness requirement ‘does not compel absolute clarity’ and ‘[o]nly claims “not amenable to construction” or “insolubly am-biguous” are indefinite.’” Recognizing that this court has never set forth a different standard of review for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for pre-issuance pending claims as compared with post-issuance patent claims, the Board concluded that the Federal Circuit’s reading of the indefiniteness requirement was counter to the PTO’s broader standard for claim construction during prosecution. Accordingly, the Board announced that, “rather than requiring that the claims are insolubly ambiguous, we hold that if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.”

The Board is clearly right in recognizing that the circumstances are different between pre-issuance and post-issuance application of the definiteness standard with regard to claim terms. At the same time, the PTO and the Board are clearly right in insisting that, if the public notice function of the patent law is to be honored, claim terms must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention. In my view, this court’s definiteness doctrine could go considerably further in promoting that objective than it currently does, with the not inconsequential benefit of shifting the focus from litigation over claim construction to clarity in claim drafting.

To begin the discussion of how this court could move in that direction, I would grant the petition for panel rehearing. The court now spends a substantial amount of judicial resources trying to make sense of unclear, over-broad, and sometimes incoherent claim terms. It is time for us to move beyond sticking our fingers in the never-ending leaks in the dike that supposedly defines and figuratively surrounds a claimed invention. Instead, we might spend some time figuring out how to support the PTO in requiring that the walls surrounding the claimed invention be made of something other than quicksand.

I respectfully dissent from the loss of that opportunity through the panel’s denial of rehearing.

Substantially: As a claim limitation, “substantially” is being used less frequently than ever before. The chart below shows the percentage of issued patents that include “substantially” as a claim limitation. The data is grouped accourding to the patent issue year. (For the 1980’s and 1990’s, I grouped the data by decade.)

PatentLawPic991

PatentLawPic992

 

 

 

Patent Grants 2010

Patent

Over the past few weeks, I have been reporting on the dramatic rise in the number of patents being issued by the USPTO each week. That trend continues. In the past three weeks, the USPTO has granted more utility patents than in any three week period in history — at a rate more than 40% greater than in 2009.

Kyle Jensen of PriorSMart reports on an interesting phenom: For the first-time, the number of issued patents exceeds the number of published applications.

Orion v Hyundai on Novelty: Expanding the Scope of a Printed Publication with Oral Testimony

Patent,

Orion IP v. Hyundai Motor America (Fed. Cir. 2010)

Orion sued Hyundai and twenty other automobile manufacturers for infringement of its patent covering a “computer-assisted parts sales method.” The invention took computer and database technology available in 1988 and applied that technology to a specific solution. All of the defendants settled except Hyundai who was stuck with a $34+ million verdict jury. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed — holding that the asserted patent is invalid as anticipated by a promotional publication for an electronics parts catalog.  Note, this post deals with the anticipation issues. I will discuss inequitable conduct in a separate post.

The asserted prior art is a brochure for the IDB2000 system that was distributed by Bell & Howell at least one year prior to the Orion priority date.* [DTX133.pdf (5979 KB)] The brochure does not specifically state that the system generates a customer proposal as required by claim 1 of Orion’s patent.  However, at trial, Hyundai presented evidence that the IDB2000 system was “designed to, and did” generate customer proposals.  The Federal Circuit latched-onto this testimony regarding the prior art system and used it to expand the coverage of the prior art brochure — holding that the “testimonial and documentary evidence regarding the Electronic Parts Catalog reference establish that the Electronic Parts Catalog reference anticipates claim 1 of the ’627 patent.”

I have genuine problems with the analysis in this opinion.  The appellate panel expanded the scope of the asserted anticipatory prior art reference by relying on testimonial evidence of how the associated system was used at the time. There are two separate problems. First, the scope of a “printed publication” should be examined for what it disclosed to one of skill in the art rather rather than to how underlying prior art systems were used at the time. Contemporaneous use would be important for an analysis of whether the invention was “in public use” more than one year before the filing date. However, this decision’s doctrinal focus is solely on anticipation by the prior art brochure as a printed publication. If the IDB2000 system itself anticipated the patent then the defendants should have presented evidence under the public use prong of 102(b).  The second problem with the court’s decision is that the oral testimony relied on here opens the door to potentially self-serving testimony that is not ordinarily allowed in invalidity/priority proceedings because it does not satisfy the clear and convincing standard. 

