Search Results for: cuozzo

Supreme Court Update: Are Secondary Indicia of Invention Relevant to Eligibility?

Patent, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The Supreme Court is on recess until Feb 17.

I don't know if my end-of-April prediction will hold true, but I do expect Neil Gorsuch to become a Justice on the United States Supreme Court.  As a 10th Circuit Judge, Gorsuch never decided a patent case, but does have a handful of interesting IP cases.

There are a few petitions filed that we have not discussed here: 

 In its newest petition, DataTreasury takes 101 for a new spin by taking the 101/103 analysis to its next logical level.  If we are going to include a 103 analysis as part of the eligibility doctrine then lets go whole hog.  Thus, DataTreasury asks: whether a court must consider secondary indicia of invention as evidence in its eligibility analysis? In the case, the Federal Circuit had affirmed the PTAB judgment without opinion under R.36. A second eligibility petition is found in TDE Petroleum Data Solutions, Inc. v. AKM Enterprise, Inc., dba Moblize, Inc. TDE asks the court to "please reconcile Diehr and Alice." (I'm not literally quoting here).  The patent at issue (No. 6,892,812) claims a four-step process of "determining the state of a well operation." (a) store several potential "states"; (b) receive well operation data from a plurality of systems; (c) determine that the data is valid by comparing it to a threshold limit; and (d) set the state based upon the valid data.

In Wi-LAN v. Apple, the patentee revives both Cuozzo and Markman claim construction arguments - this time focusing on "whether claim terms used to define the metes and bounds of an invention are generally given their “plain and ordinary meaning,” or are redefined (limited) to match the scope of the exemplary embodiments provided in the specification."

duPont v. Macdermid asks whether summary judgment of obviousness is proper because of the factual disputes at issue.  Similarly, in Enplas v. Seoul Semiconductor, the petitioner argues that a finding of anticipation by the PTAB must be supported by findings each and every element of the subject patent claim is disclosed in the prior art.  In Enplas, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on a R.36 Judgment Without Appeal -- it difficult for the petitioner to point to the particular deficiencies.

 

=== THE LIST===

1. 2016-2016 Decisions:

  • Design Patent Damages: Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., No 15-777 (Total profits may be based upon either the entire product sold to consumers or a component);  GVR order in parallel case Systems, Inc. v. Nordock, Inc., No. 15-978.  These cases are now back before the Federal Circuit for the job of explaining when a component

2. Petitions Granted:

3. Petitions with Invited Views of SG (CVSG): 

4. Petitions for Writ of Certiorari Pending:

  • Claim Construction: Wi-LAN USA, Inc., et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 16-913 ("plain and ordinary meaning")
  • Is it a Patent Case?: Boston Scientific Corporation, et al. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, No. 16-470 (how closely must a state court "hew" federal court patent law precedents?) (Appeal from MD State Court)
  • Anticipation/Obviousness: Google Inc., et al. v. Arendi S A.R.L., et al., No. 16-626 (can "common sense" invalidate a patent claim that includes novel elements?) (Supreme Court has requested a brief in response)
  • Anticipation/Obviousness: Enplas Corporation v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., et al., No. 16-867 ("Whether a finding of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 must be supported by findings that each and every element of the subject patent claim is disclosed in the prior art?")
  • Anticipation/Obviousness: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. MacDermid Printing Solutions, L.L.C., No. 16-905 (summary judgment of obviousness proper)
  • Jury Trial: Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, et al., No. 16-712 ("Whether inter partes review ... violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury.") [oilstatespetition]
  • Jury Trial: Nanovapor Fuels Group, Inc., et al. v. Vapor Point, LLC, et al., No. 16-892 (Can a party forfeit a properly demanded trial by jury without an explicit, clear, and unequivocal waiver?)
  • Is it a Patent Case?: Big Baboon, Inc. v. Michelle K. Lee, No. 16-496 (Appeal of APA seeking overturning of evidentiary admission findings during reexamination - heard by Federal Circuit or Regional Circuit?)
  • Laches: Medinol Ltd. v. Cordis Corporation, et al., No. 15-998 (follow-on to SCA); Endotach LLC v. Cook Medical LLC, No. 16-127 (SCA Redux); Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., et al, No. 16-202 (SCA Redux plus TM issue)
  • Eligibility: TDE Petroleum Data Solutions, Inc. v. AKM Enterprise, Inc., dba Moblize, Inc., No. 16-890 (Please reconcile Diehr and Alice)
  • Eligibility: DataTreasury Corporation v. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., No. 16-883 (secondary indicia as part of eligibility analysis).
  • Eligibility: IPLearn-Focus, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 16-859 (evidence necessary for finding an abstract idea)

5. Petitions for Writ of Certiorari Denied or Dismissed:

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

No Appeal for Errors in Instituting IPR

Patent, ,

Achates References v. Apple (Fed. Cir. 2015)

At the conclusion of its Inter Partes Review Proceeding (IPR), the Administrative Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concluded that several claims of Achates' patents were invalid. U.S. Patents No. 5,982,889 (claims 1-4); and No. 6,173,403 (claims 1-12 and 17-19).

