Guest Post: Microsoft v. i4i – Is the Sky Really Falling?

Guest Post, Infringement, Invalidity, Patent, Prior Art, ,

By Paul F. Morgan

The forthcoming Supreme Court decision in Microsoft v. i4i, case number 10-290, seems likely to eliminate the Federal Circuit's judicially imposed "clear & convincing evidence" requirement for invalidating patents, and thus jury instructions thereon, at least for prior art not of record in the patent application file. 

Typical of some of the frightening projections is the January 1, 2011 "Law360" article in which Matthew M. Wolf, a Howrey LLP partner, is quoted as saying that: "it will radically alter the nature of trials in the patent world and will apply to every patent case" and that "if juries are told that the standards are the same for invalidating patents as for infringing patents, there will be a lot more defence verdicts and we are going to see fewer defendants desirous of settlement."

That is, it is argued that this result would flow from patent invalidity challenges having the same "preponderance of the evidence" standard as for proving patent infringement.  Technically, that might become the case.  But how significant would this change be in reality?  

First, more than 97% of patent suits are settled before trial with no judicial validity test.  Of the small percentage of patent cases that do go to trial, the vast majority are decided or settled there or on appeal on non-infringement, not on invalidity.  Considering the many good reasons why the vast majority of accused or actual defendants are willing to settle rather than risk the very high costs and uncertainties of patent litigation, even against numerous dubious troll suits, how much is this one forthcoming change likely to affect patent litigation and settlements overall?

The test is, would this change really dramatically affect anticipated jury decision-making reality?  [Because patent invalidity is rarely decided other than by juries, such as on summary judgment motions, in view of disputed facts.  USPTO patent reexamination standards would not be affected at all by this decision, and are usually delayed too long by the USPTO to be helpful anyway.] 

Removing this higher evidentiary burden might indeed affect some unknown relatively small number of future post-trial JMOL and Fed. Cir. decisions.  But note the relatively small percentage of those based on invalidity as opposed to non-infringement.

So, what is the basis for projecting that the very small percentage of patents now being held invalid by juries would somehow greatly increase due to this one potential change in jury instructions?   [Even if one really believes that juries really do pay close attention to, and fully understand, the typical lengthy jury instructions in a patent infringement suit and are willing split hairs over those instructions.   See, e.g., the length of the  AIPLA model jury instructions.]  Has anyone done a mock jury study to see if leaving out the present jury instruction for "clear and convincing evidence" dramatically changes outcomes?

Could contesting patent validity before a jury realistically become equated to contesting infringement, as alleged?   Attacking the validity of a patent is attacking something granted by the United States Government, while deciding infringement is just considering one private company's arguments against another.  Furthermore, the jury can be shown for emphasis the Government gold seal and blue ribbon on the patent.  Even if the statutory presumption of patent validity could technically be overcome by a mere preponderance of evidence for prior art not of record, the patent owner should be entitled to a jury instruction on the statutory presumption of patent validity.  [Which could be contrasted to no such instruction for deciding infringement].   For example, as indicated Section 5.1 of the June 23, 2009 "National Patent Jury Instructions" and its "Committee Note," presently courts may optionally combine the two existing defense burdens into a single jury instruction that the accused infringer "bears the burden of proving that it is highly probable that the claims are invalid." [Likewise, some other model patent jury instructions.]  However, the express "Committee Note" rationale for that is a presumption that "instructing the jury on the presumption in addition to informing it of the highly probable burden of proof may cause jury confusion as to its role in deciding invalidity. This single instruction therefore omits any reference to the presumption of validity. Some courts, however, follow the more traditional approach, and instruct the jury on the presumption. Both approaches appear consistent with Federal Circuit law."  Thus, if the "clear and convincing evidence" burden is removed, this "highly probable" instruction would have to be removed, and this present rationale for not instructing a jury on the statutory presumption of patent validity would seem to disappear?  

The other public scare story is that this decision will lead to a flood of additional prior art citations in patent applications.  That also lacks factual credibility.  The already-existing fear of personal "inequitable conduct" accusations is far more motivating than the mere possibility getting a slightly better jury instruction.  Furthermore, few applicants would be willing to pay for a much more costly prior art search to add much more art to an IDS just for that remote reason, and also to risk being accused of not having actually read that art in making assertions in claim prosecution.

Whether as a matter of public policy this anticipated change is good or bad for patent law and technical or economic progress is not the subject here.  Even if the extent of the potential impact were factually supported, it may not be very relevant to this Supreme Court decision.   As understood, this case is being contested primarily on to whether or not there is a proper legal basis and/or precedent for the Federal Circuit to have imposed this additional, non-statutory, evidentiary burden for patent litigation.  It is argued that that is inconsistent with modern Supreme Court evidentiary rules for civil cases in general and inconsistent with the evidentiary rules for pre-Federal-Circuit patent suits in the other federal circuits when they were deciding patent cases.  [So it is surprising that this issue has not been this contested before.  Presumably due to most defendants waiving it by failing to object to this jury instruction?]  

The recent decisions controlling the evidence for and/or reducing patent infringement damages recoveries seem to me far more likely to impact patent licensing and settlement negotiations than Microsoft v. i4i.  See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., (Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2011),  Lucent v. Gateway (Fed. Cir. 2009), the two E.D. TX D.C. decisions in which Judge Randall Rader sat by designation, Cornell v. HP (March 2009) and IP Innovation v. Red Hat and Novell (March 2010), and Judge Ward's reduction of a jury award of $52 million in LaserDynamics v. Asus Computer International  down to only $6.2 million.

Tracing the Quote: Everything that can be Invented has been Invented

Patent, Patentable Subject Matter

Charles H. Duell was the Commissioner of US patent office in 1899. Mr. Deull’s most famous attributed utterance is that “everything that can be invented has been invented.” Most patent attorneys have also heard that the quote is apocryphal.

In his 1989 article, Samuel Sass traced the quote back to 1981 book titled “The Book of Facts and Fallacies” by Chris Morgan and David Langford. Sass did his work well before Gore created the Internets, so I decided to take a fresh look at the research using Google. The following chart was created based on Google’s electronic compilation of 12 million books. The chart shows the frequency that the phrase “everything that can be invented” shows up in the corpus, grouped by the year of publication of each book. (more…)

In re Glatt Air Techniques, Inc.: Single Embodiment Commercial Success

CAFC, Obviousness, Patent, Pharma, Rantanen, Reexamination,

By Jason Rantanen

In re Glatt Air Techniques, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Panel: Newman, Prost (author), Moore

Glatt Air Techniques involves the reexamination of Patent No. 5,236,503, relating to an improvement to an apparatus known as a Wurster coater used to coat particles such as pharmaceutical ingredients.  The improvement comprises a shield means, such as a physical shield or air wall, positioned adjacent the spray nozzle that prevents particles from prematurely entering the stream of the coating spray before the spray pattern has fully developed, thus causing blockages in the apparatus.  During reexamination, the examiner rejected the claim at issue as obvious in light of the prior art, a determination that was upheld by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.  In reaching its conclusion, the Board also rejected Glatt's commercial success evidence because it related only to a single embodiment – a physical shield – and the claim also covered the use of an air wall.  Thus, the Board concluded, the evidence was not commensurate in scope with the claim.

On appeal, the CAFC first found that the Board had failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.  It also disagreed with the Board's rejection of Glatt's evidence of commercial success, expanding on its past holding that "commensurate" does not mean "every" embodiment.   "The fact that Glatt’s commercial products only contain one type of shielding means does not make its commercial success evidence irrelevant. Under the PTO’s logic, there would never be commercial success evidence for a claim that covers more than one embodiment."  Slip Op. at 10.  Citing past precedent, the CAFC went on to state that "we have consistently held that a patent applicant “need not sell every conceivable embodiment of the claims in order to rely upon evidence of commercial success.” Id. (quoting In re DBC, 545 F.3d 1373, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2008).  Thus, "commercial success evidence should be considered should be considered 'so long as what was sold was within the scope of the claims.'” Id.

Comment: Note that simply being commensurate with the scope of the claim does not necessarily satisfy the nexus requirement, as illustrated by the outcome of In re DBC.

