Patentable Subject Matter: Relying on Benson; Construing Claims for Eligibility

Patent, Patent Cases 2011, Patentable Subject Matter, Software,

By Dennis Crouch

FuzzySharp Tech. Inc. v. 3DLabs Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011)

In a per curiam opinion marked nonprecedential, the Federal Circuit has vacated and remanded the subject matter invalidity finding of a N.D. California District Court and instead ordered the court to rework its decision in light of Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) and subsequent Federal Circuit decisions on point. As discussed below, FuzzySharp’s invention relates to compression software for computer graphics. U.S. Patent Nos. 6,172,679 and 6,618,047. The main idea of the invention is to avoid calculations associated with always hidden surfaces. Although the specification explains that its implementation uses “fuzzy” math to calculate always hidden surfaces. However, “fuzzy” limitations are not found in the asserted patent claims. The application was filed in 1997, but claims priority to a 1991 Australian patent application.

FuzzySharp’s appeal was filed after the district court determined that the claimed method failed to pass the machine-or-transformation and therefore, under the prevailing law at the time, the method did not constitute patentable subject matter. In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (2008). In its 2010 Bislki decision, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that the machine-or-transformation test could serve as the exclusive test of the patentable subject matter of a newly invented process. In the new rubric, the machine-or-transformation test offers only an important clue.

In its opinion, the Federal Circuit largely agreed with the lower court’s conclusion that the FuzzySharp claims fail the machine-or-transformation test, but, following the new Bilski rubric, remanded for a determination on the ultimate question of patentable subject matter.

Meaningful Limitations: FuzzySharp’s asserted claims involve two elements that are potentially linked to a machine – computation and computer storage. However, the appellate panel found those elements lacked “meaningful limits” on claim scope in the same way that the recitation of a general-purpose-computer is not a meaningful limitation of a software process that will only be performed on a computer. (Citing Gottshalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 64 (1972)).

Claim Construction: An important and arising issue is the interplay between claim construction and patentable subject matter. Under Federal Circuit precedent, claim construction appears to be a necessary precursor. However, the Supreme Court has regularly ignored details of claim language in making its determinations – focusing instead on what it saw as the invention.

Here, the court held that some claim construction is necessary: “[W]e conclude that … the patent eligibility of at least one of the asserted claims turns on questions of claim construction that the district court did not have the opportunity to address.” It will be interesting to watch how the parties argue on remand for claim construction results that favor their hoped-for subject matter eligibility outcome.

Notes:

  • The per curiam panel included Judges Bryson, O’Malley, and Reyna.
  • The U.S. application was prosecuted by Carl Oppedahl’s Colorado-based firm.
  • The patentee is represented by Matthew McAndrews from the Niro firm on appeal; Jonathan Baker from Skadden Arps is handling the appellate defense.
  • Here is Claim 12 of the ‘047 patent that the Federal Circuit analyzed:

    12. A method of reducing a step of visibility computations in 3-D computer graphics from a perspective of a viewpoint, the method comprising:

    computing, before said step and from said perspective, the visibility of at least one entity selected from 3-D surfaces and sub-elements of said 3-D surfaces, wherein said computing step comprises:

    employing at least one projection plane for generating projections with said selected set of 3-D surfaces and said sub-elements with respect to said perspective;

    identifying regions on said at least one projection plane, wherein said regions are related to the projections associated with said selected 3-D surfaces, said sub-elements, or bounding volumes of said 3-D surfaces or said sub-elements;

    updating data related to said regions in computer storage; and

    deriving the visibility of at least one of said 3-D surfaces or said sub-elements from the stored data in said computer storage; and

    skipping, at said step of visibility computations, at least an occlusion relationship calculation for at least one entity that has been determined to be invisible in said computing step.

 

 

Federal Circuit Again Declines to Revisit Cybor

Claim Construction, Dissent, En Banc, Patent, Patent Cases 2011, ,

By Jason Rantanen

Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company (Fed. Cir. 2011) (CAFC en banc denial) Download 2010-1402 en banc order
Before Rader (dissenting), Newman, Plager, Lourie, Bryson, Linn, Dyk, Prost, Moore (dissenting), O'Malley (dissenting), and Reyna.

As in the past, the Federal Circuit has again expressly declined an invitation to revisit its 1998 en banc holding in Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 that claim construction is reviewed de novo.  Once again, however, that decision was not without dissent.  Both Judge Moore, joined by Chief Judge Rader, and Judge O'Malley wrote to express their view that Cybor should be revisited. Professor Tun-Jeng Chiang expresses his views on this issue below.

In addition to recommending that the court reconsider the issue of deference, Judge Moore's dissent emphasizes the problematic nature of claim construction review by the Federal Circuit itself: on the one hand, "[c]laim construction is the single most important event in the course of a patent litigation"; on the other, "our rules are still ill-defined and inconsistently applied, even by us."  Moore dissent at 1.  This problem is especially acute in Retractable Technologies: "Retractable simply cannot be reconciled with our en banc decision in Phillips."  Id. at 4.  Here, Judge Moore asserts, the majority applied its own approach to claim construction, not that of Phillips, "[c]hanging the plain meaning of a claim term to tailor its scope to what the panel believes was the actual invention."  Id. at 6.  This is not an isolated instance, Judge Moore points out, but is a common practice that points to a fundamental split on the court about the nature of claim construction: a disagreement over whether claim scope should be limited to "what the inventor actually invented" or instead construed according to the plain meaning to one of skill in the art, a meaning that may be informed – but is not dictated – by the specification.

Note: In  support of her view that the Federal Circuit's own claim construction is ill-defined and inconsistently applied, Judge Moore cited the views of several commentators who "have observed that claim construction appeals often lead to frustrating and unpredictable results for both the litigants and trial courts," including Dennis's post on the panel decision and Hal Wegner's post on Arlington Industries v. Bridgeport Fittings on IP Frontline. 

Guest Post by Tun-Jen Chiang: Functionalism versus Faux Formalism at the Federal Circuit

Articles and Publications, Claim Construction, En Banc, Guest Post, Patent, ,

Guest Post by Tun-Jen Chiang, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law

One of the longstanding myths about the Federal Circuit is that it is formalist.  This is usually levied by academics as a criticism, but no one does more than the Federal Circuit itself to spread the myth.  For judges, being labeled as a jurisprudential machine is a badge of honor.  Thus, even where their true motivation is clearly policy-based, judges invariably couch their opinions in legalistic terms.

The recent dissents from en banc rehearing in Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. provide perfect examples.  The issue in Retractable is an old one: should the Federal Circuit give deference to district judges on claim construction?  Judge Moore (joined by CJ Rader) and Judge O’Malley both argued the court should.  Their dissents each begin with the assertion that the Supreme Court in Markman held that claim construction is a “mongrel practice” with both legal and factual components, and this counsels for deference to trial judges.

Let me start by debunking this legalistic argument.  The Supreme Court in Markman did not hold that claim construction is a “mongrel practice.”  It started off by observing that claim construction is intrinsically a mongrel practice, and then held that the Court would adopt a legal fiction that claim construction was a pure question of law.

Why do I say this?  If it is correct that Markman held that claim construction has a factual component, then the result under traditional common law principles is not that trial judges get to decide the factual component.  Trial judges do not decide facts; juries do.  Some well-known exceptions are for suits in equity, for jurisdictional facts, and for procedural facts.  But nobody contends that these exceptions apply.  The claim-construction-is-factual line of reasoning is a legalistic and logical dead end.

Rather, the case for deference to district judges on claim construction must succeed, if at all, entirely based on policy-based concerns.  Trial judges have better access to evidence than appellate judges, and yet they are more experienced at dealing with legal documents like patents than juries.  This is a perfectly plausible policy-based argument, and is almost certainly the true reason for Judges Moore and O’Malley to seek deference for trial judges.  Too bad they feel the need to couch the argument in formalist terms.

Ongoing Battles over Patentable Subject Matter

Patent, Patent Cases 2011, Patentable Subject Matter, Software, , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

In Ultramercial v. Hulu, the Federal Circuit held that Ultramercial's asserted Patent No. 7,346,545 fit within the subject matter eligibility guidelines of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and was not merely an unpatentable abstract idea. The patent claims a method of distributing copyrighted products (such as a movie) over the internet. The novel idea is that the copyrighted product be both (1) offered for sale and (2) delivered for free if the consumer agrees to view an advertisement. The district court held the patent invalid under section 101. On appeal, however, the Federal Circuit reversed – holding that the patent claims a "practical application" of the idea that "advertising can serve as a currency." An important element of the decision was the finding that "[v]iewing the subject matter as a whole, the invention involves an extensive computer interface."

Now, WildTangent (one of the accused infringers) has petitioned for a rehearing en banc. The public interest organization Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has filed a brief in support of the rehearing – arguing that an en banc determination is necessary in light of (1) the court's failure to follow Bilski v. Kappos; (2) inconsistencies in application of the law apparent from the court's recent decisions in Ultramercial, Classen Immunotherapies v. Biogen IDEC, and CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.; and (3) a growing intra-circuit division regarding patentable subject matter jurisprudence. This filing ties-in closely with the pending Supreme Court case of Mayo v. Prometheus, which questions the patentability of a method of personalizing the dosage of a pharmaceutical and the pending case of AMP v. Myriad, which questions the patentability of isolated human DNA. Other pending Section 101 cases include DealerTrack, Inc. v. Huber (App. No. 2010-1544) (Claims 1, 3, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 7,181,427); FuzzySharp Tech., Inc. v. 3DLabs Inc. (App. No. 2010-1160) (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,172,679 and 6,618,047); CLS Bank Int'l. v. Alice Corp (App. No. 2011-1301) (Patent No. 7,725,375); Cognex v. ITC (App. No. 2011-1098) (Patent Nos. 7,016,539 and 7,065,262); and Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC (App. No. 2009-1242) (Patent No. 6,292,788).

