It is a slow patent news day, but the Supreme Court offered a big employment discrimination decision in Bostick v. Clayton County Georgia (Supreme Court 2020).

The opinion joins together several cases challenging employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity (transgender) and also sexual orientation (homosexuality). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of an “individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”   Here, the Supreme Court holds that gender identity and sexual orientation both fall with the ambit of “sex” and thus are also protected against discrimination.

Justice Gorsuch wrote the 6-3 majority opinion in textualist form:

Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.

Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands. When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.

Slip Op. Beyond the importance of the holding, the Gorsuch opinion has a few lines that will be quoted and used in future cases:

Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences. Major initiatives practically guarantee them.

Likely, [the legislators] weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years . . . But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.

In dissent, Justices Alito & Kavanaugh each argued that the Gorsuch opinion represented “legislation.” None of the decisions included any substantive discussion of the importance of either (1) the right of potential employees to not be discriminated against on the basis of gender identity and sexuality or (2) the right of employers to discriminate on those bases.   The majority does indicate that it is not a problem to fire an employee for “supporting the wrong sports team” (or it is at least not a violation of Title VII). 

by Dennis Crouch

Ubisoft v. Yousician (Fed. Cir. 2020) (nonprecedential)

Ubisoft (Rocksmith) and Yousician are competitors in the music-lesson software market.  Truthfully, I really enjoy using these tools — their main problem is the added screen time.

In 2018, Ubisoft sued Yousician for infringing its U.S. Patent 9,839,852 covering an “Interactive Guitar Game.”  Before the opening act even started, the district court dismissed the case on failure-to-state-a-claim. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6).  In particular, the court found the claimed invention to be improperly directed to an abstract idea. On appeal, the Federal Circuit has now affirmed.

The claims at issue are directed to functional software stored on a computer drive — “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium with a computer program stored thereon.”  The claimed software is designed “present an interactive game for playing a song on a guitar” by causing the computer processor to take the following steps:

show finger notations on a display device (corresponding to the song to be played by a user);

receive audio input from the guitar that corresponds to the song played by the user;

assess the performance and determining a portion of the performance that should be improved;

change the difficulty level of the fingering notations (based upon the assessment); and

generate a “mini-game” targeted to improving the user’s skills associated with problematic portion.

Human tutors have worked in the music lesson world for a long time. Some folks are self-taught, but it is a pretty big deal to have responsive computer software that actually works for helping learn guitar.  Within the claim, you can see hints of major developments of (1) accurately assessing performance and then (2) motivating learning through gamification.  The problem with the claims is that they are written in broad functional form without actually claiming how the results are accomplished.  In particular, the claims could be transformed by expressing the algorithms for assessing performance; changing difficulty level; or generating the mini game.  Taking all this a step further, the court looked to the specification and found only a description of “these steps in functional terms and not by what process or machinery is required to achieve those functions.”

Without those specifics, the court held that this is just taking a human tutor’s method and saying “do it on a computer.”

[The steps here are] thus no different from the ordinary mental processes of a guitar instructor teaching a student how to play the guitar.

Slip Op.

[Post title comes from Titanic (1997)]

by Dennis Crouch

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Microspherix LLC (Fed. Cir. 2020)

The Federal Circuit here affirms the PTAB IPR final determination that Merck failed to prove the Microspherix claims invalid. US9636401; US9636402; US8821835. Microspherix sued Merck — accusing Merck’s implantable contraceptive of infringing. Merck responded with the three IPR petitions.

The patents here cover implantable therapeutic/diagnostic devices that also have a radiopaque marker that helps find the device after insertion.  As originally filed, the claims were directed to “brachytherapy” — slow release of radioactive agents to treat cancer.  However, the claims were expanded in various continuation applications to broadly claim any “therapeutic, prophylactic, and/or diagnostic agent”

The interesting legal question on appeal has to do with the timing of the asserted prior art reference Zamora. The chart below shows the patent filings in question, and each party argued that the opposing non-provisional applications could not properly claim priority to their respective provisional applications.

