by Dennis Crouch

When I first wrote about Amgen v. Amneal, I focused on the patent law issue regarding Markush groups in the patent claims.  Here, I want to circle back to the question appellate jurisdiction. I’ll be teaching the 2nd semester of Civil Procedure at Mizzou this spring and appellate jurisdiction is the the first topic up for grabs.

Most patent infringement litigation reaches the Federal Circuit under the “final judgment rule” which creates appellate jurisdiction over cases “appealed from a final decision of a district court.” 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1).  Final decisions “are decisions that end litigation on the merits and leave nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Slip op.; Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978).  Thus, in a patent case involving infringement claims and invalidity defenses, both must be resolved before appeal.  (Note here, that there are some, albeit limited, options for interlocutory appeals prior to final judgment).

In Amgen, the district court issued an infringement decision (against Zydus) but did not resolve questions of whether the asserted patent is valid and enforceable — explaining that:

The Court has not yet held trial on Zydus’ bifurcated invalidity counterclaims and defenses. . . . An invalidity trial will be scheduled by this Court if necessary following disposition of appeal proceedings.

Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharm. LLC., No. 1:16-cv-00853-MSG (Oct. 9, 2018), ECF No. 405.  Because the invalidity issues were still unresolved, the decision was not final.  Still, Zydus appealed and included only a conclusory jurisdictional statement that jurisdiction is proper under  28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) since the district court issued its final judgment:

The district court then issued a final judgment on October 9, 2018, in favor of Amgen against Zydus. . . . This Court has jurisdiction over the cross-appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

Zydus brief.   Amgen also did not challenge jurisdiction in its briefing.  However, the appellate court is obligated to ensure itself of jurisdiction before moving forward.

At oral arguments, the appellate panel recognized the problem and questioned Zydus’s attorney during oral arguments who – after consulting with his client in the courtroom – agreed to “give up” its invalidity defense. [Oral arguments beginning at min 18].   In its decision, the Federal Circuit found that concession sufficient to cure jurisdiction. “Zydus’s representation effectively cures the jurisdictional defect in its notice of appeal because the contingency identified by the district court—Zydus’s potential invalidity defense and claim—is nullified.”

Too Short Analysis: The Federal Circuit did not cite any precedent or statute to support its conclusion that the oral-argument waiver can cure the lack of final judgment.  The procedure principles here fall within the umbrella of “cumulative finality.”  Most courts have accepted the notion that a premature appeal can be cured by a subsequent entry of final judgment by the district court.  However, some courts have taken an alternative approach. Here is how Prof. Lammon explained the situation in his recent article:

[The cumulative finality] rule of appellate jurisdiction allows certain subsequent events to save a premature notice of appeal filed after certain district court decisions.

The general rule cannot be stated any more precisely, however, because the cumulative finality doctrine is currently a mess.

Bryan Lammon, Cumulative Finality, 52 Ga. L. Rev. 767 (2018).   In his article, Lammon explains that the Eighth Circuit along with the Federal Circuit have traditionally held the narrowest views of cumulative jurisdiction and has previously required appellants to re-file their case after a proper final judgment rather than curing appellate jurisdiction on the fly.  Lammon does not address whether the Federal Circuit should be following its own law on this issue or instead be applying the law of the regional circuit court of appeals.  In a separate paper on finality, Lammon also explains that the meaning of “final decision” is not quite the simple definition that I used above.

The federal courts have given the term “final decision” a variety of meanings. Those meanings often deviate from–and are occasionally inconsistent with–the standard definition…

Bryan Lammon, Finality, Appealability, and the Scope of Interlocutory Review, 93 Wash. L. Rev. 1809 (2018).

= = = = =

Let me note one failure of lawyering in the case: Although district court’s purported final judgment was not actually a final judgment as to Zydus, it did include a permanent injunction against Zydus as shown in the image below. The injunction is relevant because it fits within one of the exceptions to the final judgment rule. In particular, a district court’s decisions involving injunctive relief are directly appealable even if not part of a final judgment. “[T]he courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from: (1) interloctutory orders of the district courts . . . granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions…” 28 U.S.C. 1293(a).

Thus, it looks to me like Zydus’ attorney had a proper grounds for jurisdiction without giving-up its invalidity defense.

= = = = =

Opening a Closed Markush Group

If you want it, Claim it

by Dennis Crouch

Molon Motor and Coil Corp. v. Nidec Motor Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

In a divided opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment against the patentee Molon — holding that a 2006 covenant-not-to-sue remained in force despite a subsequent 2007 settlement agreement stating that prior covenants “concerning the subject matter hereof” are “of no further force or effect.”