Update: PharmaPatents Blog provides a detailed discussion of the CAFC's reversal of the Board's prima facie case of obviusness, asking whether there was anything else the applicant could have done to avoid a rejection by the examiner and Board.   

Judge Moore Weighs In on Vacatur of Invalidity Opinions

CAFC, Inequitable Conduct, Invalidity, Patent, Patent Cases 2011, Rantanen, ,

By Jason Rantanen

The Ohio Willow Wood Company v. Thermo-Ply, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Order 2011)
Panel: Rader (author), Newman (additional views), Moore (concurrence)

When a patentee is faced with an judgment of invalidity or inequitable conduct, it is a relatively common tactic to settle with the accused infringer who, as a condition of the settlement agreement, then joins the patentee in a joint motion for vacatur of the adverse decision.  Although vacatur requires exceptional circumstances, it is sometimes granted by the district court.  See e.g., Gracenote, Inc. v. MusicMatch, Inc.; Block Financial v. LendingTree; New Medium v. Barco.

The situation becomes more complex, however, when settlement occurs while the case is on appeal. Willow Wood involves an appeal of an Eastern District of Texas judgment invalidating the asserted claims of Patent No. 7,291,182.  While the appeal was pending, the parties settled and filed a motion for remand to the district court for consideration of a motion for vacatur.  In July 2010, the CAFC issued an order pointing out the high standard for vacatur and ordered the parties to explain what extraordinary circumstances would be presented to the district court that would justify vacatur.  Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Thermo-Ply, Inc., (Fed. Cir. Order July 29, 2010) (nonprecedential). 

After considering the parties' response, along with an intervention request by a third party also being sued for infringement of the patent, the panel granted the request for "the limited purpose of the district court's consideration of the parties' motion for vacatur."  Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Thermo-Play, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Order 2011) (Willow Wood II). The CAFC retained jurisdiction, however, "so that any of the parties may seek appellate review by notifying the Clerk of the Court within thirty days of entry of the district court’s decision on remand."  Id. at 3.

Concerned about the remand's potential imprimatur on the joint vacatur motion, Judge Moore, writing in concurrence, expressed the opinion that vacatur of existing invalidity opinions should be a rare and disfavored event, particularly in the patent context.  Citing U.S. Bancorp Mortgate Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 29 (1994), the judge reiterated the high threshold for justifying vacatur following settlement: "[o]nly in 'exceptional circumstances' should a district court grant vacatur at the request of the litigants."  Willow Wood II concurrence at 2.  This is particularly true with respect to patents:

In this case, for example, the patentee has already sued another party on the patent in question. If the decision that invalidated the patent at issue is not vacated, then the patentee will be collaterally estopped from asserting this patent in this and other suits, thereby saving courts and litigants the time and money it takes to proceed with patent litigation. Patent litigations are among the longest, most time-consuming types of civil actions. As of 2009, 384 patent cases had been pending in the district courts for three years or more. 2009 Admin. Off. U.S. Cts. Ann. Rep., at Table S-11. Moreover, the costs of patent litigation are enormous with an average patent case costing upwards of $3 million for each side. See American Intellectual Property Law Association, Report of the Economic Survey 2009 I-129 (2009). If the district court vacates its invalidity judgment then other defendants and other district courts will be forced to proceed with infringement suits, as there would likely be no collateral estoppel. Even if there were no other suits pending, these concerns should still weigh heavily against vacatur, as the only reason the patentee would want an invalidity judgment vacated is to potentially enforce the patent against others.

Concurrence at 3-4.

Judge Moore's decision to weigh in on the merits of the vacatur issue was criticized by Judge Newman, however, who wrote separately "to point out that the views of our colleague in separate concurrence are not the court’s remand order." Willow Wood II, additional views at 2.  Although favoring the remand on the basis that the district court is in the better position to rule on the issue of vacatur, Judge Newman declined to endorse Judge Moore's proffer of judicial advice, commenting that "[o]ur remand should be unencumbered by even the appearance of prejudgment or of the weight to be given to various considerations. Indeed, the issues on which our colleague in concurrence offers judicial advice are more complex than is here recognized."  Id.

In re Microsoft: Presence Created Solely for Purposes of Litigation Does Not Support Venue

CAFC, Jurisdiction, Patent, Patent Cases 2011, Rantanen, ,

By Jason Rantanen

In re Microsoft Corporation (Fed. Cir. Order 2011)
Panel: Newman, Friedman, Laurie (per curium)

The Federal Circuit's decision in In re Microsoft, which granted Microsoft's request for a writ of mandamus ordering the Eastern District of Texas to transfer the case to Washington State, originally issued as a nonprecedential order in early November; the CAFC reissued it as precedential today.  The order adds another piece to the now fairly substantial body of law surrounding review of denials of requests to transfer venue.  Allvoice Develop-ments, a company operated from the United Kingdom, sued Microsoft in the Eastern District of Texas for infringing Patent No. 5,799,273.  Microsoft, which is headquartered in the Western District of Washington (where a substantial portion of its employees and operations are located), requested a transfer of venue to Washington State. 

In denying Microsoft's motion to transfer venue, the district court relied on the existence of a local Allvoice office in Tyler, as well as Allvoice's incorporation under the laws of Texas.  The court also weighed the witness factor against transfer because Allvoice had identified potential non-party witnesses in New York, Massachusetts and Florida who, the court found, would find Texas more convenient for trial.  Although the court found that the sources of proof factor weighed in favor of transfer, it did so only slightly because Allvoice said that its documents were maintained in its office in the E.D. Texas. 

On appeal, the Federal Circuit granted Microsoft's request for a writ, likening this case to In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009), and concluding that the district court abused its discretion by denying transfer.  The CAFC first noted that there was a vast disparity with respect to the convenience of witnesses: all individuals identified by Microsoft as having material information relating to the patents reside within 100 miles of the W.D. Wash.; all but two of the witnesses identified by Allvoice reside outside Texas, and even those two witnesses appear to be relatively peripheral.

Particularly notable, however, was the CAFC's refusal to consider Allvoice's presence in the E.D. Texas.  "Allvoice’s argument … rests on a fallacious assumption: that this court must honor connections to a preferred forum made in anticipation of litigation and for the likely purpose of making that forum appear convenient."  Slip Op. at 5.  Thus, just as transferring thousands of pages of relevant documents to the offices of litigation counsel in Texas in order to assert that the location of those documents favored non-transfer was entitled to no weight in In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009), so too is the existence of an office created solely for the purpose of manipulating venue a meaningless fact for the venue analysis.  Nor did the CAFC ascribe any weight to extra step of incorporating under the laws of Texas, noting that it was done sixteen days before filing suit.

Uniloc v. Microsoft: The CAFC Rejects the 25 Percent Rule

Damages, Infringement, Invalidity, Patent, Patent Cases 2011, Rantanen, Software, , , , ,

By Jason Rantanen

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Panel: Rader, Linn (author), Moore

Uniloc v. Microsoft involves a host of issues, although one stands out as particularly noteworthy.  While  "passively tolerat[ing]" the 25 percent 'rule of thumb' (a method for calculating a reasonable royalty for purposes of infringement damages) in past cases, the CAFC held today that the rule "is a fundamentally flawed tool for determining a baseline royalty rate in a hypothetical negotiation," thus precluding its use for damages calculations.

Uniloc is the owner of Patent No. 5,490,216, an early patent covering a mechanism for combating "casual copying" of software, where users install copies of a software program on multiple computers in violation of applicable software licenses.  In general terms, the patented invention involves the creation of a registration number generated by the software on the user's computer.  The number is sent to the vendor's system, which uses an identical algorithm to create a remote license ID.  If the numbers match when the application boots, the program enters a "use mode;" if they do not, it enters a "demo mode."

In the suit against Microsoft, Uniloc alleged that the Product Activation feature for Microsoft's Word XP, Word 2003, and Windows XP software programs infringed the '216 patent.  A jury agreed, finding that Microsoft not only infringed the patent, but did so willfully.  The jury also rejected Microsoft's invalidity defenses and awarded Uniloc $388 million in damages.  Following the trial, the district court granted Microsoft's motion for JMOL of noninfringement and lack of willfulness (and in the alternative, ordered a new trial on these issues), but denied its request for a JMOL on invalidity.  The court also ordered a new trial on the issue of damages.  On appeal, Uniloc challenged the district court's noninfringement, willfulness, and damages rulings, while Microsoft cross-appealed the denial of its JMOL on invalidity.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the district judge's rulings on willfulness, damages and invalidity, but reversed on the question of infringement, both with respect to JMOL and the grant of a new trial.