Operating Efficiently Post-Bilski by Ordering Patent Doctrine Decision-Making

Academic Studies, Articles and Publications, Patent, Patent Cases 2011, Patentable Subject Matter, , ,

Last year, Professor Merges and I co-authored this short article on the administration of Bilski. In light of the pending Section 101 cases and Judge Rader's opinion in Classen Immunotherapies v. Biogen, I thought I would post it here again. Download the twenty-page essay from SSRN.

Here is the introduction:

Now that the Supreme Court has decided Bilski v. Kappos, there is an enormous amount of speculation about the case's impact on patent applicants, litigants, and other participants in the patent system. Most of the commentary is concerned with the holding in Bilski, how this holding will be applied by courts and the Patent Office, and ultimately, the effect of the holding on inventors, and those who hold and seek patents.

We take a different approach; rather than try to cut through the complexity of Bilski, or predict how it will be applied, we talk about how to avoid it. We are interested in how to minimize the cost and confusion that accompany a review of patents for § 101 subject-matter eligibility. To be specific, we propose that the § 101 issue of Bilski be considered only when doing so is absolutely necessary to determine the validity of a claim or claims in a patent. We believe any claim that can be invalidated under one of the less controversial and less complex requirements for patentability—§§ 102, 103, and 112, for instance—ought to be disposed of without considering subject matter patentability. In other words, the Bilski issue should be avoided wherever it is not strictly necessary. To support this conclusion, we present a set of empirical data that indicates that the vast majority of patent claims challenged on subject matter eligibility grounds were also challenged on other patentability issues.

We set the stage for our proposal in Part II, which briefly reviews the history behind Bilski and explains its open-ended holding and individualized approach. The difficulty of applying the Bilski ruling to different types of patent claims leads us to Part III, in which we call into question an accepted (if largely implicit) principle of patent law—that the lexical priority of statutory provisions in the 1952 Patent Act dictates a necessary logical sequence of invalidity tests. We reject this widespread assumption. There is nothing in the statute that requires this.

Indeed, in Part III we argue that in many ways the very idea of a sequence of discrete patentability requirements is conceptually misleading. Claims can be and often are rejected by the Patent Office for multiple reasons, suggesting that at least certain claims suffer from defects that transcend specific statutory validity requirements. We argue further that the policy underpinnings of various requirements overlap in complex ways, so that in reality patentability doctrine does not test for a series of discrete and independent qualities that are distinct from and mutually exclusive of each other. In the same way, transcendent qualities of an invention can influence multiple doctrines simultaneously, with pioneering inventions (due to both a liberal treatment under enablement, and a broad reach under infringement doctrines) being a prime example. This demonstrates again that there is not and should not be a strong separation between various patent law doctrines. Another argument along these lines recognizes that while patentability doctrines are not discrete entities, neither is "the invention" whose validity is being considered. Patent applicants routinely present multiple, overlapping claims, all of which cover fine-grained variations on a central inventive insight or advance. So it is inaccurate to visualize patentability as a stepwise series of tests applied to a single "invention." It is not true for example that "invention X" passes § 101 and should thus proceed in logical sequence to be tested under § 102. One claim growing out of inventive insight X might present no § 101 problems at all, yet another claim in the same patent application might raise a difficult issue under this provision. Each claim, being a unique slice of the overall inventive insight, ought to be considered on its own terms, and in whatever order makes the most sense. Put another way, the mental model of a stepwise sequence of patentability determinations overlooks the highly granular nature in which different slices of the inventive concept are presented for validity testing.

This analysis is further developed in Section III.A. When a claim fails to pass muster under any single test of validity, that claim should be invalidated. No further tests should be applied. We describe this as "chain" theory of validity: once one link in the chain is broken, the claim fails, and there is no reason to proceed further. Beyond that point, any expenditure of resources on validity questions is inefficient. Pragmatic considerations enter at this point. Issues of cost, justiciability, and spillover effects are perfectly appropriate in determining the actual sequence in which validity tests are applied with respect to any particular patent claim. The non-linearity of patent validity tests, together with the principle of efficient administration, yields a simple rule: start with chain links that are, in general, easiest and cheapest to test, and when the chain fails, stop the process. That way, the costliest and most complex doctrines—the trickiest "links in the chain"— are often avoided, and in any event are put off until later. Therefore, § 101 should often be avoided, both at the Patent Office and in the courts. We justify this not only on efficiency grounds, but also by analogy to the Supreme Court rules of avoidance.

In Part IV, we apply this simple principle. It leads to several recommendations. First, though the PTO has good reasons for its longstanding practice of rejecting claims for multiple reasons, we recommend that §101 be used only as an exception or last resort even at the PTO. Next, we contend that the courts should proceed in a stepwise fashion, beginning with §§ 102, and 103, and 112, changing the order of doctrines as dictated by pragmatic considerations, and stopping as soon as a claim is conclusively invalidated. In all cases, the complex and costly process of deciding whether a claim presents patentable subject matter under § 101 should be deferred until very late in the process. Therefore, we recommend, courts should in effect hold off on the difficult task of evaluating claims under § 101—ideally deploying the full § 101 analysis only when that is essential, i.e., when a claim passes muster under the other validity doctrines.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1953512. Thanks!

UK Patent Case Lowers Bar on Utility (Industrial Application)

Patent, Patent Cases 2011, Pharma,

Human Genome Sciences v. Eli Lilly (UK Supreme Court, 2 Nov 2011) [Decision] Case No. [2011] UKSC 51.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC) began hearing cases in 2009 — taking on the role of court-of-last-resort formerly played by the House of Lords. The UKSC normally sits in five-member panels — here the panel consisted of Lords Hope, Walker, Neuberger, Clarke, and Collins. 

This decision focuses on EPC and UK version of the utility doctrine — the requirement that a patentable invention be “susceptible of industrial application“. In a unanimous decision, the court determined that US utility doctrine creates an unduly high bar of patentability.  Thus, rather than requiring proof of specific, credible, and substantial utility at the time of filing, the UK court agreed that HGS’s genetic sequence coding for Neutrokine-α was patentable even though there was no known use of the protein at the time the patent application was filing. The patent did not reveal how the protein “could be used to solve any particular problem” nor did it identify “any disease or condition which it could be used to diagnose or treat.”  Yet, the UK court held that the industrial application requirement was met because the protein a member of a “TNF ligand superfamily” and all members of that family have been associated with important biologic activity.  “[A]ll known members of the TNF ligand family were expressed on T-cells and were able to co-stimulate T-cell proliferation, and therefore Neutrokine-α would be expected to have a similar function.”  The UK Court of Appeals (Sir Robin Jacob) had previously held the patent invalid.

In his opinion, Lord Neuberger explicitly rejected the US cases of Brenner v Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966) and in re Fisher, 421 F 3d 1365 (2005) — finding that “there are obvious risks in relying on US jurisprudence when considering the precise nature of the requirements of Article 57 in relation to a claim for a patent for biological material under the EPC.” 

There have been moves over the past fifty years (and more) to harmonise patent law across jurisdictions (the EPC and TRIPS – the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Protection – being two important examples), and it is a laudable aim to seek to ensure that all aspects of the law of patents are identical throughout the world. However, the achievement of such an aim is plainly not currently practicable, and, although they have a great deal in common, there are significant and fairly fundamental differences (over and above the different words used in Articles 52 and 57 of the EPC and section 101 of 35 USC) between US patent law and the EPC (two notorious examples being the first to file rule in Europe, and file wrapper estoppel in the US).

Accordingly, particularly when it comes to a nice question such as the precise delineation of boundaries between patentability and unpatentability on the ground of industrial application, it would be unsurprising if the law was not identical under the two jurisdictions.

Instead of following US law, the panel instead latched onto the jurisprudence of the EPO — the body that also interprets the European Patent Convention (EPC).

Notes:

  • The UK court of first instance (Kitchin J) found the patent invalid while the EPO Board had held the patent valid.
  • The patent in question is European Patent 0,939,804
  • IPKAT
  • Of course, it is interesting that both HGS and Lilly are US-based companies.
Tags:

We the People: Petitioning President Obama to End Software Patents

Patent, ,

The White House's “we the people project” implements a system for petitioning the Administration.  Any petition that receives 25,000 or more signatures within 30–days of being posted will be reviewed and given an “official response.” (Prior to October, the threshold was 5,000 signatures).

One recent petition asks the Administration to “direct the Patent Office to cease issuing software patents.” 

Under the patent office's current activity, patents have been come a way to stifle innovation and prevent competition rather than supporting innovation and competitive markets. They've become a tool of antitrust employed by large companies against small ones.

To return sanity to the software industry – one of the few industries still going strong in America – direct the patent office to cease issuing software patents and to void all previously issued software patents.

