Ineligible Subject Matter: 35 USC 101 Finds its Teeth (Biting into Nonobviousness)

Patent, , ,

In re Comiskey (Fed. Cir. 2007); and
In re Nuijten (Fed. Cir. 2007)

  • Comiskey’s patent application claims a method of arbitrating that does not necessarily require the use of any ‘technology.’
  • Nuijten’s patent application claims a signal containing a ‘watermark’ without being tied to a specific type of signal or any technology.

Both applications have been denied by the Federal Circuit under 35 U.S.C. Section 101 for their failure to claim patentable subject matter.

The scope of patentable subject matter is defined by Section 101 as any “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”  Any patent claim must fall within at least one of these categories.  Further limiting these categories is our precedential history that not every new and useful process constitutes patentable subject matter. See, for example, Flook & Benson.  In particular, the Supreme Court has noted that a process claim reciting an algorithm must either be (1) tied to a machine or (2) transformative of some composition of matter or device. Flook & Diehr.

Under these precedents, a claim that includes a mental process may be patentable — so long as it is otherwise tied to ‘reality.’

Comiskey: The Comiskey method of claim 1 admittedly does not require a machine, but it does require interaction with a ‘document.’  The reference to a document, however, was not enough to allow the “mental process” claim to be treated as legitimate.

“Thus, like the claims that the Supreme Court found unpatentable in Benson and Flook and the claims found unpatentable in our own cases, Comiskey’s independent claims 1 and 32 seek to patent the use of human intelligence in and of itself. Like the efforts to patent “a novel way of conducting auctions” which Schrader found to be directed to an abstract idea itself rather than a statutory category, Comiskey’s independent claims 1 and 32 describe an allegedly novel way of requiring and conducting arbitration and are unpatentable.”

Some of Comiskey’s claims arguably require a computer to operate through “modules.”  That claim construction transforms those claims to be patentable subject matter.  This means that software remains patentable subject matter if a computer limitation is a proper part of the claim.

Section 101 is Safe: Comiskey appear to reinstate something akin to the USPTO’s ‘technological arts’ requirement that had been eliminated by the Lundgren decision.  For Comiskey, recitation of a microprocessor as a limitation of the claims was sufficient to overcome the patentable subject matter issue. Notably, this is a rule of formality that, in most instances, can be followed without substantively reducing claim scope.  Under Comiskey, there is no requirement that the technical link be something novel or non-obvious. 

Section 103 is Lost: Although the question of patentable subject matter does not require a determination of nonobviousness, the reverse is not true.  Nonobviousness may now require an input from the patentable subject matter stage. The most interesting lines of Comiskey are as follows:

“The routine addition of modern electronics to an otherwise unpatentable invention typically creates a prima facie case of obviousness. Moreover, there is no pertinent evidence of secondary considerations because the only evidence offered is of long-felt need for the unpatentable mental process itself, not long-felt need for the combination of the mental process and a modern communication device or computer.”

The implicit holdings here: (1) evidence of secondary considerations do not apply to portions of an invention that are not considered “patentable subject matter;” and (2) during nonobviousness analysis, any portion of an invention that constitutes nonstatutory subject matter will be considered de facto obvious.

Nuijten: The Nuijten court bit off a bit more — finding that a signal is not patentable even if tied to a transitory form (such as a radio broadcast or light pulses in a fiber optic cable).  The problem – the court could not fit a ‘signal’ into any of the four categories:

  • Process: Process is defined in Section 100 as a “Process, Art, or Method.” The ‘art’ term appears on its face different than a typically process — especially based on the constitutional statement of “useful arts.” However, the CAFC refused to expand the meaning of process to include items that do not require an action. Thus, a signal is not a process.
  • Machine: The Supreme Court has defined a machine as “a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Burr (1863). Under this definition, a signal is not a machine.
  • Manufacture: The court limited a manufacture to an “article” produced by man. According to the court, an ‘article’ is not transient and cannot exist in a vacuum — both qualities of a signal. Thus, a signal is not a manufacture.
  • Composition of Matter: A transient electric signal is not a “chemical union, nor a gas, fluid, powder, or solid.” Therefore, a signal is not a composition of matter.