Damages
The damages section of the opinion is by far the most significant portion.  At trial, the jury awarded Uniloc $388 million in damages, relying on the testimony of Uniloc's expert, who opined that damages should be $564,946,803 based on a hypothetical negotiation between Uniloc and Microsoft and the Georgia-Pacific factors.  Using an internal Microsoft document relating to the value of product keys, the expert applied the 25 percent "rule of thumb" to the minimum value reported ($10 each), obtaining a value of $2.50 per key.  After applying the Georgia-Pacific factors, which he concluded did not modify the base rate, he multiplied it by the number of new licenses to Office and Windows products, producing the $565 million value.  He confirmed his valuation by "checking" it against the total market value of sales of the Microsoft products (approximately $19 billion, noting that it represented only 2.9% of the gross revenue of the products.   

The 25 Percent Rule: On appeal, the CAFC first rejected the use of the 25 percent rule to calculate patent damages.  "The 25 percent rule of thumb is a tool that has been used to approximate the reasonable royalty rate that the manufacturer of a patented product would be willing to offer to pay to the patentee during a hypothetical negotiation." Slip Op. at 36, citing Robert Goldscheider, John Jarosz and Carla Mulhern, USE OF THE 25 PER CENT RULE IN VALUING IP, 37 les Nouvelles 123, 123 (Dec. 2002).  Under the rule, "licensees pay a royalty rate equivalent to 25 per cent of its expected profits for the product that incorporates the IP at issue." Id., quoting Goldscheider et al. Included in the court's discussion of the rule is an extensive survey of the relevant literature (covering no less than nine articles), as well as an acknowledgement that the "court has passively tolerated its use where its acceptability has not been the focus of the case." Slip Op. at 39.  However, the court recognized that it  never squarely addressed the use of the rule.

Treating the issue as one of first principles, and after considering the relevant Supreme Court caselaw, the CAFC concluded that, as an abstract theory untied to particular factual circumstances of a given case, the 25 percent rule simply cannot be used for damages calculations: 

This court now holds as a matter of Federal Circuit law that the 25 percent rule of thumb is a fundamentally flawed tool for determining a baseline royalty rate in a hypothetical negotiation. Evidence relying on the 25 percent rule of thumb is thus inadmissible under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence, because it fails to tie a reasonable royalty base to the facts of the case at issue.

Slip Op. at 41.  The court based its reasoning on the Daubert standard for expert testimony, concluding that general theories are only permissible if the expert adequately ties the theory to the specific facts of the case.  Under Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) and General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 US 136 (1997), "one major determinant of whether an expert should be excluded under Daubert is whether he has justified the application of a general theory to the facts of the case."  Slip Op. at 43.

Applying this principle, the CAFC criticized the application of the 25 percent rule because there was no link between the rule and the specific case:

The meaning of these cases is clear: there must be a basis in fact to associate the royalty rates used in prior licenses to the particular hypothetical negotiation at issue in the case. The 25 percent rule of thumb as an abstract and largely theoretical construct fails to satisfy this fundamental requirement. The rule does not say anything about a particular hypothetical negotiation or reasonable royalty involving any particular technology, industry, or party.

Slip Op. at 45. In addition, the court pointed to the lack of testimony by Uniloc's expert suggesting that the starting point of a 25 percent royalty had any relation to the facts of the case, and thus the use of the rule was "arbitrary, unreliable, and irrelevant," failing to pass muster under Daubert and tainting the jury's damages calculation.  Id. at 47.

Entire Market Value Rule: The CAFC also rejected the expert's application of the entire market value rule, which he used as a check on the total damages.  "The entire market value rule allows a patentee to assess damages based on the entire market value of the accused product only where the patented feature creates the 'basis for customer demand' or 'substantially create[s] the value of the component parts.'"  Slip Op. at 48.  Here, however, there was no evidence that the patented component created the basis for customer demand, as required by the rule: "This case provides a good example of the danger of admitting consideration of the entire market value of the accused where the patented component does not create the basis for customer demand."  Slip Op. at 51.

Infringement
In opposing Uniloc's challenge on the issue of infringement, Microsoft argued that several grounds supported affirmance of the district court's grant of JMOL of noninfringement.  The CAFC rejected each argument in turn, concluding that substantial evidence supported the jury's finding of infringement. 

Standard of Review: One issue that sophisticated parties often dispute is the relevant standard that applies when reviewing jury verdicts. This appeal was no different – Microsoft contended that the jury verdict should be reviewed de novo, while Uniloc argued that it should be reviewed for substantial evidence.  The CAFC responded by distinguishing situations where "the parties conceded that under one claim construction there was infringement and under the other there was none, and were arguing only over which claim construction was appropriate." Slip Op. at 15.  In these cases, de novo review applies.  On the other hand, where "the claim construction itself is not contested, but the application of that claim construction to the accused device is," the court applies the substantial evidence standard. Id.

Comment: This distinction reinforces a basic principle of Federal Circuit appellate practice: Parties challenging a jury verdict on the issue of infringement will likely want to frame the dispute on appeal as a question of claim construction; parties defending the verdict will likely want to frame it as a question of application of an accepted construction to the accused product or method.  Of course, whether a party will be able to frame the question in a particular way depends largely on how the issue was set up in the district court – which itself is ideally part of counsel's long term strategic thinking.

Applying this standard, the Federal Circuit concluded that the jury's verdict of infringement was supported by substantial evidence, rejecting Microsoft's arguments to the contrary.  The court also rejected Microsoft's argument that a critical "means-plus-function" limitation should be read narrowly.  To the contrary, the court held, it should be read broadly, applying language from IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436 (Fed. Cir. 2000) stating that "when in a claimed 'means' limitation the disclosed physical structure is of little or no importance to the claimed invention, there may be a broader range of equivalent structures than if the physical characteristics of the structure are critical in performing the claimed function." 

Expert Testimony, redux: Also of note is the court's ruling with respect to expert testimony as it pertains to infringment.  Although the district court rejected the testimony of Uniloc's expert as "incomplete, oversimplified and frankly inappropriate," the CAFC concluded that this rejection was improper because the district court had already fulfilled its gatekeeping function under Daubert when it explicitly noted that the expert was "qualified."  Thus, it was up to the jury "to evaluate the weight to be given to the testimony of dueling qualified experts."  This application of Daubert seems to be somewhat in tension with the court's treatment of expert testimony in the damages context, which focused on the content of the testimony, not the qualifications of the person giving it.

Joint Infringement: The CAFC also rejected Microsoft's joint infringement argument.  Rather than implicating joint conduct, the court ruled, Uniloc's claim was structured so as to capture infringement by a single party by focusing on one entity.  "That other parties are necessary to complete the environment in which the claimed element functions does not necessarily divide the infringement between the necessary parties. For example, a claim that reads “An algorithm incorporating means for receiving e-mails” may require two parties to function, but could nevertheless be infringed by the single party who uses an algorithm that receives e-mails."  Slip Op. at 29.

Willful Infringement: On the issue of willfulness, the CAFC continued to apply its objective super-threshold for proving willfulness.  "If the accused infringer's position is susceptible to a reasonable conclusion of no infringement, the first prong of Seagate cannot be met." Slip Op. at 32.  Particularly obtuse is the court's triple-negative articulation of the factual holding: "Uniloc has not presented any evidence at trial or on appeal showing why Microsoft, at the time it began infringement, could not have reasonably determined that [Microsoft's algorithms] did not meet the “licensee unique ID generating means,” “licensee unique ID,” or “registration system”/“mode switching means” limitations."

Presumption of Validity: in addressing Microsoft's cross-appeal of the denial of its motion for JMOL and a new trial on invalidity, the court declined to back away from the "clear and convincing" standard for invalidity.  Rejecting Microsoft's argument that its burden was to show invalidity simply by a preponderance of the evidence – as opposed to clear and convincing evidence – because the prior art reference was not before the PTO, the court continued to apply the higher standard.  "Until changed by the Supreme Court or this court sitting en ban, this is still the law."  Slip Op. at 55.  Applying this standard, the court rejected Microsoft's argument that it was simply practicing the prior art, and thus a finding of infringement necessitated a finding of invalidity. 