The petition has received over 14,000 signatures and Quentin Palfrey, from the White House office of the CTO provided an official response that that primarily focuses on the benefits of the newly enacted America Invents Act and the leadership of Director Kappos. Palfrey did, however, take one sentence to specifically address software patents:

We understand that the concern about software patents stems, in part, from concerns that overly broad patents on software-based inventions may stifle the very innovative and creative open source software development community. As an Administration, we recognize the tremendous value of open source innovation and rely on it to accomplish key missions. For example, the U.S. Open Government National Action Plan recently announced that the source code for We the People and Data.gov would be open sourced for the entire world. Federal agencies are likewise spurring innovation through open source energy. For example, the Department of Defense issued clarifying guidance on the use of open software at the Department. And, the Department of Health and Human Services has become a leader in standards-based, open sourced policy to power innovations in health care quality and enable research into efficient care delivery. The tremendous growth of the open source and open data communities over the years, for delivery of both commercial and non-commercial services, shows that innovation can flourish in both the proprietary and open source software environments.

Folks opposed to software patents saw this response as inadequate and have now created a new petition asking the administration to “pursue software patent abolition.”  The petition states:

The Obama Administration's response to a previous petition shamefully attempted to absolve the President of responsibility and placate us with the toothless America Invents Act. We summarily reject his response and demand immediate action.

Rapid growth in the software industry during economic malaise demonstrates the importance and power of this market. The President must use his full power and influence to fight harmful forces from entrenched incumbents and non-producing entities.

There are no possible reforms to be made to the USPTO that will enable it to keep pace with innovation in the software industry. Those who truly understand software are creating it.

This new petition was created on November 1 and on that same day had already collected 400 signatures. Another new petition is the “petition to take petitions seriously.”

Mayo v. Prometheus: the Patentee’s Section 101 Argument

Patent, Patent Cases 2011, Patentable Subject Matter, , , ,

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. (Supreme Court 2011)

The briefing continues in this patentable subject matter case pending before the US Supreme Court. (Read Professor Golden's discussion of the first round of merits briefs).  In its newly filed merits brief, Prometheus attempts to refocus attention on the "concreteness" of its patented method of personalizing the dosage of a particular drug treatment. The refocus begins with the statement of the question presented.  Download 2011-10-31_Prometheus Merits Brief. 

Mayo, the petitioner challenging the patent, opened briefing with a question of whether a patent that "covers observed correlations between blood test results and patient health, so that the patent effectively preempts use of the naturally occurring correlations, simply because well-known methods used to administer prescription drugs and test blood may involve "transformations" of body chemistry."  This language of Mayo's question is directly suggestive of the decisions of Benson and Flook — both of which held claimed methods to be unpatentable.

In its brief, Prometheus restates the question in a way that instead highlights the concrete and practical application language found in Diehr and Brenner v. Manson. Prometheus asks: "Whether the Federal Circuit correctly held that concrete methods for improving the treatment of patients suffering from autoimmune diseases by using individualized metabolite measurements to inform the calibration of the patient's dosages of synthetic thiopurines are patentable processes under 35 U.S.C. §101."

Prometheus describes its challenged invention as follows:

First, most of the claims begin with the administration of a thiopurine compound to a patient with an autoimmune disorder. As noted, the thiopurine converts within the body into metabolites that do not otherwise exist in nature.

Second, the patient's metabolite levels are determined. Because "metabolite levels are not detectable in raw human tissue," all methods for measuring their concentration require "significant chemical and physical alteration of blood or human tissue" and sophisticated laboratory equipment and machines. Some of the dependant claims, for example, specify the use of high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC), which entails an intricate series of operations on the blood (including heating, centrifuging, separating, and adding various reagents), running the resulting solution through a computer-controlled chromatography instrument, calculating the peak height or peak area, and feeding those figures into an equation, which finally outputs the metabolite levels.

Third, the metabolite measurements are compared to the patents' reference levels, "warning" the physician about the potential efficacy or toxicity of the patient's dosage.

Several important points are hidden by the patentee's statement of its invention: First, although most of the patented claims do require administration of thiopurine some claims do not include that particular step.  Second, although current technological methods of measuring metabolite levels apparently require the extraction of human tissue and the use of "sophisticated laboratory equipment," the broadest claims only require "determining" of the metabolite levels.  Finally, it is likely important to recognize that the claimed method is about tweaking the dosage of thiopurine and at the time of the invention most of the individual elements of the claim were already well known: It was well known that thiopurine could be used to treat IBD; it was well known that that the body converted thiopurine to the claimed metabolite; it was known that individuals had varying responses to thiopurine; and it was known that dosage should be adjusted so that it would be both effective and nontoxic.

Summary of the Prometheus argument:

First, to be patent-eligible, a process must really be a process—a series of steps that involve physical action in the real world, as opposed to merely an idea or principle stated in the abstract. Second, that process must be described at a narrow and specific enough level of generality that it does not preempt abstract ideas or basic building blocks of science that go far beyond what the patentee actually invented: A process for using a telegraph is patentable; the basic idea that information might be transmitted at a distance by exploiting laws of electromagnetism is not.

A. Prometheus's patented methods describe concrete methods for improving treatment of seriously ill patients with specific synthetic drugs. These patents do not claim the "correlations" they employ in the abstract, but as part of specific physical processes employing drugs and machines. . . . As the Federal Circuit recognized, the patents-in-suit pass [the machine-or-transformation] test with flying colors and easily satisfy the requirements of §101. Mayo attempts to avoid that conclusion in three ways, none of which has merit. First, Mayo invites this Court to discard the two initial steps (administering the thiopurines and determining the resulting metabolite levels) because they were "well known" in the art. But this Court rejected that "point-of-novelty" approach over 30 years ago in Diehr and again recently in Bilski. Second, Mayo argues that those same two initial steps should be disregarded because, according to Mayo, they are not "central" to the patents' purpose. Mayo does this only by ignoring the Federal Circuit's settled construction that the claims are limited to patient treatment (a question not presented here) and that those two steps are essential to that purpose. Third, Mayo invites this Court to invent, out of whole cloth, a categorical rule that processes ending with the provision of useful information cannot be patentable—even if preceding steps involve machines and physical transformations. That argument also is inconsistent with Bilski, and it would impose an arbitrary and (in the information age) absurd limitation on patentability.

B. The patents-in-suit do not preempt natural phenomena in any relevant sense. Their "correlations" concern certain properties attending certain uses of non-natural thiopurine compounds, which would not exist but for the handiwork of man. A patent system that recognizes thiopurine compounds themselves as potentially patentable subject matter, allowing preemption of all uses of these compounds, cannot be concerned that a process patent may preempt some of their uses. . . .

C. Prometheus agrees with the United States that the Patent Act's express statutory criteria for patentability—under 35 U.S.C. §§102, 103, and 112—make expansive judicial lawmaking under §101, of the sort invited by Mayo's arguments, unnecessary. But the application of those provisions is not before the Court in this case, and presents difficult and fact-bound questions that the lower courts should address in the first instance on remand.

II. Mayo proposes to transform §101 into an invitation for ad hoc, case-by-case evaluation of whether granting a particular patent will promote or retard the progress of the useful arts. That would create an unadministrable morass for courts and patent examiners, doom any hope for consistent administration of the patent laws, and usurp Congress's authority to determine the appropriate scope of the patent laws.

III. Any change in the Court's §101 jurisprudence that permitted a ruling in Mayo's favor, on whatever grounds, would have drastic and unfortunate consequences. It would upend settled expectations by invalidating thousands of diagnostic and personalized treatment patents. And it would stifle investment and innovation in the nascent field of personalized medicine. Contrary to Mayo's understanding, government funding does not translate pure academic research into practical products that benefit patients, and doctors themselves cannot bring to bear the resources necessary to fuel innovation and commercialize inventions on a large scale. Mayo's contention that patents like these hinder medical care is also unpersuasive. The United States is the world leader in biotechnology and personalized medicine, in part because investors have committed billions of dollars in capital in reliance on the prospect of patents like these. Thousands have been issued, including many to Mayo itself. Mayo's short-sighted view would exchange long-term innovation (including cost reductions) for ephemeral savings. In any event, Congress already considered Mayo's invitation to broadly restrict patent protection for medical diagnostic and treatment methods—and chose to adopt a limited personal immunity for doctors instead.

Patently-O Bits & Bytes by Lawrence Higgins

Patent

Apple and the Slide to Unlock Patents!

  • On October 25, 2011 the USPTO granted Apple a patent (8,046,721) for "Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image". Almost every touchscreen smartphone manufactured, uses slide to unlock technology. It seems like the Apple patent, could potentially be a problem for smartphone manufactures. However, many individuals propose that this patent should not have been issued because of the prior art that was available, such as the Neonode N1m which has been discontinued. It seems like many people forgot that Apple already has patented the slide to unlock feature, (Patent 7,657,849—which is cited in the "721" patent) so unless the Neonode has related prior art before December 23, 2005, the Neonode is not prior art. The "721" patent is a continuation of the "849" patent, therefore the "849" patent is not counted as prior art. As a result, the "849" patent is not invalid in light of the "721" patent, and most likely if the prior "721" patent has not been found invalid, nor will the "849" patent. [Patent] [Neonode] [Link]

Sony Buys Ericsson Patents and Holdings for $1.5 Billion

  • Sony Ericsson has ended its joint venture and the 2 companies will go their separate ways. Sony paid Ericsson nearly $1.5 billion for the mobile phone joint venture, which will give Sony rights to smartphone patents held by Ericsson. Sony now expects to try to increase their market share. Sony held a market share of 11 percent (by value) in the Android phone market in the last quarter, representing 80 percent of the company's third quarter sales. 2011 has been the year of billion dollar patent deals, and it can be expected that many more patent deals relating to smartphones will be made in the future. [Link] [Link]

Call for Papers!

