Gene Patents on Appeal: ACLU’s Recusal Motion

Amicus Brief, Patent, Patent Cases 2010, Patentable Subject Matter

Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) v. United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and Myriad Genetics (Myriad) (Fed. Cir. 2010)

In a May 2010 decision, Judge Sweet of the Southern District of New York issued an opinion that would render most gene patents invalid for failing to claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.  That high-profile case is now on an appeal, and has the potential of shifting US patent law both by its in-court and out-of-court impact.

Even before filing a substantive brief on the merits, the declaratory judgment plaintiffs (AMP & ACLU) filed a motion asking that Chief Judge Rader recuse himself from potentially hearing the decision. AMP argues that the Chief’s public statements regarding this case “have created an appearance of partiality that calls into question his ability to engage in impartial legal analysis.”

Notably, while attending a BIO meeting, Judge Rader reportedly responded to a comment by Professor Whealan (and former Rader clerk) that there are no real “legal standards for making [a Section 101] decision. . . [U]sing Section 101 to say that the subject matter is unpatentable is so blunt a tool that there is no neutral step to [draw] a line here [between what is and is not patentable].”  In Judge Rader’s construct, the lack of a clear legal standard means that the decision will then be based on “politics. It’s what you believe in your soul, but it isn’t the law.”  In another conference (this time at Fordham Law School), AMP’s attorney Dan Ravicher was speaking and Chief Judge Rader asked Ravicher a question “hinting at disagreement” with Ravicher’s position.  In particular, the Ravicher-Rader colloquy was quoted as follows:

Ravicher (pointing to a bottle of water): "Was that [purification] sufficient intervention between what God gave us … and what man created to merit a patent?"

Chief Judge Rader: "How many people have died of water pollution over the course of human events? Probably billions."

Two responses to the ACLU motion have been filed. 

First, Myriad responded that the cited statements by Chief Judge Rader “do not even suggest how Chief Judge Rader might vote, were he a member of the panel assigned to decide this case.”

The second filing is by the Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) as amicus. The FCBA argues strongly that Judges should be encouraged to participate in educational conferences such as the BIO meeting and Fordham Law School.  The FCBA makes the important point that “Just as it is important that judges recuse themselves when the rules require it, it is equally important that judges refuse to recuse themselves where the rules do not require it.”  Granting recusal on the thin-evidence presented here would have the two primary effects of (1) discouraging sitting Federal Circuit judges from participating in public conversations and (2) encourage more strategic recusal motions.  The FCBA motion was a joint effort by former Deputy Solicitor General Thomas Hungar (Gibson Dunn) and the oft-paired team of Ed Reines & Amber Rovner (Weil Gotshal).

This particular motion may never be decided. Since the panel has not yet been assigned for this appeal, the CAFC has refrained from deciding the motion. In a letter to AMP, the court indicated that “[i]n the event that Judge Rader is assigned, the motion will be transmitted to him.” 

Documents:

Ignoring Non-Patentable Elements While Judging Novelty

Anticipation, Method Claims, Patent, Patent Cases 2010, Patentable Subject Matter,

PatentLawPic1046By Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit offers some clues to its post-Bilski patentable-subject-matter jurisprudence, but leaves that fight for another day.  Instead, the court held the claims anticipated by explicitly ignoring novel claim elements.

* * * * *

King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc. and Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2010)

King’s patent claims a method of increasing oral bioavailability of the muscle relaxant metaxalone by putting metaxalone in food eaten by the patient. Claim 21 includes a step of “informing the patient that the administration [of the drug with food] results in an increase [in absorption].  This step likely has two benefits: (1) increasing patient compliance with the drug regimen and (2) taking advantage of any placebo effect that may exist.  The drug metaxalone itself was already a known muscle relaxant well prior to King’s 2001 application date.

Patenting Methods of Treatment: The district court held claim 21 invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the Federal Circuit’s machine-or-transformation test from Bilski. On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected the lower court analysis — noting that when examined “as a whole”, the claim requires treatment and “methods of treatments ‘are always transformative when a defined group of drugs is administered to the body to ameliorate the effects of an undesired condition.’” (quoting Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Serv., 581 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2009), cert. granted and vacated, 78 U.S.L.W. 3254 (U.S. June 29, 2010)).