The Subject Matter of a Contract: The majority opinion penned by Judge Lourie and joined by Judge Hughes concludes “that the two agreements concern different subject matter” and and thus finds the merger and cancellation clause inapplicable.  Writing in dissent, Judge Reyna came to the opposite conclusion since both the 2006 covenant and the 2007 settlement agreement focused on a license to practice the ‘915 patent.

In the 2006 Covenant, Molon granted Merkle-Korff [Nidec’s predecessor] a bare license to practice the ’915 patent in any market. In the 2007 Settlement, Molon granted Merkle-Korff an exclusive license to practice the ’915 patent in the Kinetek Exclusive Market only. Both licenses relate to the same subject matter—the right to practice the ’915 patent. Thus, the 2007 Settlement’s merger clause, which wiped away all prior covenants with the same subject matter, wiped away the 2006 Covenant.

Judge Reyna in dissent. Judge Reyna appears to have the better argument — although not good enough to convince Judges Lourie and Hughes.  Further, Nidec’s counsel Rudy Telscher did an excellent job marshaling Illinois cases that supported his client’s position.

The difference in interpretation between these judges is a matter of contract interpretation under Illinois law. Unfortunately, the majority’s statement of Illinois law is not too helpful: “Illinois courts have cautioned against defining ‘subject matter’ too broadly or too narrowly.”

Some Background on the First Lawsuit: Molon sued Markle-Korff on family-member patent (US6054785), and the defendant responded with a declaratory judgment couinterclaim against Molon’s Patent (US6465915).  At that time, Molon was not interested in litigating the ‘915 patent and issued the 2006 covenant-not-to-sue.

Molon hereby forever covenants not to sue Merkle-Korff for patent infringement … under …
the ’915 patent … with respect to any and all products previously or presently made,
used or sold by Merkle-Korff in the United States. …

2007 Covenant. The district court dismissed the ‘915 patent claims but that first lawsuit continued with Molon’s originally filed infringement claims regarding the ‘785 patent.  In 2007 the parties settled the ‘785 lawsuit with an exclusive license agreement that extended beyond the original lawsuit itself to include more than a dozen Molon patents (including foreign patents and the ‘915 patent).  A difference between the 2006 covenant and the 2007 settlement was the scope of license.

• 2006 covenant – non-exclusive license to “any and all products previously or presently made, used or sold by Merkle-Korff.”
• 2007 settlement – exclusive license restricted to the “Kinetek Exclusive Market.”  (The briefing explains that the “Kinetek Exclusive Market” is a specific confidential customer list that the licensee is allowed to sell to.)

As mentioned above, the 2007 agreement also states that prior agreements “concerning the subject matter hereof” are “merged” and “of no further force or effect.”  However, the 2007 agreement does not particularly and explicitly revoke the 2006 agreement.

Fast forward to 2016 — Molon filed a new lawsuit against Nidec — successor in interest to Merkle-Korff.  The new suit alleges that Nidec is selling beyond the Kinetek market and the big question here is whether the original broad covenant is still in effect.

For the majority, the big difference between the two promises is exclusivity:

There are fundamental differences between an exclusive license and a nonexclusive license, particularly in the context of standing to assert a claim for patent infringement. In essence, an exclusive licensee has an interest in the patent sufficient to establish an injury when a third party infringes, akin to an ownership interest, while a nonexclusive licensee has no such interest in the patent and merely enjoys freedom from suit. Under this framework, it cannot be said that an exclusive license and a nonexclusive license necessarily concern the same subject matter, even though both licenses include the same patent.

Id.  The holding here then is that the original covenant was not cancelled — and so the patentee has no case.

= = = = =

One interesting additional issue not addressed here is the extent that a unilateral covenant-not-to-sue can be revoked, even by agreement. If we think of the covenant as a conveyance (of property rights), a revocation would ordinarily be insufficient to transfer rights back to the patentee. Rather, we would need an express conveyance or release.  A covenant-not-to-sue could also be seen as an abandonment of rights — something like a ‘release.’  Historically courts have distinguished between a release and a covenant-not-to-sue, although that distinction appears to have lifted based as covenants now operate as a complete bar to a subsequent underlying action rather than their historical role of only creating a breach of contract action. See Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 669 F.3d 1005, 1017 (9th Cir. 2012).

Eko Brands v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises (Fed. Cir. 2020)

ARM’s US Patent 8,720,320 covers a Keurig coffee-machine adapter.  Typical cartridges are single-use — rendered ineffective after being pierced by the brewer during operation. ARM’s device isn’t pierced and so retains its effectiveness over multiple uses.