Failing to fit within a predefined category, the only conclusion is that a signal is not a patentable subject matter.

Rules of Practice:

  • Gangrene Treatment: In the political world of the courts, this case might be seen as the CAFC’s gangrene treatment — where the Supreme Court is the disease and patent law jurisprudence is the patient.  Several toes have already been lost, and the CAFC is cutting off a foot to prevent the disease from spreading any further.
  • Morse Code: One important statutory subject matter case is that of O’Reilly v. Morse (1853) – invoving the patenting of Morse code. In that case, the Supreme Court invalidated some claims as overbroad, but found that Morse’s claim to a “system of signals” to be patentable as an ‘art.’  The CAFC, of course, does not overrule Morse, nor does it adequately explain how Morse’s patent would fit within our modern conception of the four categories.

CAFC Denies Joint Infringement Claim and Maps Out Infringement Avoidance Schemes

Contributory Infringement, Patent, Patent Cases 2007, Transnational

BMC v. Paymentech (Fed. Cir. 2007)

BMC’s patents cover a method for processing a debit transaction without using a PIN. The payment industry is divided so that there is no single party that infringes an entire claim. However, when combined, the effort of a payee’s agent, an ATM network, and a financial institution

The usual rule is that direct infringement occurs only when a single actor performs “each and every element” of an asserted claim. Likewise, inducement requires proof of underlying single-actor direct infringement.  Under a doctrine akin to agency, all actions ‘controlled’ by the single actor are considered to be performed by the single actor.  Thus, courts have long held that you cannot avoid liability by simply “having someone else carry out one or more of the steps” on your behalf. 

Here, BMC acts for an extension of the law in cases where parties are cooperating in a manner that infringes the patent – even though no single party controls the others. The CAFC, however, refused to extend the law — even while admitting that its decision paves a clear pathway for would-be infringers to avoid liability:

“This court acknowledges that the standard requiring control or direction for a finding of joint infringement may in some circumstances allow parties to enter into arms-length agreements to avoid infringement.”

The CAFC’s concern, of course is that allowing this type of joint infringement would greatly increase potential liability of many many companies. For instance, here, BMC would like to hold ATM networks liable even though their actions do not involve any novel part of BMC’s invention. Without any controlling party, BMC’s claim of infringement fails.

As part of its justification, the court cited Mark Lemley’s divided infringement article. In that article, Lemley argues that patent drafters can avoid most potential joint infringement problems by drafting claims that focus on one party at a time.

Notes:

  • The doctrine of control is certainly not as strict as typical agency doctrine.  And, in this opinion the court gives some positive language to capture bad behavior. For instance, the court noted approvingly that district courts have held parties liable for who ‘mastermind’ a scheme of contracting-out steps of a patented process.  As a strict liability claim, the CAFC is correct to avoid undue expansion of the class of potential defendants. However, the hole created by the CAFC is potentially quite large — I have proposed a new cause of action for conspiratorial infringement that would not require a single controlling entity, but would require a mens rea requirement similar to that of inducement.  
  • Related Material:
  • Fromson v. Advance Offset Plate, Inc., 720 F.2d 1565, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (finding no direct infringement by manufacturer who performed the first step of a process claim even where its customer performed the other step of the claim)
  • Cross Medical Products, 424 F.3d at 1311 (rejecting patentees’ efforts to combine the acts of surgeons with those of a medical device manufacturer to find direct infringement of an apparatus claim).
  • An expanded joint infringement notion is supported by the CAFC’s recent On Demand decision where the court noted that “[i]t is not necessary for the acts that constitute infringement to be performed by one person or entity.”
  • In PharmaStem, the CAFC did not decide the issue, but noted that the “viability and scope of [the theory of joint infringement] liability is a subject of considerable debate.”
  • Applied Interact, LLC v. Vermont Teddy Bear Co., Inc.  2005 WL 2133416 (S.D.N.Y.,2005), the district court noted that infringement by separate entities requires “some connection” between the entities.
  • Free Standing Stuffer, Inc. v. Holly Dev. Co., 187 U.S.P.Q. 323 (N.D. Ill. 1974), requires a “sufficient connection to, or control over” third party entities performing some of the elements.
  • Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 194 F. Supp. 2d 323 (D. Del. 2002) (requiring close relationship between defendant and the doctors performing part of the patented process).
  • Shields v. Halliburton Co., 493 F.Supp. 1376 (W.D. La. 1980) (finding defendants liable for infringement based on the combined actions of two entities).
  • Wegner well thought viewpoint from 2001
  • Sriranga Veeraraghavan, Joint Infringement of Patent Claims: Advice for Patentees, 23 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech L.J. 211 (2006).

