by Dennis Crouch

Patent attorney Aaron Feigelson named his occasional blog 12:01 Tuesday.  The inside-reference is directed to the USPTO’s standard practice for the past several decades “like clockwork, every Tuesday after midnight” the USPTO issues a new set of patents.  These are released to the USPTO web servers and rapidly distributed through various other mechanisms — automatically being incorporated into various public and private databases.

Some readers will notice that no patents issued yet today, Tuesday June 19, 2018.  Do not worry though, the PTO has delayed the issuance until 9:00 am EST so that the release of U.S. Patent No. 10,000,000 can be done while the masses are awake.

One question though, for patentees seeking infringement damages going back to the patent’s issuance — will the day’s earnings be prorated?

by Dennis Crouch

In the pending case of Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., No. 17-1229 (Supreme Court 2018), the petitioner has asked the Supreme Court to offer its statement on whether Congress altered the “on sale bar” to now apply only to non-confidential sales or offers.

Question Presented: Whether, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party that is obligated to keep the invention confidential qualifies as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention.

In its decision, the Federal Circuit held that the on sale bar attaches even if the details of the invention are kept secret.  In this particular case, the sale was partially public – i.e., although the details of the invention were kept secret, the existence of the sale was publicly known.

The Supreme Court held its first conference regarding Helsinn on June 14, 2018 and took no action in the case — likely relisting it for a later conference.  Most petitions for writ of certiorari are denied immediately following the first conference — and so this is an important step toward certiorari in this case.  I expect that the next step in the case would be CVSG — seeking views of the Trump Administration.

The On Sale Bar has its origin in Justice Story’s decision in Pennock v. Dialogue, 27 U.S. 1 (1829). There, Story wrote:

If an inventor should be permitted to hold back from the knowledge of the public the secrets of his invention; if he should for a long period of years retain the monopoly, and make, and sell his invention publicly, and thus gather the whole profits of it * * * and then, and then only, when the danger of competition should force him to secure the exclusive right, he should be allowed to take out a patent * * * it would materially retard the progress of science and the useful arts, and give a premium to those who should be least prompt to communicate their discoveries.

IN 1836, the rule was expressly stated in the revision of the patent laws:

Sec. 6. That any person or persons having discovered or invented any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter . . . not known or used by others before his or their discovery or invention thereof, and not, at the time of his application for a patent, in public use or on sale, with his consent or allowance, as the inventor or discoverer; . . . may make application in writing  . . . and the Commissioner, on due proceedings had, may grant a patent therefor.

Since then, and even before, secret sales were seen as a bar to patenting (except when within the grace period).  In Metallizing Engineering, Judge Learned Hand expanded the doctrine to encompass any commercial exploitation by the inventor:

[H]e shall not exploit his discovery competitively after it is ready for patenting; he must content himself with either secrecy, or legal monopoly. It is true that for the limited period of two years he was allowed to do so, possibly in order to give him time to prepare an application; and even that has been recently cut down by half. But if he goes beyond that period of probation, he forfeits his right regardless of how little the public may have learned about the invention; just as he can forfeit it by too long concealment, even without exploiting the invention at all.

Metallizing Engineering Co. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., 153 F.2d 516 (2d Cir. 1946).

Third Party Sales: In an interesting question – not at issue directly in Helsinn — involves secret sales by third parties. 1985 footnote, the Federal Circuit explained its position that the on sale bar is only directed at activities by the inventor:

The “on sale” provision of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is directed at precluding an inventor from commercializing his invention for over a year before he files his application. Sales or offers made by others and disclosing the claimed invention implicate the “public use” provision of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 676 (Fed. Cir. 1985); explanation restated in ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010).  On the other hand, other cases have applied the on-sale bar to activities by third parties. See In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1994).   Professor Carl Moy aptly explained the situation in his treatise: “The current authorities plainly evidence a difference of opinion about the underlying purpose of the on-sale bar.” 2 Moy’s Walker on Patents § 8:227 (4th ed.).

Senator Orrin Hatch has been a central figure in essentially all patent legislation over the past 40 years (he joined the Senate in 1977).  As he nears retirement (Jan 2019), Hatch has proposed one additional change — an amendment to provide pharma with some protection from Inter Partes Review challenges titled the Hatch-Waxman Integrity Act of 2018.

The basics of the amendment is that the results of an IPR/PRG proceeding cannot serve as its Paragraph IV certification that the patent is invalid.  A parallel provision is designed for biologics under the BCPIA.  In addition – as Dan Feigelson explains in the comments – The proposal would also require an ANDA applicant to certify that it will not (and has not) filed an IPR/PRG petition against Orange Book listed patents for the related drug.