  • The Third Annual Special Issue and Symposium for the Review of IP law (RIPL) will take place on April 19, 2012 in Chicago. The general theme will be "IP Law of China and the US" and subthemes cover the implementation of the new Chinese patent, copyright and trademark laws and theoretical or practical aspects of the cooperation of the IP laws of the US and China.

     

    The Special Issue and Symposium aims to gather professional and scholars from many disciplines including IP, international law, international business, ethics, and economic theory. The Symposium will bring an inspiring group of individuals to publish their writings and present their works at the symposium. [Link]

     

Patent Jobs:

  • Apple is seeking a patent portfolio manager, with a minimum 5 years of patent preparation experience. [Link]
  • Klarquist Sparkman, LLP is searching for litigation associates with 1-2 years of experience in IP litigation. [Link]
  • Klarquist Sparkman, LLP is looking for a biotechnology patent associate or patent agent with 3+ years of experience. [Link]
  • Bacon & Thomas is seeking a patent attorney with 1-4 years of experience and a mechanical or electrical background. [Link]
  • Global Patent Group is searching for a patent attorney or patent agent with a background in plant biology and a Ph.D. [Link]

Upcoming Events:

  • On October 28, the Annual Utah Cyber Symposium will take place. The Symposium will provide business and legal decision-makers in attendance from the business, academic, and legal communities a forum to learn more about legal and business challenges and opportunities facing the high tech industry today. Key business and legal leaders will instruct on how to improve your professional performance and bottom line, including the DOJ, Venture Capitalists, Professors, Business Leaders and Leading Attorneys. [Link]
  • The Chicago-Kent Intellectual Property Law Society is hosting the "Patent Wars Round Table" on November 2, 2011 at 5:30 PM. The event will include a panel discussion on current trends in IP law, namely, the recent paradigm shift in patent strategy and valuation in mobile device companies. Panelists include David Ruder of RPX, Ragnar Olson of Global IP, John Paniaguas of Katten Muchin, and Pat Burns of Greer, Burns & Crain, and will be moderated by Professor Christopher Seaman of Chicago-Kent. Cost is $20 and includes open bar and appetizers. [Link]
  • K&L Gates is holding a free webinar on Nov. 3 entitled "How the Patent Reform Act will Impact Your Business." The Act includes many changes, large and small, affecting subjects as far-reaching as the available appeals from reexaminations to the subject matter eligibility of tax planning methods and human organisms. The webinar will include a presentation and question and answer session. [Link]
  • Whittier Law School's Center for IP Law and Law Review will host the 29th Annual Law Review Symposium: The Law of the Smart Phone on November 4th. The symposium will feature presentations and panel discussions devoted to the privacy, regulation, economics, and intellectual property issues surrounding smart phone technology. Guest speakers include, Gerald Faulhaber, Mark Roark, Alan Friel, Susan Freiwald and many others. [Link]
  • World Research Group, an official Patently-O Jobs sponsor, is hosting the 3rd Annual Social TechNet Intellectual Property Forum Nov. 16-17 in New York. This conference provides solutions to the most prevalent in-house software and online IP protection and management issues. (Patently-O readers can save $200 by using promo code ABY668) [Link]
  • IBC will hold a Standards and Patents Conference in London on November 16th & 17th. The conference will analyze the interplay between standards, intellectual property and competition law. There will be 28 speakers representing various organizations, such as, the European Commission, Mr. Justice Floyd, IBM, Qualcomm Europe, Nokia, GE Healthcare and Intel. (Patently-O readers receive a 10% discount) [Link]
  • IBC will hold a US Patent Reform Congress Conference on November 18th in London. The conference will focus in the impact of the Leahy-Smith America Invents for the European practitioner, with expertise from the EPO, AIPLA, USPTO and more. (Patently-O readers receive a 10% discount) [Link]
  • The American Conference Institute's 2nd Annual Forum on: Paragraph IV Disputes will be held in San Francisco on December 7th. Experienced faculty of renowned litigators and judges will guide attendees through every stage of a Paragraph IV challenge to help them formulate offensive moves and defensive plays. (Patently-O readers can receive a discount by registering with code PO 200) [Link]
  • IBC Legal is holding a conference on International Patent Litigation 2011 in London on December 7th-8th. Use VIP Code FKW82249PO to get a 10% discount. [Link]
  • The WSBA IP Section, WSPLA, IEEE IP Professional Initiative, and the University of Washington School of Law's Law, Technology & Arts Group will be presenting an all day CLE at the University of Washington School of Law on Friday, December 9, 2011 on the impacts of the America Invents Act.

Contact Lawrence.Higgins@patentlyo.com with leads for future Bits and Bytes.

 

Patently-O Bits & Bytes by Lawrence Higgins

Patent

Apple and the Slide to Unlock Patents!

  • On October 25, 2011 the USPTO granted Apple a patent (8,046,721) for "Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image". Almost every touchscreen smartphone manufactured, uses slide to unlock technology. It seems like the Apple patent, could potentially be a problem for smartphone manufactures. However, many individuals propose that this patent should not have been issued because of the prior art that was available, such as the Neonode N1m which has been discontinued. It seems like many people forgot that Apple already has patented the slide to unlock feature, (Patent 7,657,849—which is cited in the "721" patent) so unless the Neonode has related prior art before December 23, 2005, the Neonode is not prior art. The "721" patent is a continuation of the "849" patent, therefore the "849" patent is not counted as prior art. As a result, the "849" patent is not invalid in light of the "721" patent, and most likely if the prior "721" patent has not been found invalid, nor will the "849" patent. [Patent] [Neonode] [Link]

Sony Buys Ericsson Patents and Holdings for $1.5 Billion

  • Sony Ericsson has ended its joint venture and the 2 companies will go their separate ways. Sony paid Ericsson nearly $1.5 billion for the mobile phone joint venture, which will give Sony rights to smartphone patents held by Ericsson. Sony now expects to try to increase their market share. Sony held a market share of 11 percent (by value) in the Android phone market in the last quarter, representing 80 percent of the company's third quarter sales. 2011 has been the year of billion dollar patent deals, and it can be expected that many more patent deals relating to smartphones will be made in the future. [Link] [Link]

Call for Papers!

  • The Third Annual Special Issue and Symposium for the Review of IP law (RIPL) will take place on April 19, 2012 in Chicago. The general theme will be "IP Law of China and the US" and subthemes cover the implementation of the new Chinese patent, copyright and trademark laws and theoretical or practical aspects of the cooperation of the IP laws of the US and China.

     

    The Special Issue and Symposium aims to gather professional and scholars from many disciplines including IP, international law, international business, ethics, and economic theory. The Symposium will bring an inspiring group of individuals to publish their writings and present their works at the symposium. [Link]

     

Patent Jobs:

  • Apple is seeking a patent portfolio manager, with a minimum 5 years of patent preparation experience. [Link]
  • Klarquist Sparkman, LLP is searching for litigation associates with 1-2 years of experience in IP litigation. [Link]
  • Klarquist Sparkman, LLP is looking for a biotechnology patent associate or patent agent with 3+ years of experience. [Link]
  • Bacon & Thomas is seeking a patent attorney with 1-4 years of experience and a mechanical or electrical background. [Link]
  • Global Patent Group is searching for a patent attorney or patent agent with a background in plant biology and a Ph.D. [Link]

Upcoming Events:

