by Dennis Crouch

Team Worldwide Corp v. Intex Recreation Corp. (Fed. Cir 2023)

I was disappointed to see the Federal Circuit’s no-opinion affirmance in this case — affirming the PTAB finding that Team Worldwide’s inflatable airbed invention was unpatentable as obvious.  US9211018. The case peaked my interest because I have been working on a short article focusing on what the courts term “secondary considerations” of obviousness, and the patentee raised substantial evidence of commercial success.   Ultimately the PTAB sided with the patent challenger and and that determination was affirmed on appeal in a R.36 no-opinion judgment.

TWC’s patent claims an “inflatable product,” such as an air mattress, that has a built-in electric pump.  In particular, the electric pump is built into and recessed within the exterior wall of the mattress with just one side of the pump body exposed through the exterior wall. The rest of the pump body is hidden inside the inflatable body and permanently held in place within the exterior wall of the inflatable body. The recessed design keeps the pump partially hidden and out of the way when not in use.

The key prior art references in the case are

• U.S. Patent No. 6,018,960 (1996) (“Parienti”), which discloses an air mattress having an externally-attached solar powered pump.
• U.S. Patent No. 2,493,067 (1945) (“Goldsmith”), which discloses ordinary inner-spring mattress having an attached fan used for temperature control (not inflation).  One embodiment includes “housing arranged within … said mattress and carrying a blower and temperature changing means therein.

This product has been a huge seller via brands such as Intex, Bestway, Boyd, Airtek, Air Cloud, Air Comfort, AirBedz, Altimair, Pittman, and TexSport.  The patentee has sued a number of folks for infringement, and they fought back with this Inter partes review proceeding.

The PTAB initially sided with the patentee, concluding that the claims had not been proven obvious. However, on appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded.

The Board misapplied the obviousness standard, and misapprehended Intex’s argument, when it fixated on whether the prior art literally disclosed Intex’s theory of modifying Parienti only slightly by taking the pump attached to the outside of the mattress and recessing it partially within the mattress. Intex’s argument regarding its proposed modification showed that Parienti was already close to the challenged claims, and only a slight change was needed to satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation of “wholly or partially” recessing a pump. This showing, together with Intex’s showing that numerous references since the late 1800s illustrated prior artisans’ intuitive desire to recess pumps to save space, satisfied Intex’s burden [under KSR]. The Board erred in concluding to the contrary.

Intex (Fed. Cir. 2021).  Thus, in its 2021 decision the Federal Circuit concluded that Intex had satisfied its burden of proving the invention obvious. The only problem though was that the PTAB/CAFed had not yet considered secondary indicia of non-obviousness offered by the patentee.  Thus, remand was needed for the PTAB to address issues it previously declined to reach. Specifically, the PTAB had not addressed Team Worldwide’s evidence on objective indicia of non-obviousness.

On remand, the PTAB flipped its decision, finding the claims obvious despite substantial sales and other secondary considerations.  In its most recent appeal, Team Worldwide argued that the PTAB erred in its assessment of the objective evidence of nonobviousness. Specifically, Team Worldwide argued that the PTAB did not properly weigh the evidence presented regarding commercial success, failure of others, and industry praise.

Regarding commercial success, the PTAB found that Team Worldwide was entitled to only “some, but not considerable, weight in favor of non-obviousness” for the evidence of sales of infringing products, citing the impact of non-patented features on customer demand.  However, Team Worldwide argued that the PTAB ignored evidence that the majority of sales were of products admitted or shown to infringe, which constitutes overwhelming commercial success under Federal Circuit precedent. See Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 655 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

For failure of others, the PTAB concluded that Team Worldwide’s evidence was entitled to only “some weight.” But Team Worldwide argued that the PTAB improperly minimized competitors’ failed attempts to design around the claims, contrary to Federal Circuit precedent finding failure of others entitled to considerable weight. See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Regarding industry praise, the PTAB found Team Worldwide’s evidence was entitled to some, but not considerable weight. However, Team Worldwide contended that the PTAB ignored relevant testimony praising the invention, which should be afforded considerable weight under Federal Circuit law. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc).

In sum, Team Worldwide argued that the PTAB did not properly weigh the objective evidence of nonobviousness as required under controlling Federal Circuit precedent and that this evidence outweighed the PTAB’s finding of obviousness.

Unfortunately, on appeal the Federal Circuit did not take the time to work through these issues but rather simply issued its R.36 Affirmance without opinion.

In addition to the general role of objective indicia, the appeal asked an important question about burdens of proof: “Did the Board err by inappropriately applying a standard of proof that required TWW to prove the validity of its claims in light of secondary considerations when the burden of proof statutorily remains with Petitioner to prove invalidity including in light of secondary considerations?”

I was reading through a recent trial transcript and enjoyed the following historical introduction to the jury system offered by Judge Gilstrap.  He was talking to the potential jurors as voir dire was just about to begin.  — Dennis

= = =

We are engaged or about to be engaged this morning in the selection of a jury in the civil case involving allegations of patent infringement. If you’d indulge me, though, for just a minute, I’d like to briefly review with you at this juncture how we came to have our American civil jury trial system.

If you go back in ancient history, if you start with the first five books in the Old Testament, the Pentateuch, you will find that the ancient Hebrew nation impaneled juries to decide issues of property ownership and property value.

The Greeks, the ancient Greeks, began using a jury system about 1500 B C. The Romans, as with many other things, copied the jury system from the Greeks and implemented a jury system as a part of ancient Rome. And, in fact, it was the Romans that brought the jury system to Europe across the English Channel into what we now know as Great Britain when they conquered Great Britain in the fourth century A.D.

Now, by the 12th century A.D., the jury system had been in place in England, what we now know as England, for 800 years. But in the 12th century A.D., a rather tyrannical king came to the throne of England and his name was King John. And he became embroiled in various disputes with his nobles that nearly led to the verge of a civil war.

One of those disputes was the king’s efforts to do away with the right to trial by jury. Thankfully, the civil war did not take place at that time, and the king and his nobles resolved their many disputes, including this one, by entering into a written agreement that they signed at a place in England called Runnymede. And this agreement that settled all these disputes and laid out a structure for that country going forward, including guarantees of the right to trial by jury, is a document many of you may have heard of called the Magna Carta.

And so you can see, ladies and gentlemen, that our British forefathers who came to this continent as colonists brought the jury trial system with them. And the jury trial system flourished in colonial America for over a hundred years, until another tyrannical king came to the throne of Great Britain. This time his name was King George III. I’m sure you’ve have studied him in American history that led up to our American revolutionary war. And the king, prior to that, became embroiled in many disputes with his American colonists.

One of those disputes was King George III efforts was to do away with or to substantially curtail the right to trial by jury. In fact, ladies and gentlemen, when Thomas Jefferson sat down to write the Declaration of Independence which spells out — it really was a letter to the king telling the king all of the reasons why his subjects in America felt they had no other option but to revolt, declare their independence, and form their own independent nation, one of those reasons set forth by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence for that separation between America and Britain was King George III’s efforts to do away with or curtail substantially the right to trial by jury.

And as you’re all aware, we did revolt against Great Britain, we did form our own independent nation, and shortly thereafter we adopted the governing document for our country, the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States.

And immediately after the Constitution was ratified, there were ten additions or amendments added to the Constitution. Many of the states made it clear they would not vote to ratify the Constitution without a commitment to immediately add these ten amendments. And these ten amendments you’ve all studied about in school. They’re called the Bill of Rights. And in those first ten amendments to the Constitution, you will find the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees, ladies and gentlemen, the right to every American citizen to have their civil disputes resolved through a trial by jury. Those ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, were all ratified in 1791. So since 1791, well over 200 years ago, every American has had a constitutionally guaranteed right to have their civil disputes settled through a trial by jury.

So by being here this morning, with that brief background and overview of how we got to have the jury trial system that we’re implementing today, I want you to realize in the Court’s view every one of you here are doing a very important part to preserve, protect, and defend the right to trial by a jury as part of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. I always tell citizens who appear for jury duty as you have this morning that, in my personal view, the jury duty or jury service rendered by any citizen is the second highest form of public service any American can render for their country. In my personal view, the highest form of public service are those men and women that serve in our armed forces.

Now, later in the process this morning, the lawyers for both sides are going to address you. They’re going to ask you questions. I want you to understand none of them are seeking to inquire unduly into your personal affairs. Said another way, none of them are trying to be nosy and to ask you about things that are not relevant to this case. They will be asking you questions as a part of working with the Court to secure a fair and an impartial jury from among you to hear the evidence in this case. I want you to also understand when the lawyers ask you questions later as a part of this process, there are no wrong answers, as long as the answers you give are full, complete, and truthful. As long as they’re full, complete, and truthful, there are no wrong answers. . .

Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Docket No. 2_21-cv-00316 (E.D. Tex. Aug 23, 2021) (trial transcript day 1).

by Dennis Crouch

Today’s post introduces the new decision in Sisvel International S. A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., No. 22-1493 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2023).  Here, I focus on two distinct issues. The first part has to do with motivation-to-combine, with the decision offering some good language for patent prosecutors attempting to overcome weakly worded office actions.  The second part focuses on means-plus-function language and concludes with my rant about the court’s unduly complicated layers of tests.  The case also upholds a single-reference obviousness holding, but I didn’t write about that portion of the decision.

Justifying a Motivation to Combine

In the IPR, the PTAB cancelled some claims of Sisvel’s U.S. Patent No. 6,529,561 based upon a single-reference obviousness determination (Chen; WO 99/26371), but sided with the patentee as to other claims. The Board particularly found no motivation to combine One of the key reasons was because of a lack of motivation to combine Chen with other GSM references.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed these findings.  US patent law has a long history of debate with regard to combination claims, with the Supreme Court’s most recent pronouncement in KSR reaffirming its old pronouncement that a combination of known elements is likely obvious absent some justification for deciding otherwise.  KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).

[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. . . . The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.

Id.  Referencing Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969); and Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950).

Despite this lower bar, IPR petitioners still have the burden of at least explaining why a skilled artisan would have been be motivated to combine various references to form the claimed invention.  This is so, even if that explanation is simply a showing of how its case fits the model set out in KSR.

Here, however, the Board concluded that the IPR petitioner had failed that low burden.  In particular, in this case the petitioner offered “reasons to combine [that] were merely assertions that the references were analogous art, which, without more, is an insufficient articulation for motivation to combine.”  Rather, as KSR suggests, the known elements need to be combined “according to known methods” and yield only “predictable results.”  Although the petitioner might have recited these legal conclusions in its petition, the Board found them too conclusory and lacking in clarity.  Rather, the Board indicated that a proper motivation to combine analysis would explain how the primary reference is modified by the GSM reference.  As I mentioned above, this is a fairly low standard under KSR, but the Board explained that the petition failed to explain: “what reference is the primary versus secondary reference, what elements are missing from the primary reference, what elements should be added from the secondary reference to reach the claimed invention, or why those particular elements would be obvious to add.”

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lack of motivation to combine – holding that “we cannot fault the Board for being at a loss in trying to decipher Cross-Appellants kitchen-sink of unclear and confusing motivation-to-combine arguments.”

Sisvel’s ’561 patent, owned by Sisvel, relates to improving channel coding techniques in transmitting data for radio systems. Channel coding adds redundant data bits to a data block before transmission to allow a receiver to better detect and correct errors caused by noise or other interference. The invention particularly employs “link adaptation” and “incremental redundancy” to optimize channel coding. Link adaptation allows the transmitter to adjust the code rate between data block transmissions by changing the number of redundant bits. Incremental redundancy allows the receiver to combine original and retransmitted data blocks to improve decoding.

The Federal Circuit’s affirmance on motivation to combine could be useful for patent prosecutors facing obviousness rejections. While the explanatory burden on an IPR petitioner is higher on the IPR petitioner than on a patent examiner, prosecutors may find Sisvel helpful in arguing an examiner provided inadequate rationale for combining references. Patent applicants could cite Sisvel in contending an office action improperly combines references without particularly explaining: (1) the primary and secondary references; (2) missing elements supplied by the secondary reference; (3) why a skilled artisan would have looked to the secondary reference to fill gaps in the primary reference; (4) why adding the secondary reference’s teaching would yield predictable results; etc. Although Sisvel arose in the context of invalidity allegations by an IPR petitioner, the motivation to combine principles apply equally during prosecution. By requiring examiner explanations meet KSR’s standards, applicants may succeed in overcoming some obviousness rejections.

= = =

The Noah Test as One Layer of Means Plus Function Analysis

The case also includes an interesting discussion about a means-plus-function limitation found in some of the claims, and the question of whether the claim is indefinite.  As you know, a claimed means plus function limitation is interpreted as covering the corresponding structures disclosed within the specification along with their equivalents.  35 U.S.C. 112(f).  But we have a special null case — if no such structures are disclosed then the Federal Circuit has ruled that the associated claim is automatically invalid as indefinite.  This gets a bit trickier for inter partes review proceedings since the petitioner is not permitted to challenge claims based upon indefiniteness. In Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 801 (Fed. Cir. 2021), the Federal Circuit instructed the PTAB to take the following approach to potentially indefinite MPF claims:

1. Impossibility: Determine that the claim is indefinite and then decide whether the indefiniteness prevents a prior art analysis (the “impossibility” conclusion); or
2. Possibility: Explain why it is able to construe the claim and resolve the prior art issues despite potential indefiniteness.

In either case, the PTAB needs to make some moves toward determining whether the limitation includes sufficient structural support in the specification.

Here, Claim 5 of the ’561 patent requires a “means for detecting a need for retransmission.”  The specification does not specify a particular algorithm to accomplish this goal, but does disclose protocols like “ARQ” and “hybrid ARQ.”  In situations like this, the Federal Circuit has created an unduly complicated framework  to determine whether expert testimony can be used to fill gaps in the structural explanation of algorithmic MPF claims. Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012). At step one, the Noah framework specifically asks whether any algorithm is disclosed.  If no algorithm then no expert. In Noah step two, where an algorithm is disclosed but arguably inadequate, its sufficiency is judged based on a skilled artisan’s perspective and expert testimony is permitted to support the conclusions. Id.

Here, the PTAB found that references to “ARQ” and “Hybrid ARQ” were not algorithms.  On appeal the Federal Circuit found error in that conclusion. In particular, the court held the PTAB erred by not evaluating the protocol names under the step two framework. The court explained that even “brief disclosures” may warrant assessing expert views on their import to a skilled artisan. Because the specification explicitly referenced protocols, it was not wholly devoid of structure. The court vacated and remanded for the PTAB to conduct a step two analysis, including evaluating expert testimony.

This holding provides useful guidance for assessing computer-implemented means-plus-function claims. The Federal Circuit appropriately avoided rigid formalism, recognizing algorithm disclosures need not detail every step and by recognizing that  reference to commercially available tools can satisfy the structural requirement of 112(f).  Still, I would have simplified this approach and simply held that the claim covered the disclosed protocols. After Sisvel, courts evaluating software means-plus-function limitations must carefully walk the line between Noah’s step one and two.

Conclusions: The means-plus-function doctrine was originally designed to allow patent applicants to claim an element by the functions it performs rather than reciting structure, with the goal of providing a simple and flexible claiming technique. However, as evidenced by the complicated Noah framework sitting atop Williamson and Donaldson, Sisvel’s nuanced analysis of whether disclosed protocols qualify as algorithms, means-plus-function claims have become one of the more complex and controversial doctrines in patent law. The current morass of rules, exceptions, and expert testimony required to assess even basic computer-implemented means-plus-function claims suggests the doctrine has veered far from its original purpose. In my view, courts should seek to simplify the rules and refocus on whether the specification provides sufficient information to allow a skilled artisan to understand the boundaries of the functional claim element.

= = =

• Sisvel International S.A.: Represented by Robert Gajarsa, Timothy Devlin, and Neil Benchell of Devlin Law Firm.
• Sierra Wireless, Inc.: Represented by Kourtney Merrill of Perkins Coie LLP and Amanda Tessar.
• Telit Cinterion: Represented by Guy Yonay of Pearl Cohen and Kyle Auteri.
• Opinion: Authored by Judge Chen and joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judge Clevenger.

by Dennis Crouch

The Supreme Court declined to hear an important patent eligibility case on October 2nd, denying certiorari in CareDx v. Natera. This leaves in place a Federal Circuit ruling that invalidated CareDx’s patents on its method for detecting organ transplant rejection.

The patents at issue covers breakthrough diagnostic technique using cell-free DNA to non-invasively detect organ transplant rejection. For over a decade, scientists had tried unsuccessfully to use cell-free DNA for this purpose. The key innovation was applying high-throughput DNA sequencing and identifying SNP thresholds to make the technique clinically useful. However, the lower courts ruled the patents invalid under the judicial exception to patent eligibility for natural phenomena.

The Supreme Court’s denial means this important legal issue remains unsettled. The Court’s Mayo/Alice framework for patent eligibility has been heavily criticized for over-invalidating diagnostic patents based on natural phenomena. But the Federal Circuit felt bound to apply it to CareDx’s patents. Justice Kavanaugh dissented from the cert denial, signaling his view that the Court should refine or reconsider its eligibility framework as applied to diagnostic patents.