In addition, the provision would modify the Securities Exchange Act to make it a manipulative or deceptive trade practice to an IPR petition and short-selling the patent owner’s stock within 90-days (before or after).

More info from the Senator.

By Dennis Crouch

Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

When Xitronix sued KLA-Tencor, it raised only one cause of action – “a Walker Process monopolization claim under § 2 of the Sherman Act and §§ 4 and 6 of the Clayton Act based on the alleged fraudulent prosecution of a patent.” See Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965). The basic allegation was that KLA fraudulently obtained its U.S. Patent No. 8,817,260 with claims identical-to or broader than claims of KLA’s previously invalidated U.S. Patent No. 7,362,441.

The district court rejected the case on summary judgment based upon a lack of evidence of fraud – reasoning that the PTO probably has power to override the court. The district observed wrote:

[T]he Court suspects the examiner was in fact aware of the Court’s [invalidity] holding but chose to ignore it. It would not be the first time the PTO, an administrative agency, overrode a final judgment of an Article III court, and it will likely not be the last. (Order).

The Patent Office can now come to a different conclusion than district court[s], the circuit court, [the] Supreme Court, for that matter, and until the Supreme Court or the Congress suggests that, there’s no stability in patent law. . . . It’s an egotistical war between the patent office and the circuit court for sure. But they’re not bound by a jury verdict. They’re not bound by a judge’s judgment. They made that clear, expressly in writing.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit did not address the merits of the holding – but rather ruled that Walker Process monopolization claims do not arise under the U.S. Patent Laws. As a result, the Federal Circuit has no appellate jurisdiction over the case and it was ordered transferred to the 5^th Circuit.

Xitronix then requested en banc rehearing on the issue – arguing that the questions here strike to the core of patent law doctrine and procedure. That request has now been denied.

Writing in dissent, Judge Newman explains that the decision here is fundamental “to the judicial structure of patent adjudication, and the future of a nationally consistent United States patent law.”

I write in concern for the conflicts and uncertainties created by this unprecedented change in jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit and of the regional courts of appeal. With the panel’s unsupported ruling that the Supreme Court now places patent appeals within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regional circuits when the pleading alleges that the patent issue may lead to a non-patent law violation, we should consider this change en banc.

In its 2013 decision in Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013), the Supreme Court ruled that a state-law attorney malpractice case did not trigger federal court patent jurisdiction. Newman distinguishes that case on several grounds: (1) that case involved a “long dead patent” and so the outcome would not change any other patent litigation cases; (2) Gunn involved a State interest in adjudging the state cause of action – while here there are only federal interests at stake. According to Judge Newman, the underlying dispute is about “the validity and enforceability of the patent” – questions that should be heard by the Federal Circuit.

The case is now pending in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals with the Following Two Questions:

1. After an unappealed federal district court judgment declared claims in a parent patent invalid, can a patent-holder maintain a continuation patent before the PTO with claims “word for word” identical to, or broadened over, claims that had been invalidated by a jury verdict and a federal court judgment without committing fraud?
2. Did the summary judgment record present a factual basis from which a jury could find that KLA-Tencor made affirmative misrepresentations and material omissions in its prosecution of the ’260 patent but for which the ’260 patent would not have issued?

As high level drama proceeds between our trading partners, the heads of the IP5 (US, China, Japan, EPO, and South Korea) recently met in New Orleans.  Together, these five offices “handle approximately 80 percent of the world’s patent applications.” The focus of the meeting was further harmonization, reducing costs, and reducing the burden on inventors filing in multiple jurisdictions.

More information on the IP5 cooperation can be found at www.fiveipoffices.org

Guest post by Michael Gulliford.  Mr. Gulliford is an advisor to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe and the Founder of Soryn IP Group, a patent advisory and finance firm headquartered in New York City.

Native Americans and patents don’t make headlines. That changed when the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, located in upstate New York, conceived a lucrative transaction that saw Allergan transfer patents covering the dry eye drug Restasis® to the Tribe. In return, the Tribe agreed to use its sovereign status to protect the patents from a controversial administrative proceeding coined the patent “death squad”, and to license the patents to Allergan. Allergan paid the Tribe $13.75 million upfront, with continuing royalty payments of $3.75 million per quarter.

Although the story is far from over, so much remains unsaid. As an advisor to the Tribe on patent issues, allow me to explain.