Patent Law Final Exam – Part 1

Law School, Patent,

Question 1.

On May 1, 2005, Mr. Suresh received an e-mail from a friend warning against eating with disposable bamboo chopsticks. The problem, according to the e-mail, was that bamboo chopsticks were saturated with cariogenic chemicals to preserve and whiten the material. A solution to the problem immediately came to Suresh based on his job as a dental hygienist using UV LASER technology to whiten and preserve teeth. Suresh surmised that bombarding raw bamboo sticks with a high-intensity UV LASER could accomplish the preservation and whitening goals without the use of problematic chemicals. The next evening, Suresh tested his ideas using the UV LASER at his employer's office (the dentist). That evening, Suresh made six sets of prototype LASER irradiated chopsticks and placed them on a shelf in the employee break-room. Over the next six-months, Suresh would occasionally test the prototypes to see if they retained their color and germ resistance. On a couple of occasions during that time, he even used the prototypes at a Chinese restaurant downtown. His interest then waned in the project for several months.

In December 2006, Suresh was fired. He then decided to move forward with his chopstick business. Unfortunately, by that time, someone else (StickCo) had separately invented the same thing and already had a product on the market (with considerable commercial success). Suresh quickly filed for patent protection and in April 2008, the PTO granted Suresh a utility patent with claims directed to both "a product comprising a UV LASER treated bamboo chopstick" and also "a method comprising treating raw bamboo with a UV LASER in a manner sufficient to whiten and preserve the material". Suresh then sued StickCo for patent infringement.

In the end, it turned out that the e-mail scare was a hoax. Ordinary chopsticks are actually cheaper to produce and safer to use than Suresh's irradiated chopsticks.

  1. Did Suresh's post-invention activities trigger the statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) and render the patented claims invalid?
  2. Based on the prior state-of-the-art discussed, is Suresh's invention nonobvious?
  3. Does Suresh's former employer have any claim to rights in the invention?
  4. Assume that StickCo can prove an invention date of January 1, 2006. Does StickCo have a credible argument under 35 U.S.C. §102(g) that Suresh's patent is invalid?
  5. Assuming that StickCo's version of the chopsticks infringe Suresh's patent, but that StickCo does not have enough money to pay the damages. What other parties could be held liable for the infringement?
  6. Two other similar products were recently released by another manufacturer: (i) A UV LASER treated chopstick that is dark brown in color and that is also chemically treated; (ii) a chopstick that is treated with a BLUE-VIOLET LASER rather than an ULTRA-VIOLET (UV) LASER. Do either of these infringe Suresh's patent?
  7. Patent Office rules require inventors to provide the USPTO with "all information known to be material to patentability." 37 C.F.R. § 1.56. Did Suresh make a mistake by failing to tell the PTO how he came-up with his invention?
  8. When Suresh filed his patent application, the only LASER he had used was the UV LASER from his dentist's office. However, he was confident that other LASERs would probably work just as well, if not better. (i) In the patent application should he have discussed the dentistry LASER? (ii) What about the other (untested) LASERs? (iii) Could Suresh broadly patent "the use of UV LASER radiation to treat an eating utensil, without being limited to the specific machinery or parts of machinery described in the foregoing specification?"
  9. We often think of patents as intended to encourage innovation. Does the granting of patent rights in situations like this (serendipitous invention) do anything to encourage innovation? You might distinguish between this case and one where the patentee conducted an expensive research and development program before inventing.
  10. Are there other patent law issues that should concern Suresh? (Limit your discussion to at-most two additional issues)?

WiAV Solutions v. Motorola: Clarifying the Meaning of “Exclusive Licensee”

Infringement, License, Patent, Patent Cases 2010, Rantanen,

By Jason Rantanen

WiAV Solutions LLC v. Motorola, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Panel: Rader, Linn (author), Dyk

WiAV is the purported exclusive licensee of seven patents relating to aspects of signal transmission and data encoding/decoding owned by Mindspeed Technologies, Inc.  In 2009, WiAV sued a set of companies including Motorola, Inc.; Nokia Corporation; Palm, Inc.; and Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA), Inc. for infringement of the Mindspeed patents.  The defendants contended, and the district court agreed, that WiAV lacked constitutional standing to assert the patents because WiAV is not an exclusive licensee of the patents under Textile Productions, Inc. v. Mead. Corp., 134 F.3d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1998), which they argued holds that a party cannot be an exclusive licensee of a patent when a third party has the right to license the patent. 

In reversing the district court's dismissal, the CAFC rejected this argument, instead holding that "a licensee is an exclusive licensee of a patent if it holds any of the exclusionary rights that accompany a patent."  Slip. Op. at 17 (emphasis added). This decision is in the vein of the court's earlier decision this year in Alfred E. Mann Foundation For Scientific Research v. Cochlear Corp., 604 F.3d 1354, in which it concluded that a licensee is an exclusive licensee of a patent despite retaining the ability to license the patent to settle lawsuits. 

Scope of the Licensing
The licensing rights at issue were held by six third parties, and stemmed from a series of spin-offs and other agreements that occurred as the patents were transferred from company to company. For example, when Rockwell International Corporation, the original owner of the Mindspeed patents, assigned them to Conexant, the second owner, its subsidiary, Rockwell Science Center, received a limited, non-exclusive license to use the patents in connection with its business, along with the right to sublicense to Rockwell International and its "Affiliates," or to transfer the license in connection with the sale of the respective businesses to which the intellectual property rights relate.  The district court found that several of these licensees retained a limited right to license the patents in the field of wireless handsets, and concluded that under Textile Productions, WiAV could thus not be an exclusive licensee of the Mindspeed Patents.

Any Exclusionary Rights
On appeal, the CAFC rejected the argument that, under Textile Productions  "a licensee cannot be an exclusive licensee of a patent if others retain the right to license the patent."  Slip. Op. at 11.  Turning straight to the constitutional analysis, the court held that the standing determination  focuses only on whether a party has any exclusionary right in a patent:

Because the legally protected interests in a patent are the exclusionary rights created by the Patent Act, a party holding one or more of those exclusionary rights—such as an exclusive licensee—suffers a legally cognizable injury when an unauthorized party encroaches upon those rights and therefore has standing to sue. 
…
Thus, the touchstone of constitutional standing in a patent infringement suit is whether a party can establish that it has an exclusionary right in a patent that, if violated by another, would cause the party holding the exclusionary right to suffer legal injury. Contrary to the suggestion of the Defendants, neither this court’s Textile Productions nor Mars decision freed the constitutional standing inquiry from its legal injury mooring.

Slip Op. at 14-15.  Textile Productions, on the other hand, involved only the narrow question of whether a particular type of contract, a requirements contract for a patented product, automatically converts the exclusive supplier into an exclusive licensee.  "Nowhere did the Textile Productions court suggest that a party holding one or more of the exclusionary rights in a patent does not have standing to sue to protect those rights against infringement by an unauthorized third party. Nor is there any indication that the court created a bright-line rule that a party cannot be an exclusive licensee of a patent if others have the right to license the patent."  Slip. Op. at 16.

The CAFC did impose one important limitation on the broad rule for standing: "Because an exclusive licensee derives its standing from the exclusionary rights it holds, it follows that its standing will ordinarily be coterminous with those rights."  Slip Op. at 17. Thus, an exclusive licensee may have standing to sue some parties, but not others; it may also lack standing to sue a party who has the ability to obtain a license from another party with the right to grant it. 

Applying its holding, the court concluded that none of the pre-existing licenses granted the right to license the Defendants to practice the patents in WiAV's field of exclusivity, and thus WiAV possessed constitutional standing for this case. 

Note: WiAV does not disturb the requirement that "[a]n exclusive licenseee generally must join the patent owner to the suit to satisfy prudential standing constraints, i.e., the 'judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction.'" Slip Op. at 14-15, fn. 1.  Here, WiAV had satisfied those concerns by adding Mindspeed to the suit as the "defendant patent owner." 