  • On October 28, the Annual Utah Cyber Symposium will take place. The Symposium will provide business and legal decision-makers in attendance from the business, academic, and legal communities a forum to learn more about legal and business challenges and opportunities facing the high tech industry today. Key business and legal leaders will instruct on how to improve your professional performance and bottom line, including the DOJ, Venture Capitalists, Professors, Business Leaders and Leading Attorneys. [Link]
  • The Chicago-Kent Intellectual Property Law Society is hosting the "Patent Wars Round Table" on November 2, 2011 at 5:30 PM. The event will include a panel discussion on current trends in IP law, namely, the recent paradigm shift in patent strategy and valuation in mobile device companies. Panelists include David Ruder of RPX, Ragnar Olson of Global IP, John Paniaguas of Katten Muchin, and Pat Burns of Greer, Burns & Crain, and will be moderated by Professor Christopher Seaman of Chicago-Kent. Cost is $20 and includes open bar and appetizers. [Link]
  • K&L Gates is holding a free webinar on Nov. 3 entitled "How the Patent Reform Act will Impact Your Business." The Act includes many changes, large and small, affecting subjects as far-reaching as the available appeals from reexaminations to the subject matter eligibility of tax planning methods and human organisms. The webinar will include a presentation and question and answer session. [Link]
  • Whittier Law School's Center for IP Law and Law Review will host the 29th Annual Law Review Symposium: The Law of the Smart Phone on November 4th. The symposium will feature presentations and panel discussions devoted to the privacy, regulation, economics, and intellectual property issues surrounding smart phone technology. Guest speakers include, Gerald Faulhaber, Mark Roark, Alan Friel, Susan Freiwald and many others. [Link]
  • World Research Group, an official Patently-O Jobs sponsor, is hosting the 3rd Annual Social TechNet Intellectual Property Forum Nov. 16-17 in New York. This conference provides solutions to the most prevalent in-house software and online IP protection and management issues. (Patently-O readers can save $200 by using promo code ABY668) [Link]
  • IBC will hold a Standards and Patents Conference in London on November 16th & 17th. The conference will analyze the interplay between standards, intellectual property and competition law. There will be 28 speakers representing various organizations, such as, the European Commission, Mr. Justice Floyd, IBM, Qualcomm Europe, Nokia, GE Healthcare and Intel. (Patently-O readers receive a 10% discount) [Link]
  • IBC will hold a US Patent Reform Congress Conference on November 18th in London. The conference will focus in the impact of the Leahy-Smith America Invents for the European practitioner, with expertise from the EPO, AIPLA, USPTO and more. (Patently-O readers receive a 10% discount) [Link]
  • The American Conference Institute's 2nd Annual Forum on: Paragraph IV Disputes will be held in San Francisco on December 7th. Experienced faculty of renowned litigators and judges will guide attendees through every stage of a Paragraph IV challenge to help them formulate offensive moves and defensive plays. (Patently-O readers can receive a discount by registering with code PO 200) [Link]
  • IBC Legal is holding a conference on International Patent Litigation 2011 in London on December 7th-8th. Use VIP Code FKW82249PO to get a 10% discount. [Link]
  • The WSBA IP Section, WSPLA, IEEE IP Professional Initiative, and the University of Washington School of Law's Law, Technology & Arts Group will be presenting an all day CLE at the University of Washington School of Law on Friday, December 9, 2011 on the impacts of the America Invents Act.

Contact Lawrence.Higgins@patentlyo.com with leads for future Bits and Bytes.

 

Patently-O Bits & Bytes by Lawrence Higgins

Patent

Apple and the Slide to Unlock Patents!

  • On October 25, 2011 the USPTO granted Apple a patent (8,046,721) for "Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image". Almost every touchscreen smartphone manufactured, uses slide to unlock technology. It seems like the Apple patent, could potentially be a problem for smartphone manufactures. However, many individuals propose that this patent should not have been issued because of the prior art that was available, such as the Neonode N1m which has been discontinued. It seems like many people forgot that Apple already has patented the slide to unlock feature, (Patent 7,657,849—which is cited in the "721" patent) so unless the Neonode has related prior art before December 23, 2005, the Neonode is not prior art. The "721" patent is a continuation of the "849" patent, therefore the "849" patent is not counted as prior art. As a result, the "849" patent is not invalid in light of the "721" patent, and most likely if the prior "721" patent has not been found invalid, nor will the "849" patent. [Patent]
    [Neonode]
    [Link]

Sony Buys Ericsson Patents and Holdings for $1.5 Billion

  • Sony Ericsson has ended its joint venture and the 2 companies will go their separate ways. Sony paid Ericsson nearly $1.5 billion for the mobile phone joint venture, which will give Sony rights to smartphone patents held by Ericsson. Sony now expects to try to increase their market share. Sony held a market share of 11 percent (by value) in the Android phone market in the last quarter, representing 80 percent of the company's third quarter sales. 2011 has been the year of billion dollar patent deals, and it can be expected that many more patent deals relating to smartphones will be made in the future. [Link]
    [Link]

Call for Papers!

  • The Third Annual Special Issue and Symposium for the Review of IP law (RIPL) will take place on April 19, 2012 in Chicago. The general theme will be "IP Law of China and the US" and subthemes cover the implementation of the new Chinese patent, copyright and trademark laws and theoretical or practical aspects of the cooperation of the IP laws of the US and China.

     

    The Special Issue and Symposium aims to gather professional and scholars from many disciplines including IP, international law, international business, ethics, and economic theory. The Symposium will bring an inspiring group of individuals to publish their writings and present their works at the symposium. [Link]

     

Patent Jobs:

  • Apple is seeking a patent portfolio manager, with a minimum 5 years of patent preparation experience. [Link]
  • Klarquist Sparkman, LLP is searching for litigation associates with 1-2 years of experience in IP litigation. [Link]
  • Klarquist Sparkman, LLP is looking for a biotechnology patent associate or patent agent with 3+ years of experience. [Link]
  • Bacon & Thomas is seeking a patent attorney with 1-4 years of experience and a mechanical or electrical background. [Link]
  • Global Patent Group is searching for a patent attorney or patent agent with a background in plant biology and a Ph.D. [Link]

Upcoming Events:

  • On October 28, the Annual Utah Cyber Symposium will take place. The Symposium will provide business and legal decision-makers in attendance from the business, academic, and legal communities a forum to learn more about legal and business challenges and opportunities facing the high tech industry today. Key business and legal leaders will instruct on how to improve your professional performance and bottom line, including the DOJ, Venture Capitalists, Professors, Business Leaders and Leading Attorneys. [Link]
  • The Chicago-Kent Intellectual Property Law Society is hosting the "Patent Wars Round Table" on November 2, 2011 at 5:30 PM. The event will include a panel discussion on current trends in IP law, namely, the recent paradigm shift in patent strategy and valuation in mobile device companies. Panelists include David Ruder of RPX, Ragnar Olson of Global IP, John Paniaguas of Katten Muchin, and Pat Burns of Greer, Burns & Crain, and will be moderated by Professor Christopher Seaman of Chicago-Kent. Cost is $20 and includes open bar and appetizers. [Link]
  • K&L Gates is holding a free webinar on Nov. 3 entitled "How the Patent Reform Act will Impact Your Business." The Act includes many changes, large and small, affecting subjects as far-reaching as the available appeals from reexaminations to the subject matter eligibility of tax planning methods and human organisms. The webinar will include a presentation and question and answer session. [Link]
  • Whittier Law School's Center for IP Law and Law Review will host the 29th Annual Law Review Symposium: The Law of the Smart Phone on November 4th. The symposium will feature presentations and panel discussions devoted to the privacy, regulation, economics, and intellectual property issues surrounding smart phone technology. Guest speakers include, Gerald Faulhaber, Mark Roark, Alan Friel, Susan Freiwald and many others. [Link]
  • World Research Group, an official Patently-O Jobs sponsor, is hosting the 3rd Annual Social TechNet Intellectual Property Forum Nov. 16-17 in New York. This conference provides solutions to the most prevalent in-house software and online IP protection and management issues. (Patently-O readers can save $200 by using promo code ABY668) [Link]
  • IBC will hold a Standards and Patents Conference in London on November 16th & 17th. The conference will analyze the interplay between standards, intellectual property and competition law. There will be 28 speakers representing various organizations, such as, the European Commission, Mr. Justice Floyd, IBM, Qualcomm Europe, Nokia, GE Healthcare and Intel. (Patently-O readers receive a 10% discount) [Link]
  • IBC will hold a US Patent Reform Congress Conference on November 18th in London. The conference will focus in the impact of the Leahy-Smith America Invents for the European practitioner, with expertise from the EPO, AIPLA, USPTO and more. (Patently-O readers receive a 10% discount) [Link]
  • The American Conference Institute's 2nd Annual Forum on: Paragraph IV Disputes will be held in San Francisco on December 7th. Experienced faculty of renowned litigators and judges will guide attendees through every stage of a Paragraph IV challenge to help them formulate offensive moves and defensive plays. (Patently-O readers can receive a discount by registering with code PO 200) [Link]
  • IBC Legal is holding a conference on International Patent Litigation 2011 in London on December 7th-8th. Use VIP Code FKW82249PO to get a 10% discount. [Link]
  • The WSBA IP Section, WSPLA, IEEE IP Professional Initiative, and the University of Washington School of Law's Law, Technology & Arts Group will be presenting an all day CLE at the University of Washington School of Law on Friday, December 9, 2011 on the impacts of the America Invents Act.

Contact Lawrence.Higgins@patentlyo.com with leads for future Bits and Bytes.

 

CAFC: Patent Opinions Down, Rule 36 Affirmances Up

Patent,

By Jason Rantanen

As I commented yesterday, the Federal Circuit's statistics page no longer provides information about the disposal of patent infringement appeals by merits panels.  To get a better picture of the CAFC's activity in this area, I put together a graph that illustrates the Federal Circuit's dispositions of appeals arising from the district courts over the past fiscal year. 

CAFC dispositions of patent infringement appeals FY 2011

The CAFC's graphs from previous years:

CAFC dispositions of patent infringement appeals FY 2010

CAFC dispositions of patent infringement appeals FY 2009
CAFC dispositions of patent infringement appeals FY 2008

As compared with the Federal Circuit's historical data, the FY 2011 graph reflects a significant rearrangement of the way in which the CAFC is resolving patent infringement appeals: many more appeals were disposed of this year via summary affirmances and the percentage of precedential opinions has dropped sharply.  The overall number of dispositions by merits panels is also down, although that may be a function of the overall decline in appeals filed over the past few years.