#1 – Tribes Are Vilified For Following The Status Quo

Tribes, like States, are sovereigns and cannot be hauled into federal administrative proceedings that resemble lawsuits without consenting.  Here, the Tribe used its sovereign status to shield the patents from attack in a new administrative proceeding called Inter Partes Review (IPR), held at the Patent Trial & Appeals Board (PTAB). Generic companies remain free to challenge patent validity in district court.

From the hysteria, you’d think the Tribe is the first to invoke sovereign immunity with IPRs. It is not. State universities are, and began successfully doing so before the Allergan deal.

At least five major state universities have asserted their immunity as arms of their sovereign states with respect to IPRs. Some invoked sovereign immunity with corporate partners. Yet, only the Tribe faced Congressional hearings and proposed legislation. And in its recent decision, the PTAB, which hears IPRs, took the remarkable step of concluding that the Tribe’s immunity did not apply to an IPR because it was lesser than the immunity held by States.

In doing so, the Board overlooked the guidance of our nation’s most prominent Constitutional law scholars on the exact issue at hand. But as the leaders of numerous Indian tribes have told me, this treatment is par for the course. Once Native Americans engage in economic activities that were previously considered the status quo, the claws come out.

#2 – No One Gives Native Americans Credit

The most recited narrative of the deal is that Allergan “rented” the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe’s sovereign immunity. This point of view is based on racism at worse and paternalism at best. Most can’t fathom that an Indian tribe, itself no stranger to devastating property loss, could be sophisticated enough to appreciate how recent changes to the U.S. patent system have failed innovators, or to have done a deal to right such wrongs.

But as I’m sure Allergan quickly appreciated when it visited the Tribe’s reservation, the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe challenges convention. Its leadership is highly sophisticated and entrepreneurial. With limited powers of taxation, and the enormous burden of providing healthcare, addiction treatment, housing and education to its people, the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe innovates to create revenue.

The Tribe’s broadband company “Mohawk Networks,” is solving the “last mile” problem in regions of Northern New York by building and expanding its high-speed fiber network. While local auto and aluminum factories have shut down, costing local jobs, the Tribe invested heavily in a new soy bean processing plant located close to the Tribe’s reservation. The plant will support farms that supply the State’s Greek yogurt industry, and create needed jobs.

The Tribe’s Office of Technology, Research and Patents, founded well before the Allergan deal, is pursuing a host of patent and commercialization initiatives. All are examples of the Tribe’s desire to steer away from casino gaming as its sole revenue source. And there is more to come.

#3 – PR Is Obfuscating A Conversation That Needs To Happen

Created in 2011 in response to “patent troll” problems, IPRs were supposed to give companies a cheaper way to challenge the validity of patents they are accused of infringing. But by implementing rules that strongly promote patent invalidity findings, IPRs inflicted significant pain for companies heavily reliant on patents.

It isn’t even controversial that IPRs have clouded the validity of most U.S. patents. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently demoted the U.S. patent system to #12 in the world because of IPRs.  Numerous Supreme Court and appellate judges have railed against IPRs. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board highlighted the harm that IPRs cause to American innovation.

Given these truths, one could make a compelling argument that the Board of any company reliant on patents should do whatever is necessary to avoid IPRs. Why shouldn’t companies fight back and do deals to avoid having their crown jewels invalidated?

The answer is PR and political pressure to not do such deals. Big tech likes IPRs because killing patents increases the bottom line. It is cheaper to invalidate patents than to compensate innovators for the use of their technology. Generic drug companies like IPRs because the lax IPR standards that were set up to make “patent troll” patents easier to kill can be used to more easily wipe out pharma patents. Although Congress carefully sculpted legislation to govern pharmaceutical patent challenges — called the Hatch-Waxman Act — IPRs have undone the delicate balance that Hatch-Waxman strikes.

But conversations about these issues are not happening because huge sums of money have been spent vilifying Allergan and the Tribe.

So let’s start asking new questions. Why are tribal sovereigns being treated so much differently than States? And why is way more attention being paid to the Tribe’s transaction than to fixing the flawed IPR process that forces innovators to need the Tribe’s assistance?

In the end, my bet is that history will thank the Saint Regis Mohawks for enabling changes that bring the United States patent system back to #1 in the world.