For the medical diagnostics industry, the outcome is disappointing. These types of pioneering diagnostic techniques often require massive investment to develop clinically. Without reliable patent protection, investors may turn away from funding this research and scientists may avoid commercializing it. As a result, patients may never benefit from potentially life-saving tests.

Looking ahead, the eligibility framework will likely need to be addressed by the Supreme Court or Congress. Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent signals openness of at least one Justice, with four typically required to grant certiorari. Congress is also considering steps to revamp section 101 of the Patent Act, but action is unlikely prior to the 2024 election.

One eligibility petition is still pending in the case of ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc., No. 23-245.  ChromaDex is asking the court to rationalize its natural phenomenon jurisprudence from Myriad with its abstract idea and law of nature jurisprudence from Alice/Mayo respectively.  Does the same two part test apply to products of nature?

by Dennis Crouch

The Copyright Act has a seemingly simple three year statute of limitations:

No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.

17 U.S.C. 507(b). It is somewhat surprising then that the Supreme Court has just granted certiorari in a case asking whether the statute “precludes retrospective relief for acts that occurred more than three years before the filing of a lawsuit.” Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, 22-1078 (Supreme Court 2023). At first glance the answer appears to be clearly “no,” but in the case, the Eleventh Circuit sided with the copyright holder by concluding that the rule permits plaintiffs to recover damagers for earlier acts.

The particular dispute focuses on when the “claim accrued” — with the appellate court holding that the three year timeline does not begin until the owner “knows or has reason to know she was injured.”  This so called “discovery rule” has been implied into many statutes of limitation, has been rejected for some doctrines.  When it decided the important laches case of Petrella v. MGM, the Supreme Court highlighted that “[t]he overwhelming majority of courts use discovery accrual in copyright cases.” 572 U.S. 663 (2014). Still, without directly rejecting the discovery rule Petrella also stated that copyright damages are available “running only three years back from the date the complaint was filed.”

In the Subsequent case of SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 954 (2017), the Supreme Court provided further input on the discovery rule — although still not deciding directly is applicability.

According to First Quality, § 286 of the Patent Act is different because it “turns only on when the infringer is sued, regardless of when the patentee learned of the infringement.”

This argument misunderstands the way in which statutes of limitations generally work. First Quality says that the accrual of a claim, the event that triggers the running of a statute of limitations, occurs when “a plaintiff knows of a cause of action,” but that is not ordinarily true. As we wrote in Petrella, “[a] claim ordinarily accrues when [a] plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action.” While some claims are subject to a “discovery rule” under which the limitations period begins when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the injury giving rise to the claim, that is not a universal feature of statutes of limitations. And in Petrella, we specifically noted that “we have not passed on the question” whether the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations is governed by such a rule.

The SCA Hygiene quote clarifies that statutes of limitations generally start running upon accrual of a claim, not discovery of the injury. The discovery rule that starts the clock upon discovery of the injury is an exception to the norm.  The presumption then appears to be that the discovery rule will only be applied to a statute of limitations if there is some particular  statutory interpretation reason to do so.

Petitioner’s key argument is that the 11th Circuit’s application of the discovery rule to allow damages beyond the 3-year lookback period conflicts with statements by the Supreme Court in Petrella v. MGM that recovery is limited to three years back from the date the complaint was filed.  The responsive briefing pointed to a number of litigation issues, to suggest the case was a bad vehicle for certiorari.  On the merits, they also focused on the damages provision, Section 504, that contains no 3-year limitation and also noted that Petrella‘s statements are not controlling because that case only held that laches does not apply as a defense; It did not limit damages to 3 years.  In its brief the Chamber of Commerce warns against the discovery rule.  The organization represents often-sued businesses and does not want to see a transdoctrinal nationwide discovery rule for federal courts that would extend the statutes of limitations against its members.

by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a PTAB IPR decision invalidating claims of Masimo U.S. Patent RE47,218 (“the ’218 patent”) as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Masimo Corp. v. Sotera Wireless, Inc., 2022-1415 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2023) (nonprecedential). The Federal Circuit panel of Judges Prost, Wallach, and Chen determined (1) the Board correctly construed the disputed claim terms and (2) its obviousness ruling was supported by substantial evidence.  Id. (authored by Judge Wallach).

The case is yet another example of a patentee’s broad claim language and attempts to avoid limitations coming back to bite during IPR proceedings.  Unlike a decade ago, patent prosecutors are operating in today’s AIA world where IPR challenges have become commonplace.  The old model of broad-as-possible clearly has deficiencies.  To withstand post-issuance validity challenges, prosecutors should carefully craft claims early on with an eye toward narrower scope and avoiding abstraction even if you are doing enough to satisfy the USPTO on 112 and 101. Prosecutors can take full advantage of the 20 ‘free’ claims to pursue both broad and narrow protection. In the case here, the patent owner may have benefited from prosecuting more specific claims early on, as the disclosure arguably supported narrower alternatives that an IPR petitioner would have struggled to knock out.

The ’218 patent relates to an adaptive alarm system for use with pulse oximetry sensors in patient monitoring.  A common problem is nuisance alarms generated when oxygen saturation briefly goes outside preset limits. This patent aims to improve alarm management by making the thresholds adaptive based on the patient’s current SpO2 levels and trends. Basically, an alarm threshold is calculated based upon a patient’s recent SpO2 levels rather than based upon an objective predetermined standard.  Key adaptive alarm functions are:

1. The alarm threshold changes over time based on the patient’s recent SpO2 level
2. But, the threshold offset shrinks as SpO2 drops closer to a minimum – making it more sensitive to drops when the patient’s readings are already low.

Sotera petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) challenging the claims as obvious over a combination of prior art references including U.S. Patent Nos. 7,079,035 (“Bock”) and 6,597,933 (“Kiani”), along with PCT Publication WO 2009/093159 (“Woehrle”). The Board instituted review and ultimately ruled all instituted claims obvious based on these references.

On appeal, Masimo first argued the Board misconstrued the claim limitation “trigger a second alarm based on . . . exceeding the second alarm threshold” in finding obviousness over Bock/Kiani. The Board had treated the requirement as a “condition precedent”, but ruled that the claim does not require that exceeding the threshold directly triggers the alarm.  On appeal, the court found this consistent with the plain claim language under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and the specification.

We agree with the Board that the plain meaning of “based on” and “threshold” in claim 1 are both broad, and this broad claim language does not exclude the use of additional alarm thresholds or other conditions to trigger an alarm. Further, claim 5 depends from claim 1 and provides for an additional condition in the form of a time delay, and Masimo does not dispute that the meaning of “based on” allows for additional conditions for triggering an alarm. We also agree with the Board that disclosure of an embodiment in the specification that does not include any additional thresholds or conditions for triggering an alarm does not support reading such a limitation into the claim.

This intrinsic evidence thus supports construing “based on” and “threshold” broadly — a ruling that was key to upholding the Board’s obviousness determination.

Masimo also challenged the Board’s interpretation of “predetermined” in certain claims as referring to a predetermined formulaic calculation rather than a fixed value. Again, the Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s construction as entirely consistent with the adaptive alarm thresholds described in the claims.

Ben Katzenellenbogen from Knobbe argued for the patentee appellant. Rudy Telscher from Husch took the other side. The IPR case here relates to the parallel litigation still pending in Masimo Corp. v. Sotera Wireless, Inc. and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd., Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-01100-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal.). In that case, the patentee Masimo asserted nine patents, all of which were challenged in IPR petitions.  The PTAB granted 8 of those and cancelled all the challenged claims.  Parallel appeals are still pending in several of the others.  The infringement litigation has been stayed pending outcome of the IPRs.

by Dennis Crouch

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), International Trade Administration (ITA), and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have extended the deadline for public comments on their request for information on standards and intellectual property. The new deadline is November 6, 2023.

On September 11, 2023, the three agencies jointly published a request for comments in the Federal Register seeking input from stakeholders on issues related to standards and intellectual property, especially as they impact small and medium enterprises in critical and emerging technologies.  This request complements a broader NIST request published on September 7, 2023 seeking comments on implementing the U.S. Government National Standards Strategy for Critical and Emerging Technologies. Both requests were originally due on October 11, 2023.

Specific topics of interest include:

• Participation of U.S. firms in international technical standards development
• Ability of U.S. companies to adopt technical standards to grow and compete globally
• Issues small and medium enterprises face regarding technical standards and intellectual property
• Fostering standardization of critical and emerging technologies
• Policies related to standard essential patents (SEPs)

Technical standards play a critical role in ensuring interoperability and have potential benefits of both enhancing competition and driving innovation.  Innovator companies can compete on implementation, quality, features, and price rather than controlling a proprietary technology that locks-in users. The standard interface becomes a platform for market competition.  For nascent technologies, early standards adoption can help coordinates efforts to advance the state of the art.