A few notes:

  • Because this data includes only appeals arising from the district courts; i.e.: patent infringement suits,  it does not reflect appeals arising from the PTO or ITC.
  • Similarly, it should not be taken by itself to evidence a decline in the CAFC's production: the court deals with several areas of law besides patent law, and any numerical representation of this sort necessarily does not take into account the complexity, quality, or length of individual opinions.  Overall, fewer high-quality precedential opinions may be more desirable than large numbers of low-quality precedential opinions.
  • For the past year, the Federal Circuit has been significantly under strength, which may explain some of the patterns noted above.  Currently only ten of the twelve seats are filled; as of last year at this time only nine of the twelve seats were filled.  Furthermore, while Judge Gajarsa assumed senior status this year, and continues to be an active participant on the court, the court lost the valued services of Judges Friedman and Archer. 
  • Thanks to my research assistant Alexandria Christian for revewing the CAFC's dispositions of appeals arising from the district courts – the data on which the first chart is based.

 

Federal Circuit Statistics – FY 2011

Patent, , , ,

By Jason Rantanen

The Federal Circuit recently updated its statistics webpage with information for FY 2011 (October 2010-September 2011).  Unfortunately, much of the statistical information that the court previously provided has been removed and is no longer accessible.  Nevertheless, the available data does allow for at least a partial picture of the CAFC's activity.

In terms of overall caseload, one of the court's graphs indicates that it appears to be on the upswing after falling over the past few years:

CAFC overall caseload 1983-2011
Source: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/statistics.html 

This rise appears to largely be the result of a modest uptick in appeals of both district court and PTO rulings, as well as challenges to CAVC and MSPB determinations, as shown in another CAFC graph:

CAFC Caseload by Major Origin FY 2011

Source: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/statistics.html

Median time to disposition is holding fairly steady, although there is a slight upswing for appeals arising from the PTO:

 Federal Circuit Median Time to Disposition
Based on data obtained from http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/statistics.html

While this information is unquestionably useful and well appreciated, statistical information that the CAFC previously provided is unfortunately no longer available.  This includes: data about merit and non-merit dispositions in patent suits (see also), affirmance and reversal rates for district court patent infringement appeals (Download 2001-2010 data), charts showing the number of appeals adjudicated by merits panels broken down by category type (IP, admin, and claims), data about merit and non-merit dispositions in all suits, the percentage of appeals terminated in 90 days or less, data showing the number of petitions for rehearing filed and granted (Download 2001-2010 data), and data showing the number of petitions for writ of certiorari filed and granted by the Supreme Court.  Some of this information may be derivable from the court's output, but much of it is difficult to obtain.

I gave the court clerk's office a call, and was told that this information had been removed and would not be updated.  The information that is currently on the website is the statistical information that will continue to be updated.  I have provided some of the court's past statistical data above; if any readers happen to have other old CAFC data in your possession (particularly information that is not available via review of the court's opinions themselves), please send me an email.

Update: The first two graphs will now open into larger views.

VS Tech v. Twitter: Patentable Subject Matter

Patent, Patent Cases 2011, Patentable Subject Matter, , , ,

VS Tech v. Twitter, 11–cv-0043 (E.D. Virginia 2011)

Trial is set for this week in the patent infringement lawsuit between VS Tech and Twitter.  VS’s asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,408,309 claims a “method of creating an interactive virtual community of people in a field of endeavor” and has a February 2000 filing date.  The inventor is Dinesh Agarwal who has also been a patent attorney since 1985.  VS Tech was formed to pursue the lawsuit and is headquartered in Mr. Agarwal’s law office address. The first two claims of the patent are reproduced below:

What is claimed is:

1. A method of creating an interactive virtual community of people in a field of endeavor, comprising the steps of:
a) selecting a field of endeavor;
b) compiling a list of members in the selected field;
c) selecting a member from the compiled list of members based on a preselected factor;
d) obtaining biographical information about the selected member;
e) processing the biographical information in a preselected format to create a personal profile of the selected member;
f) publishing the profile of the selected member on a machine readable media; and
g) allowing the selected member to interact with the profile.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the step (f) comprises publishing the profile of the selected member on a network of computers.

In his most recent judgment in the case, Judge Morgan denied Twitter’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. 101, 102 & 103 and non-infringement.

The section 101 decision is interesting in that the judge treated the machine-or-transformation test as a question of fact to be determined by the jury.  “In light of all of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable juror to conclude that the ‘309 patent is linked to a particular machine or apparatus.”  Like claim construction and obviousness, patentable subject matter is treated by the courts as a question of law. However, unlike claim construction, the appellate courts have never held that it must be the judge who decides section 101 issues.

When the case was filed in January, Patent Law reporter Joe Mullin wrote “The central role of patent lawyers in suits like this raises questions about the health of the U.S. patent system. Patent lawyers are insiders in this system, and an increasing number of them aren’t satisfied just with being very-expensive service providers to patent owners. They’re seeing the millions made by so-called patent trolls and are eager to get into the game themselves. The patent office simply isn’t set up to say no to a persistent applicant, and the patent lawyers know that as well as anybody.  Mike Masnick filed his story under the “bang-head-slowly dept.”

The following is the text of Twitter’s proposed jury instructions on what it terms “unpatentable subject matter”:

Even if an invention is both new and not obvious, a patent claim may be invalid if its subject matter is not patentable. The law establishes three categories that are not eligible for patents: laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.

Twitter contends that the asserted claims of the ‘309 patent claim an unpatentable abstract idea. Methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are abstract ideas which cannot be patented. An abstract idea is unpatentable even if the patent claim limits the idea’s use to a particular technological environment, or adds insignificant post-solution activity. Systems that depend for their operation on human intelligence alone cannot be patented.

A useful and important clue for determining whether a patent claims unpatentable subject matter is whether the claim is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. This is called the “machine or transformation test.” To satisfy the machine prong of this test, the use of the machine must also impose meaningful limits on the claim’s scope. If the claim does not satisfy the machine-or-transformation test, this indicates that the claim may be invalid because it claims unpatentable subject matter.

 

 

Purchase my eBook: Mark-Up and Commentary on the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act

Patent,

Patent2011040by Dennis Crouch

President Obama recently enacted the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Public Law No 112-29 (H.R. 1249). The new law makes a large number of changes to Title 35 of the US Code and other related statutes.

I have received a number of requests for an electronic mark-up of the recently passed patent reform act – the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. In response, I have created a 230 page volume in eBook format that is intended to serve as a helpful tool in understanding the implementation of the new provisions and should be especially helpful for those wanting to understand how the law has been changed.

Blackline Amendments and Commentary: Each provision of the United States Code substantively impacted by the new law is included in legal blackline format. In this traditional format, added text is underlined and eliminated text is formatted with a strikethrough.  

Additional Material: The volume includes a chronological table of effective dates, excerpts from the House Judiciary Committee Report from June 2011, a Senate floor colloquy between Senators Leahy and Hatch attempting to explain implementation of the new provisions of section 102, and a table of contents.  I have also provided commentary on the majority of the amended and added provisions in a way that guides readers through an analysis of the amendments.

Copyright Notice: I give away almost all my writings by posting them online, either to Patently-O or to the SSRN website. However, I have decided to charge a fee to access this volume.  Profit on this work allows me to continue my academic pursuits without seeking corporate grants or clients and their consequential influence. 

The price is $21 per copy (single user license). A special rate is avaiable for entities intersted in purchasing multiple user licenses. The sales-page allows payment using a credit card or paypal. Contact me to pay with some other form of payment. (dcrouch@patentlyo.com). 

This week in patent law class

Bits and Bytes, Patent, Reissue
  • This week in patent law class: Left my students confused after discussing Benson, Flook, Chakrabarty, Diehr, and Bilski. I’m somewhat confused as well.
  • Traditionally, a patentee could seek reissue to correct problematic claims if the problems were created “through error without any deceptive intention.”  The new patent act eliminates the “without any deceptive intention” limitation. What’s the impact?

-Dennis Crouch

Patently-O Bits & Bytes by Lawrence Higgins

Bits and Bytes, Patent, , , ,

Samsung v. Apple: The Battle Continues

  • A Netherland court recently denied Samsung's request for an injunction banning Apple from selling iPhones and iPads. Samsung claims that Apple should not be allowed to sell devices with 3G technology because they infringe Samsung patents. The court stated that because the 3G technology is the industry standard, Samsung is obliged to offer Apple licenses under fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. It seems that the licensing fee Samsung sought was not a FRAND offer and that if Samsung does make a FRAND offer and for some reason an agreement is not reach Samsung may file another patent suit and ask for a new injunction request. [Link]

UK IPO

  • Those who couldn't make it along to the UK IPO's event "Understanding the Use and Impact of Design Rights on the Design Sector" hosted by the Designs Council on 21 September 2011 can either listen to the presentations or download Word-format transcripts from this webpage. The event was a presentation of the economic research conducted for the IPO by the researchers, moderated by an expert panel and followed by a lively discussion. The research itself is published here. [Link]

Taiwan Will Form Patent Bank

  • The quasi-government agency, the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) announced the bank, saying it could be similar to existing defensive patent aggregators such as RPX and Allied Security Trust. The director of ITRI stated that the bank will assist Taiwanese manufactures with the creation of patent portfolios and patenting strategies during the manufactures' R&D periods and later assist in defending them from suits and in expanding their market share. HTC is a Taiwan based company, who has been in a heated patent infringement battle against Apple, and it would be to their advantage for an IP bank like this. [Link]