–

Michael Gulliford is the Founder and a Managing Principal of Soryn IP Group, a patent advisory and finance firm headquartered in New York City that closed almost $140 million in patent deals in 2017. In addition, Soryn Capital, manages one of the largest funds in the U.S. dedicated to patent litigation finance. Prior to founding Soryn, Michael was a partner in the Intellectual Property group at Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

by Dennis Crouch

Huang v. Huawei (Fed. Cir. 2018)

This is a fairly ridiculous case. Acting pro se Mr. Huang sued Huawei for infringing three of his patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,744,653, 6,999,331, and RE45259 (high speed memory chips).

At the start of discovery, Huang agreed to a protective order, including a designation for “attorney’s eyes only.” Huawei then used that “attorneys eyes only” designation when it disclosed the technical information for its accused chips.  Since he had no attorney, Huang was unable to look at the disclosures.  When Huawei later motioned for summary judgment of non-infringement, Huang responded with a number of previously undisclosed reverse-engineering figures and declarations from undisclosed witnesses. The court granted a motion to strike that purported evidence as well as the summary judgment motion and awarded attorney fees to Huawei (but only $600,000) after finding his litigation behavior “constituted bad faith and an abuse of the judicial process.”

On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed — holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.

Lessons learned here:

Guest Post by Stephen C. Glazier, Partner at Akerman LLP

On April 26, 2018 the U.S. Patent Commissioner, Andrew Hirshfeld, spoke at our webinar regarding current developments at the U.S. Patent Office. [Link Below]

A major theme of Commissioner Hirshfeld’s remarks was the PTO’s revived focus on increasing reliability, certainty, and enforceability of issued patents and the application process.  The underlying goal here is to further increase the value of patents and their beneficial impact on innovative products and businesses.

The Commissioner stated that a first step toward this policy goal will be pursued by new PTO guidance to Examiners and the applicants regarding the application of the Alice-Mayo test for patent subject matter eligibility under Section 101.  Other possible PTO guidance is also being considered on various current issues.

The Commissioner pointed out that a first result in this effort was the very recently published PTO guidance, the “Berkheimer Memorandum“, which can be viewed at this link: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF. This memo addresses the question of whether an additional element, or combination of elements, represents “well-understood, routine and conventional” activity in a claim directed to an abstract idea, for example, and hence constitute “something more” under the Alice-Mayo test (i.e., patent eligible subject matter).  The memo requires examiners to expressly support their positions with a citation to show an element is well-understood, routine or conventional.  This should mitigate the volume of Alice rejections.  The Commissioner indicated that this memo can currently be used as guidance, despite the fact that it is in the period for public comment until Aug. 20, 2018.

Many commentators feel that this will benefit software and medical diagnostic patents, since Alice rejections are concentrated in these technologies.

The Commissioner commented on volume and other metrics at the PTO.  The number of new patent applications has increased every year since 2009, with about 450,000 new cases filed last year (or about 600,000 if RCE’s are counted).  However, the percentage of RCE’s is declining.  The average time to first action is now about 15 months, and the final time to conclusion of prosecution is about 24 months.   Average pendency of Track One applications until issuance is only about 12 month from filing; although, the allowance rate for Track One is about the same as for regular applications.  The annual number of new Track One applications is down slightly, but remains near the historical maximum of about 10,000 annually.  There are currently about 8,200 patent examiners, of which about 4,700 are primaries.  There are approximately 500 art units.

Related issues and other questions were addressed by the Commissioner in the webinar.  Some of these issues include:  (1) recent Supreme Court patent decisions, (2)  material differences in the allowance rates of various examiners, art units and technology centers, and (3) the process for assigning applications to examiners, art units and technology centers.

A video recording of the Commissioner’s opening remarks, and the subsequent Q&A session with the Commissioner, may be reviewed in their entirety at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svxQH7a3SwM&feature=youtu.be

I don’t know what the Supreme Court thinks of alternative statements of the question presented — but it has become a regular practice of parties opposing certiorari to restate the question in an attempt to shift attention of the court.

The pending petition in Helsinn is on point.  Compare the question presented in the petition with its complete restatement by the opposition:

Petition: Whether, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party that is obligated to keep the invention confidential qualifies as prior art for purposes of determining the  patentability of the invention.

Opposition: Whether this Court should review the Federal Circuit’s factual conclusion that Helsinn’s sale agreement with a third party publicly disclosed its claimed invention “in detail” (Pet. 33a) more than a year before it filed  its patent application, thus triggering the “on sale” bar on patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §102(a).

[Docket with Briefs] The difference between the two is typical — with the petition asking the court to focus on an important question of law and the opposition focusing on already-decided factual minutia.

Later this month, the Supreme Court is holding conference in the case and I would expect a call for the views of the Solicitor General.