The IP side of standards development and adoption can be fairly complex.  Patents that cover technologies essential to implementing a standard are known as standard essential patents (SEPs). If not properly licensed, SEPs can enable patent holders to exert undue market power across entire industries. This highlights a need to balance rights of patent holders with obligations to license SEPs on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.  Although I am not a fan of forced participation, there is a rationale for considering policy options to incentivize licensing of SEPs on FRAND terms, and discouraging patent holder from laying in wait until standards develop. For example, measures that increase transparency around patent declarations, licensing terms, and availability of dispute resolution may help balance good faith participation and voluntary consensus in standards bodies. Improved patent search and analysis can also help ensure that all SEPs are captured within the pool.

On the international level, standards and intellectual property issues are intricately linked to U.S. global competitiveness, especially in emerging technology areas.  Divergent national/regional approaches can disadvantage U.S. technology companies as they expand globally — assuming growth in that direction.  At the same time, those approaches open the door to price discrimination (and avoiding arbitrage) by selling products that only work within certain regional standards.

Submitting Comments:

To submit comments on the joint USPTO, ITA, and NIST request, refer to the Federal Register notice published on September 11, 2023. Comments can be submitted electronically via www.regulations.gov.

Guest post by: Dr. Paola Cecchi Dimeglio, Chair of the Executive Leadership Research Initiative for Women and Minorities Attorneys at Harvard Law School and Harvard Kennedy School

(This post is part of a series by the Diversity Pilots Initiative, which advances inclusive innovation through rigorous research. The first blog in the series is here and resources from the first conference of the initiative are available here. – Jason)

Virtual reality, AI chatbots, and other emerging technologies are fueling a drive to innovate, improve, and patent new products and services that are inclusive from the beginning. This goal is not only morally right but also economically essential; inclusive innovation has become a multibillion-dollar necessity. However, engaging diverse inventors at large technology companies still presents layers of challenges.

In 2022, the USPTO reported a 32% growth in the number of U.S. counties where women patented over the 30-year span from 1990 to 2019; in 2019, over 20% of patents issued included at least one woman inventor; similar data is not available for minority inventors.

Perhaps more than at any time in their history, technology companies are under pressure to achieve patentable breakthroughs. One factor driving the urgency of innovation is the need to create and commercialize products and services that meet the promises of emerging technologies. Once the stuff of sci-fi and fantasy, the Metaverse and humanlike generative AI have taken substantial steps out of movies and literature. Virtual and augmented reality has gone mainstream, and the premier generative AI chatbot, ChatGPT, set user records shortly after it was released late in 2022. Having sampled the Metaverse and prompted chatbots to pour out pages, the public wants more, and they want it now.

Technology giants often partner with smaller, specialized businesses for the purpose of achieving technological breakthroughs. These collaborative ventures may produce new platforms, result in extensive IP development, and spawn multiple families of products. Most often, they fail.

In the current race to innovate, businesses are looking within their ranks for beneficial patentable ideas. It makes sense, as employees at all levels of a company have a close relationship with that organization’s products, patents, and aspirations. Leaders realize that the next big invention can emerge from unexpected quarters at their businesses, and many have begun casting the net as wide as possible.

This time around is different. Innovation has to be highly inclusive at the outset. The environments, cultures, policies, and dynamics of virtual worlds have to operate without traditional biases. And AI has to think and decide without the incidents of discrimination that are dragging many businesses into court. It’s about the bottom line. A Metaverse that is not tuned to highly diverse users cannot achieve its full value potential, estimated at $936.6 billion by 2030. To realize these earnings, inclusion has to be a real part of the innovation process.

Achieving this end at a company means having all perspectives involved in the inventing and patenting processes. Businesses’ all-hands invitations to inclusive innovation have come up against the history of who is more likely to file patents and who is not. Some organizations realize that their own culture has long perpetuated the stereotypes of who is an inventor. Most businesses are running up against the default assumptions that they have cultivated for decades. Some have invested significantly in changing the status quo. Many businesses, including prominent technology companies, have signed a Diversity Pledge and have committed to sharing many of their outcomes.

Other businesses and one significant technology company, in particular, have taken a more scientific approach to increasing the number of underrepresented inventors in their innovation pipeline.

The goal of eliciting innovation from all groups and quarters of the company, truly inclusive innovation, meant getting people from underrepresented groups to see themselves as people who file patents. The process commenced with a baseline assessment of the experiences that employees had with the company’s patent process and related staff. As a result of data analytics and employee interviews, the company reshaped how inventors interact with patent staff and resources. It also launched an internal campaign aimed at redefining who is an inventor.

On a specific level, interviews with minority employees, including those who had filed at least one patent, revealed an unexpected barrier. Part of the language of the invitation to share ideas so that they could be assessed for patentability was offending underrepresented innovators. This language was modified after the initial interviews.

In this case, the use of the term “harvesting” in reference to gathering ideas was being applied to brainstorming sessions. Many individuals across multiple racial, gender, and ethnic identities were offended by the choice of words and the suggested lack of sensitivity. The true number of inventors who hesitated due to past terminology will remain unknown. However, the shift toward inclusive and belonging language is now captivating and involving everyone.

Businesses that are innovating to find and patent the next big thing can examine their own systems of gathering ideas from their people. After hearing from their innovators, they will likely make changes to the systems and staff that help their employees file and prosecute patents on behalf of the organization. Internal education processes and peer-to-peer information sharing bolster engagement.  But even with everything in place and everyone invited to share their ideas, the language of the invitation can create a barrier.

Historically, only certain employees have been invited into the mystery of patenting. The broadly accepted idea has been that patenting is for a limited segment of employees. Now, companies are tasked with dismantling the exclusion and elitism they built. This time, their earnings depend on it.

Three takeaways:

1. There is a need for inclusive innovation in emerging technologies both ethically and economically. However, involving diverse inventors in large tech companies presents challenges.
2. Innovation must be highly inclusive at the outset. To do so, tech companies should have all perspectives involved in the inventing and patenting processes.
3. The language of the invitation matters. Historically, only certain employees have been invited to become involved in patenting. The language should not only be inclusive and welcoming in itself but should also be directed towards all potential employees. To do so, companies should dismantle the exclusion and elitism they had built.

If you find this insight compelling and want to stay informed on the latest developments, sign up for the DPI research updates today!

By: Jordana R. Goodman Assistant Professor at Chico-Kent College of Law

(This post is part of a series by the Diversity Pilots Initiative, which advances inclusive innovation through rigorous research. The first blog in the series is here and resources from the first conference of the initiative are available here. – Jason)

According to the National Association for Law Placement, female equity partners in law firms comprised about 23% of the total equity partner population in the United States in 2022.  Women made up more than half of all summer associates and have done so since 2018.  Representation among intellectual property lawyers parallels this trend, with women representing about 22% of all equity partners and over 50% of all summer associates in 2019. Although there has been steady progress in hiring women attorneys at junior levels, there have not been similar increases in partner retention in the past thirty years.  NALP called the partner level increases “abysmal progress,” and suggested that one reason for this failure is that “little work has been done to examine and change the exclusionary practices that create inequalities.”

If presence was the only obstacle to creating a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive legal environment, the pipeline of diverse junior associates would have begun to significantly shift the partner demographics at law firms across the country.  However, because the environment within a law firm can be unfriendly to non-Caucasian, non-cisgender male, non-heterosexual lawyers, people who identify as such tend to leave legal practice at higher rates. More must be done to remedy inequities within the day-to-day practices to create an equitable legal environment.

As detailed in my study, Ms. Attribution: How Authorship Credit Contributes to the Gender Gap, allocation of credit on public-facing legal documents is not equitable. When the senior-most legal team member signs documents on behalf of their legal team, they are erasing the names of associates from the record.  This widespread practice, combined with the constant perceived differences in status between male and female colleagues as well as biases related to accents, can lead to negative consequences and unequal attribution for women, people of color, and LGBTQ+ individuals. “Under-attribution of female practitioners falsely implies that women do less work, are more junior, and do not deserve as much credit as their male colleagues” and such practices must change.

Not every attribution decision is a social decision, where a partner has a complete choice to allocate credit to associates within a firm.  Government forms and procedures can prevent equitable attribution of all practitioners.  For example, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) requires applicants to submit paperwork accompanying a patent application, but this paperwork does not allow for equitable attribution of everyone who wrote the patent application.