Patent Jobs

  • King & Spalding is searching for a patent attorney with 1-2 years of experience to work at their Houston office. [Link]
  • McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff is seeking a junior associate with 2-3 years of experience, to work in their electrical arts group. [Link]
  • Rambus is seeking a Senior Patent Counsel with 8+ years of experience and a BSEE or related degree. [Link]
  • Sheppard Mullin is searching for 2 attorneys: (1) an associate with at least 2 years of patent prosecution experience, and (2) an associate with 2-4 years of patent litigation experience. [Link]
  • The University of New Hampshire School of Law's Franklin Pierce Center for IP is seeking to hire a full-time professor of patent prosecution practice. [Link]

Upcoming Events:

  • The 2011 AIPLA Annual Meeting will be held October 20-22, in Washington, DC. The Annual Meeting will bring nearly 2,000 IP professionals together to meet, share, and connect with one another and provide insight into some of the most pressing issues facing our profession today! Over 100 IP Professionals, from corporations, law firms, universities, the courts, federal agencies, with expertise both domestically and internationally will be presenting on a varied landscape of IP issues. [Link]
  • Back to School: The New Patent Law Explained, conference will be hosted by Berkeley Center for Law and Technology on October 21 in Berkeley, California. Professors and practitioners will provide detailed explanations of the changes and discuss the impact on patent prosecution, counseling, and litigation. [Link]
  • American Conference Institute will be holding a FDA Boot Camp Device Edition conference on October 25th-October 26th in Chicago. (Patently-O readers can register with code PO 200 for a discount) [Link]
  • The University of Texas at Austin will hold its 16th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute on October 27-28. The program will cover: recent developments in claims construction and claims drafting, cost savings in litigation, inequitable conduct after Therasense, and many other topics. [Link]
  • Whittier Law School's Center for IP Law and Law Review will host the 29th Annual Law Review Symposium: The Law of the Smart Phone on November 3rd. The symposium will feature presentations and panel discussions devoted to the privacy, regulation, economics, and intellectual property issues surrounding smart phone technology. Guest speakers include, Gerald Faulhaber, Mark Roark, Alan Friel, Susan Freiwald and many others. [Link]
  • IPMI is holding the IP Law & Management Institute on November 6th – 8th at the Rancho Las Palmas in Palm Springs, CA. Hailed as "One of the few programs geared to experienced in-house IP Counsel", the Institute is a CLE-accredited program designed to provide time-starved Heads of IP with the Opportunity to meet and network with their peers, learn from the best practices and validate solutions and services. [Link]
  • World Research Group, an official Patently-O Jobs sponsor, is hosting the 3rd Annual Social TechNet Intellectual Property Forum Nov. 16-17 in New York. This conference provides solutions to the most prevalent in-house software and online IP protection and management issues. (Patently-O readers can save $200 by using promo code ABY668) [Link]
  • IBC will hold a Standards and Patents Conference in London on November 16th & 17th. The conference will analyze the interplay between standards, intellectual property and competition law. There will be 28 speakers representing various organizations, such as, the European Commission, Mr. Justice Floyd, IBM, Qualcomm Europe, Nokia, GE Healthcare and Intel. (Patently-O readers receive a 10% discount) [Link]
  • IBC will hold a US Patent Reform Congress Conference on November 18th in London. The conference will focus in the impact of the Leahy-Smith America Invents for the European practitioner, with expertise from the EPO, AIPLA, USPTO and more. (Patently-O readers receive a 10% discount) [Link]
  • The American Conference Institute's 2nd Annual Forum on: Paragraph IV Disputes will be held in San Francisco on December 7th. Experienced faculty of renowned litigators and judges will guide attendees through every stage of a Paragraph IV challenge to help them formulate offensive moves and defensive plays. (Patently-O readers can receive a discount by registering with code PO 200) [Link]

Contact Lawrence.Higgins@patentlyo.com with leads for future Bits and Bytes.

Patently-O Bits & Bytes by Lawrence Higgins

Bits and Bytes, Patent, , , ,

Samsung v. Apple: The Battle Continues

  • A Netherland court recently denied Samsung's request for an injunction banning Apple from selling iPhones and iPads. Samsung claims that Apple should not be allowed to sell devices with 3G technology because they infringe Samsung patents. The court stated that because the 3G technology is the industry standard, Samsung is obliged to offer Apple licenses under fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. It seems that the licensing fee Samsung sought was not a FRAND offer and that if Samsung does make a FRAND offer and for some reason an agreement is not reach Samsung may file another patent suit and ask for a new injunction request. [Link]

UK IPO

  • Those who couldn't make it along to the UK IPO's event "Understanding the Use and Impact of Design Rights on the Design Sector" hosted by the Designs Council on 21 September 2011 can either listen to the presentations or download Word-format transcripts from this webpage. The event was a presentation of the economic research conducted for the IPO by the researchers, moderated by an expert panel and followed by a lively discussion. The research itself is published here. [Link]

Taiwan Will Form Patent Bank

  • The quasi-government agency, the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) announced the bank, saying it could be similar to existing defensive patent aggregators such as RPX and Allied Security Trust. The director of ITRI stated that the bank will assist Taiwanese manufactures with the creation of patent portfolios and patenting strategies during the manufactures' R&D periods and later assist in defending them from suits and in expanding their market share. HTC is a Taiwan based company, who has been in a heated patent infringement battle against Apple, and it would be to their advantage for an IP bank like this. [Link]

Patent Jobs

  • King & Spalding is searching for a patent attorney with 1-2 years of experience to work at their Houston office. [Link]
  • McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff is seeking a junior associate with 2-3 years of experience, to work in their electrical arts group. [Link]
  • Rambus is seeking a Senior Patent Counsel with 8+ years of experience and a BSEE or related degree. [Link]
  • Sheppard Mullin is searching for 2 attorneys: (1) an associate with at least 2 years of patent prosecution experience, and (2) an associate with 2-4 years of patent litigation experience. [Link]
  • The University of New Hampshire School of Law's Franklin Pierce Center for IP is seeking to hire a full-time professor of patent prosecution practice. [Link]

Upcoming Events:

  • The 2011 AIPLA Annual Meeting will be held October 20-22, in Washington, DC. The Annual Meeting will bring nearly 2,000 IP professionals together to meet, share, and connect with one another and provide insight into some of the most pressing issues facing our profession today! Over 100 IP Professionals, from corporations, law firms, universities, the courts, federal agencies, with expertise both domestically and internationally will be presenting on a varied landscape of IP issues. [Link]
  • Back to School: The New Patent Law Explained, conference will be hosted by Berkeley Center for Law and Technology on October 21 in Berkeley, California. Professors and practitioners will provide detailed explanations of the changes and discuss the impact on patent prosecution, counseling, and litigation. [Link]
  • American Conference Institute will be holding a FDA Boot Camp Device Edition conference on October 25th-October 26th in Chicago. (Patently-O readers can register with code PO 200 for a discount) [Link]
  • The University of Texas at Austin will hold its 16th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute on October 27-28. The program will cover: recent developments in claims construction and claims drafting, cost savings in litigation, inequitable conduct after Therasense, and many other topics. [Link]
  • Whittier Law School's Center for IP Law and Law Review will host the 29th Annual Law Review Symposium: The Law of the Smart Phone on November 3rd. The symposium will feature presentations and panel discussions devoted to the privacy, regulation, economics, and intellectual property issues surrounding smart phone technology. Guest speakers include, Gerald Faulhaber, Mark Roark, Alan Friel, Susan Freiwald and many others. [Link]
  • IPMI is holding the IP Law & Management Institute on November 6th – 8th at the Rancho Las Palmas in Palm Springs, CA. Hailed as "One of the few programs geared to experienced in-house IP Counsel", the Institute is a CLE-accredited program designed to provide time-starved Heads of IP with the Opportunity to meet and network with their peers, learn from the best practices and validate solutions and services. [Link]
  • World Research Group, an official Patently-O Jobs sponsor, is hosting the 3rd Annual Social TechNet Intellectual Property Forum Nov. 16-17 in New York. This conference provides solutions to the most prevalent in-house software and online IP protection and management issues. (Patently-O readers can save $200 by using promo code ABY668) [Link]
  • IBC will hold a Standards and Patents Conference in London on November 16th & 17th. The conference will analyze the interplay between standards, intellectual property and competition law. There will be 28 speakers representing various organizations, such as, the European Commission, Mr. Justice Floyd, IBM, Qualcomm Europe, Nokia, GE Healthcare and Intel. (Patently-O readers receive a 10% discount) [Link]
  • IBC will hold a US Patent Reform Congress Conference on November 18th in London. The conference will focus in the impact of the Leahy-Smith America Invents for the European practitioner, with expertise from the EPO, AIPLA, USPTO and more. (Patently-O readers receive a 10% discount) [Link]
  • The American Conference Institute's 2nd Annual Forum on: Paragraph IV Disputes will be held in San Francisco on December 7th. Experienced faculty of renowned litigators and judges will guide attendees through every stage of a Paragraph IV challenge to help them formulate offensive moves and defensive plays. (Patently-O readers can receive a discount by registering with code PO 200) [Link]

Contact Lawrence.Higgins@patentlyo.com with leads for future Bits and Bytes.