  • * The asserted prior art reference was apparently printed after the Orion filing date. However, Hyundai presented oral testimony that a very similar brochure had been distributed earlier.

Chief Judge Michel: State of the Court

Patent,

Chief Judge Paul Michel will be retiring from the bench later this month after more than twenty-two years on the bench and five as the chief judge.  He recently offered his annual “state of the court” address at the court’s annual judicial conference. [Read Judge Michel’s remarks].

As Chief, Judge Michel has taken a specific interest in ensuring that the court runs efficiently and quickly. His remarks:

By every measure our decisions continue to be issued more rapidly. As a result, our inventory of pending appeals has dropped from over 1,400 just a few years ago to only 819 as of April 30. Indeed, as of October 1, 2009 it was 897, so the reductions continue.

One benefit is that we hear cases more quickly. In Fiscal year 2006, for example, only 49% of ready cases could be scheduled for argument without delay. By last year, the number was 84%. This year it will likely rise even further.

Another metric we watch is the percentage of appeals decided within 90 days of argument. This number has ranged recently from 75 to 83%. Likely it will reach 85% this year.

Judge Michel also briefly discussed the pending en banc cases:

  • Last October we agreed to rehear en banc Princo v. ITC, involving a patent misuse defense based on a patent pool licensing agreement. Argument was held in March. [This case was argued by Edward DuMont. DuMont has been nominated to fill Judge Michel’s place on the bench]
  • In February, we granted rehearing en banc in Hyatt v. Kappos, asking the parties to brief any limitations on admissibility of evidence in § 145 patenting actions in district court. Argument is scheduled for July 8.
  • In March, we agreed to rehear Slattery v. United States, a Winstar case, asking whether the FDIC is a non-appropriated funds instrumentality and how the answer to that affects the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.
  • In April we granted rehearing en banc in Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson, in which we will reconsider the standards for determining inequitable conduct. 
  • This month, we granted rehearing in TiVo v. Echostar, concerning when contempt proceedings are appropriate as opposed to a new infringement trial on a product that has been altered after the original was found to infringe.
  • And of course all eyes are on the impending decision in In Re Bilski, concerning the test for patent eligibility.

Although stepping-down from the bench, Chief Judge Michel is “not retiring, but merely changing mission.” He reports that he expects to play a greater role for campaigning for stronger support the courts and USPTO and may also spend some time as a mediator.

PatentLawPic989

Patently-O Bits and Bytes

Patent, , ,
  • Trademark / Antitrust: The Supreme Court has ruled against the National Football League (NFL) in an antitrust suit involving the NFL’s exclusive apparel licensing deal with Reebok/Adidas. The court held that the NFL was not a single business entity, but rather 32 separate business entities. Any antitrust violation involves an underlying market. Here, the supreme court identified that as the market for intellectual property: “Directly relevant here, the teams are potentially competing suppliers in the market for intellectual property. When teams license such property, they are not pursuing the common interests of the whole league, but, instead, the interests of each corporation itself.” In Princo, the Federal Circuit is now considering antitrust issues in the scope of patents and standard-setting organizations. [Read NFL v. American Needle] [Read about Princo v. ITC]
  • The Chisum Patent Academy is offering its second annual Intensive Patent Law Training Workshop in Seattle on July 29-31, 2010. See http://www.chisum-patent-academy.com. The workshop will focus on substantive patent law (patentability and enforcement) through analysis of critical Federal Circuit and Supreme Court decisions. [Syllabus for 2009 workshop]. New material for 2010 likely include business method patentability post-Bilski, written description requirement compliance post-Ariad, and the evolving landscape of inequitable conduct as reflected by the Federal Circuit’s recent grant of rehearing en banc in Therasense. The workshop is team-taught in seminar style (maximum of 10 students) by Donald Chisum, author of the treatise Chisum on Patents, and Professor Janice Mueller, author of Patent Law, 3d Edition (Aspen 2009). Chisum and Mueller have a combined total of over 40 years experience teaching patent law. The workshop’s coverage is geared for junior patent attorneys, summer associates, engineers, scientists, paralegals, information specialists, and attorneys experienced in non-patent fields who desire an intensive introduction to patent law. Eighteen hours of CLE credit have been applied for.
  • USPTO News:
    • The USPTO is further developing its patent prosecution highway and has eliminated the associated fee. [Link]
    • USPTO is on Facebook [Link][Me on Facebook]
    • Green Technology: The USPTO has expanded the number of technology classes that count as “green technology” and that are therefore eligible for expedited processing. [Link]

Kathy Bates on NBC as a former patent attorney. Best quote of the clip is 30–seconds-in.