ARM filed an ITC complaint against Eko and others. Although the ITC ruled that several claims were invalid for lacking written description (e.g., claim 5), Eko defaulted with respect to claims 8 and 19 and the ITC issued an exclusion order with respect to those claims.

Subsequently, Eko filed a district court declaratory judgment action to collaterally attack the ITC ruling as to claims 8 and 19. The district court complied and found the claims not-infringed (summary judgment) and invalid as obvious (jury verdict).  The district court also awarded attorney fees to Eko as the prevailing party in what it found to be an exceptional case.

5. A beverage brewer, comprising:

a brewing chamber;

a container, disposed within the brewing chamber and adapted to hold brewing material while brewed by a beverage brewer, the container comprising:

• a receptacle configured to receive the brewing material; and
• a cover;
• wherein the receptacle includes a base, having an interior surface and an exterior surface, wherein at least a portion of the base is disposed a predetermined distance above a bottom surface of the brewing chamber, and at least one sidewall extending upwardly from the interior surface of the base,
• wherein the receptacle has at least one passageway that provides fluid flow from an interior of the receptacle to an exterior of the receptacle;
• wherein the cover is adapted to sealingly engage with a top edge of the at least one sidewall, the cover including an opening, and
• wherein the container is adapted to accept input fluid through the opening and to provide a corresponding outflow of fluid through the passageway;

an inlet port, adapted to provide the input fluid to the container; and

a needle-like structure, disposed below the base;

wherein the predetermined distance is selected such that a tip of the needle-like structure does not penetrate the exterior surface of the base.

8. The beverage brewer of claim 5, wherein the container is reusable.

Note here that claim 8 adds a quite minor limitation that is probably already implied within the scope of claim 5.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirming the claim construction and thus the resulting non-infringement and obviousness decisions.  In the process, the appellate panel reiterated the lower court’s statement that “ARM’s insistence on trying [the case] was largely a charade used for the purpose of extending the life of the earlier ITC . . . order.”

Normal preclusion rules do not apply to interactions between the ITC and District Court. See, Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (even appellate treatment of an ITC decision “does not estop fresh consideration by other tribunals”); S.Rep. No. 1298, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 196 (“it seems clear that any disposition of a Commission action by a Federal Court should not have a res judicata or collateral estoppel effect in [infringement] cases before such [district] courts.”).

An invalidity decision in district court does not automatically cancel an ITC exclusion order. Rather, the ITC can rescind its decision based upon evidence that “the conditions which led to such exclusion from entry or order no longer exist.” Section 337(k)(1).  Following the district court decision, the ITC issued a temporary rescission order that will likely be made permanent now — allowing Eko to keep importing.

= = = =

Note here that Judge Reyna dissented from Judge Dyk’s majority decision on claim construction of claimed “passageway that provides fluid flow from an interior of the receptacle to an exterior of the receptacle.”

The district court erred in its construction of “passageway” by rewriting the claims, including adding a negative limitation that is unsupported by the specification. . . .

The district court construed the term “passageway” as “a narrow space of some depth or length connecting one place to another.” This construction is not supported by the specification. The district court also interpreted “passageway” to exclude a receptacle “that utilized a broad, thin mesh.” This exclusion was raised sua sponte by the court and not argued by either party.

The majority suggested that the district court might have erred a bit in its construction but that Eko didn’t infringe either way.

= = = =

In a turn of events, Eko also sued ARM for infringement and the jury sided with Eko. U.S. Patent No. 8,707,855.  Although Eko won on infringement, the jury found no willful infringement. On appeal, Eko asked for a retrial of willfulness based upon improper jury instructions.

The jury instructions:

Eko argues that ARM willfully infringed the Eko
855 patent. . . . Willfulness requires you to determine whether Eko proved that it is more likely than not that the infringement was especially worthy of punishment. You may not determine that the infringement was willful just
because ARM knew of the Eko 855 patent and infringed it. Instead, willful infringement is reserved for egregious behavior, such as where the infringement is malicious, deliberate, consciously wrongful, or done in bad faith.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit found some fault with the jury instructions here — concluding that the instructions improperly intermix enhanced damages issues that are left for the judge. Rather, the jury’s role here is to address willfulness.

[T]he inclusion of the phrases “especially worthy of punishment” and “reserved for egregious behavior” in Jury Instruction 40 was erroneous.

However, on appeal, the Federal Circuit refused to order a new trial — holding that jury instructions must be considered as a whole – “we think that the instruction taken as a whole provides reasonable clarity as to the correct test for willful infringement.”  In particular, the instructions allow for a finding of infringement that is simply “deliberate.” Later, the instructions also focus jury attention on intentional copying and belief of non-infringement. Those elements of the instructions were sufficient to cure the problematic language since “[t]he jury was reasonably informed that it could make a finding of willful infringement if it found that ARM deliberately or
intentionally infringed the ’855 patent.”