 

How not to divide patent rights during bankruptcy

Patent

Morrow v. Microsoft (Fed. Cir. 2007)

In bankruptcy, AHC’s title to its patent transferred to a liquidating trust, AHLT. A second trust, GUCLT, was given the right to several causes of action, including patent infringement litigation (generally called Estate Litigation).  GUCLT was not granted a license to make or use the patent.

Through its trustee, GUCLT sued Microsoft for infringing Patent No. 6,122,647 – a patent relating to dynamic generation of hypertext links. Microsoft was awarded summary judgment on the merits. On appeal, GUCLT had trouble even getting a hearing.

Standing: To have standing, a party must show injury:

  • The patent title holder has standing to sue because infringement injures the patent holder’s right to exclude.
  • An exclusive licensee usually has standing to sue because the infringement injures the licensee’s ‘exclusivity.’ When the exclusive licensee sues, the patent title holder must be joined as a co-plaintiff.
  • A non-exclusive licensee usually does not have standing because they have no right to stop others from making or using the invention.
  • A non-licensee also has no standing to sue.

GUCLT holds the contractual right to sue, but is not a licensee. Ergo, GUCLT does not have standing.  (Under the bankruptcy plan, AHLT likewise has no right to bring litigation…)

Rule of Practice: A non-title-holder must be granted an exclusive license as well as full litigation rights in order to have standing to sue for patent infringement.

IP Hall of Fame 2007

Patent

WinningCupThe conservative British publication, Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Magazine, sponsors an annual induction ceremony into the IP Hall of Fame. This years induction will be part of the Ocean Tomo Fall Auction in Chicago next month. However, IAM has released the names of winners already. Some highlights:

  • Judge Pauline Newman (Federal Circuit Judge)
  • Kevin Rivette (of Rembrandts in the Attic)
  • Gerald Mossinghoff (Former USPTO Commissioner)
  • Jerome Gilson (of Gilson on Trademarks)
  • Karl Jorda (Franklin Pierce Law Center)
  • Joseph Straus (Max Planck Institute for IP)
  • Hugh Laddie (All around UK IP Bigwig)
  • Hisamitsu Arai (Former Japanese Patent Office Commissioner)

I am a voting ‘academy member’ of the Hall of Fame along with a host of better qualified intellectual property leaders.

Notes:

 

Patently-O Housekeeping

Patent
  • Patently-O continues to grow with over 280,000 visits in August 2007. (Double last-year’s numbers). Please let me know when you run across some interesting patent law news for the site!
  • Patently-O has now been consumed by a Missouri Limited Liability Corporation, Patently-O, LLC.
  • Part of the ‘business’ transition includes site sponsorship. The Chicago Intellectual Property Firm MBHB LLP (my former law firm) has become the first major sponsor.  Current MBHB attorneys author two other well respected IP related blogs: The OrangeBookBlog and PatentDocs. Thanks MBHB!

$156 Million Verdict for Patentee

Patent

TGIP v. AT&T (E.D.Tex. 2007)

TGIP has won a jury verdict against AT&T for $156 million. The asserted patents – U.S. Patent Nos. 5,511,114 and 5,721,768 — both involve calling card processing. The jury also reportedly decided that the infringement was willful – District Court Judge Ron Clark will now decide whether to enhance damages based on the finding. (Judge Clark will also rule on JNOV motions).