Judge Kathleen O’Malley Confirmed to the Federal Circuit

CAFC, Patent, Rantanen

By Jason Rantanen

On Wednesday, the Senate confirmed Kathleen McDonald O'Malley to fill the vacancy left by Judge Schall when he took senior status.  Judge O'Malley currently serves as a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, and will be the only sitting Federal Circuit judge to have previously served as a district court judge.   She was nominated for her first judgeship by President Clinton in 1994, prior to which she served in government and private practice.  An earlier Patently-O discussion of Judge O'Malley is available here. 

Two vacancies on the CAFC remain unfilled and although nominees were proposed during the 111th Congress (Jimmie Reyna and Edward DuMont), those nominations were not acted on.  

Prometheus Laboratories v. Mayo: The Broad Scope of Statutory Subject Matter

CAFC, Patent, Patent Cases 2010, Patentable Subject Matter, Pharma, Rantanen

By Jason Rantanen

Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Panel: Rader, Lourie (author), Bryson

Last Friday, the Federal Circuit released its second noteworthy post-Bilski decision (the first being Research Corp v. Microsoft).  The opinion, Prometheus v. Mayo, issued following a grant-vacate-remand order from the Supreme Court instructing the CAFC to revisit its original decision in light of Bilski.  Despite this procedural posture, however, the new opinion is quite similar to the old, arriving at the same conclusion through essentially the same reasoning.   

Prometheus initially came to the Federal Circuit following a district court grant of summary judgment of invalidity under § 101 (lack of patentable subject matter).  After the CAFC reversed the ruling of invalidity using its "machine-or-transformation" test, Mayo sought review by the Supreme Court.  The Court granted certiorari, vacated the CAFC decision, and remanded for consideration in light of its Bilski opinion.  Earlier Patently-O commentary includes a summary of the original Federal Circuit opinion and a discussion of the remand.

The patents-in-suit claim a method for determining whether a patient has received a therapeutically efficacious amount of drugs such as 6-mercaptopurine ("6-MP") and azthiopurine ("AZA"), which are used to treat inflammatory bowel diseases but can produce toxic side effects.  In the human body, these drugs metabolize into 6-MP metabolites, including 6-methylmercaptopurine ("6-MMP") and 6-thioguanine ("6-TG").  By administering the drug, measuring the subject's levels of 6-MMP and 6-TG and comparing them to pre-determined levels, toxicity can be minimized and efficacy maximized. 

Claim 1 of Patent No. 6,355,623 is representative:

1. A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, comprising:
    (a) administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to a subject having said im-mune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder; and
    (b) determining the level of 6-thioguanine in said subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder,
    wherein the level of 6-thioguanine less than about 230 pmol per 8×108 red blood cells indicates a need to increase the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject and
    wherein the level of 6-thioguanine greater than about 400 pmol per 8×108 red blood cells indicates a need to decrease the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject.

Although similar in most respects, some claims of the second patent-in-suit, No. 6,680,302, dispense with the "administering" step.

The Patents Do Not Claim a Physical Phenomena
On remand, the CAFC again rejected Mayo's argument that the '623 and '302 patents claim a "natural phenomenon."  In seeking a judgment of invalidity under Section 101, Mayo contended (and the district court agreed) that the "administering" and "determining" steps are merely necessary data-gathering steps for the use of the correlations between 6-TG and 6-MMP and therapeutic efficacy or toxicity in patients.  Because these correlations are simply natural phenomena, Mayo reasoned, they were unpatentable.

As before, the Federal Circuit disagreed, noting that Bilski provides a broad – although not unlimited – scope for patent protection, and “an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”  Slip. Op. at 12, quoting Bilski, 130 S.Ct. at 3230.  Furthermore, the court stated, neither the Supreme Court's order to vacate and remand the original Prometheus decision nor Bilski dictates a wholly different analysis or different result.  

The crux of the CAFC's determination that the asserted claims recite a patent-eligible application of naturally occurring correlations between metabolite levels and efficacy or toxicity as opposed to the natural correlation itself rests on the specific treatment steps recited by the claims: the "administering" step and the "determining" step.  "The inventive nature of the claimed methods stems not from preemption of all use of these natural processes, but from the application of a natural phenomenon in a series of steps comprising particular methods of treatment." Slip. Op. at 15-16.

In support of its conclusion, the court reiterated its earlier determination that the treatment methods in Prometheus's patents satisfy the "machine-or-transformation test.  Although this is not the exclusive test, post-Bilski, it nevertheless provides important clues to subject matter patentabilty.  In applying the machine-or-transformation framework, the court specifically rejected Mayo's argument that the disputed claims simply claim natural correlations and the associated data-gathering steps, broadly stating that the asserted claims are "claims to methods of treatment, which are always transformative when one of a defined group of drugs is administered to the body to ameliorate the effects of an undesired condition."  Slip Op. at 17.  Even leaving out the administration step does not make the claims unpatentable, as the CAFC also found the "determining" step to be transformative because it involves "[s]ome form of manipulation, such as the high pressure liquid chromatography method specified in several of the asserted dependent claims or some other modification of the substances to be measured, [which] is necessary to extract the metabolites from a bodily sample and determine their concentration."  Id. at 18.

In reaching this conclusion, however, the court was forced to distinguish its earlier decision In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835 (Fed. Cir. 1989), which similarly claimed a process that involved "(1) performing a clinical test on individuals and (2) based on the data from that test, determining if an abnormality existed and determining possible causes of any abnormality by using an algorithm."  Id. at 20.   Unlike the claims in Grams – which the CAFC found unpatentable "because the tests were just to 'obtain data'" (Slip Op. at 20) – the claims of the Prometheus patents "require the performing of clinical tests on individuals that were transformative." 

Mental Steps
In addition to its overarching analysis of the subject matter issue, the opinion also includes an interesting discussion of the use of mental steps in patent claims.  Although the CAFC agreed that the final "wherein" clauses are mental steps, "A subsequent mental step does not, by itself, negate the transformative nature of prior steps. Thus, when viewed in the proper context, the final step of providing a warning based on the results of the prior steps does not detract from the patentability of Prometheus’s claimed methods as a whole." Slip Op. at 21. Because no claim in the Prometheus patents claims only mental steps, "contrary to Mayo’s assertions, a physician who only evaluates the result of the claimed methods, without carrying out the administering and/or determining steps that are present in all the claims, cannot infringe any claim that requires such steps." Id.

Additional Commentary
In addition to an extensive discussion about the decision in response to Dennis's post on Sunday, other sites commenting on the decision include:

  • Patent Docs
  • patents4life
  • IP Watchdog
  • Chris Holman's IP Blog
  • Hal Weger of Foley has suggested that another grant of certiorari may be down the road, given the opinion's refusal to discuss a three-Justice dissent from the dismissal of certiorari in Lab. Corp., 548 U.S. 124, that was cited with approval by five Justices in two concurrences in Bilski.

Akamai v. Limelight: Joint Infringement Requires an Agency Relationship or a Contractual Obligation

Claim Construction, Infringement, Patent, Patent Cases 2010, Rantanen, ,

By Jason Rantanen and Dennis Crouch

Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Panel: Rader, Linn (author), Prost

Three years ago, in BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the Federal Circuit sharply limited the ability of patent holders to assert claims of joint infringement.  The BMC decision was further bolstered by Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp. and I-Deal (Fed. Cir. 2008). Akamai v. Limelight expands on the "control or direct" rule announced in BMC and Muniauction, explaining that joint infringement requires an agency relationship or a contractual obligation to carry out the relevant steps. 

Akamai's Claim of Joint Infringement
In order to win a patent infringement case, a patentee must prove that a single entity practiced every element (either literally or by equivalents) of at least one valid, enforceable claim. Joint infringement issues can arise when a patent holder asserts method claims over activities whose steps are not carried out by a single party.  For example, if a patent claims a method involving performing steps A, B, and C, the patent holder may need to argue joint infringement (as opposed to straightforward direct infringement) if steps A and B are performed by one party and step C is performed by a second party. 