Affirmed

by Dennis Crouch

Maxell, Ltd., v. Fandango Media, LLC (Supreme Court 2020)

Maxell was originally a battery company (MAXimum capacity dry cELL).  The $80b company has expanded into all sorts of digital media. 

Its patents at issue in this case all relate to managing access to content sent over networks, such as videos provided through online rental and streaming services.  U.S. Patents 8,311,389; 9,088,942, and 9,733,522 (all with 2000 priority date). [Update – These are the three patents listed in the petition, but that appears to be an error.  I believe that Maxell intended to list 9,083,942 and 9,773,522 but switched a couple of digits.]

Maxell sued Fandango for infringement — alleging that the “FandangoNow” service infringed.  The lawsuit was cut-short by the district court’s dismissal on the pleadings – finding the asserted claims ineligible as directed to the abstract idea of “restricting access to data” using “rules based upon time.”  On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion following its internal R.36 procedure.  Now, Maxell has petitioned the Supreme Court with a simple question:

Whether the claims at issue in Maxell’s patents are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, as interpreted in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).

[Petition].  This petition is part of the pile of eligibility petitions, including Athena, Hikma, Berkheimer, and Trading Technologies.

The argument in Maxell focuses primarily on Alice Step 1 — whether the claim is directed to a patent ineligible concept.  Maxell explains its position that the lower court went too-far in generalizing the concepts of the invention:

The court fundamentally erred at step one by describing the claims at too high a level of generality and failing to consider the digital context.

Id. The Supreme Court particularly warned against undue generalization in Alice — writing that at some level of generalization, all inventions involve an abstract concept. Alice.

Although Maxell’s innovations could be generally classified as a way of “restricting access to data” using “rules based upon time,” the company argues that this abstraction is not what was actually claimed:

[T]he patents do not claim the general concept of restricting access to data using rules; they claim particular solutions for restricting access
to digital audio/visual content using control information and rules sent to the user with the audio/visual file. Those solutions use two time controls to restrict access to copyright-protected content – a retention period and a playback permission period – according to specific rules set out in the claims. They protect copyright owners’ rights by restricting access to the audio/visual file to a limited period. And they optimize the user experience by allowing the user to choose when to use the audio/visual file, including when the user is offline.

Regarding Alice Step 2, Maxell suggests that the innovative concept is easier to identify once you recognize that the patent applications were filed back in the year 2000.  However, the district court refused to consider evidence of inventiveness in its eligibility analysis.

In some ways, this case is simply asking the Supreme Court to recognize the USPTO’s eligibility examination guidelines as the law — a claim is only directed at an abstract idea if it recites an abstract idea.

= = = = =

The district court used the following claim as representative in its analysis:

13. A method, comprising:

transmitting audio/video information;

receiving the audio/video information;

storing the audio/video information on a storage medium; and

reproducing the audio/video information from the storage medium according to control information related to the audio/video information,

wherein the control information includes:

• a first period for retaining the audio/video information on the storage medium, and
• a second period, that begins at the start of an initial reproduction of the audio/video information, for enabling a start of a reproduction of the audio/video information stored on the storage medium, and

wherein,

• in a case where an elapsed time from a retaining of the audio/video information is within the first period and an elapsed time from an initial reproduction of the audio/video information is within the second period, enabling a reproduction of the audio/video information, and,
• in a case where a reproduction is started before the end of the first period and the reproduction is continuing at the end of the first period, enabling the reproduction to an end of the audio/video information beyond the end of the first period, and thereafter disabling a start of another reproduction of the audio/video information even if an elapsed time from the initial reproduction of the audio/video information is within the second period.

Note that the claim has interesting parallels to the claims invalidated in Mayo v. Prometheus.

Google v. Philips (Fed. Cir. 2020)

So far there are still no precedential opinions issued in 2020, and this is the first non-precedential patent related decision.

Philips’ patent RE44,913 (“text entry method”) claims a 2001 filing date. At that time, a key focus of mobile-device development was on how to facilitate typing on these small devices with relatively imprecise touchpads.  The basic idea behind the invention can be seen in the two figures below. On the left is a “default” keypad with  showing “primary characters.”;  holding down the “5” key will then switch the display to the keypad on the rights that has more available options (“secondary characters”). After selecting one of those options, they keypad returns to the default state.

Philips sued Acer and others for infringement based upon their use of the Chrome and Android OS — that led Google to petition for inter partes review (IPR).