Question 1: Does 102(e) (pre-AIA) apply in inter partes review?: 35 U.S.C. 311 limits IPR validity challenges “the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.”  Under 102(e), Zamora’s 2001 non-provisional application became prior art once the resulting patent issued. However, as of its 2001 filing date, the application was neither a “patent or printed publication.”  In its decision here, the court simply assumed that 102(e) prior art counts under the IPR statute (as it has done in prior cases as well) See In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2015), aff’d sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016).  Post-AIA 102(a)(2) does not have the same problem because the statute makes clear that it is the patent / published application that is the prior art.

Question 2: Does Zamora’s provisional date allow for further back-dating of the 102(e) date?: Here, the court explains that Zamora would get the 2000 prior art date of its provisional “if it was entitled to the date of the Zamora provisional.” The court quoted Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) in explaining that the “‘reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the provisional
application provides support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance with’ the written description requirement.”  Here, the court noted that 2001 Zamora claimed three options for placement of a radiopaque medium, but one of those was not present in the provisional application.  That failure of written decription meant that Zamora’s prior art date was 2001, not Jan. 2000.

Question 3: Does Microspherix’s provisional date work as a priority date?: In considering priority claims, the courts generally operate on a claim-by-claim basis.  Thus, in a complex patent family, a single patent may include claims with a variety of priority dates. One problem with our current system is that a patent only tells us the earliest claimed priorty date — not the actual priority date.  The actual date is only realized and determined through ex post litigation.  Here, Merck argued that some of the claims went beyond the provisional disclosure. On appeal, the Federal Circuit disagreed — explaining that the the written description requirement requires the disclosure to “reasonably convey” possession of the invention.

Here, the particular written description argument focused on the length of the claimed strands that were inserted into a body.  The original provisional disclosed a variety of strand lengths, but none of them were longer than 1 cm (10 mm).  Some of the patent claims claim strands without any length limitation, and Merck argued that Microspherix was not in possession of such a broad range of strand lengths. On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the PTAB that the description found int he provisional “adequately supports the claimed strand recited in Microspherix’s patent
claims.”

Federal Circuit Backtracks (A bit) on Prior Art Status of Provisional Applications and Gives us a Disturbing Result

Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv N’ Care, Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

This lawsuit centers on Munchkin’s U.S. Patent 8,739,993 covers a “spillproof drinking container” as well as associated trademark and unfair competition claims.  Munchkin sued and LNC responded with an inter partes review petition. The PTAB cancelled the claims; the Federal Circuited affirmed without opinion (R.36); and Munchkin then dismissed its patent claims in the district court.  By that point, Munchkin had also dropped all of its non-patent claims (dismissed with prejudice).

After Munchkin’s voluntary dismissal, the defendant then asked for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Patent Act) and 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) (Lanham Act).  Both provisions indicate that attorney fees can be awarded to the prevailing party in “exceptional cases.”  Although a district court is given discretion in determining whether a case is “exceptional,” a threshold still exists.

The judge sided with LNC — finding all of the claims “substantively weak” and noting that Munchkin should have known of the weakness. The court then awarded $1.1 million in attorney fees.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit has reversed — holding that the moving party (LNC) had failed to meet its burden of presentation since it “presented nothing to justify” an exceptional case finding.

Here, the trademark and unfair competition claims were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff without any substantial analysis of the issues by the court.  That situation can still lend itself to a fee award. However, the Federal Circuit here ruled that those underlying issues of merit or misbehavior must be “meaningfully considered by the district court.”

LNC failed to make the detailed, fact-based analysis of Munchkin’s litigating positions to establish they were wholly lacking in merit. The district court’s opinion granting a fee award likewise lacked adequate support.

Slip Op.

The appellate panel showed its approach with the patent claim.  Although the patent was found invalid, for exceptional case analysis we begin with an assumption that the patentee had a reasonable basis for believing its patent was valid.  The prevailing party has the burden of then showing that the position was unreasonable.