In Akamai, while the accused party (Limelight) performed the majority of the steps of the asserted claims, at least one of the steps of each claim was performed by its customers.  The patent, No. 6,108,703, is directed to an improved method for storing web page content.  Conventionally, the entirety of a web page, including both the page itself and embedded content (such as graphics) is stored on a single server, or mirrored in its entirety across multiple servers.  The patents-in-suit claim a new approach, which involves storing only the embedded objects on mirrored servers (called a "Content Delivery Network," or "CDN"), while having the webpage itself continue to reside on the content provider's servers.  In order to make this system work, the claims further require that the object URLs be "tagged" to resolve to the CDN. 

Daniel Lewin and his adviser Thomas Leighton devised these methods (or algorithms) while at MIT where Leighton was the head of MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.  The pair founded Akamai, and their invention continues to serve as a basis for the company's core business.  Lewin was killed aboard American Airlines flight 11 when it crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Limelight, Akamai's direct competitor in the CDN business, performed most of the claimed steps but had its customers (companies such as Netflix) tag the URLs.  Because some of the steps were performed by Limelight and some by its customers, Akamai relied on a theory of joint liability, arguing that Limelight controls or directs the activities of its customers.  At trial, the jury sided with Akamai and awarded over $40 million in lost-profit-damages. The district court rejected the jury verdict and supplemented its own non-infringement judgment – holding that there was "no material difference between Limelight's interaction with his customers and that of Thomson in Muniauction."

On appeal, Akamai contended that substantial evidence supported the infringement finding, arguing that Limelight "(1) creates and assigns a unique hostname for the content provider; (2) provides explicit step-by-step instructions to perform the tagging and serving claim steps; (3) offers technical assistance to help content providers with their performance of the claim step; and (4) contractually requires content providers to perform the tagging and serving claim steps if they utilize the Limelight service."  Slip Op at 11. 

Important holdings
In affirming the district court's judgment of noninfringement, the CAFC expanded on its ruling in BMC that "joint liability may be found when one party 'control[s] or direct[s]' the activities of another party."  Slip Op. at 9.  After noting the foundational nature of this standard, the Akamai panel further held that "what is essential is not merely the exercise of control or the providing of instructions, but whether the relationship between the parties is such that acts of one may be attributed to the other."   Id. at 12.  The court interpreted this as requiring either an agency relationship or a contractual obligation: "as a matter of Federal Circuit law that there can only be joint infringement when there is an agency relationship between the parties who perform the method steps or when one party is contractually obligated to the other to perform the steps."  Slip Op. at 14.

Analyzing the issue as a question of agency law, the CAFC concluded that no substantial evidence supported a finding that Limelight's customers perform any of the steps of the claimed method as agents for Limelight.  (Citing the Restatement (3rd) of Agency §1.01). The court also rejected Akamai's theory that Limelight's customers are contractually required to perform the tagging step.  Rather, the court stated, the contract does not obligate the customers to perform any of the method steps; instead, it "merely explains that the customer will have to perform the steps if it decides to take advantage of Limelight's service."  Slip Op. at 16.

Note: The court repeated the warning it set forth in BMC Resources, 498 F.3d at 1381, that concerns about the difficulty of proving infringement of claims that must be infringed by multiple parties "by proper claim drafting.  A patentee can usually structure a claim to capture infringement by a single party."  Slip. Op. at 17 (quoting BMC Resources).  Failing this, the court suggested (citing Mark Lemley's Divided Infringement article) that patentees may be able to correct a claim by seeking a reissue patent.

Claim Construction
Akamai also challenged the district court's construction of two claim terms in related patents, contending that both constructions imported limitations from the specification into the claims.  In a fact-intensive analysis, the CAFC rejected Akamai's arguments, concluding that the district court correctly interpreted the disputed terms given the treatment of the invention in the specification and the lack of any contrary evidence in the prosecution history. 

The Federal Circuit’s Use of Legal Scholarship

CAFC, Patent, Rantanen

By Jason Rantanen

Professors Lee Petherbridge and David Schwartz have released a draft of their new study on the use of legal scholarship by the Federal Circuit.  In the paper, the authors question the conventional wisdom that the Federal Circuit is less likely than other circuit courts of appeals to use legal scholarship in its decision making, and conclude that this oft-repeated claim is contrary to the empirical evidence. 

Methodology and Dataset:  The authors conducted a search of all the reported opinions for the United States circuit courts of appeals for the years 1990-2008 using a mechanical approach to identify each opinion citing to legal scholarship at least once, followed by a custom-made computer program that identified individual citations to legal scholarship. 

Findings: Contrary to result expected under the conventional wisdom, the authors found that the Federal Circuit's use of legal scholarship is similar to that of the regional circuits.  Although it falls on the lower end of the spectrum of judicial citations, the overall frequency with which the CAFC cites legal scholarship is within the range expressed by the regional circuits, and the median frequency of citations per judge falls around the middle of the regional circuits.

The authors also discovered that, unlike some of the high-frequency-of-citation regional circuits, the Federal Circuit lacks any legal scholarship "super citers," such as Judges Posner, Easterbrook, Calibresi, Becker, and Kozinski, which may explain why its overall citation frequency falls on the lower end of the regional circuits.   

Implications: Based on their empirical analysis, the authors conclude that the "claim that the Federal Circuit does not use legal scholarship as much as it should because it does not use it as often as the regional circuit courts of appeals is essentially eviscerated."  Thus, the authors recommend that future scholarship should focus on the merits of the Federal Circuit's use of scholarship, asking questions about when and how the court uses legal scholarship.

The authors also suggest that adding or encouraging an existing judge to become a "super citer" might be beneficial.  They reason that having a small number of judges who regularly study and use legal scholarship allows that scholarship to make its way into the jurisprudence at a measured rate, where it can be considered by the remaining judges who rely on more traditional tools for developing the law.  This mechanism encourages jurisprudential innovation while preventing sudden dramatic shifts. 

Read the Paper: Download here.

In re Vistaprint Ltd.: Venue Transfer Denied

CAFC, Jurisdiction, Patent, Patent Cases 2010, Rantanen, ,

By Jason Rantanen

In re Vistaprint Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Panel: Gajarsa, Schall (author), and Moore

In a counterpoint to its recent decision in In re Acer, this morning the Federal Circuit denied a request for a writ of mandamus seeking transfer of venue out of the Eastern District of Texas.  The underlying action was bought by ColorQuick, LLC, which holds a patent relating to the preparation of production data for printing, against Vistaprint Limited and OfficeMax Incorporated.  As in Acer, none of the parties resided in Texas: Vistaprint, a foreign corporation, has a wholly-owned subsidiary in Massachusetts; OfficeMax is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois; and ColorQuick is a New Jersey corporation.  Both the panel and author in this appeal were identical to the panel and author that granted the writ in In re Acer.

In denying the request for a writ, the CAFC acknowledged the lack of residency, but ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying transfer.  The panel first noted that although a trial court has broad discretion in transfer decisions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), "that is not the same as saying that it may accord weight simply as it pleases."  Slip Op. at 4.  Applying that standard, the panel concluded the district court's weighing of factors in this case did not amount to a "patently erroneous result."  Id. (quoting In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). Specifically, the CAFC concluded that the district court had not abused its discretion in weighing two factors relating to judicial economy: that the trial court had gained substantial experience in construing the claims of the same patent during a prior litigation and that there was a related case currently pending before the same court.

The CAFC also rejected the petitioners' argument that it is always improper for a district court to deny transfer based on judicial economy when all of the convenience factors clearly favor transfer.  While the court noted the importance of the convenience factors, it also recognized that "§ 1404(a) commits the balancing determination to the sound discretion of the trial court based not on per se rules but rather on an 'individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.'"  Slip Op. at 6-7 (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)).  In this specific case, the CAFC could not conclude that "the trial court's balancing was so unreasonable as to warrant the extraordinary relief of mandamus."  Id. at 8.

Note: The opinion's final footnote appears to summarize the panel's overarching view on mandamus petitions directed to the venue transfer issue.  It states:

Our holding today does not mean that, once a patent is litigated in a particular venue the patent owner will necessarily have a free pass to maintain all future litigation involving that patent in that venue. However, where, as here, the trial court performed a detailed analysis explaining that it is very familiar with the only asserted patent and the related technology, and where there is a co-pending litigation before the trial court involving the same patent-in-suit, and pertaining to the same underly-ing technology and accusing similar services, we cannot say the trial court clearly abused its discretion in denying transfer.