In its final decision, the PTAB sided with the patentee in holding that Google failed to prove that the claims were obvious.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit has reversed.

On appeal here, the Federal circuit has reversed the PTAB’s final decision siding with the patentee and holding that Google failed to prove that the claims were obvious. The basic issue here is that there is only a minimal difference between Philips’ claimed invention and the key prior art reference. The court explains:

The parties do not dispute that the [Philips’] ’913 patent claim differs from that Sakata II method in only one respect. In the ’913 patent claim, after a secondary character is selected, the relevant key “return[s] . . . to the default state” rather than, as in the described Sakata II method, changing to the selected secondary character.

It was also clear that the “return-to-default” option was available and familiar to someone skilled in the art (e.g. shift key).   Philips argued that particular step would not have been obvious-to-try since it one of many potential keypad techniques available.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected the “wide-scope inquiry” as a red herring in this case — finding language from KSR directly on point:

[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.”

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398 (2007).  The Fed. Cir. explained somewhat obliquely that:

[T]he obvious-to-try inquiry at least sometimes must focus on known options at what is undisputedly the sole point of novelty in the claim at issue.

See Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009).  The practical point here is that inventions with a sole-point-of-novelty set themselves up as a target for an obviousness finding because the court will ask “if the sole contested step of the claim at issue was obvious to try, taking the remaining steps as a given.”

In this case, the Court found additional reasons for obviousness — notably the primary prior art reference was actually an improvement over prior return-to-default techniques.

Sakata II itself asserts that the character substitution at the last step provides an efficiency benefit over the evident alternative of requiring that the secondary-character menu be summoned each time one of those characters was to be re-used. . . . This efficiency assertion is on its face a comparative one, and what is plainly being compared to the Sakata II choice is  the no-substitution option—where the primary character returns to the key upon disappearance of the secondary-character menu. That is Philips’s returnto-default claim element.

Slip Op.  In the end, the appellate panel did not appear to directly fault the Board’s factual conclusions but rather Board’s legal analysis — in particular the meaning of “obvious-to-try” and its impact on the ultimate (legal) conclusion of obviousness.

We hold that claims 1 and 3–16 of the ’913 patent are unpatentable for obviousness. The Board’s decision is reversed.

By Sarah Burstein, Professor of Law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law

As previously covered here on Patently-O, a new design patent bill has been introduced in Congress. The so-called “Counterfeit Goods Seizure Act of 2019” would allow Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to seize goods accused of design patent infringement.

This is a bad idea.

This bill is not reasonably tailored to address its purported goal of “stem[ming] the flow of counterfeit goods.” Instead, it will allow design patent owners to foist their private enforcement costs onto taxpayers, under circumstances that are unlikely to result in accurate determinations of infringement. Moreover, this type of ex parte, non-public system of adjudication is ripe for abuse.

I have three major groups of concerns about this bill: substantive, procedural, and rhetorical. This post will address them in turn.

Substantive concerns

First, CBP will not be in a position to make accurate determinations of design patent infringement.

The test for design patent infringement, as set forth by the en banc Federal Circuit in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, involves two steps. (For more on the Egyptian Goddess test, see this short essay.)

The first step requires a comparison of the claimed design (i.e., what’s illustrated in the patent) and the accused product. If those designs look plainly dissimilar, the test is over; there is no infringement. If the designs look like they might be the same, then the factfinder must consider the designs in light of the closest prior art.

This second step is important. Often, two designs that look similar in the abstract look much less so when considered in light of the prior art. Consider this recently-litigated example. The patented design is shown below on the left; the accused design is below on the right:

These two designs might not look plainly dissimilar in the abstract. But when viewed in light of the prior art, a number of visual differences become apparent:

Ultimately, the judge correctly concluded that the patent owner was not likely to prove infringement (though the path to that decision was a bit more circuitous).

How would this have turned out under the design-seizure bill? Who would have collected the closest prior art? There are many things to like about the Egyptian Goddess test, but one downside is that step two requires an informed and motivated defendant to work well. In an ex parte CBP proceeding, there is no one to play that role. CPB officials are not trained (and one assumes, lack the resources) to conduct their own prior art searches. And patent owners have zero incentives to provide any—let alone the closest—prior art when they record their patents or when they give CBP information about “suspect inbound shipments.” See generally 5 McCarthy on Trademarks § 29:37 (“Trademark owners that see a higher success rate in Customs seizures are typically the ones that continuously and vigilantly provide Customs with information to use in identifying suspect inbound shipments. Such information could include the names of known foreign counterfeiters, countries of origin, suspect importers, and the like.”)