Although the appellate panel rejected the lower court’s Section 101 analysis, it stopped short of providing any positive position on the patentability of medical treatment methods — presumably saving that battle for the pending remands of Prometheus and Classen. 

Instead, the appellate court held that a Section 101 decision was not necessary because the claims of interest are anticipated under Section 102.

Ignoring Non-Patentable Elements: Here, the novelty question is interesting because the “informing” step was not specifically identified in the prior art. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that claiming a step of “informing someone about the existence of an inherent property” of a method cannot render the claim patentable. “[I]n light of our holding that the method of taking metaxalone with food to increase the drug’s bioavailability, as recited in claim 1, is not patentable, it readily follows that claim 21, which recites the same method with the sole additional step of informing the patient about this increase in bioavailability, is not patentable.” 

In its decision, the court ties its case to the precedential foundation of “printed matter” cases that have barred the patentability of known products by the inclusion of printed matter describing the product.

In some ways, this decision may be seen as reviving the suggestion found in the now vacated 2007 In re Comiskey decision. There, the court suggested that, during nonobviousness analysis, any portion of an invention that constitutes nonstatutory subject matter will be considered de facto obvious.

Panel: Judges Bryson, Gajarsa, and Prost. Authored by Judge Gajarsa. 

 

 

Guest Post: USPTO Must Amend Examiner Guidelines On Bilski

Guest Post, Patent, Patentable Subject Matter,

by Paul Craane of Marshall Gerstein & Borun

In the wake of Bilski, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has provided unclear, and potentially incorrect, guidance to the Examining Corps regarding the application of 35 U.S.C. 101. The guidance instructs examiners to reject claims if the claims fail to meet the machine-or-transformation (MoT) test, absent some "clear indication that the method is not directed to an abstract idea." This application of Bilski effectively ignores the guidance provided by the opinion to the effect that the MoT test is not the sole test for patent-eligible processes under Section 101.

According to existing precedent, the examiner has the burden to make out a prima facie case before the burden shifts to the applicant. Given that the examiner has the burden and given that the MoT test is not the sole test, a failure to meet the MoT test should not automatically result in rejection of a claim. In fact, if failure to meet the MoT test did necessarily result in the rejection of a claim, then the USPTO would be using the MoT test as the sole test for patent-eligibility, contrary to Bilski.

Of course, the guidance does not suggest a rejection based solely on the MoT test, in that the examiner must still look for a clear indication that the method is not directed to an abstract idea. Even though there is an additional step, this procedure would appear to shift the burden from the examiner to show patent-ineligibility to the applicant to affirmatively show patent-eligibility before the examiner has made out a prima facie case of patent-ineligibility. According to Bilski, there are only three exceptions to patent-eligibility: laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas. In accordance with Bilski, unless one of these exceptions is shown, the examiner can hardly be said to have made out a prima facie case of patent-ineligibility, such that the burden should shift to the applicant.

Consequently, the USPTO should amend its guidance to clarify that the examiner has an obligation to show that the claim recites an abstract idea (or law of nature or physical phenomena) to reject the claim, rather than simply indicating that if they should reject after applying the MoT test if they fail to find a clear indication that it does not recite an abstract idea.

Note: As per our usual rule, this post does not necessarily reflect opinions of Mr. Craane's firm or its clients.

The Business Method Patent Art Units

Academic Studies, Patent, Patentable Subject Matter, Software

By Dennis Crouch

In prior posts, I noted that the USPTO is issuing patents at an all-time-high-rate.  This increase is perhaps most dramatic in the art units that examine applications classified by the USPTO as "business methods."  This post explores the history and the numbers.

* * * * * 

The USPTO patent examiner corps is organized into small technology-specific groups known as art units.  Each art unit has a manager that reports to a technology center director.  About twenty art units have been classified as generally dealing with “business method” patents. (See list of art units).  I’ll call these art units “business method art units” for lack of a better term.  All of the patents issued from these art units are classified in class 705. And, these are the patents and applications that are most likely to be affected by the decision in Bilski v. Kappos (2010).