TGIP appears to be a company that run by Charles Stimson, one of the named inventors. Interestingly, neither patent show-up in the PTO assignment database as assigned to TGIP. Stimson was formerly the president of “Call Processing, Inc.,” which is listed as an assignee (but not a plaintiff). In the late 1990’s CPI sued several companies for infringing the same patent. That case was dismissed without prejudice.

AT&T will appeal.

Notes:

  • Verizon has reportedly settled with TGIP for an undisclosed sum. Other companies that (likely) settled include: IDT, DFTS Interactive, US South, Pre Solutions, Bell Atlantic, and reportedly MCI.

How long does a BPAI appeal take?

Academic Studies, BPAI, Patent, Patent Prosecution

PatentLawPic037In the first two weeks of September 2007, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences released over one hundred opinions. I looked at the file wrapper histories of thirty of these recent BPAI decisions to get some picture of the timing of BPAI appeals.

On average it took just under 18 months (542 days) from the filing of the appeal brief until a decision was reached by the BPAI.  The mean hides a wide range of delay: From a minimum of 9 1/2 months to a maximum of 44 months. (Standard Deviation 255). 

Most of the time delay is not attributable directly to the BPAI. Rather, most of the delay occurs between the date that the appeal is filed and the date that the case is submitted to the BPAI.  On average, it took about 11 months (328 days) to ‘complete briefing.’ Typically, that time period involves the applicant’s brief; followed by an examiner’s answer; and finally a reply brief. Once the case is submitted to the BPAI, the average decision time was seven months (214 days).

If you win an appeal, the Examiner may reopen prosecution with an additional rejection, although the more common approach is to issue a notice of allowance.

Based on this information, you can advise clients that an appeal – pushed through to the end – takes an average of 18 months, but that there is a wide variance.  As I noted earlier in 2007, only fewer than of appeals are pushed-through to the end. [Link].  In many cases, Examiners withdraw rejections or applicants file RCE’s with new claims. These calculations also do not include time delays associated with BPAI rejections for improper appeal brief form. Instead, I only began counting once a ‘proper’ brief was filed. In an earlier study, I showed that approximately 25% of appeal briefs are rejected on procedural grounds as either defective or incomplete. [Link].

The prosecution history of a patent application typically includes at least two substantive rejections prior to the appeal brief. In this sample, the average application had been in process for over three years (39 months) before the appeal brief was filed. 

As with essentially every other area of patent law, we can expect that BPAI timing and results will vary by technology area.

Notes:

Patently-O Tidbits

Academic Studies, Design Patent, License, Patent
  • Lemley (Stanford) & Myhrvold (IntVen) have released a short article on “how to make a patent market.” They suggest that an information gap is one problem creating friction in licensing negations. The solution — require publication of patent assignments and license terms. [LINK]
  • Over the past few weeks, we have directed some focus on the protection of industrial designs. Why? (1) the law surrounding protection of industrial designs is in disarray; (2) I expect that protection of industrial designs will become more important as utility patent protection becomes more difficult and more costly; and (3) if well protected, industrial designs & fashion rights may well be worth more than the value of all non-pharmaceutical utility patents.
  • New Patent Law Job Postings:

Minimal Patent Infringement Complaint

Patent, Patent Cases 2007

McZeal v. Sprint Nextel (Fed. Cir. 2007).

McZeal’s pro se patent infringement complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the CAFC reversed – finding that the complaint was sufficient.

In particular, the court found that the complaint is not required to specifically describe where each element of the asserted claim is found in the accused device. Those specifics regarding infringement “is something to be determined through discovery.”

(more…)

Design Patents: Corporate Parts Buyer as Ordinary Observer

Design Patent, Patent, Patent Cases 2007,

PatentLawPic036Arminak v. Saint-Gobain Calmer (Fed. Cir. 2007).

In yet another serious blow to design patent protection the Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court ruling that Arminak’s spray nozzle design is not infringed by Calmer.

Design patent infringement is defined both in 35 U.S.C. 271 and 289.  According to Section 289, a design patent is infringed by unauthorized commercial manufacture, use, or sale of the design or a “colorable imitation.”