Specifically, the cover sheet of a provisional patent application prominently features five distinct lines dedicated to naming inventors, with an additional prompt allowing for the inclusion of more inventors on a separate sheet if needed. However, there is a stark contrast when it comes to attributing practitioners; there’s merely one designated line for practitioner correspondence and notably, no space provided to credit practitioners responsible for composing the application.  Similarly, the Application Data Sheet (ADS)—a form that accompanies a non-provisional application—initially provides only one line to list a corresponding practitioner. Any additional lines for other practitioners necessitate manual addition, highlighting a consistent limitation in acknowledging multiple contributors in the practitioner field.

With the exception of solo practitioner-composed applications, most patent applications are written as a collaboration, with both junior and senior practitioners participating in the written exercise.  However, due to prevailing norms within law firms, where gender representation disparities are especially pronounced at senior partnership levels, and the social dynamics between junior and senior practitioners, paperwork is more frequently signed by male practitioners than their female counterparts.  Not only are women’s names disproportionately concealed from the public record, but also the credit gap increases as attorneys continue to practice.  As Figure 1 below shows, of the highly-credited patent practitioners identified from 2016-2020, over 90% were male.The importance of this credit – signatures at the bottom of paperwork accompanying patent applications – should not be underestimated.  Credit serves as a reward and incentive for future work, as well as a humanizing function – linking work product “to the reality of human endeavor.”  Credit in this context can influence client acquisition, a sense of belonging in the firm, career advancement, and achieving notoriety. Therefore, the USPTO should consider amending their paperwork to ensure teams of practitioners can all receive credit for their contributions to the patent application.

First, the USPTO could add more signature lines on all patent application paperwork.  In addition to corresponding practitioners, practitioners who composed a substantial amount of the patent application could also receive public attribution. The USPTO could expand the forms, such that associates who have not passed the patent bar could still receive credit for their work.  Furthermore, the USPTO could compose a bulletin for firms, explaining the importance of credit for associates and showing ways that multiple practitioners could receive credit on office action responses, issue fee sheets, and other documentation.  Finally, the USPTO could track attribution to determine if teams are taking advantage of the increased attribution opportunities and if the opportunities increase female attribution and retention.

Three main takeaways:

1. Persistent Gender Disparities: Despite steady progress in hiring women attorneys at junior levels and women constituting over 50% of summer associates since 2018, there have not been similar increases in partner retention in the past thirty years. Women only hold around 23% of equity partner positions in U.S. law firms, highlighting unaddressed, systemic inequalities and exclusionary practices.
2. Inequitable Attribution in Legal Documents: The current practice of senior-most legal team members signing documents conceals the contributions of associates, leading to unequal attribution. This under-attribution particularly affects female practitioners, people of color, and LGBTQ+ individuals, implying they do less work and do not deserve as much credit as their male counterparts. This iniquity in credit allocation on public-facing legal documents serves to reinforce gender gaps and hinders career advancement, client acquisition, and a sense of belonging within the firm.
3. Proposed Amendments to USPTO Procedures: To address inequity, USPTO should revise procedures and forms to facilitate equitable attribution for all patent application contributors and to stress the importance of credit, assessing the impact on attribution and retention dynamics, especially for women.

If you find this insight compelling and want to stay informed on the latest developments, sign up for the DPI research updates today!

by Dennis Crouch

In most patent cases, the parties jointly agree to a system limiting the publication of confidential case information and typically file a stipulated motion for protective order seeking the a judicial order requiring the parties to comply. One problem with this approach is that it goes against our traditional notion that courts and court filings are open and accessible to the public. The purpose of open court records is to promote transparency and accountability in the judicial system. Public access to court records allows the public (including journalists) to monitor the work of the courts and acts as a check on the judicial process. However, the public is not a party to the lawsuit and so typically is not asked for input on protective orders. Sealing records and holding proceedings behind closed doors undermines public confidence in the courts and can create a perception that courts or the parties may be engaged in undisclosed improper or illegal activities. While there are valid reasons to keep certain information confidential in some cases, such as protecting trade secrets or personal information, restricting public access should be approached carefully and narrowly to balance the interests of the parties with the public’s right to open courts.

A recent court order in the case of Woodstream Corp. v. Nature’s Way Bird Products, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-294, 2023 WL 6146706 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 20, 2023), demonstrates the balancing act between a party’s interest in keeping information confidential and the public’s interest in open court records.

In its infringement case, Woodstream asserted two hummingbird feeder patents against competitor Nature’s Way.  US11147246 and US11033007.  The parties filed a joint motion for a protective order to keep confidential information secret during the pretrial discovery process. The defendant, Nature’s Way, then moved to file its claim construction brief under seal because it referred to documents designated “confidential” by the plaintiff, Woodstream. The confidential documents were emails by Woodstream employees giving opinions on the scope and interpretation of Woodstream’s patents at issue in the case.  Of note, these emails had been disclosed during discovery since they were not privileged communications with attorneys, but rather discussions among business and engineering employees.  Woodstream described the emails as follows:

The designated emails contain discussions between members of the Woodstream Engineering department, including Paul McQuillan, the SVP Research, Development, and Engineering regarding Woodstream’s

(1) approach to pursuing patent infringement claims against competitors, and

(2) an explanation of arguable ways competitors could avoid Woodstream’s patents.

These discussions involve both in-suit patents as well as an uninvolved patent. The public disclosure of this communication would disclose a roadmap to competitors for avoiding Woodstream’s patents and knowledge of Woodstream’s resources and strategy in protecting its patent rights.

Woodstream argued this email string constituted a trade secret and should remain sealed. But the court disagreed. Applying Ohio trade secrecy law, the court found the email did not actually contain trade secrets. To qualify as a trade secret, information must: (1) have independent economic value from being secret, and (2) be subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. The court found Woodstream failed to show how its employee’s opinions on patent scope had independent economic value. Nor did Woodstream provide evidence showing efforts it took to keep the email secret.

The court then weighed the public’s interest in access to court records against any interest Woodstream had in keeping the email secret. The public interest in open records is strong because it allows the public to monitor the workings of the court system. As the Sixth Circuit has stated, “[u]nlike information merely exchanged between the parties, ‘[t]he public has a strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court record.'” See Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016).  Sealing records can undermine public confidence in the courts, as “sealing court records and proceedings ‘is generally impermissible’ due to the ‘strong presumption in favor of openness’ of court records.” See In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., 927 F.3d 919, 938-39 (6th Cir. 2019)).

The court found the public interest outweighed Woodstream’s interests because the email was directly relevant to the central issues in the case regarding claim construction and patent scope. “Lubic’s email is directly relevant to adjudicating Woodstream’s patent infringement and claim construction claims.”  Therefore, public access to the email through the court record was warranted.

The court also ordered that any future motions to seal must be accompanied by both: (1) a motion explaining why sealing is appropriate, and (2) a public redacted version of the document.

You can now read the email chain for yourself: Woodstream Letter Public Version.

Some important take-aways from this case:

• Businesses often treat many aspects of their business and confidential.  However, business confidential information does not necessarily rise to the level of importance required for a court to agree to filings under seal.
• Opinions and analysis on scope and validity of your own patents likely do not qualify as trade secrets, even if useful to competitors. There must be independent economic value from secrecy and reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy.  In addition, it is important to note that these same emails may have been protected as privileged if they had been done as part of an attorney investigation into the potential lawsuit. Here though, no attorneys were  even involved in the email conversation.
• Once discovery materials reach the court record, the presumption of public access becomes very difficult to overcome. Only more compelling interests like trade secrets justify sealing records.  This is a distinguishing point between the regular out-of-court discovery process (where many items can be kept secret).  Once the evidence is brought to court, it will likely become public.
• If you want to keep aspects of a filing secret, be prepared to make particularized showings on a line-by-line basis when seeking to seal court records. Andm be prepared to file public versions containing redactions rather than outright sealing court documents.

by Dennis Crouch

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a finding by  Western District of Texas Judge Alan Albright that certain claims in two patents owned by WSOU Investments LLC were invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112.  WSOU Invs., LLC v. Google LLC, Nos. 22-1066, -1067 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2023).  Although the decision is designated nonprecedential, it includes a number of interesting lessons on the requirements for definiteness and disclosure of corresponding structure under 35 U.S.C. §112.

The Technology at Issue

The first patent at issue was U.S. Patent No. 7,304,563 (“the ‘563 patent”), entitled “Alarm clock.” This patent claimed an alarm clock feature for mobile phones where the alarm involved initiating a connection to another device over a network to cause that device to signal the alarm.