Under former PTO Director Jon Dudas, the business method art units received special attention.  Individual examiners were given free power to reject pending applications as unpatentable, but claims could not be allowed as patentable until being reviewed by at least a “second pair of eyes.”  Under Director Kappos and Commissioner Stoll, the second pair of eyes regime has been eliminated and, as might be expected, the number of patents being allowed in these art units has risen dramatically. Perhaps coincidentally, this rise also correlates with the Federal Circuit’s October 2008 decision in Bilski.

The following two charts respectively show the number and percentage of patents that issue from the business method art units for each quarter (three-month period) going back to January 2005.  (2010 Q3 only includes two-weeks worth of data). As a bit of perspective, since January 2005, more than 900,000 utility patents have issued. Fewer than 9,000 are associated with these business method art units.

PatentLawPic1033

PatentLawPic1034

As the charts show, the number of patents issued by the business method art units is on the rise — both in terms of absolute numbers and as a percentage of patents being issued. 

Most of the patents issuing from the business method art units are directed toward some type of computer software that helps solve a business problem. Newly issued U.S. Patent No. 7,747,465 is a typical example. The ‘465 patent claims a method and apparatus for determining the effectiveness of internet advertising. The claimed method does not explicitly recite any hardware except for a “manager console”, “dynamic sampling engine”, and “logic module.”  In response to a Section 101 rejection, the applicant amended its claims and then — without explanation — provided the conclusory argument that the application was “directed to statutory subject matter because the claims are either directed to statutory processes tied to a particular machine or directed to statutory apparatuses.”

One problem with studies of business method patents is that there is no accepted definition the term.  The 1998 State Street decision that jump-started business method patenting did not actually involve any method claims.  On the technology front, inventions that look like business methods are often examined in other art units. Rand Warsaw (Bernard Bilski's co-inventor) was issued a patent in 2004 on a method for providing energy efficiency changes based upon historic consumption and weather data.  That patent looks was examined by a non business method art unit in an entirely different technology center. (Patent No. 6,785,620).

Ongoing Commentary on Bilski v. Kappos

Patent, Patentable Subject Matter

Mayo v. Prometheus Labs: Bilski and Medical Methods

Invalidity, Patent, Patentable Subject Matter, ,

Mayo v. Prometheus Labs (On Remand to the Federal Circuit 2010)

The Federal Circuit’s first full post-Bilski decision may come in the case of Mayo v. Prometheus Labs. That case had been pending on a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. In a June 29 order, the Court granted the petition and then summarily vacated the decision with a remand to the Federal Circuit to reconsider the case “in light of Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___ (2010).”  The Supreme Court regularly uses this grant-vacate-remand (“GVR”) proceeding for pending cases are impacted by a decision.

In the case, the Mayo Clinic has challenging the validity of two Prometheus patents based upon suspect patentable subject matter. (U.S. Patents 6,355,623 and 6,680,302). 

The Prometheus patents claims an iterative approach to dosing that involves three steps: (1) first administer a drug to a subject; (2) then determine the level of drug in the subject; and (3) finally decide whether the next dose should be the same, higher, or lower. The decision on the next dose is made by comparing the the level of the drug in the subject against predetermined thresholds. Claim 1 of the '302 patent adds additional detail including identifying the active ingredient (6-thioguanine), the diagnosis (a GI disorder), and the predetermined thresholds (e.g., 230 pmol of drug per 8108 red blood cells). Claim 46 of the '623 is a broad claim in that it does not not require the administration step (step 1 from above).

The Federal Circuit held the method patentable under its Bilski test by finding that the required administration of the drug transformed an article into a different state or thing — essentially creating a per se rule that a method requiring administration of a drug will be deemed patentable subject matter under Section 101. The court also held that the "determining the level" step was necessarily transformative since "those levels cannot be determined by mere inspection." 