Whoever during the term of a patent for a design, without license of the owner, (1) applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2) sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit, but not less than $250, recoverable in any United States district court having jurisdiction of the parties. 35 U.S.C. 289.

Infringement: Overshadowing the statutory guidelines is the CAFC’s judicially created infringement jurisprudence. According to the CAFC, infringement requires satisfaction of two distinct tests: First, in the eyes of an “ordinary observer,” the accused design as a whole must be deceivingly similar to the patented design. Second, the accused design must appropriate one or more points-of-novelty that distinguish the design from the prior art.

Ordinary Observer: Like the PHOSITA in utility patent cases, the ordinary observer is a mythical being. However, instead of being ‘skilled in the art,’ the ordinary observer is aware of the patented design, but is not an expert in the art.

Arminak manufactures and sells spray nozzles. However, Arminak does not sell on a retail level.  Rather, the nozzles are purchased by other manufacturers who join them with bottles full of product.

The corporate nozzle buyers can distinguish between Arminak & Calmer nozzles without much trouble. Once assembled, retail customers have difficulty in distinguishing between the nozzles once assembled.  The case then turns on whether the ordinary observer is defined as the corporate buyer of the nozzle or a retail customer of the fully assembled product.

Sitting by designation, Judge Holderman determined that the ordinary observer should be defined by the patentee’s corporate structure. Because Arminak’s products pass through a middle-man for further processing, it cannot count the downstream retail purchasers as ordinary observers who “buy and use” the sprayer. Rather, the ordinary observer is the corporate nozzle buyer.  (Thus, eventual customer confusion regarding the final product makes no difference).

It was undisputed that a corporate buyer would not be deceived by overall similarities between the accused and patented designs — thus no infringement.

Point of Novelty: The panel also found that the accused design did not appropriate any “points of novelty” of the patented invention. In doing so, the court found that a side-by-side detailed comparison between the accused product and the patent design drawings was appropriate.

To establish infringement in a design patent case, the district court is required to compare the patented design with the accused design. Without comparing the patented design with the accused design, there was no way for the district court to determine whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design deceptively similar and whether the accused design appropriated points of novelty.

For utility patent experts, this type of analysis is second nature. However, for over 100 years prior to founding the CAFC, the rule has been that design patent infringement jurisprudence does not allow for such “side by side” examination. See Gorham Manufacturing Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871) (rejecting a side-by-side comparison as leading to an ‘expert’ result rather than that of an ‘ordinary observer’).

Inducement Requires Proof of Underlying Direct Infringement

Contributory Infringement, Patent, Patent Cases 2007

PatentLawPic033ACCO v. ABA Locks and Belkin (Fed. Cir. 2007).

ACCO’s patent covers a method for locking a computer. Belkin’s lock can be used in an infringing manner (as well as in a non-infringing manner). At trial Belkin and ABA were found liable for willfully inducing infringement.

Inducement requires an underlying direct infringement; some action to encourage the direct infringement; and specific intent to encourage the infringement. Direct infringement requires either evidence of “specific instances of direct infringement” or proof that using accused device “necessarily infringes.”

Here, ACCO provided no evidence that any customer (apart from the expert witness) ever used the lock in an infringing manner. And, although the arguably “most natural” way of using the lock would infringe, there were other non-infringing ways of using the lock. (Belkin described a non-infringing use in its instruction manual).

  • The court suggested that a customer survey or other customer testimony would have been appropriate.

Based on ACCO’s failure to prove direct infringement, the CAFC reversed — finding no infringement.

Notes:

  • This decision is a reminder to litigators, not anything new.

IPWatchDog.com For Sale

Patent

Eugene Quinn is known by many as the IP Watchdog. Over the years, Quinn has developed his IPWatchdog.com site as a valuable resource. Now the well-traveled Internet resource including its contents is up for auction at SitePoint.  Minimum bid is $10,000, but the bidding may go well higher. Earlier this year, Patents.com was sold by patent attorney Carl Oppedahl for “an undisclosed amount reportedly between $1 to $2 million.”  (Carl — You’ve got to tell us…). 