 

 

Patently-O Bits and Bytes

Patent, , ,
  • Trademark / Antitrust: The Supreme Court has ruled against the National Football League (NFL) in an antitrust suit involving the NFL’s exclusive apparel licensing deal with Reebok/Adidas. The court held that the NFL was not a single business entity, but rather 32 separate business entities. Any antitrust violation involves an underlying market. Here, the supreme court identified that as the market for intellectual property: “Directly relevant here, the teams are potentially competing suppliers in the market for intellectual property. When teams license such property, they are not pursuing the common interests of the whole league, but, instead, the interests of each corporation itself.” In Princo, the Federal Circuit is now considering antitrust issues in the scope of patents and standard-setting organizations. [Read NFL v. American Needle] [Read about Princo v. ITC]
  • The Chisum Patent Academy is offering its second annual Intensive Patent Law Training Workshop in Seattle on July 29-31, 2010. See http://www.chisum-patent-academy.com. The workshop will focus on substantive patent law (patentability and enforcement) through analysis of critical Federal Circuit and Supreme Court decisions. [Syllabus for 2009 workshop]. New material for 2010 likely include business method patentability post-Bilski, written description requirement compliance post-Ariad, and the evolving landscape of inequitable conduct as reflected by the Federal Circuit’s recent grant of rehearing en banc in Therasense. The workshop is team-taught in seminar style (maximum of 10 students) by Donald Chisum, author of the treatise Chisum on Patents, and Professor Janice Mueller, author of Patent Law, 3d Edition (Aspen 2009). Chisum and Mueller have a combined total of over 40 years experience teaching patent law. The workshop’s coverage is geared for junior patent attorneys, summer associates, engineers, scientists, paralegals, information specialists, and attorneys experienced in non-patent fields who desire an intensive introduction to patent law. Eighteen hours of CLE credit have been applied for.
  • USPTO News:
    • The USPTO is further developing its patent prosecution highway and has eliminated the associated fee. [Link]
    • USPTO is on Facebook [Link][Me on Facebook]
    • Green Technology: The USPTO has expanded the number of technology classes that count as “green technology” and that are therefore eligible for expedited processing. [Link]

Kathy Bates on NBC as a former patent attorney. Best quote of the clip is 30–seconds-in.

 

 

USPTO Rising Allowance Rate

Patent

The USPTO issued more patents during the past two weeks than in any fortnight in history.  A primary driver of that upswing appears to be a dramatic rise in the allowance rate. This change is demonstrated in the chart below.

PatentlyO052

Methods: The chart is based on 4,400 patent applications that have either been abandoned or issued as patents – i.e., “disposed of.”  The allowance rate was calculated for each quarter based on the disposal date.  Only published applications were used.

The graph above is similar to the PTO allowance rate chart seen below through the end of FY2008. (As with the PTO pink line below, my chart does not count RCE filings as abandoned cases.)

PTOAllowanceRate

 

Patently-O Bits and Bytes

Patent
  • Grant Rate: The USPTO’s high patent grant numbers continue. The past two weeks respectively rank Nos. 1 and 2 in terms of the most patents granted in a single week in US history.
  • USPTO Application Exchange: The USPTO has announced that it is opening its “application exchange program” to all applicants. Any applicant with at least two pending applications can “receive expedited review of one application in exchange for withdrawing an unexamined application.” For 2010, the program will be limited to 15 applications per entity. Applicants with questions may contact Pinchus Laufer (Office of the Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy) Pinchus.Laufer@uspto.gov.
  • PTO/DOJ/FTC Workshop on May 26th at the USPTO. The FTC’s work and report on problems in the patent system has been a driving force behind many of the proposed patent reform initiatives over the past several years. Later this month, the FTC will be joining the PTO and DOJ for a workshop on the role of intellectual property in competitive markets. Particular topics include PTO Reform (quality and timing); Permanent Injunctions and the ITC; and Standard Setting. Webcast available. [Link]
  • Ombudsman Program: The PTO has implemented a new ombudsman program intended to help applicants who feel that the ordinary prosecution process has broken-down. [Link] I would like to hear any comments on the value of the program.