On remand, the focus will shift from the machine-or-transformation test to the broader question of whether the claims are directed to a statutory “process” and/or whether the claim scope is impermissibly abstract. Of course, the machine-or-transformation test may still be instructive in answering these question.

Abstract Idea and Broad Functional Language: The claims are written in broad functional language without tying the the claimed methods to any particular technology. Thus, the "administering" step could potentially be accomplished by any effective method (that has or will be invented) of getting the drug into the subject. Likewise, the patent offers potential methods of "determining the level" of drug in the body (e.g., liquid chromatography) but the claim is broadly written to seemingly cover any mechanism that fulfills that method. 

Novelty Involves the Mental Step: Of course, the general iterative process is well known, what makes the Prometheus claims novel is that they identify the particular thresholds that are important (e.g., 230 pmol). In practice, the process of comparing the thresholds to the subject's drug level is done in the mind of a physician. As Mayo explains, this merely involves the physician's mental recognition of a natural correlation between metabolite levels and patient condition.

The case also represents a growing trend of pitting patient advocates (who want cheaper access to medicine) against innovators (who create better treatments).

Note: In the same Post-Bilski order, the Supreme Court also issued a GVR in the case of Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.  On remand, the Federal Circuit will be asked to decide whether the following claim fits within the scope of 35 USC 101:

Claim: A method of determining whether an immunization schedule affects the incidence or severity of a chronic immune-mediated disorder in a treatment group of mammals, relative to a control group of mammals, which comprises immunizing mammals in the treatment group of mammals with one or more doses of one or more immunogens, according to said immunization schedule, and comparing the incidence, prevalence, frequency or severity of said chronic immune-mediated disorder or the level of a marker of such a disorder, in the treatment group, with that in the control group.

Guest Post: Why Bilski Benefits Startup Companies

Amicus Brief, Guest Post, Patent, Patentable Subject Matter, Survey, , , ,

pic-98.jpg

I asked Professor Ted Sichelman to provide his thoughts on how the Bilski decision impacts start-up companies and their incentive to innovate. DC

By Ted Sichelman, University of San Diego School of Law

Before practicing law and becoming a professor, I founded and ran a small software company that sells speech recognition software to taxicab companies. After my company designed its technology, we filed for patents. Later on, when raising financing from angel and venture capital investors, they reviewed our pending applications carefully and considered them a way to stop potential competition. Indeed, in a recent survey of startup firms, the Berkeley Patent Survey—which I conducted with Robert Merges and Pamela Samuelson of UC Berkeley School of Law and Stuart Graham (now Chief Economist at the PTO)—startup executives reported that nearly 70% of venture capital firms and 50% of angel investors said that patents were important to their investment decisions. Relatively broad patentable subject matter assists startups in raising needed funds. As I have argued elsewhere, another reason for broad subject matter is that startups engage in substantial amounts of post-invention—but pre-commercialization—innovation that is not always technological in nature. For instance, many startups generate marketing, financial, legal, and other types of non-technological innovations during the costly commercialization process. Providing IP protection for these innovations not only can produce more of them, but also can help drive technology commercialization.

Assuming the Federal Circuit and the PTO do not go astray in implementing Bilski—which admittedly leaves many doors open to do so—the opinion will allow startups to continue to use patents to garner financing and will, hopefully, set an appropriate balance on the patentability of non-technological inventions. In particular, as I urged in an amicus brief with Professors Mark Lemley, Michael Risch, and Polk Wagner—Bilski rightly adheres to the 150-year old tradition that as long as the claimed invention is a machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or a process, only natural phenomena, laws of nature, and abstract ideas should be excluded from eligible subject matter.

One might contend that by allowing business methods—as well as software and other “intangible” innovations—to be patented, startup firms will encounter a greater “thicket” of patents, making it more difficult for them to enter particular markets. For example, an amicus brief in Bilski filed on behalf of “entrepreneurial and consumer advocates” argued that “if the PTO is permitted to grant broad business and service process patents, small start-up businesses would face an entirely new regime of business regulation – essentially requiring businesses to request private permits to operate from their competitors who have patents, independent of whatever technology the new business uses to compete.” Justice Stevens’ echoed this view by writing in his concurrence that business methods patents “can take a particular toll on small and upstart businesses.”