Claim 16 is is recited in means-plus-function form:

issuing means for issuing an alert when the current time matches the alert time by initiating a connection to another communication terminal over a network so as to cause that other terminal to locally signal the incidence of the connection incoming thereto

‘563 Patent, claim 16. Claim 16 is clearly written in means-plus-function form, but the focus of the appeal was on claim 1, which was substantially similar.  The key difference though is that the claim 1 limitation was directed to “an alerting unit” rather than an “issuing means:”

an alerting unit configured to issue an alert when the current time matches the alert time, the alerting unit being configured to issue the alert by initiating a connection to another communication terminal over a network so as to cause that other terminal to locally signal the incidence of the connection incoming thereto

‘563 Patent, claim 1.  Judge Albright found both claims to be in means-plus-function form and the Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal.

In patent law, “means-plus-function” (MPF) claiming is a way to define an element of a patent claim by the function it performs rather than by its specific structure. This type of claiming is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), which allows patentees to express a claim limitation as “a means or step for performing a specified function.” When a claim is interpreted under § 112(f), the claim limited to the specific structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof.   This limitation to actually disclosed structure (and equivalents) severely limits the scope of MPF claims that often seem much broader when read in the abstract.  But, the beauty of MPF analysis is that it is designed to preserve the validity of claims that might be unduly indefinite, not enabled, or even extent to ineligible subject matter.   Patentees often fall into the common trap of using of MPF limitations without providing adequate structure within the specification.  If no structure is disclosed in the specification for a means-plus-function (MPF) claim, the claim is deemed indefinite and therefore invalid. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

The Federal Circuit has established a two-step framework for determining whether a claim limitation is subject to MPF construction under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). First, the court must determine if the limitation uses the term “means.” If so, a rebuttable presumption is triggered that 112(f) applies. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Prior to Williamson, there was a strong presumption associated with use of the word “means.”  In particular, courts generally assumed that a claim term that did not use the word “means” was not subject to § 112(f) interpretation. Williamson altered this landscape by holding that the presumption can be quickly overcome, even if the word “means” is not present, if the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites a function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.

In Williamson, the court noted that patentees had begun using various “nonce words” that were effectively non-limiting placeholders designed to avoid MPF interpretation.  Here, for instance, the claimed “alerting unit” is roughly equivalent to a means-for-issuing-an-alert.  The presumption against MPF can quickly be overcome in situations where the patentee uses a nonce word to designate the element if the limitation generally fails to recite sufficiently definite structure.

Looking particularly at claim the court first noted the rebuttable presumption against means-plus-function treatment since Claim 1 is directed to a “unit” and does not use the term “means.”  In rebutting the presumption, the court agreed with Judge Albright that in the context of the claims and specification, the term “unit” was defined only by the function it performs, rather than connoting any specific structure.  In its analysis, the court held that the language surrounding “alerting unit” in the claim consisted of purely functional language that provided no structural context. Terms like “configured to issue an alert” and “initiating a connection” were purely functional.  The court also looked to the specification to see how the “alerting unit”  phrase was used — finding that it was also described in the same purely functional terms as the claim language.  In the end, the appellate panel agreed with the district court that “unit” and “means” were used interchangeably in the patent, indicating “unit” was a generic placeholder rather than structural term.

The patentee WSOU had offered expert testimony on point, but the appellate court rejected the extrinsic evidence for its attempt to be a “gap filler.”

To the extent that WSOU argues that the ‘interpretation of what is disclosed in the specification must be made in the light of knowledge of one skilled in the art,’ it invites us to improperly use the knowledge of a skilled artisan as a gap-filler, rather than a lens for interpretation.  WSOU argues that a skilled artisan would ‘understand the structure involved with a mobile phone using GSM ….

However, those arguments are irrelevant as The indefiniteness inquiry is concerned with whether the bounds of the invention are sufficiently demarcated, not with whether one of ordinary skill in the art may find a way to practice the invention.

WSOU (internal citations and quotations removed).  This quote from the appellate panel rejects WSOU’s attempt to use expert testimony regarding PHOSITA to overcome the lack of structural disclosure in the specification. The court emphasizes that gaps in the specification cannot be filled by skilled artisan knowledge during the 112(f) analysis.

Having determined that claim 1’s “unit” was in MPF form, the court then moved to the next step — looking for the corresponding structure within the specification to perform the claimed function.  On appeal, the appellate panel again agreed with Judge Albright that no such structure had been disclosed.  The court examined the disclosed processor, communication engine, antenna, and communication protocols , but found no clear link between these components and the claimed function of “initiating a connection to another communication terminal over a network.” Rather, the specification disclosed these structures in a general sense without specifically tying them to the network connection function. Merely mentioning general components is insufficient to provide corresponding structure for a means-plus-function limitation. Because the patentee failed to disclose adequate structure for the “alerting unit” limitation under 112(f), Claim 1 was held invalid as indefinite.

For the ‘563 patent, the court determined that the “issuing means” limitation in Claim 16 was subject to 35 U.S.C. §112(f), which governs interpretation of means-plus-function claim limitations. The court identified two functions for this means-plus-function limitation: (1) initiating a network connection to another device, and (2) causing signaling means to locally signal the user. The court held that the specification failed to disclose sufficient structure corresponding to either of these functions, and therefore the claim was indefinite under §112(f). The court reached the same conclusion regarding the similar “alerting unit” limitation in Claim 1.

I quibble with the Federal Circuit’s doctrine on MPF indefiniteness. In particular, the court’s precedent creates an if-then approach: if no sufficient structure then automatically indefinite.  I would suggest an additional step asking whether the claim provides reasonably certain scope, recognizing that 112(f) was particularly designed to permit flexibility using narrowing of claims rather than invalidation.

the plurality of parts [including] a first part closest to a center, a third part farthest from the center, and a second part in between the first part and the second part.

‘681 patent, claim 1 (simplified).  You can see that the claim requires a “second part” located between the first and second part.  Nonsense.  It is pretty clear to me that the patentee intended (but did not claim) that the second part would be between the first and third parts.   Unfortunately for the patentee, this exact typo was also found within the specification, and the patent did not include a clear drawing showing the correct aspect.

The court emphasized that it cannot redraft claims to contradict their plain language, even to make them workable.

We have explained repeatedly and consistently, ‘courts may not redraft claims, whether to make them operable or to sustain their validity.’ Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Even ‘a nonsensical result does not require the court to redraft the claims of the [patent at issue]. Rather, where as here, [when] claims are susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation and that interpretation results in a nonsensical construction of the claim as a whole, the claim must be invalidated.’ Id.

Slip OP.

The patents here were both originally owned by Nokia.  They were later transferred to WSOU, a patent assertion entity associated with Craig Etchegoyen, a former CEO of another patent assertion entity, Uniloc.

by Dennis Crouch

Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., No. 22-1461, — F.4th — (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2023).

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a finding of invalidity for lack of enablement in Baxalta v. Genentech, holding that functional antibody claims were insufficiently enabled under 35 U.S.C. §112. Relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s Amgen v. Sanofi decision, the appellate panel found Baxalta’s disclosure to be analogous to Amgen’s “roadmap for further research” rather than a complete teaching of the invention. This result again calls into question the viability of broad functional claims post-Amgen and highlights the importance of structurally defining inventions, especially in unpredictable arts like biotechnology.

As mentioned, the case has close parallels and to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594 (2023).  Amgen involved a functional-claimed antibody designed to inhibit PCSK9 activity.  The Supreme Court found that the broad claims encompassed a large number of antibody configurations while only describing a limited number of those, along with a trial-and-error roadmap for finding the additional embodiments.  Although some experimentation is permissible, a patentee cannot satisfy the enablement requirement by assigning a research project.  Ultimately, the Court concluded that Amgen had failed to enable the “full scope” of the claimed invention and that the claims were therefore properly held invalid as a matter of law.

As in Amgen, Baxalta’s patent also includes a functionally claimed isolated antibody:

1. An isolated antibody or antibody fragment thereof that binds Factor IX or Factor IXa and increases the procoagulant activity of Factor IXa.

‘590 Patent, Claim 1.

The invention involves a treatment for Hemophilia A to promote blood coagulation.  As you’ll note by looking at Claim 1, it does not claim any particular amino acid sequence or antibody structure, but rather claims all antibodies capable of binding Factor IX or IXa in a way that increases  its procoagulant activity.  The inventors went through a process of injecting Factor IX into mice, and collecting resulting antibody producing white blood cells (B-cells). Those B-cells were then fused with myloma (cancer) cells to promote rapid growth even in vitro. As those fused B cells continued their work, the resulting antibodies were screened to determine which ones increased the procoagulant activity.  Although this process is tedious, it was a familiar and known process at the time of the invention. The result was several hundred antibodies generally identified through the screening, although only 11 were sequenced and disclosed in the patent application.