Invention Obvious in Part Because Inventors Were Experts

Method Claims, Obviousness, Patent, Patent Cases 2007, PHOSITA

PatentLawPic032Daiichi Sankyo v. Apotex (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Apotex filed an ANDA to begin making a generic version of Daiichi’s patented ear infection medication method – FLOXIN Otic. Daiichi sued and won a bench trial. On appeal, the CAFC reversed — finding the patented invention obvious.

Level of Skill: The nonobvousness doctrine requires an examination of what would be available to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). That inquiry is premised on a definition of the mythical PHOSITA.  The general theory is that highly educated and trained PHOSITA know more and tend to think more inventions are obvious. On the other hand, a PHOSITA with little education or training would have more difficulty in making connections and finding obviousness.

The 1983 Orthopedic Equipment decision outlines factors for determining a PHOSITA – including education level of the inventor.

Here, the CAFC found that the lower court erred by picking a pediatrician as the PHOSITA in creation of compounds to treat ear infections without damaging a patient’s hearing. Rather, the skill level should be an otologist who is engaged in developing pharmaceutical formulations. The court primarily based its PHOSITA Skill Level on the inventors’ skill level and the skill level of their peers (which, almost by definition will be the same).

Obviousness: Based on the high level of skill in the art, the CAFC concluded that an otologist would have found the patented method obvious.

Reversed — Patented Invention is Obvious

DDC Comment: Although the education level of the inventor appears to be relevant to determining the PHOSITA skill level, there are a few reasons why that data point should be excluded from the list of factors. The common major mistake here is to search for a PHOSITA capable of making the invention rather than simply searching for the level of a skilled worker in the area. The PHOSITA skill level inquiry is not a search for what it takes to be a successful inventor. Rather, the PHOSITA is merely a skilled worker.  The inventor’s biographical information may be indicative of a skill level for invention, but that is not the PHOSITA inquiry. 

Under 35 USC 103(a), patentability of an invention “shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.” Of course, the process of inventing is intimately tied-in with the inventor’s skill and education level. In essence, use of the inventor’s biographical information in determing the PHOSITA skill level allows the court to ask whether the invention would have been obvious to someone standing in the shoes of the inventor. That methodology nothing more than a backdoor approach to asking whether any steps that the inventor took included non-obvous leaps — a legally impermissible question.

Notes:

  • This case was originally decided in July 2007, but was recently republished as a precedential decision. The OrangeBookBlog covered the original release.

Examiner’s Oral Promise Does Not Bind PTO

Patent, Patent Cases 2007, Patent Prosecution

ScreenShot051In re Milton (Patent Petition 2007, App. No. 09/938,465)

During a telephone conversation, the Patent Examiner stated that a replacement office action would be forthcoming. Relying on that statement, the applicant did not respond to the already pending office action. Unfortunately, the Examiner did not issue the new office action and the case went abandoned.

37 C.F.R. 1.2 makes clear that an applicant should not rely on any oral promise from a patent Examiner. Applying this rule, the director of petitions rejected Milton’s petition for revival.

The oral promise could have immediately been memorialized in an interview summary — something that was not done in this case until after the abandonment.

At the time of Petitioner’s reliance, the understanding was a mere oral promise. This section of the C.F.R. expressly prohibits Petitioner’s reliance on the oral understanding, and withdrawal of the holding of the abandonment based on an action which is in contravention to a regulation would be improper.

Petition denied.

Notes:

  • Thanks to Hal Wegner for providing information on this case.
  • The real party here is HP.

KSR Extended to Obviate Component Purified from Known Mixture

Chemical, Obviousness, Patent, Patent Cases 2007, Pharma

Aventis Pharma & King Pharma v. Lupin Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Altace is the King/Aventis brand of ramipril – a top-selling ACE inhibitor.  The patent claims ramipril formulated “substantially free of other isomers.” The district court found the patent not invalid, but only by a slim margin. On appeal the CAFC reversed – finding the patent invalid as obvious.