In actuality, under the Federal Circuit’s previous State Street Bank opinion, in operation for a decade prior to Bilski, the PTO regularly granted “broad business and service process patents” and there is little evidence that these patent-holders required startups to license them in any significant numbers. The Berkeley Patent Survey found that only 8% of the population of respondent software companies and 12% of venture-backed software companies had licensed-in even one patent. In sum total, a relatively low percentage, 0.6% and 3%, respectively, reported licensing a patent solely to avoid a lawsuit. And while Bilski ultimately holds that business methods are not per se unpatentable, the practical effect of the outcome will be to place unapplied business methods into the precluded “abstract idea” category. If implemented properly, such an approach will ensure that startups—and, indeed, larger and more established companies—are not unnecessarily subject to overly broad patents while maintaining robust incentives to innovate.

Ted Sichelman is an Assistant Professor at the University of San Diego School of Law, where he teaches patent law and other intellectual property courses.

Bilski v. Kappos and the Anti-State-Street-Majority

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

The 1998 Federal Circuit decision in State Street Bank opened the door to patent protection on a wider variety of innovations — especially in the fields of business methods and software. State Street held that an invention should be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 if it involves some practical application and “it produces a useful, concrete and tangible result.”

Although not rejected by the majority opinion, it is clear that the broad “useful, concrete, and tangible result” test is dead. That test is conclusively rejected by what I term the Anti-State-Street Majority — a majority created by the combining the two concurring opinions in Bilski and their five-justice majority. The result is that the scope of patentable subject matter is certainly narrowed from its 1998 high-water-mark.

* * * * *

In Bilski v. Kappos (2010), the majority opinion neither endorses nor rejects State Street — writing instead that “nothing in today’s opinion should be read as endorsing interpretations of §101 that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has used in the past. See, e.g., State Street, 149 F. 3d, at 1373; AT&T Corp., 172 F. 3d, at 1357.”

The two concurring opinions in Bilski (2010) both explicitly reject the Useful-Concrete-And-Tangible-Result test of State Street. Justice Stevens writes that “it would be a grave mistake to assume that anything with a ‘useful, concrete and tangible result,’ may be patented. (Justice Stevens concurrence at FN 1). Justice Breyer reiterated his prior statement that “if taken literally, the statement [that anything which produces a useful, concrete, and tangible result, is patentable] would cover instances where this court has held the contrary.” (Justice Breyer concurrence). The two concurrences are in agreement on this point and are signed by five Supreme Court Justices — leading to a second majority on that particular point.

Of course, in its In re Bilksi decision, the Federal Circuit already repudiated State Street as inadequate and "insufficient to determine whether a claim is patent-eligible under § 101."

Cumulatively, this means that the broadest notion of patentable subject matter as represented by State Street is not the law. Although not "the test" it appears that the USPTO will continue to use the machine-or-transformation test as a "tool" for determining whether particular process claims fit within Section 101. A recent Post-Bilski notice to examiners indicated as much:

Examiners should continue to examine patent applications for compliance with section 101 using the existing guidance concerning the machine-or-transformation test as a tool for determining whether the claimed invention is a process under section 101. If a claimed method meets the machine-or-transformation test, the method is likely patent eligible under section 101 unless there is a clear indication that the method is directed to an abstract idea. If a claimed method does not meet the machine-or-transformation test, the examiner should reject the claim under section 101 unless there is a clear indication that the method is not directed to an abstract idea. If a claim is rejected under section 101 on the basis that it is drawn to an abstract idea, the applicant then has the opportunity to explain why the claimed method is not drawn to an abstract idea.

I'm sure that our notion of the law will continue to develop as the Bilski decision makes its way into daily practice.

Bilski v. Kappos

Patent, Patentable Subject Matter, Software, , ,

Although Bilski's claims were held unpatentably abstract, the Supreme Court has re-affirmed that the door to patent eligibility should remain broad and open.