Genentech’s accused product (Emicizumab) was not one of the 11 disclosed.  The court also noted that, unlike the disclosed antibodies, Emicizumab is a humanized bispecific antibody and would not have been identified through the patentee’s research approach. One note here, unlike in Amgen, the Baxalta patent is not limited to “monoclonal” antibodies even though the disclosed research protocol would only result that type of antibody.

The Patent Act requires that the patentee describe how to make and use the invention:

the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains . . . to make and use the same.

35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Whether or not a particular invention has been enabled is seen as a question of law based upon underlying questions of fact.  Although courts would typically call this a “mixed question” of law and fact, the conceptual separation allows courts more leeway in preemptively deciding the legal question without having to submit the inquiry to the finder of fact (typically a jury).

In this case, Federal Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk served as the district court judge — sitting by designation in D.Del.  In a 2022 decision, Judge Dyk granted summary judgment of invalidity for lack of enablement. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed — finding the facts of the case “materially indistinguishable from those in Amgen.”

There are millions of potential candidate antibodies, but the written description discloses the amino acid sequences for only eleven antibodies with the two claimed functions. . . Just like the roadmap rejected by the Supreme
Court in Amgen, the ’590 patent’s roadmap simply directs skilled artisans to engage in the same iterative, trial-and-error process the inventors followed to discover the eleven antibodies they elected to disclose.

Slip Op. Enablement of a broad genus can also be accomplished by disclosing common qualities of the genus. These are typically structural qualities, but the court here notes that the might include “other” features that help delineate the class.  An example might involve the mechanism of binding, for instance. The court found none of those in the disclosure.

The only guidance the patent provides is “to create a wide range of candidate antibodies and then screen each to see which happen to bind” to Factor IX/IXa and increase procoagulant activity. Amgen makes clear that such an instruction, without more, is not enough to enable the broad functional genus claims at issue here.

Id. (Quoting Amgen).  One question following Amgen is whether the case disturbed the Wands Factors associated with identifying “undue experimentation.” Here, the court wrote that there is “no meaningful difference between Wands’ ‘undue experimentation’ and Amgen’s ‘[un]reasonable experimentation’ standards.”  One difficulty with that result though is that the Wands Factors are generally questions of fact that, if in dispute, preclude summary judgment.  Here though, the court concluded that the case was so analogous to Amgen that summary judgment was appropriate — the effective implied conclusion is that there were not factual allegations presented by the patentee material enough to shift the outcome.

Baxalta reinforces that claimed inventions should be defined structurally insofar as possible, rather than solely by function. While claim breadth is undoubtedly desirable, applicants must now enable the full scope or risk invalidation post-Amgen. Even fields accustomed to broad functional claiming may require narrowing to structurally-defined elements, especially where some aspect of the design remains unpredictable.  A functional limit is potentially problematic any time a claim element has “millions” of possible embodiment designs.  On major caveat here of course is that these two cases are biotech focus and the USPTO in particular has largely resisted strongly expanding enablement doctrine outside of the chemical and biotech arts.  Another caveat of these pair of cases is that neither are combination claims. Rather, each simply claim a single component – the antibody.  I can imagine a situation where more leeway is given to functional components in a combination patent where substantial structure is provided by the combination, including other components in the combination.  Finally, also note that 112(f) is available for combination inventions to claim individual elements in means-plus-function form. That approach should typically save the claim validity at the cost of limited scope.

by Dennis Crouch

A number of petitions are pending before the Supreme Court raising interesting patent issues, although none have been granted certiorari thus far.

Leading Eligibility Case: In next week’s long conference (Sept 26), the court will consider what I see as the current leading case of CareDx Inc. v. Natera, Inc., No. 22-1066. The case focuses on the question of whether the patent covering a new biologic diagnostic method was properly invalidated as directed to a natural phenomenon.

The CareDx invention relates to early noninvasive detection of organ transplant failure–an important and longstanding issue in the field. The detection method involves identifying DNA fragments from the transplant within the bloodstream, a challenge that had stumped scientists for over a decade.  Although various scientists had proposed mechanisms for using this information, the evidence shows more than a decade of failed ideas, and at least one article reported that the process is “difficult and impractical.”  The breakthrough came when Stanford researchers successfully applied high-throughput multiplex sequencing (“shotgun sequencing”) to detect single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) unique to donor organs.  Of potential importance, the Stanford researchers did not create these new sequencing techniques, but they were the first to take advantage of them in this particular context and identified particular thresholds in crafting a method that works in this situation.  The claims were invalidated by the district court, and that judgment affirmed on appeal.

Another Natural Law Case: A second well written natural phenom petition was recently filed in ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc., No. 23-245.  The patent in that case claims a dietary supplement of nicotinamide riboside (“NR”) that increases the production of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (“NAD+”) — this one was crated by folks at Dartmouth.  I have written previously that the Supreme Court’s product of nature in Myriad is hard to square with the two-step abstract idea / law of nature cases of Alice & Mayo.  In its decision, the Federal Circuit concluded that the two-step approach is inapplicable in the natural phenomenon case — thus omitting consideration of any inventive concept going beyond the excluded portion.  The Hail Mary case of Killian v. Vidal, No. 22-1220, argues that the judge made eligibility exceptions represent a Fifth Amendment taking, a due process violation, and represent ultra vires actions.

IPR Estoppel: A second important case awaiting the late-September conference is Ingenio, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies LP, No. 22-873, focusing on the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 USC 315(e).  The case asks whether the Federal Circuit erroneously extended IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) to all grounds that reasonably could have been raised in the petition. They focus on the the statutory language that, under their reading, applies the reasonably-could-have modifier in a much narrower context. To wit, petitioner argues that estoppel only applies to issues that could have been raised after the petition was granted– that petitioner “reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.”

Favorite Pending Case – Inventorship: My favorite pending case is HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corporation, No. 23-185. HIP argues that the Federal Circuit’s decision improperly heightens the standard for joint inventorship by focusing on quantity rather than substance of inventive contributions. HIP contends any original contribution included in a claim, even if partial, warrants joint inventor status under 35 U.S.C. § 116.  In the case, a HIP engineer provided suggestions to Hormel on implementing a pre-cooked bacon method. HIP’s suggestion (using an infrared oven for the preheating step) made its way into the claims, the court concluded it was not significant enough to warrant joint inventorship.  For me, the case is largely about the strong presumption that the listed inventors are correct.

Additional Pending Petitions: Two more pending petitions. In Personalized Media Communication, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 23-230, the patentee PMC argues that the court improperly applied prosecution laches to render its patents entirely unenforceable. PMC argues that under cases such as SCA Hygiene, a patentee’s compliance with statutory deadlines precludes equity from stepping in via laches.  I believe that PMC owns the most pre-GATT patents that are still within their patent term. Yes, even more than Gill Hyatt.   Finally, in Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 23-241, the petitioner argues that the Federal Circuit acted improperly by issuing an unforeseeably narrow claim construction on appeal.  Back in 1995 when these applications were filed, Apple had just released an updated Newton that included Graffiti handwriting recognition software from Palm.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court has not yet granted certiorari on any of these patent law petitions, but their treatment of these issues will provide valuable guidance. Cases like HIP v. Hormel and ChromaDex v. Elysium give the Court opportunities to clarify murky areas of the law around joint inventorship and patent eligibility. Meanwhile, petitions in Ingenio v. Click-To-Call and PMC v. Apple deal with critical procedural issues tied to post-issuance review and prosecution laches. The next few weeks may prove pivotal as the Court considers which of these issues merit its attention.

by Dennis Crouch

In a previous post, I examined the important issue of comparison prior art that emerged from the dispute between Columbia Sportswear and Seirus. This post will focus on another key issue from the case – the relevance of logos in design patent infringement analysis.

The Federal Circuit’s pair of decisions provide guidance on how logos factor into the design patent infringement inquiry, and begin to tease-out differences in policy concerns underlying design patent law versus trademark law. As the court made clear, while logos are often key for avoiding consumer confusion about product source in the trademark sense, the absence of source confusion does not necessarily preclude a finding of design patent infringement. Still, ornamental logos found on the accused product can still be relevant as visual distractors in the process of evaluating similarities and differences between the claimed design and accused design.

Design Patent Infringement vs. Trademark Infringement

The standards for proving design patent infringement and trademark infringement differ significantly regarding the relevance of consumer confusion about product source.

For trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, likelihood of consumer confusion is a key requirement. Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003). The touchstone is whether ordinary consumers in the relevant market are likely to be confused about the source of the goods. Logos and other source identifiers play an important role in this analysis. A logo prominently displayed on the accused goods that is clearly distinct from the plaintiff’s mark can weigh heavily against finding a likelihood of confusion. See, e.g., Groeneveld Transp. Efficiency, Inc. v. Lubecore Int’l, Inc., 730 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2013) (“[The accused infringer] has in fact scrupulously avoided such confusion by choosing a starkly different logo that it prominently displays on its [products] and on all its sales and marketing literature.”).

For design patent infringement, however, likelihood of consumer confusion is not directly relevant. See Unette Corp. v. Unit Pack Co., 785 F.2d 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods is not a necessary or appropriate factor.”). The Federal Circuit has made clear that the sole test is whether the claimed and accused designs appear substantially similar to an ordinary observer, not whether consumers will be confused about source. See Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665(Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“[I]n accordance with Gorham and subsequent decisions, we hold that the ‘ordinary observer’ test should be the sole test for determining whether a design patent has been infringed.”).

In essence, while both analyses invoke an “ordinary consumer”, the design patent test focuses solely on visual similarity absent any real-world marketplace considerations and asks whether the design has been replicated. The trademark test deeply analyzes real-world conditions and actual consumer viewpoints on source confusion. This leads to divergent treatment of logos and potentially divergent results.

On their face, both the design patent and trademark infringement tests invoke principles of confusion. The ordinary observer test asks whether the resemblance between designs would “deceive” an observer, “inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other.” Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871); see also 35 U.S.C. § 289 (“colorable imitation”). And the likelihood of confusion test directly asks whether consumers would likely be confused about the source of goods.  The overt references to “deception,” “imitation” and “confusion” create risk that the separate doctrines could be conflated or misapplied. This underscores the need for precision in explaining that design patent infringement does not consider real-world consumer perspectives, while consumer viewpoints are paramount in trademark analysis. The linguistic parallels make delineating these distinctions even more crucial.

While the Federal Circuit has characterized design patents and trademarks as distinct doctrines, in practice they substantially overlap in protecting product designs that serve as source identifiers. Certain product design features may function simultaneously as ornamental, novel designs eligible for design patent protection and as source-identifying trade dress. For example, a unique shape for a handbag or sneaker may qualify for a design patent based on its ornamentality while also indicating source as trade dress.

What that means is that design patents are often used to protect brand identifiers as commercial source signifiers. But, are able to do so without needing to satisfy the requirements of trade dress or its more substantial fair use and non-functionality doctrines.  In the case of the wavy reflective inner lining — that clearly has trademark meaning in my mind (as a purchaser of winter gloves).  And, it is that marketplace meaning that likely serves as the true basis of the long running lawsuit. So design patents will sometimes grant backdoor trademark-like protection, encompassing design aspects that convey source identity and marketplace meaning.  Ultimately, while the doctrines have distinct requirements on paper, in practice their protections substantially overlap for certain product designs functioning as visual source identifiers.

Columbia Sportswear v. Seirus

This distinction emerged as a key issue in the dispute between Columbia Sportswear and Seirus. Columbia accused Seirus of infringing its design patent covering a wavy pattern design for use on heat reflective material. Seirus argued that differences between its design and Columbia’s patented design – especially Seirus’s prominent and repeated logo – should weigh against finding infringement.

On summary judgment, the district court disregarded Seirus’s logo entirely based on L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1993), and found infringement. In Columbia I, the Federal Circuit held this was error:

Our precedent does not prohibit the fact finder from considering an ornamental logo, its placement, and its appearance as one among other potential differences between a patented design and an accused one.

Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc., 942 F.3d 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

The appellate court explained that, while labeling a copy does not avoid design patent infringement, logos still factor into the holistic comparison of the claimed and accused design appearances. Id. The court thus vacated summary judgment and remanded.

On remand, the district court instructed the jury on the ordinary observer test for design patent infringement. But, the district court declined Columbia’s request to instruct that consumer confusion was irrelevant and that likelihood of confusion need not be found. The jury returned a verdict of non-infringement.

In Columbia II, the Federal Circuit affirmed the jury instructions given were legally correct. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc., No. 2021-2299 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2023). The court sympathized with concerns that the ordinary observer test’s language referencing deception risked conflation with concepts of consumer confusion. But it found no reversible instructional error, reiterating that logos remain relevant to the overall similarity analysis:

[J]ust because consumers might not be confused about an accused product’s source, that alone would not preclude an ordinary observer from deeming the claimed and accused designs similar enough to constitute design-patent infringement.

Id. (emphasis in original; citing Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 975 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).

These decisions offer important insight and guidance for attorneys in the trenches, and also highlight a need to reconcile the doctrines to ensure that they are serving important societal goals.

by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a jury verdict of non-infringement in the long-running design patent dispute between outdoor apparel companies Columbia Sportswear and Seirus Innovative Accessories. Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc., No. 2021-2299, — F.4th — (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2023). The Federal Circuit held that “comparison prior art” used for infringement analysis must be tied to the same article of manufacture as that claimed.  The lower court thus erred by permitting the jury to consider additional references. The decision benefits design patent holders – making it easier to prove infringement and also places more weight on skillful decisions made during prosecution to define the article of manufacture.

Columbia owns U.S. Design Patent No. D657,093, which claims an ornamental design for a heat reflective material featuring contrasting wavy lines. Seirus sells gloves and other products incorporating its HeatWave material, which features similar wavy lines. Columbia sued Seirus for infringing the ‘D’093 patent in Oregon federal court.

The district court originally granted summary judgment of infringement in Columbia’s favor. On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, finding disputed issues of fact regarding the impact of Seirus’s logo and certain prior art references.  Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc., 942 F.3d 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Columbia I”) (holding that logo placement might allow the defendant to avoid an infringement judgment).  I noted previously that this holding is in some tension with the court’s 1993 decision in L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117 (1993). On remand, the case went to trial, and a jury came to the opposite conclusion — finding no infringement. Columbia again appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Jury verdicts are given strong deference on appeal and so are usually not directly challenged. Here, the appellant skirted the verdict itself by focusing on the jury instructions, with the patentee arguing that the district court erred in its instructions regarding “comparison prior art.”

In design patent law, the test for infringement is whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design substantially similar to the claimed design, such that they would be deceived into purchasing the accused design believing it to be the claimed design. See Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871). When the claimed and accused designs are not plainly dissimilar, courts apply this “ordinary observer” test in light of the prior art. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 676 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc).  The rationale is that prior art designs provide context that can help highlight similarities and differences between the claimed and accused designs.

In its decision, the Federal Circuit held for the first time that a prior art reference can qualify as comparison prior art only if it discloses a design applied to the same article of manufacture identified in the design patent claim. This holding aligns with other design patent infringement precedent limiting the universe of anticipatory prior art and infringing designs to the particular article of manufacture claimed. See Curver Luxembourg, SARL v. Home Expressions Inc., 938 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

We have held that, for a prior-art design to anticipate, it must be applied to the article of manufacture identified in the claim. We have also held that, for an accused design to infringe, it must be applied to the article of manufacture identified in the claim. We conclude that this requirement also applies to comparison prior art used in an infringement analysis.

Slip Op. (internal citations removed). The court explained its reasoning that its narrow approach aligns with the purpose of allowing comparison prior art: “that purpose is to help inform an ordinary observer’s comparison between the claimed and accused designs—designs that, necessarily, must be applied to the same article of manufacture.”  And, although the issue has not been expressly decided, prior cases also generally involved comparison prior art that had been applied to the same article of manufacture as that claimed.

Here, Columbia’s ‘D’093 patent claim was limited to ornamental designs for “heat reflective material.” Yet the district court instructed jurors that they must decide for themselves what constitutes comparison prior art, without explaining that it must involve designs applied to heat reflective material.  Three particular references with wavy designs were presented to the jury, including U.S. Patent Nos. 2,539,690  (inlaying plastic threads into plastic sheets); 1,515,792 (unwoven fabric for tires); 5,626,949 (shell fabric for outerwear).  Thought the claim is directed to “heat reflective material,” the court had admitted the references disclosing “wave patterns on fabric.” Columbia argued these references were improperly admitted as comparison prior art since they did not involve designs applied to heat reflective materials. But the Federal Circuit declined to directly rule on their admissibility, instead vacating and remanding for the district court to reconsider the issue under the new narrower requiring comparison prior art to be applied to the claimed article of manufacture.  The court suggested that the district court conduct a claim construction on the term heat reflective material before determining whether the references fit within the scope.

Seirus also argued that limiting the patent to heat reflective material would improperly import a functional limitation into the design patent claim. The Federal Circuit properly rejected that argument. While design patents cannot claim primarily functional designs, referring to an article of manufacture’s function to distinguish it from other articles is permissible and relevant.