Prior Art: One reference (‘944 patent) was filed as a continuation-in-part of an already abandoned patent application. That application was eventually revived, but Aventis argued on appeal that the ‘944 patent should not be awarded the filing date of the parent.  The CAFC found this a potentially interesting argument, but refused to hear the argument because Aventis had failed to make the argument at the district court level.

The appellate panel also agreed that the experimental results of a Shering Doctor constituted 102(g)/103(a) prior art because the Doctor had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed her prior invention.

Obviousness of a Purified Form: The district court, ruling pre-KSR, found the patent nonobvious. On appeal, the CAFC took a different view – finding that the purified form of a known mixture is prima facie obvious if a PHOSITA would have some reason to believe that the mixture derives properties from particular components.

However, if it is known that some desirable property of a mixture derives in whole or in part from a particular one of its components, or if the prior art would provide a person of ordinary skill in the art with reason to believe that this is so, the purified compound is prima facie obvious over the mixture even without an explicit teaching that the ingredient should be concentrated or purified.

The prima facie case of obviousness is especially difficult to rebut where, as here, the potency of the mixture varies directly with the amount of isomer in the mixture.

The court implicitly distinguished this case from Forest Labs — noting that obviousness may be rebutted by showing difficulty in purifying the mixture.

[A] purified compound is not always prima facie obvious over the mixture; for example, it may not be known that the purified compound is present in or an active ingredient of the mixture, or the state of the art may be such that discovering how to perform the purification is an invention of patentable

Reversed, Patent Invalid as Obvious

Gillespie v. DWIDAG: Prosecution Arguments Limit Claim Scope

Claim Construction, Patent, Patent Cases 2007

ScreenShot050Gillespie v. DWIDAG Systems (Fed. Cir. 2007)

During prosecution, Gillespie argued around a cited prior art mine roof bolt reference — arguing that the collar of the bolt ‘appears to be cylindrical on the outside, thus impractical…’ Reviewing claim construction de novo, the appellate panel led by Judge Newman limited the claim scope to only cover non-cylindrical collars. (Following the maxim that a “patentee is held to what he declares during the prosecution of his patent.”).

Gillespie argued that the claims should not be limited by his statements because the non-cylindrical collar shape did not turn out to be material to allowance. (The Examiner provided alternative reasons for allowance). The CAFC rejected that potential loophole – finding that Gillespie’s argument was sufficient regardless of its importance in the prosecution process.

DWIDAG’s bolts were thus found to not infringe this new construction.

Notes:

  • The court appears to have been careful not to use the term disclaimer. 

 

Patent Reform 2007: House of Representatives Passes H.1908

Patent, Patent Legislation, , , ,

Legislative patent reform still has a long road to travel before reaching its conclusion. However, the passage of H.1908 by the House of Representatives represents a major leap forward along the path. The following are some highlights of the statute as passed. [H.1908.As.Passed].

First to file system: Obviousness and novelty would now be considered as of the “effective filing date.”  Novelty grace period would be eliminated except for the inventor’s own disclosures. Although unclear, the grace period appears to be completely eliminated for obviousness analysis. Interferences are gone.

Damages: Reasonable royalty calculations (the most common damage awards) would all require courts to conduct a thorough analysis to ensure that damages are equal to the “economic value [of the invention] properly attributable to the patent’s specific contribution over the prior art.” The entire value of a product or process can only be the basis for royalty calculations if the innovation is the “predominant basis” for market demand of the product. (a showing that may be impossible in most cases). Overall this would reduce damage awards.

Search Reports: PTO would be granted discretion in ordering search reports for all applications except those by a new group called ‘micro-entities.’

Treble Damages: The statute explicitly calls-out ‘willfulness’ as the sole reason for enhanced damages then severely limits the facts where willfulness can be found. Overall this reduces the likelihood of awarding treble damages.

Post-Grant Review: In addition to reexamination, a post-grant review proceeding would be available if filed within 12–months of issuance or with the patentee’s permission.

Open Examination: Anyone may submit prior art for any patent or pending application along with an explanation of why the art is important.

Tax Methods: A patent would not be available for a newly invented tax planning method. Tax planning methods do “not include the use of tax preparation software or other tools used solely to perform or model mathematical calculations or prepare tax or information returns.”