If CBP skips (or lacks sufficient information to properly conduct) Egyptian Goddess step two, competing products could seized even when they don’t infringe. CBP could seize products that merely practice the prior art or that resemble the claimed design solely in functional aspects (for all but the most pioneering products, one would expect to find any truly functional elements in the prior art).

Thus, ex parte assessments of design patent infringement are likely to lead to significant over-enforcement. At least one other commentator has voiced similar concerns. Over-enforcement would chill legitimate competition and ultimately raise prices for consumers—the very consumers who would be footing the bill through their tax dollars.

In any case, it is simply not correct—as some proponents of this bill have asserted—that all CBP would have to do is look at the design patent and the accused product and see if they look the same.

Some might argue that CBP could review the prior art cited on a particular design patent. But that’s by no means guaranteed to be the closest prior art. Some of it may not even be available at the time of enforcement; USPTO examiners often cite web pages using basic URLs and link rot is a very real concern.

One proponent of this bill has asserted that “Customs officers have already effectively demonstrated the ability to determine whether imported goods infringe a design patent, through its ongoing enforcement of design-patent exclusion orders.” But how do we know that is true? What kinds of orders are being issued by the ITC? How broad (or narrow) are they? How can we know whether CBP is enforcing them well? While we can assume CBP does the best it can in the restraints under which it operates, any assertion about what that actually looks like in practice requires something more that ipse dixit before it can have any persuasive weight.

Procedural concerns

This bill raises also raises serious due process concerns. What recourse is there for competitors whose goods are improperly seized? What accountability is there for design patent owners who direct CBP officials to competing products that don’t actually infringe? Based on my experience reviewing design patent complaints, it appears that many attorneys are under the mistaken impression that design patents cover design concepts, when they really only cover the specifically-claimed designs. I call this “the concept fallacy.” It’s remarkably common in federal court filings. If members of the bar feel comfortable making such allegations in federal court, where they are subject to both judicial sanctions and public scrutiny, what allegations will they feel comfortable making to the CBP?

The non-public nature of these seizures is also a concern. How can we know how well the system is (or is not) working? Based on the information Professor Rebecca Tushnet has been able to gather about trademark seizures, it appears that the agency does not keep good records and its substantive determinations are guided by materials provided by trademark owners. One would assume that if the design-seizure bill were passed, groups like INTA, AIPLA, and/or IPO would be happy to provide their own guidelines for CBP. If that happens, any such materials should be made public, to ensure accuracy. (Hopefully, it won’t take a FOIA lawsuit like the one Professor Tushnet had to file.)

Rhetorical concerns

Finally, the entire framing of this bill is based on conflating design patent infringement with “counterfeiting.” Those two things are not the same.

“Counterfeiting” is a term of art in U.S. IP law. The Lanham Act defines a “counterfeit” as “a spurious mark which is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a registered mark.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127.

Actual counterfeiting (i.e., as that term is defined in the Lanham Act) is arguably the worst type of IP infringement. But it’s already illegal. Indeed, it’s subject to criminal penalties.
If Congress thinks those remedies are not severe enough, it is free to increase them. But Congress should narrowly tailor any such efforts to acts that actually constitute counterfeiting. That’s not what’s going on here.

Proponents of this bill like to talk about “counterfeits without labels” (a strange concept in light of the relevant statutory definitions, but that’s an issue for another day) but the bill goes beyond anything that would seem to fall into that category.

Most design patents can be infringed by products that don’t replicate the entire appearance of the patent owner’s own product—if any. (Design patent owners, like other patent owners, aren’t required to produce products embodying their designs.) Even in the rare case where a design patent claims the entire shape and surface design of a product, that patent will still be infringed by a competitor who makes a product in that shape even if the color or material or some other non-shape attribute is so different that no one would mistake it for the original item.

Many (perhaps most) design patents claim just a small part of a larger design; the whole point of such patents is to capture competing products that don’t look the same overall. When an applicant claims a small part of a design, there is no requirement that it be an important or valuable part—let alone a part that would lead to serious consumer deception. (If you’re interested, I wrote more about these claiming techniques here and here.)

Over the years, I’ve heard many design patent attorneys say they want border enforcement. But it’s not because they’re worried about counterfeiting. They want it because it will make design patents more valuable—or at least seem more valuable—to their clients, which in turn makes it easier to sell their design patent prosecution services. (It’s perhaps not surprising that the push for CBP enforcement became more organized after the Supreme Court’s decision in Samsung v. Apple which, in the eyes of many, made design patents less valuable. The ultimate impact of that case, however, remains to be seen. For more on that case, see here; for more on the developments since then, see here.) While some proponents of this bill may truly, in their hearts of hearts, be worried about actual counterfeiting, the fact remains that many design patent attorneys want border enforcement for these other reasons.