The relevant question for purposes of assessing the strength of Munchkin’s validity position is not whether its proposed construction is correct; rather the relevant question is whether it is reasonable.

In other words, a prevailing defendant does not receive attorney fees simply for winning the case or by proving the patent invalid.  Fee awards require a second step of proving the patentee’s case was also unreasonable. “That Munchkin’s patent was ultimately held unpatentable does not alone translate to finding its defense of the patent unreasonable.”

No fees.

I told my elder teenage child about Syngenta’s pending copyright case against Willowood involving EPA-required fungicide labeling. Crouch, Copyright Labels and Scope of 271(g), Patently-O (June 1, 2020).

Her graphic response follows:

SCT: Copyrighting Labels and scope of 271(g)

by Dennis Crouch.  NOTE – The patentee here is represented by my former law firm MBHB, including my mentors of mine Dan Boehnen & Grant Drutchas. MBHB is also a financial sponsor of Patently-O. That said, I have not had any communication with MBHB regarding this case. 

British Telecom v. IAC/InteractiveCorp and Tinder, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

In a short nonprecedential decision, the Federal Circuit has again affirmed a FRCP 12(b)(6) dismissal of an infringement lawsuit based upon a finding that the patent improperly claims an abstract idea.  The district court decision was written by Federal Circuit Judge Bryson sitting by designation.

Here, the claims walk through a step-by-step method of using a user’s geo-location to match the user with a short-list of relevant information sources and push those out to the user’s device. U.S. Pat. No. 6,397,040 (1997 priority date).

Steps in claim 1:

A telecommunications system server (i) proactively tracking each individual user, (ii) accessing location data to determine geo-relevant information sources; (iii) dynamically developing a shortlist of information sources that the server deemed relevant to a specific user based on both the user’s geographical location and other personalized factors, and (iv) then pushing that shortlist out to the user.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit found the claims generally directed to providing location-specific information to users — an abstract idea.

We have previously held that tailoring the provision of information to a user’s characteristics, such as location, is an abstract idea.

The court went on to hold that that the claims added nothing new — an inventive step — to take claim 1 across the patent eligibility threshold.  Here, the court only indicates that the claims recite “generic computer hardware.” The court focused only on the tech hardware and court did not particularly reference the patentee’s arguments of dynamic individualized user tracking and new techniques of combining data.

Non-Asserted Claims: In the case, the defendants challenged all 44 claims in the patent, but only discussed claim 1. The district court found all 44 ineligible – writing without further discussion that its analysis of claim 1 “applies equally to all claims of the ’040 Patent.”  On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed, explaining that:

Because British Telecom did not present any “meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim limitation” not found in claim 1, the district court did not err in finding that British Telecom had forfeited its ability to argue that other claims are separately patent eligible.

Slip Op. Quoting Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).  The odd aspect of the court’s citation of Berkheimer is that the patentee had relied upon the same portion of Berkheimer for its argument that claim 1 cannot simply be assumed to be a representative claim if the patentee argues that limitations in the other claims “bear on patent eligibility and never agreed to make claim 1 representative.”  Berkheimer.

= = = =

Note that the district court dismissed this portion of the action and issued final judgment with respect to the ‘040 patent.  The case is ongoing, however, with respect to other asserted patents.

Bozeman Financial LLC v. Federal Reserve Bank (Fed. Cir. 2020)

The Federal Circuit has denied Bozeman’s petition for en banc rehearing in this case – confirming the holding that the Federal Reserve Banks are permitted to petition the PTO for inter partes review proceedings despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Return Mail barring the US Postal Service (USPS) from taking such action.

The AIA indicates that any “person” other than the patentee can petition for inter partes review (IPR).  However, in Return Mail, the Supreme Court held that the U.S. Gov’t does not qualify as a “person” under the statute and thus cannot files such petitions. Since USPS is a branch of the US Gov’t, its petition was improperly filed.