Patently-O Bits & Bytes by Lawrence Higgins

Bits and Bytes, , , ,

Samsung v. Apple: The Battle Continues

  • A Netherland court recently denied Samsung's request for an injunction banning Apple from selling iPhones and iPads. Samsung claims that Apple should not be allowed to sell devices with 3G technology because they infringe Samsung patents. The court stated that because the 3G technology is the industry standard, Samsung is obliged to offer Apple licenses under fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. It seems that the licensing fee Samsung sought was not a FRAND offer and that if Samsung does make a FRAND offer and for some reason an agreement is not reach Samsung may file another patent suit and ask for a new injunction request. [Link]

UK IPO

  • Those who couldn't make it along to the UK IPO's event "Understanding the Use and Impact of Design Rights on the Design Sector" hosted by the Designs Council on 21 September 2011 can either listen to the presentations or download Word-format transcripts from this webpage. The event was a presentation of the economic research conducted for the IPO by the researchers, moderated by an expert panel and followed by a lively discussion. The research itself is published here. [Link]

Taiwan Will Form Patent Bank

  • The quasi-government agency, the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) announced the bank, saying it could be similar to existing defensive patent aggregators such as RPX and Allied Security Trust. The director of ITRI stated that the bank will assist Taiwanese manufactures with the creation of patent portfolios and patenting strategies during the manufactures' R&D periods and later assist in defending them from suits and in expanding their market share. HTC is a Taiwan based company, who has been in a heated patent infringement battle against Apple, and it would be to their advantage for an IP bank like this. [Link]

Patent Jobs

  • King & Spalding is searching for a patent attorney with 1-2 years of experience to work at their Houston office. [Link]
  • McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff is seeking a junior associate with 2-3 years of experience, to work in their electrical arts group. [Link]
  • Rambus is seeking a Senior Patent Counsel with 8+ years of experience and a BSEE or related degree. [Link]
  • Sheppard Mullin is searching for 2 attorneys: (1) an associate with at least 2 years of patent prosecution experience, and (2) an associate with 2-4 years of patent litigation experience. [Link]
  • The University of New Hampshire School of Law's Franklin Pierce Center for IP is seeking to hire a full-time professor of patent prosecution practice. [Link]

Upcoming Events:

  • The 2011 AIPLA Annual Meeting will be held October 20-22, in Washington, DC. The Annual Meeting will bring nearly 2,000 IP professionals together to meet, share, and connect with one another and provide insight into some of the most pressing issues facing our profession today! Over 100 IP Professionals, from corporations, law firms, universities, the courts, federal agencies, with expertise both domestically and internationally will be presenting on a varied landscape of IP issues. [Link]
  • Back to School: The New Patent Law Explained, conference will be hosted by Berkeley Center for Law and Technology on October 21 in Berkeley, California. Professors and practitioners will provide detailed explanations of the changes and discuss the impact on patent prosecution, counseling, and litigation. [Link]
  • American Conference Institute will be holding a FDA Boot Camp Device Edition conference on October 25th-October 26th in Chicago. (Patently-O readers can register with code PO 200 for a discount) [Link]
  • The University of Texas at Austin will hold its 16th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute on October 27-28. The program will cover: recent developments in claims construction and claims drafting, cost savings in litigation, inequitable conduct after Therasense, and many other topics. [Link]
  • Whittier Law School's Center for IP Law and Law Review will host the 29th Annual Law Review Symposium: The Law of the Smart Phone on November 3rd. The symposium will feature presentations and panel discussions devoted to the privacy, regulation, economics, and intellectual property issues surrounding smart phone technology. Guest speakers include, Gerald Faulhaber, Mark Roark, Alan Friel, Susan Freiwald and many others. [Link]
  • IPMI is holding the IP Law & Management Institute on November 6th – 8th at the Rancho Las Palmas in Palm Springs, CA. Hailed as "One of the few programs geared to experienced in-house IP Counsel", the Institute is a CLE-accredited program designed to provide time-starved Heads of IP with the Opportunity to meet and network with their peers, learn from the best practices and validate solutions and services. [Link]
  • World Research Group, an official Patently-O Jobs sponsor, is hosting the 3rd Annual Social TechNet Intellectual Property Forum Nov. 16-17 in New York. This conference provides solutions to the most prevalent in-house software and online IP protection and management issues. (Patently-O readers can save $200 by using promo code ABY668) [Link]
  • IBC will hold a Standards and Patents Conference in London on November 16th & 17th. The conference will analyze the interplay between standards, intellectual property and competition law. There will be 28 speakers representing various organizations, such as, the European Commission, Mr. Justice Floyd, IBM, Qualcomm Europe, Nokia, GE Healthcare and Intel. (Patently-O readers receive a 10% discount) [Link]
  • IBC will hold a US Patent Reform Congress Conference on November 18th in London. The conference will focus in the impact of the Leahy-Smith America Invents for the European practitioner, with expertise from the EPO, AIPLA, USPTO and more. (Patently-O readers receive a 10% discount) [Link]
  • The American Conference Institute's 2nd Annual Forum on: Paragraph IV Disputes will be held in San Francisco on December 7th. Experienced faculty of renowned litigators and judges will guide attendees through every stage of a Paragraph IV challenge to help them formulate offensive moves and defensive plays. (Patently-O readers can receive a discount by registering with code PO 200) [Link]

Contact Lawrence.Higgins@patentlyo.com with leads for future Bits and Bytes.

Limiting Damages: $107 Million Interest Charge Improperly Awarded On-Top of Pre-Agreed Damages

Damages, License, Patent, Patent Cases 2011, ,

By Dennis Crouch

Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex (Fed. Cir. 2011)

The case focuses on Sanofi’s patent covering clopidrogrel bisulfate tablets sold under the trade name Plavix. ($4.5 billion in annual sales). In 2001, the generic drug manufacturer Apotex filed an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) with the FDA – requesting that it be allowed to manufacture a generic version on the drug and alleging that Sanofi’s patent was invalid. Sanofi sued for infringement.

Pre-Judgment Agreement to Limit Damages: May 2006, the parties came to a limited agreement that any actual damages for infringement would be limited to “50% of Apotex’s net sales.” The agreement stated that:

If the litigation results in a judgment that the ‘265 patent is not invalid or unenforceable, Sanofi agrees that its actual damages for any past infringement by Apotex, up to the date on which Apotex is enjoined, will be 50% of Apotex’s net sales of clopidogrel products . . . . Sanofi further agrees that it will not seek increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.

Apotex subsequently began marking its generic product before being stopped a few weeks later by a preliminary injunction. After Sanofi won the infringement trial, the judge set damages for that infringement at 50% of net sales plus interest. In dollar figures, damages were $442 million and the interest charge was $107 million. The district court had agreed that it should be bound by the prior agreement between the parties, but held that the agreement only limited damages and did not limit interest.

Contract Specification: Of course the contract could have spelled-out whether the limitation applied to interest charges, and the parties most certainly considered that issue during negotiations. But, for whatever, reason, they chose not to specify in the contract whether interest charges should be limited. Thus, the court was forced to consider the proper default rule for this situation.

At the Federal Circuit, Apotex argues that the interest payment should be included as part of the damage award and that the judgment therefore exceeds the agreed upon 50% damage limitation. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit has sided with Apotex – holding that the phrase “actual damages” as used in the contract “include[s] all damages necessary to compensate Sanofi for Apotex’s infringement.”

Because prejudgment interest is a form of compensatory damages, the district court erred by awarding additional prejudgment interest pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.

In the majority opinion, Judge Moore relied both on the contractual language and on the history of compensatory damages that traditionally include both a reasonable royalty calculated at the point of infringement and interests charges for the delay in payment. Both of those elements are part of the “actual damages” calculation necessary to fully compensate the patent holder for past infringement. This follows the view espoused by the Supreme Court in its 1983 case involving General Motors where the court wrote:

An award of interest from the time that the royalty payments would have been received merely serves to make the patent owner whole, since his damages consist not only of the value of the royalty payments but also of the forgone use of the money between the time of infringement and the date of judgment.

Gen. Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648, 655 (1983).

Patent Act Damages: As usual, the language of the Patent Act is somewhat ambiguous on the meaning of damages. The first paragraph of Section 284 calls for an award of “damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court.” One view of this provision would require damages to be, at a minimum, a combination of a reasonable royalty plus interests and costs. In my view, however, the better plain meaning interpretation of Section 284 is that a court is required to award damages (minimum of reasonable royalty) and in addition must award interest and costs.

The appellate panel rejected the parties’ analysis of the language of the patent act as irrelevant – holding instead that “actual damages” was a contract term and that the interpretation therefore does not depend upon any statutory language.

While interesting, these arguments neither illuminate nor resolve the issue before us – the meaning of “actual damages” in the May 2006 agreement. The agreed upon “actual damages” are a creature of contract and not of the Patent Act. By entering into the May 2006 agreement, the parties decided that the agreement itself – not § 271(e)(4)(C) or § 284 – would govern the appropriate measure of damages from Apotex’s infringement.

Writing in Dissent, Judge Newman would have applied the usual background rule that interest is different from damages as a primary driving factor in interpreting the contract. In that framework, the contractual limitation on damages would not apply to limit interest as well.

My colleagues err in reading the contract’s silence on interest for infringement as meaning that the parties intended and agreed to forgo the interest to which the patentee is entitled by statute and precedent. I must, respectfully, dissent

c