Old-School Submarine Patents

Patent, Patent Applications

Old-school submarine patents were serious business. Throughout the late 20th Century, more than a handful of patent applicants kept patent applications pending for years-and-years until the claimed invention became market-ready. Once the patent issued, the patent would then be enforceable for seventeen–years from the issue date.  

Two legal changes have eliminated most of the concerning submarine issues for newly filed applications. Patents granted on applications filed after June 7, 1995 have a term of twenty-years from the priority filing date.*  In 2000, the PTO began publishing pending patent applications and now the vast majority of pending applications are published 18–months after filing.

Old patent applications, new patents: I e-mailed with a USPTO official who identified that there are about 600 still-pending patent applications that were filed before the 1995 cut-over (excluding classified applications).  These old cases are all being treated as “special” and the oldest one-hundred cases are receiving special attention.  In 2010, the USPTO issued patents on just over 60 of these old applications. The majority of the 2010 patents were granted to a company known as Personalized Media Communications (PMC). According to its website, PMC still has “over 100 pending patent applications” that were filed prior to the 1995 cut-over.  These patents and applications are all based on a pair of applications filed in 1981 and 1987 but will be in force until at least 2027 — 46 years later.

I looked through the prosecution history of PMC's recently issued patent No. 7,734,251. The final six years of prosecution involved an appeal that was fully briefed (over a 16–month period) and then returned to the examiner for re-briefing. The BPAI eventually decided the case –  affirming the rejection in-part –  then, on re-hearing reversed and agreed with PMC that all of its pending claims were patentable.  The prosecution is also notable for the handful of R.132 affidavits filed by various experts supporting patentability.  In the end, the cases were also being handled at the SPE level. PMC is represented by by Tom Scott at Goodwin Procter.

Notes:

* The twenty-year term is not triggered by priority claims to either foreign national or provisional patent applications.  Most patent terms are lengthened based on statutory patent-term-adjustment (PTA) due to unreasonable USPTO delays in issuing the patent.

Patent Term: Comparing 17-years-from-issue to 20-years-from-filing

Patent, Patent Applications, Patent Prosecution

One of the most important attributes of a patent is its term or duration of enforceability.  In 1995, the US patent system began calculating patent term based on the priority filing date of an application rather than a patent's issue date. Under the prior rule, a patent would remain in force for 17 years from the date of issue. Under the “new” system, the term is 20–years from the priority filing date. The three extra years were intended to account for a typical prosecution delay of three years. In addition, Congress added a patent-term-adjustment (PTA) provision to lengthen the patent term in instances where the USPTO unduly delayed in issuing a patent.

Study: For this study, I wanted to consider how the change has actually impacted patent term. To do this, I created a database of 50,000 recently issued patents and calculated the term under both the old and new system.  For the calculation under the new system, I added 20–years to the earliest priority date (excluding provisional and original foreign filing dates) and then added any patent-term-adjustment.  To calculate the term under the old system, I added 17–years to the issue date unless the patent had a family member (e.g., continuation application) with an earlier issue date. In that case, I added 17–years to the issue date of the family member based on an assumption that a terminal disclaimer would have been filed in the case. Because of some potential data discrepancies, I excluded the extreme 1% of results and also patents on applications filed proir to the 1995 change-over. 

Results: Most patents (64%) have a longer term under the new system than they would have been entitled under the older system. Under the new system, the median patent has a term of about 8–months longer than if the term had been calculated under the old system. For 43% of the patent, the terms are are within 1–year of what would have been calculated in the old system; and 89% are within 2–years. Of course, there are some extremes. As you might imagine, patents that benefit most under the new system are those that have the greatest patent term adjustment (PTA).  Patents in TC 1600 (Biochemistry and Organic Chemistry) comparatively fared the worst.  Those patents on average lose 11–months of patent term in the new system as compared to the old system.

Research Corp. v. Microsoft: Section 101 and Process Claims

Inequitable Conduct, Infringement, Patent, Patent Cases 2010, Patentable Subject Matter, Rantanen, , , , ,

By Jason Rantanen

There are three articulated exceptions to the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101: laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.  Research Corp. v. Microsoft places a high hurdle in front of challengers who seek to invalidate process patents on the third ground. 

Research Corp. Technologies v. Microsoft Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Panel: Rader (author), Newman, and Plager

Research Corporation ("RCT") owns several patents relating to digital image halftoning, which is the process of generating electronic display and print images using only a small number of pixel colors (ex.: red, blue and green in the case of color displays) while appearing to present many more colors and shades than were actually used.  Four related patents are relevant to this summary: Nos. 5,111,310, 5,341,228, 5,477,305, and 5,726,772.  The applications for the '310 and '228 patents (a continuation-in-part of the '310 patent) were filed before December 4, 1991; the remaining patents are continuations of the '228 patent and claim priority to the earlier filing dates. 

RCT brought an infringement action against Microsoft based on these patents; in response, Microsoft asserted, and the district court initially concluded, that the patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, invalid and not infringed.  The Federal Circuit reversed that determination in 2008.  Microsoft subsequently sought summary judgment against the '310 and '228 patents on Section 101 patentable subject matter grounds, and asserted that the claims of the '772 patent were not entitled to the earlier priority date, thus rendering them anticipated.  The district court granted Microsoft's motions, and subsequently held that the only remaining claim, claim 29 of the '305 patent, also lacked entitlement to the earlier priority date.  Based on these ruling, the parties stipulated to a dismissal of the suit and RCT appealed.

Section 101 and Process Claims
In reversing the district court's ruling that the '310 and '228 patents failed to satisfy Section 101, the Federal Circuit identified a set of considerations that can be applied when assessing the question of abstractness.  Drawing upon the Supreme Court's precedent in this area, including its recent decision In re Bilski, the opinion first reiterates that there are only three articulated exceptions to subject matter eligibility: "laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas." 

Focusing on the category of abstract ideas, the court noted the Supreme Court's admonition in Bilski not to provide a rigid formula or definition for abstractness.  Rather, "the Supreme Court invited this court to develop 'other limiting criteria that further the purpose of the Patent Act and are not inconsistent with its text.'" Slip Op. at 14.  With that guidance, the panel concluded that it perceived nothing abstract in the subject matter of the processes claimed in the '310 and '228 patents.  Specifically, the court observed that:

  • "The invention presents functional and palpable applications in the field of computer technology";
  • Some claims in the patents require physical components;
  • "[I]nventions with specific applications or improvements to technologies in the marketplace are not likely to be so abstract that they override the statutory language and framework of the Patent Act"; and
  • The incorporation of algorithms and formulas does not prevent patent eligibility.

Nevertheless, while finding these factors met in the instant case, the panel further noted that its analysis was limited to the context of Section 101, which provides only a coarse filter.  Abstractness challenges can also be brought against specific claims under Section 112 even if the requirements of Section 101 are met.

Comment: The court's discussion of Section 101 suggests that the issue of patentable subject matter should be analyzed with respect to the patent as a whole; in contrast, Section 112 challenges are analyzed on a per-claim basis.

Burden of Proof for Establishing Priority
In addressing the district court's ruling that the asserted claims of the '772 and '305 patents were not entitled to claim priority to the '310 and '228 filing dates, the opinion reinforced the court's prior ruling that the patent holder bears the burden of establishing priority.  As the court held, although a patent challenger has the burden of going forward with invalidating prior art, once it has done so the burden shifts to the patent holder.  Thus, in an instance where the patent holder attempts to defeat the assertion of invalidity by claiming priority to an earlier application, the patent holder bears the burden of proving the entitlement to priority – including that the claims of the earlier patent are supported by the written description of the earlier specification.

Note: The '772 and '305 patents shared the same specification as the earlier '305 and '228 patents.  If the relevant claims had been contained in the '305 or '228 patents, Microsoft would have had the burden of proving lack of written description, as opposed to the burden resting with RCT.  Thus, the fact that the claims were part of a continuation was highly significant with respect to the allocation of the burden.