— Dennis

Patently-O Bits and Bytes

Patent
  • Grant Rate: The USPTO’s high patent grant numbers continue. The past two weeks respectively rank Nos. 1 and 2 in terms of the most patents granted in a single week in US history.
  • USPTO Application Exchange: The USPTO has announced that it is opening its “application exchange program” to all applicants. Any applicant with at least two pending applications can “receive expedited review of one application in exchange for withdrawing an unexamined application.” For 2010, the program will be limited to 15 applications per entity. Applicants with questions may contact Pinchus Laufer (Office of the Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy) Pinchus.Laufer@uspto.gov.
  • PTO/DOJ/FTC Workshop on May 26th at the USPTO. The FTC’s work and report on problems in the patent system has been a driving force behind many of the proposed patent reform initiatives over the past several years. Later this month, the FTC will be joining the PTO and DOJ for a workshop on the role of intellectual property in competitive markets. Particular topics include PTO Reform (quality and timing); Permanent Injunctions and the ITC; and Standard Setting. Webcast available. [Link]
  • Ombudsman Program: The PTO has implemented a new ombudsman program intended to help applicants who feel that the ordinary prosecution process has broken-down. [Link] I would like to hear any comments on the value of the program.

— Dennis

Defending Yourself in Inequitable Conduct Proceedings

Patent,

An en banc rehearing is now pending before the Federal Circuit in the case of Therasense (Abbott) v. BD. The case focuses on questions of patent unenforceability due to the patentee’s inequitable conduct during prosecution.  The court opinions focus on the actions of Mr. Lawrence S. Pope who was the attorney responsible for prosecution of the asserted patent.  The district court held that pope “acted with specific intent to deceive” the patent examiner and the USPTO. Based on that finding, Pope has been investigated by both the PTO Office of Enrollment & Discipline (OED) and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC).

There is no doubt that the finding of intentional deception has substantially and negatively impacted Mr. Pope.  As a pro-active attorney, Mr. Pope (who is no longer with Abbott) attempted to intervene in the case to defend his own record. After receiving briefs on the motion to intervene, the Federal Circuit denied the request. 

Writing as the motions judge, Judge Gajarsa wrote:

Pope asserts that he meets the standards for intervention, i.e., that he has a substantial interest in the appeal, that his interests will not be adequately represented by Abbott, and that intervention will not cause any undue delay or harm. . . . In Nisus Corporation v. PermaChink Systems, Inc., 497 F.3d 1316, 1319-20, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2007), we affirmed a district court's denial of a motion to intervene by an attorney who had prosecuted a patent and who sought to challenge factual findings concerning his conduct that were related to a finding of unenforceability. We expressly distinguished Penthouse Int'l because it involved an attorney who sought to intervene after a district court sanctioned the attorney and directed the attorney to pay a sanction. In this case, Pope has shown no similar type of sanction. Nisus, 497 F.3d at 1319 ("Critical comments, such as in an opinion of the court addressed to the issues in the underlying case, are not directed at and do not alter the legal rights of the nonparty.").

Documents:

Patenting Numbers

Patent

Two interesting statistics that came-out in today’s USPTO Roundtable on Patent Quality:

  • The number of examiner interviews have increased 60% over last year.
  • The action-per-disposal rate has fallen from about 2.9 actions-per-disposal to 2.3 actions-per-disposal as compared with last year.

Chien: Recent History Suggests that Supreme Court will Rule Bilski’s Claim Unpatentable

Patent,

Professor Colleen Chien (Santa Clara) has written an interesting new article on the importance of amicus briefs in patent cases. Her article is titled Patent Amicus Briefs: What the Courts’ Friends Can Teach Us About the Patent System and is available online at SSRN.

Bilski v. Kappos: Professor Chien reminded me that as Solicitor General, Elena Kagan authored both the US government’s merits brief in Bilski case arguing that Bilski’s claim is unpatentable and the US government’s brief opposing cert. The article reports that “in the last 20 years, every single amicus brief authored by the US Government in a Supreme Court patent case except one predicted the case outcome.” Chien writes “If history is any indication, the Supreme Court will almost certainly follow the US Government’s lead and rule that the method is unpatentable and likely adopt some of its reasoning as well.” (Note that Bilski is a bit different because the Government is a party).