The distinction in Bozeman is that the Federal Reserve banks are not actually governmental institutions but rather a set of somewhat independent banks.  Of course, the various Federal Reserve banks are substantially controlled by the Board of Governors, which is more appropriately termed a branch of the US Government.

The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) is the professional organization of UK Patent attorneys. The organization has released a new discussion paper on invention without the inventor.

Although the current debate is captioned around artificial intelligence (AI) systems, a real underlying focal point is a mechanism to allow for immediate and automatic corporate ownership:

Many in CIPA think patent rights should be available for inventions which represent new, non-obvious technical developments, regardless of how they were created (with or without an AI system).

Others in CIPA prefer to limit patent protection to inventions having a human contribution – in effect, retaining current inventorship requirements, but accepting that an invention created using AI is patentable as long as there is a genuine human contribution.

CIPA DISCUSSION PAPER ON AI AND INVENTORSHIP.

Willowood, LLC v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Docket No. 19-1147 (Supreme Court 2020)

Syngenta sued Willowood for both patent and copyright infringement associated with its generic fungicide compound.  Willowood won at the district court, but that holding was overturned on appeal. Now Willowood is bringing it to the Supreme Court.

The copyright claim: Syngenta product “labels” have many pages of small-type that were registered with the US Copyright office.  Willowood apparently copied the labels for its competing generic product.  Because the fungicides are dangerous chemicals, these labels are required in order to sell the product.

The district court dismissed the copyright claims — holding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) precludes the copyright claim because FIFRA requires a generic product to use “identical or substantially similar” labels that are typically mandated by EPA regulations.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated — holding that statute does not allow thoughtless copying since “the text of FIFRA does not, on its face, require a me-too registrant to copy the label of a registered product.”  Rather, according to the court, the court must look at each copyrightable element of Syngenta’s label and consider whether that portion is “necessary” for the generic approval process.

In its petition for certiorari, Willowood asks for a blanket rule:

Whether, by requiring the EPA to grant expedited review and approval of labels for generic pesticides that are “identical or substantially similar” to the previously approved labels for the same product, Congress intended to preclude claims of copyright infringement with respect to generic pesticide labels.

Question presented in Petition for Certiorari.  This portion of the case could be a nice companion case to Google v. Oracle if certiorari is granted there.

The product label was apparently substantially copied, but without the TM, patent claims, or Syngenta name.

The Patent Claims: A portion of the infringement case turned on the court’s interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 271(g).

(g) Whoever without authority imports into the United States … a product which is made by a process patented in the United States shall be liable as an infringer, if the importation, offer to sell, sale, or use of the product occurs during the term of such process patent.

The district court ruled found no infringement because the product was purchased from a separate entity and that the single-infringer-rule requires “every step of a claimed process to be performed or attributable to a single entity.”

On appeal, the Federal Circuit also rejected this statement of the law — holding that importation is the act of infringement under 271(g) (or sale/offer).  The statute does not require that the accused infringer be the one performed the method.

This [statutory] language makes clear that the acts that give rise to liability under § 271(g) are the importation, offer for sale, sale, or use within this country of a product that was made by a process patented in the United States. Nothing in this statutory language suggests that liability arises from practicing the patented process abroad. Rather, the focus is only on acts with respect to products resulting from the patented process. Thus, because the statutory language as a whole is clear that practicing a patented process abroad cannot create liability under § 271(g), whether that process is practiced by a single entity is immaterial to the infringement analysis under that section.

Syngenta Crop Protec., LLC v. Willowood, LLC, 944 F.3d 1344, 1359–60 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In its petitition, Willowood asks that the Supreme Court step-in here as well:

Whether liability for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) requires that all steps of a patented process must be practiced by, or at least attributable to, a single entity, a requirement that the Supreme Court previously recognized is a prerequisite for infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a) and (b) in Limelight Networks Inc. v. Akamai Technologies Inc.

Petition.