Bilski v. Kappos (Supreme Court 2010)(08-964)

The Supreme Court has issued its opinion in Bilski v. Kappos. In the decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that Bilski’s risk-management method was not the type of innovation that may be patented. However, rather than using the Federal Circuit's "machine-or-transformation test", the court simply relied on prior precedent to find the claimed method unpatentably abstract. Justice Kennedy authored the majority opinion. Justices Breyer and Stevens both wrote concurring opinions.

Business as Usual: In general, the opinion offers no clarity or aid for those tasked with determining whether a particular innovation falls within Section 101. The opinion provides no new lines to be avoided. Rather, the outcome from the decision might be best stated as "business as usual."

Today, the Court once again declines to impose limitations on the Patent Act that are inconsistent with the Act’s text. The patent application here can be rejected under our precedents on the unpatentability of abstract ideas. The Court, therefore, need not define further what constitutes a patentable “process,” beyond pointing to the definition of that term provided in §100(b) and looking to the guideposts in Benson, Flook, and Diehr.

By refusing to state any particular rule or categorical exclusion, the Court has almost certainly pushed Section 101 patent eligibility to the background in most patent prosecution and litigation.

Business Methods: Section 101 does not categorically exclude business methods from patentability. Rather, the court noted that the prior-use defense found in Section 273(b)(1) of the Patent Act "explicitly contemplates the existence of at least some business method patents. . . . [B]y allowing this defense the statute itself acknowledges that there may be business method patents."
Software: Although the court expressly refused to rule on the patentability of software, it appears that software will largely remain patentable. At minimum, the decision would bar any categorical exclusion of software patents. The court neither endorsed nor rejected the Federal Circuit's past interpretations of Section 101 — Noting that "nothing in today’s opinion should be read as endorsing interpretations of §101 that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has used in the past. See, e.g., State Street, 149 F. 3d, at 1373; AT&T Corp., 172 F. 3d, at 1357."

Abstract Idea: The one thing that all nine justices agreed upon is that Bilski's method of hedging risk was not patentable because it is an abstract idea "just like the algorithms at issue in Benson and Flook."

 

The concept of hedging, described in claim 1 and reduced to a mathematical formula in claim 4, is an unpatentable abstract idea, just like the algorithms at issue in Benson and Flook. Allowing petitioners to patent risk hedging would preempt use of this approach in all fields, and would effectively grant a monopoly over an abstract idea.

Petitioners’ remaining claims are broad examples of how hedging can be used in commodities and energy markets. Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable. That is exactly what the remaining claims in petitioners’ application do. These claims attempt to patent the use of the abstract idea of hedging risk in the energy market and then instruct the use of well-known random analysis techniques to help establish some of the inputs into the equation. Indeed, these claims add even less to the underlying abstract principle than the invention in Flook did, for the Flook invention was at least directed to the narrower domain of signaling dangers in operating a catalytic converter.

It is unclear to me how patent office examiners will be able to apply the test for abstract ideas in any meaningful way. I suspect that they will not. Rather, the best advice for the USPTO is to focus on Section II-A of Justice Kennedy's opinion. There, the opinion recognizes that Section 101 patent eligibility is "only a threshold test." To be patentable, the invention must also "be novel, see §102, nonobvious, see §103, and fully and particularly described, see §112."

What is the test?: 35 USC 101 offers patent protection for "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." Here, the focus was on the definition of a "process" because Bilski's patent application was written to claim a method of hedging risk. Although the majority opinion refused to define the term process, it did write that the machine-or-transformation test developed by the Federal Circuit does not define what is (and is not) a patentable process. Rather, the Court held that the machine-or-transformation offers "a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under §101. The machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible process." As a "clue," the machine-or-transformation test likely correlates with the existence of patentable subject matter. However, some patent claims that fail the test will still be patentable and other patent claims that pass the test will still be ineligible.   