We’ve seen this rhetorical technique before—in the past, proponents of broader copyright laws have used the word “counterfeiting” to conjure the specter of medicines laced with poisons and other horrors to scare legislators into enriching private rights holders. I hope Congress doesn’t fall for it.

New Record – 354,507 Utility Patents issued by the USPTO in 2019.  The decade (2010s) also outstripped any other decade by leaps and bounds.

by Dennis Crouch

Three commenters to John Welch’s TTABlog were recently sued for defamation after criticising an attorney Lee Thomason who lost a case before the TTAB. I know both John and Lee (who recently retired as a clinical professor at OSU) which makes this a bit more interesting and unfortunate.  Prof. Eugene Volokh has written more about the new lawsuit on his blog Volokh Conspiracy.

To be clear, the TTAB case was not simply lost on the merits. Rather, the TTAB issued a precedential decision cancelling Corcamore’s SPROUT registration as a sanction for bad behavior:

Respondent has been engaging for years in delaying tactics, including the willful disregard of Board orders, taxing Board resources and frustrating Petitioner’s prosecution of this case. In view thereof, Petitioner’s motion for sanctions in the form of judgment against Respondent also is granted pursuant to the Board’s inherent authority to sanction.

SFM v. Corcamore (TTAB 2018). Thomason represented Corcamore but was not personally sanctioned by the Board.

In his post, Welch did not identify Thomason by name but did make the comment: “What about a sanction against counsel?”

Three folks (all trademark attorneys) then added comments noting: (1) the attorney Thomason was a professor at The Ohio State; (2) the board “certainly ought to sanction” such behavior; (3) that the attorney is likely to blame because this is a procedure issue; and (4) that the attorney has been previously called out for unprofessional conduct.

The new defamation lawsuit filed in Federal Court in Kentucky accused Dreitler, Reidl, and deWolf of “volitional contacts with readers in Kentucky of the defamatory comments.” Prof. Volokh, whose expertise is defamation (inter alia), reviewed the filing and suggests that the claim will not stand, but promises an attempt to keep readers updated.

Read the complaint with exhibits here: https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ThomasonvDreitlerComplaint.pdf

My patent law course at Mizzou is primarily practice based — the students all write patent claims, reject claims, respond to office actions, and compete in a moot court competition. But, they also take a short exam. Here is the 2019 edition. – DC

= = = = =

Introduction: Mr. Crunch’s newest venture known as “Pause” is designed to help people relax and take a momentary meditative pause.

The basics: Crunch has designed an App (software program) to be installed an electronic device such as a mobile phone.  At points in time throughout the day, the App will provide a notification “ding” to the user indicating that it is time for a meditative pause.

The notification sound: One special feature of the App is that the notification ding is specially designed to elicit a relaxation response. The default sound is modeled from a Tibetan Singing Bowl. However, App includes a customization process where App can measure a user’s relaxation response to the various sounds using biofeedback (heart rate; skin temperature; sweat gland activity; digestion via breath sensor, etc.) and then automatically select the most effective; alternatively a user can manually select from various sounds.

Timing of the notification: The other feature of the App is timing of the notification dings.  Timing may be a pre-set time (such as 1:00 pm daily) or may be spaced randomly during awake hours.  App may also rely on biofeedback to identify stressful points during the day and target those times for the ding.

= = =

Crunch conceived of the idea during a Kundalini Yoga session in August 2018.  As he moved forward with development of the business, in September 2018 he fully disclosed all aspects of the invention to his banker (seeking a business development loan) and also to two software engineers that he hired on a contract basis to write the code.  He also told everything to his spouse and <18 y.o. children, although not until January 2019.

It is now December 2019 and Crunch is ready to file his patent application.  He understands that he cannot obtain a patent simply on an app that plays a sound. However, he thinks his customization processes are novel features. His proposed claim 1 is listed below.

I claim:

1. A process for customizing an application stored on a mobile electronic device, wherein the application is designed to elicit a relaxation response in a user, the process comprising:

(a) customizing the notification sound:

1. causing the device to play a plurality of notification sounds for the user;
2. recording a biofeedback response for each notification sound, wherein the biofeedback response includes user heartrate; and
3. selecting a preferred notification sound based upon the biofeedback response; and

(b)  customizing the notification timing:

1. measuring a stress level of the user based upon a biomarker, wherein the biomarker including user heartrate; and
2. selecting a notification time at a point of relatively higher stress.

Question 1. Is claim 1 directed toward eligible subject matter?