Comment: A related issue is who bears the burden of proof in the context of claims to a pre-filing conception or reduction to practice date. Although not mandated by the text of the opinion, which specifically refers to the burden to establish "an earlier filing date," the court's analysis could be read to support the conclusion that the patent holder bears the burden of proof in this situation as well.

After dispensing with RCT's challenge to the district court's allocation of burden, the panel proceeded to address the priority claims on the merits.  With respect to the '772 claims, the panel agreed with the district court, concluding that they were unsupported by the prior disclosure.  The panel did reverse on the '305 claim, however, ruling that to satisfy the written description requirement for apparatus claims, the patent need not disclose every method of making the apparatus. 

Intellectual Ventures Takes First Overt Legal Actions to Enforce its Mammoth Patent Portfolio

Infringement, License, Patent,

By Dennis Crouch

In a bold move, the patent holding company Intellectual Ventures has filed three separate patent infringement lawsuits against major industry players.

Over the past several years, Intellectual Ventures has amassed a large patent portfolio that is held by a complex web of subsidiary companies. According to its court filings:

Intellectual Ventures has purchased more than 30,000 patents and patent applications and, in the process, has paid hundreds of millions of dollars to individual inventors for their inventions. Intellectual Ventures, in turn, has earned nearly $2 billion by licensing these patents to some of the world's most innovative and successful technology companies.

In the first suit, Intellectual Ventures sued Check Point Software, McAfee, Symantec, and Trend Micro for infringement of Patent Nos. 5,987,610, 6,073,142, 6,460,050, and 7,506,155. These patents were originally owned by Ameritech which merged with SBC. According to USPTO assignment records, SBC assigned its rights to the University of Texas which then assigned rights to Verve, an IP broker. Verve then assigned its rights to AUCTNYC8. The assignment to Intellectual Ventures itself has not been recorded. To be clear, the case caption actually states that the plaintiff is "Intellectual Ventures I LLC." The other two lawsuits involve some combination of Intellectual Ventures I, II, and III, respectively. Other defendants include Hynix Semiconductor, Elpida Memory, Altera, Lattice Semiconductor, and Microsemi (Actel). At least some of the patents being asserted against Altera and Lattice Semiconductor were originally owned by AMD, and then transferred to Legerity. At least one other patent asserted in the lawsuits was invented by noted chip designer Bob Proebsting. After his death, the patent was held by the Proebsting estate. Although Intellectual Ventures (I – III) claims ownership in their complaints, PTO records do not reflect that ownership.

In a press release, Intellectual Ventures issued a warning blow to other potential defendants:

Over the years, Intellectual Ventures has successfully negotiated license agreements with some of the top technology companies in the world. However, some companies have chosen to ignore our requests for good faith negotiations and discussions. Protecting our invention rights through these actions is the right choice for our investors, inventors and current licensees.

Intellectual Venture's chief litigation counsel is Melissa Finocchio who was previously with Micron, Orrick, and Cooley. The company's outside counsel include an all-star cast of Former Delaware Judge Joseph Farnan; John Desmarais; Jared Bobrow; and Parker Folse. All the suits have been filed in Judge Farnan's hometown District of Delaware.

Notes:

Patently-O Bits and Bytes: Getting Personal

Bits and Bytes, Patent
  • Injured Reserve: I've been on injured reserve for the past few weeks with both arms substantially immobilized, but I am now back (at least until my shoulder surgery next week). I am now going through a load of unread e-mails. If you sent me an e-mail or left a phone message during this time, I will respond as soon as possible. – Dennis Crouch
  • Popularity Challenged: It seems that my friends Gene & Renee Quinn have even more friends: Patently-O needs your vote in the ABA popularity contest.
  • A bite out of Apple: At least one analyst is suggesting that the Motorola v. Apple patent litigation could "knock 15% off" of Apple's stock price. Florian Mueller has a nice diagram of the Apple lawsuits with Motorola and HTC that are ongoing in the International Trade Commission (ITC), District of Delaware, Southern District of Florida, and the Western District of Wisconsin. Mueller writes about patent challenges to Free & Open Source Software at his FOSS Patent Blog.
  • Pioneering Patents: There has been a long debate in the patent world on whether patents should focus more on pioneering patents rather than on smaller "tweaks." Professors Raustiala and Sprigman discuss the issues on the Freakonomics blog.
  • Peer-to-Patent on Chemistry and Biotechnology: The Peer-to-Patent system has expanded to include the review of patent applications in areas of chemistry and biotechnology. A recent application up for review was filed by Bayer and claims a Pyrrolotriazine derivative that is apparently useful in treating cancer by inhibiting aurora kinase.  [Try your hand at evaluating patentability of the claimed invention].

Global-Tech v. SEB: Amicus Briefs

Amicus Brief, Patent, Rantanen,

By Jason Rantanen

Several amicus briefs supporting Global-Tech/neither party were filed yesterday.  Among them is a brief by 41 Law, Economics, and Business Professors in support of the Petitioner that parallels a similar brief filed in support of the petition for certiorari.  The merits brief, coordinated by Mark Lemley, Timothy Holbrook, and Lynda Oswald, argues that the Court should reject the "deliberate indifference" standard articulated by the Federal Circuit in SEB, and instead hold that inducement require that the defendant "be aware of a patent and encourage an act that it knows or should know would infringe that patent."  In anticipation of an argument that may be made in support of the Respondent, the brief also asserts that a strict liability standard for inducement would be disastrous.  The brief can be directly downloaded here: Download 10-6, tsac, 41 Law, Economics, and Business Professors

The full set of amicus briefs is available on the American Bar Association Website.  It includes briefs from:

  • The Business Software Alliance in Support of Petitioner
  • Cisco Systems, Inc., Dell, Inc., and Intel Corporation in Support of Reversal
  • The Clearinghouse Association and Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association in Support of Petitioner
  • Comcast Corporation, Facebook, Inc., Intuit Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Netflix, Inc., Overstock.Com, Inc., and SAP America, Inc. in Support of Petitioner
  • Google, Inc., in Support of Petitioner
  • NewEgg, Inc., in Support of Petitioner
  • The Software Freedom Law Center in Support of Petitioner
  • Yahoo! Inc., Ebay Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., General Motors LLC, Hewlett Packard Company, McAfee, Inc., Red Hat, Inc., and Symantec Corporation in Support of Petitioner
  • The Federal Circuit Bar Association in Support of Neither Party
  • The Intellectual Property Owners Association in Support of Neither Party

Design Patents and the Fashion Industry

Copyright, Design Patent, Patent, , , ,

The chart above shows a histogram of design patent application pendency based on patents issued April-November 2010. The majority of design patents issue within one year of the application filing. When there is a delay in prosecution, it is typically due to informalities in the application submitted. In an earlier study, I found that a very low percentage of design patent applications were ever challenged on novelty or obviousness grounds. For a large entity, a design application and issue fees total to $1,320 (half that for a small-entity).

Fashion Industry: In property law, I teach the case of Cheney Bros. v. Doris Silk Corp. (2nd Cir. 1930). In that 80-year-old case, a silk designer filed suit to stop a free-riding copycat. The appellate court rejected the plea based on the general rule that mere product imitation is not actionable at common law. Rather, a successful plaintiff must have some statutory right to protection – such as a patent or copyright – before copying can be pejorized as counterfeiting. At the time, copyright was not available for fabric designs (it is now) and patents were arguably impractical because of the prosecution cost and invention requirement. For the past eighty-years, the fashion industry has been asking for additional protections. During that time, the potential for copyright and trademark protections have been greatly expanded and enforcement of criminal counterfeiting has increased. However, there are still calls for expanded protection for fashion.

Fashion & Design Patent Rights: Some fashion industry markets have found design patents as valuable. These include eyewear, shoes, handbags, and jewelry. Despite widespread and growing use, fashion industry leaders have continued to push additional forms of protection that are easier to obtain.

The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act (S.3728) was recently passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee. That bill would provide protection for new fashion designs that are unique, distinguishable, non-trivial, and non-utilitarian variation over the prior art. No registration of rights would be required. Rather, protection is automatic for newly publicized clothing, footware, bags, and eyeglass frames. At trial, plaintiff would have the burden of proving rights and infringement. Under the proposed system, rights would persist for three years from the date of publication or first distribution.