Read the Opinion

Bilski, Kenny Rogers and Supreme Court Rule 46

Guest Post, Patent, Patentable Subject Matter, , , ,

by Professor John F. Duffy, George Washington University Law School

You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away, know when to run                       
                                                       — Kenny Rogers in The Gambler
_____________________________

Kenny Rogers’ hit song The Gambler provides some wise strategic advice, valid not only in cards and but also in law and perhaps in life generally:   If “fold ’em” is an option, sometimes it is the best one. Supreme Court Rule 46 on “Dismissing Cases” provides petitioners in Supreme Court cases the opportunity to “fold ’em,” and in the days remaining before the Supreme Court delivers an opinion in its Bilski v. Kappos case, the most puzzling question in the case has become this: Why won’t the petititoners in Bilski fold?

From the perspective of the petitioners, the case for seeking dismissal seems overwhelmingly strong. In the months since the oral argument in Bilski, every Justice save Justice Stevens has delivered an opinion from the set of cases argued in the November sitting. Bilski remains the only case not decided from that sitting. Because only one case remains undecided and only one Justice has yet to deliver an opinion from that month, there is widespread agreement among those familiar with Supreme Court practice that Justice Stevens is writing the Court’s opinion in Bilski. Thus, the petitioners are now reduced to hoping that Justice Stevens, who once argued in dissent that all software should be outside patentable subject matter, will author an opinion that will be more pro-patent than the positions taken by all but one of the Federal Circuit judges.

But there’s more. Not only do petitioners have no realistic hope of winning anything in the case, they also have much to lose by persisting in the appeal. Petitioners—the named inventors in the application, Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw—and their firm WeatherWise have other patent claims, some issued and some pending, that pass the machine-or-transformation test but that may not pass whatever test Justice Stevens is busy constructing.

That’s a quick summary of the case for the petitioners seeking dismissal of Bilski. The details only make the case stronger. Then again, there is also a distinct possibility that petitioners’ side of the case may want to lose.

The Petitioners’ Chances for Victory: Nil.

Any rational consideration of persisting in a legal case should begin with a frank assessment of the chances for gain and loss.   I’ll begin with the chances for gain, for they are as close to zero as can be imagined.

Good poker players learn to read other players’ “tells,” subtle clues which give hints about the likely outcomes if the hand is played to completion. In Bilski, the Supreme Court has also given some awfully clear “tells” that do not bode well for the petitioners.

Most importantly, the assignment pattern of the Court’s opinions strongly suggests that Justice Stevens is writing the opinion. The assignment of opinions in the Court is typically done with two goals in mind: (1) to give each Justice the chance to author at least one majority opinion from each sitting; and (2) to average out the number of majority opinions written by each Justice. Twelve separate cases were argued in the November sitting, including Bilski. (This counts two cases—Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida—as effectively one case, as the two cases involved the same issue and were eventually decided the same day.) Every Justice has delivered a majority opinion from that month, with the exception of the Justice Stevens. Thus, most Supreme Court watchers would predict that the one remaining opinion from the month—Bilski—was assigned to Justice Stevens.

There is some uncertainty about this result, however. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 46, one of those twelve cases (Pottawattamie County v. McGhee) was dismissed two months after the oral argument, so the Justice assigned to write the opinion in that case is not publicly known. Still, Stevens still remains the most likely candidate to have been assigned the Bilski opinion because of the larger pattern of assignments from the Court’s first three sittings (September, October and November). During those three months, 26 cases were argued. If the Court were trying to average out the workload among the Justices, then every Justice save one should have been assigned three majority opinions to write.

By now, all Justices have delivered three majority opinions from those first sittings with the exception of Justices Stevens and Sotomayor. Justice Stevens has delivered only one majority opinion (a case argued in October); Justice Sotomayor has delivered two majority opinions (one each from October and November). It seems highly likely that Justice Stevens was assigned only two majority opinions to write from the first three sittings because Stevens was also writing the principal dissent in Citizens United v. FEC, the hugely important campaign finance case to which the Court gave expedited consideration.   (If, however, Justice Stevens was originally assigned three majority opinions, then he would have definitely been assigned Bilski.) Assuming Justice Stevens was assigned only two majority opinions, then the assignments to write majority opinions in Bilski and the now-dismissed Pottawattamie County case would have been distributed to Stevens and Sotomayor. Sotomayor would seem like the natural for Pottawattamie County, which involved the immunity of state prosecutors from civil liability, because Sotomayor served as a state criminal prosecutor under New York City’s Robert Morgenthau. Stevens, by contrast, was an antitrust lawyer before becoming a judge, and he has shown significant interest in patentable subject matter.