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

SAP’s Mandamus Petition Challenging Trump Admin’s Discretionary Denial Policy Shift

Patent

by Dennis Crouch

This post digs into the pending mandamus action In re SAP.  In the case, SAP raises a constitutional challenge to Director Stewart's aggressive discretionary denial approach -- as a violation of both due process and separation of powers.

The IPR statute provides the USPTO Director virtually unreviewable authority to grant or deny inter partes review (IPR) petitions. As part of the initial implementation of the IPR system, then USPTO Director Dave Kappos delegated authority to the PTAB to make those determinations. But, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart has substantially shifted the practice in recent months by substantially expanding the scope of discretionary institution denials -- these are refusals to institute IPRs even when the petition raises a substantial enough  patentability challenge.  Under Director Vidal, one important approach avoid discretionary denial was the Sotera safe harbor, stemming from Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.. In Sotera, the petitioner stipulated that it would not pursue in the parallel litigation any invalidity ground that it could raise in the IPR, thus eliminating most potential overlap in issues between the IPR and any parallel litigation. This broad stipulation (often called a “Sotera stipulation”) became a de facto safe harbor that was then formally embraced by a 2022 memorandum by Director Kathi Vidal.  That memo clearly stated that the the Board would not discretionarily deny institution” in two key situations: (1) when the petitioner agreed to a broad Sotera stipulation (foregoing any invalidity arguments in court that could have been raised in the IPR), despite ongoing parallel litigation, or (2) when the petition presented a “compelling” unpatentability challenge.  This interim guidance operated as binding agency internal policy that curbed Fintiv denials and reassured petitioners that certain bright-line safe harbors would be respected. The result was a substantial decrease in discretionary denials.

Fast forward to 2025 and dramatic policy changes by Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart substantially increasing discretionary denials.  In particular, Stewart rescinded the June 2022 Vidal memo and ultimately reinstated the broader pre-2022 Fintiv framework.  A Sotero stipulation is no longer sufficient to avoid discretionary denials, and Director Stewart has more recently expanded the justifications for discretionary denials, including "settled expectations" where the patent issued 7+ years ago and was not challenged during that interim.

Importantly for SAP, this policy change was applied immediately and retroactively to pending cases. In other words, IPR petitions filed while the Vidal Memo was in effect could still be decided under the new more expansive discretionary denial regime, as long as the PTAB had not yet instituted by the time of the rescission. This is precisely what happened to SAP.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

The Return of Robust Discretionary Denials

Patent

by Dennis Crouch

Last week, Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart granted Director Review and vacated the PTAB's decision instituting several inter partes reviews (IPRs) in Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Stellar, LLC. [IPR2024-01205, -01206, -01207, -01208 Director Review Decision] Stewart's March 28 decision applies the Fintiv factors more aggressively than the Board, signaling a shift toward increased discretionary denials under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). This is a situation where denial seems appropriate in my opinion. The Stellar's infringement lawsuit was filed in August 2024, with Motorola waiting 11 months to file IPR petitions.  District Court Judge Sam Jordan (E.D.Tx) has has already issued Markman orders and parties have filed their summary judgment. A jury trial is set for July 2025.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Apple v. Vidal: APA Compliance in IPR Discretionary Denial Rules

Patent, , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

I have written several times about the Chestek case regarding notice-and-comment requirements under the APA.  A second notice-and-comment case is also pending before the Federal Circuit, potentially having a much greater impact on patent practice.  The case, Apple v. Vidal, focuses on IPR discretionary denials, which the USPTO implemented as policy without any formal rulemaking notice-and-comment.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Obtaining vs. Maintaining: How SoftView v. Apple Reshapes Patentee Estoppel

Patent, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

This is our second discussion of collateral estoppel in as many days.  Yesterday I wrote about Koss v. Bose, a case where the Federal Circuit concluded that a district court's final judgment of invalidity had a preclusive effect on USPTO IPR analysis -- rendering the patentee Koss's appeal moot.   Today's focus is on SoftView v. Apple, and a focus on the USPTO's estoppel regulations as they apply between an IPR and reexamination proceeding. Case No 23-1005 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2024).

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

A few initial thoughts on Loper Bright and the end of Chevron Deference

Patent, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

This is just a first look at how overturning Chevron may impact patent practice. 

In the past, both the USPTO and patent attorneys have largely ignored the larger scope of administrative law, but in recent years USPTO operations have been under tighter control from the White House, and courts have increasingly asked whether the agency is following the rules.  Administrative patent law was truly launched with  the American Invents Act of 2011 and the resulting administrative patent trials by the PTAB -- resulting in hundreds of appeals arguing that the USPTO's procedural approach is an abuse of administrative power.  Importantly, the Supreme Court in Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Com. for Intell. Prop., 579 U.S. 261 (2016) provided the patent office with Chevron deference for its determinations regarding AIA trials, including issues such as its approach to claim construction.  But Chevron has now been overruled, and many are wanting the Federal Circuit to revisit the USPTO approach.

Although I expect that the outcome

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.