Venue and Jurisdiction: Strong limitations on venue would likely eliminate E.D.Texas as a potential choice.

Interlocutory Appeal: A district court would be given discretion to certify interlocutory appeals of claim construction decisions.

Inequitable Conduct: Inequitable conduct must be pled with specificity following FRCP Rule 9b. Inequitable conduct rules would be made explicit in the statute. Overall, this weakens the defense of inequitable conduct.

PTO Regulatory Power: The statute would give the PTO power to make the continuation rule changes that it has already implemented.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board: Following John Duffy’s Suggestion, the statute would have the board appointed by the Secretary of Commerce rather than the PTO Director.

Study of Patent Damages: The PTO will study how damage awards have changed based on the changes in the law.

Patently-O TidBits

Patent
  • Dr. Tafas has submitted an amended complaint and withdrawn his motion for preliminary injuntion to stop implementation of the continuation rules.
  • A sweeping patent reform bill passed in the House of Representatives. Action now moves to the Senate. IPO’s leader Herb Wamsley may force me to eat my hat.
  • BNA is hosting a conference called Patent Obviousness on October 1 at the Arlington Ritz. Given the confusingly similar name, BNA is offering $150 discount to Patently-O readers who sign-up online: go to legaledge.bna.com for online registration and enter discount code “blog” at check out. (Price is still $1000 after discount)

Extending Liebel-Flarsheim: “distinctly different” embodiment of claim elements must be enabled

Enablement, Patent, Patent Cases 2007, Patent Prosecution

ScreenShot049Automotive Technologies International v. BMW, et al. (Fed. Cir. 2007).

ATI’s patent claims are directed to an automotive side impact crash sensor used to trigger an airbag and include the following means-plus-function limitation:

“means responsive to the motion of said mass upon acceleration of said housing in excess of a predetermined threshold value, for initiating an occupant protection apparatus”

Following ATI’s suggestion, the district court construed the means limitation to include both mechanical and electronic sensor structures. Then, based on this interpretation, the district court ruled the patent invalid for lack of enablement. (summary judgment).  

On appeal, the CAFC affirmed the ruling — finding that the specification did not enable the full scope of the claimed invention.

The specification describes the mechanical sensor in detail with multiple figures. The electronic sensor, however, is only shown in a sparse “conceptual” Figure 11 (see image at right) and described in broad terms as potentially operating “through variety of technologies using, for example, optics, resistance change, capacitance change or magnetic reluctance change.”

Enabling One Embodiment Is Insufficient: Following on the heels of Liebel-Flarsheim v. Medrad, this case reaffirms the principle that the full scope of a claim must be enabled. Enablement of a single embodiment is not sufficient. Thus, the patent’s enablement of one mode of practicing the invention (the mechanical sensor) was not sufficient to satisfy the enablement requirement.

Looking back, Liebel-Flarsheim discussed “full scope” enablement as being “at least reasonable enablement of the scope of the [claim] range.” Here, the CAFC further defines that principle by noting that electronic sensors must be particularly enabled because they are “distinctly different” from the enabled mechanical sensor.

Novel Aspects Must Be Enabled: ATI also argued that Figure 11 and its accompanying text were enabling — especially when coupled with the knowledge of one having ordinary skill in the art. This argument was rejected based on the CAFC’s combined measure of law and fact. As a matter of law, enablement of the novel aspects of an invention must be enabled by the specification even if implementation would have been within the PHOSITA’s skill level. As a matter of fact, the CAFC concluded that sensor mechanism must be a novel aspect based on statements in the specification that side impact sensing is a “new field” and that the only available side-impact switch was a crush sensor.

Notes:

  • Its unclear how the enablement doctrine will work in conjunction with the doctrine of equivalents.
  • The summary judgment was reviewed de novo for clear and convincing evidence of non-enablement sufficient to overcome the patent’s presumption of validity.
  • Disclaimer: My former firm, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, handled this appeal on behalf of the plaintiff. Although I have not worked on the case, MBHB took-over the case while I was of counsel last year.