Question 2. Provide a concise argument why the USPTO should reject claim 1 as indefinite.

Question 3a. Crunch is concerned that his own pre-filing disclosures (as discussed above) might block him from receiving a patent. Do those disclosures qualify as prior art against his own application filing?

Question 3b If Crunch could go back in time, what are two steps he could have taken to better ensure that his pre-filing disclosures were not prior art?

Question 4. Crunch’s patent attorney performed a prior art search and found a publication from March 2019 describing an app that helps users maintain good posture. Key relevant features of the good-posture app publication:

1. It measures heartrate and provide a signal to users when heartrate slows telling users to improve their posture (apparently slumping typically occurs as heartrate slows);
2. Users can customize the signal according to their preferences. The publication suggests choosing a signal that the user finds pleasing.

Although the good-posture app is described in the printed publication, there is no evidence that the good-posture app was ever actually created. Will the good-posture publication prevent Crunch from obtaining a patent?

Question 5. The year is now 2021; Crunch’s US patent has issued without any amendment.  An India-based company (Vishraam) has started distributing an app (globally) that is quite similar to Crunch’s proposal. A user has the option of customizing both the notification sound and the notification timing in same way claimed by the patent.  Can Crunch hold Vishraam liable for patent infringement?

====

Note – The “Pause Mediation” image above comes from a real company in Westchester.

I received some questions regarding my statement that the provisions of the Inventor Rights Act of 2019 “have historic roots.”  This post addresses those in more detail.

Profit Disgorgement – Reset to 1946: I will start with the profit disgorgement provision – which is a major change away from the current compensatory scheme in U.S. Utility Patent Law.  That said, disgorgement remains available for design patent infringement as well as other IP regimes such as copyright, trademark, and trade secret misappropriation.  The basic approach to disgorgement is to calculate the infringer’s profits associated with the infringement and then hand those profits over to the rights holder.  As Supreme Court explained in Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U.S. 136 (1888), this approach is designed to avoid unjust enrichment by the infringer — what patent owners term “efficient infringement.”

The reasons that have led to the adoption of this [profit disgorgement] rule are that it comes nearer than any other to doing complete justice between the parties, that in equity the profits made by the infringer of a patent belong to the patentee and not to the infringer, and that it is inconsistent with the ordinary principles and practice of courts of chancery either on the one hand to permit the wrongdoer to profit by his own wrong

Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U.S. 136 (1888).  Profit disgorgement was eliminated from the text of the Patent Act in 1946 and Courts have held that it is no longer an available remedy. See Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336 (1961) (“The purpose of the change was precisely to eliminate the recovery of profits as such, and allow recovery of damages only.”); Caprice L. Roberts, The Case for Restitution and Unjust Enrichment Remedies in Patent Law, 14 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 653 (2010).

The provision found in the Inventor Rights Act of 2019 would effectively reinstate the disgorgement option close to what it was back in the 1870s when disgorgement became available for cases at law in addition to those in equity where it was already available.

Venue – Reset to 2017: Under TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017), federal patent infringement lawsuits can only be filed in states where the defendant either (1) is incorporated or (2) “committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” Quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).  Prior to TC Heartland, venue was much broader and was proper so long as the court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant (i.e., minimum contacts).  The proposal in the Inventor Rights Act of 2019 would not fully restore the broad venue, but would allow an inventor to sue in states where the inventor conducted research or has a regular and established physical facility.

Injunctions – Reset to 2006: For many years courts issued injunctions as a matter of course against adjudged infringers.  That changed following eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006). In eBay, the Supreme Court ruled, inter alia, that no injunction should issue absent proof of irreparable harm caused by the infringement as well as inadequate remedy at law.

The proposal in the Inventor Rights Act of 2019 would would restore the pre-eBay law and thus allow for injunctive relief.

Post-Issuance Review – Reset to 1980: The Bayh-Dole Act (1980) authorized involuntary ex parte reexaminations. Since then, the scope of involuntary post issuance challenges have grown — most significantly with Trials under the 2011 America Invents Act (AIA).

The proposal in the Inventor Rights Act of 2019 would would restore the pre-1980 setup – barring any involuntary post-issuance review by the USPTO:

The United States Patent and Trademark Office shall not undertake a proceeding to reexamine, review, or otherwise make a determination about the validity of an inventor-owned patent without the consent of the patentee

IRA 2019.

Of course, a key principle of the proposal here is that it applies only to a subset of patents — those owned by their inventors.

(k) The term ‘inventor-owned patent’ means a patent with respect to which the inventor of the invention claimed by the patent or an entity controlled by that inventor—(1) is the patentee; and (2) holds all substantial rights.’

Id.