The abstract:

Over the last two decades, more than 1500 amici, representing thousands of organizations, companies, and individuals, have signed onto amicus briefs in over a hundred patent cases, many of them representing landmark decisions. This paper turns the spotlight on these “behind-the-scenes” actors in the patent system. It combines theoretical insights with an empirical study of amicus briefs filed in patent cases over the last 20 years in an examination of who is interested in the patent system, the positions they have advocated, and the effectiveness of their advocacy. Amicus filers have been instrumental in shaping the courts’ agenda; the Supreme Court was seven times more likely to grant cert, and the Federal Circuit eight times likely grant a petition for en banc rehearing, if urged to by an amicus. However, while certain briefs have been important, overall the balance of briefs on the merits have not had a measurable impact on the courts’ rulings. One exception has been the briefs of the US Government, which have been exceptionally prescient. Over the 20 years studied, every single amicus brief authored by the US Government in a Supreme Court patent case except one predicted the case outcome. That is to say, in almost all cases, the Court affirmed or rejected the lower court holding when the Government told it to, and in one case, dismissed cert as improvidently granted when the Government recommended doing so. In terms of who files briefs and their agenda, the results are somewhat surprising. Although debates about the patent system are usually cast as a fight between the pharmaceutical and hi-tech industries, patent lawyers comprise a powerful interest group, filing the most briefs of any single group. In addition, among companies, what seems largely to determine how they advocate is their business model – non-practicing entities, for example, nearly always weighed in for the patentee and public companies, often against the patentee. These and other results have implications for those seeking to understand the patent system and those seeking to influence it.

Download the article.

Bits and Bytes: Cybaris

Patent

William Mitchell’s new IP Journal “Cybaris” recently published its first issue. Each article is accopmanied by a videotaped interview and discussion with the author(s). Readers may also leave comments on the site.  The first issue includes:

  • A complete version the Matrix for Changing First-To-Invent by Brad Pedersen & Justin Woo that was originally discussed on Patently-O [Link]
  • Trying to Agree on Three Articles of Law: The Idea/Expression Dichotomy in Chinese Copyright Law by Stephen McIntyre [Link]
  • Buffering and the Reproduction Right: When is a Copy a Copy? by Steven Foley [Link]
  • Note: The Best of Intentions: Why the Proposed Changes to the Canadian Access to Medicines Regime Should Not Be Implemented by Carly L. Huth [Link]
  • Note: In Defense of TRIPs: It Only Seems Imperialistic by Anthony R. Noss [Link]
    Note: The Statutory Damages Regime of Copyright Law: The Non-Commercial User and Capitol Records, Inc v. Thomas-Rasset by Heather N. Kjos [Link]

En Banc Federal Circuit: Adjudged Infringers and their “New” Products

Patent

TiVo v. EchoStar (Fed. Cir. 2010)

The Federal Circuit has announced an en banc rehearing of the TiVo appeal focusing on the process of chasing-down defendants to enforce an injunction — especially where the defendant has introduced a new device that is arguably infringing.  The patentee here has asked that the enforcement operate through a contempt proceeding while the accused infringer has demanded a new trial on the merits for the new device.

The questions on appeal include:

a) Following a finding of infringement by an accused device at trial, under what circumstances is it proper for a district court to determine infringement by a newly accused device through contempt proceedings rather than through new infringement proceedings? What burden of proof is required to establish that a contempt proceeding is proper?

b) How does “fair ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct” compare with the “more than colorable differences” or “substantial open issues of infringement” tests in evaluating the newly accused device against the adjudged infringing device? See Cal. Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U.S. 609, 618 (1885); KSM Fastening Sys., Inc. v. H.A. Jones Co., 776 F.2d 1522, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

c) Where a contempt proceeding is proper, (1) what burden of proof is on the patentee to show that the newly accused device infringes (see KSM, 776 F.2d at 1524) and (2) what weight should be given to the infringer’s efforts to design around the patent and its 2009-1374 2 reasonable and good faith belief of noninfringement by the new device, for a finding of contempt?

d) Is it proper for a district court to hold an enjoined party in contempt where there is a substantial question as to whether the injunction is ambiguous in scope?

On-point amicus briefs are welcomed.