Another clue to the authorship of Bilski comes from the lengthy delay in announcing the opinion. As previously mentioned, Justice Stevens wrote the principal dissent in the Citizens United case, which was heard and decided on an expedited basis by the Court because of the case’s importance to the spring primary season. Stevens’ impassioned dissent in that case ran for 90 pages, and that opinion seems to have delayed the release Stevens’ other majority opinions. Indeed, for two months after the January decision in the Citizens United case, Justice Stevens was the only Justice on the Court not to have delivered any majority opinion during the entire Term.

If, as seems likely, Justice Stevens is writing the majority opinion in Bilski, that is an awful omen for the petitioners. Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion for the Court in Parker v. Flook (1978), which created the enigmatic rule that certain forms of “post-solution activity” cannot transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process. Justice Stevens is also one of the few Justices ever to attempt to draw bright-line rules for excluding whole fields from the patent system. His dissent in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 193 (1981), sought to promulgate “an unequivocal holding that no program-related invention is a patentable process under § 101 unless it makes a contribution to the art that is not dependent entirely on the utilization of a computer.” 450 U.S. at 219.

In addition to the Court’s fairly clear “tell” that Justice Stevens will deliver the opinion of the Court, there are other signs that the petitioners’ chances for ultimate success are nil. The oral argument did not go well at all for petitioners’ counsel (to put it mildly), and a significant portion of the government’s argument was devoted to arguing that the Court should not impose a more restrictive rule than that sought by the PTO (e.g., a complete ban on business method patents, whether machine implemented or not). See Transcript of Argument at 40-50. In addition, at the Federal Circuit, even Judge Rader—one of the two judges willing to take a more comprehensive view of patentable subject matter—stated explicitly that he would agree the petitioners’ claims were unpatentable as abstract ideas.

Finally, if more evidence were needed, there is the PTO’s extraordinary record of success at the Supreme Court in patent cases. Two recent articles, one by Colleen Chien of Santa Clara University and one of my own, have independently noted that, since the creation of the Federal Circuit, the government’s substantive positions on patent law have always prevailed at the Supreme Court. See Colleen Chien, Patent Amicus Briefs: What the Courts’ Friends Can Teach Us About the Patent System (2010); John F. Duffy, The Federal Circuit in the Shadow of the Solicitor General, 78 G.W.U. L. Rev. 518 (2010).   The petitioners in Bilski must hope that the Supreme Court will finally rule against the government, and in an opinion by Justice Stevens, stake out a much more pro-patent position than every judge on the Federal Circuit save one.

The Value of Dismissal.

The impossibly slim odds of winning would not matter to the petitioners if they had nothing to lose from persisting in the appeal. But petitioners Bilski and Warsaw have at least two pending patent applications on business methods for hedging risk. See U.S. Pat. App. 200030233323 A1 (Dec. 18, 2003); U.S. Pat. App. 20040122764 A1 (June 24, 2004). Furthermore, Petitioner Warsaw also is the named inventor on several issued claims in a patent assigned to the firm WeatherWise.   See U.S. Pat. No. 6,785,620 (2004). Many of the claims in that patent would seem to pass the machine-or-transformation test, as the claims cover “system[s]” that include various modules for storing and manipulating data. Some claims are also directed to a “computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions,” which is a form of claim for covering business software that the government currently views as permissible but that could be jeopardized by an unfavorable Supreme Court opinion in Bilski.   

If the Bilski case were dismissed, a decision about patentable subject matter would be left for the future. From the standpoint of petitioners, the future would better for two reason. First, Justice Stevens would be replaced by a new Justice, likely Elana Kagan. That change has to favor those on the side of the petitioners since Justice Stevens takes a more restrictive view of patentable subject matter than many of the other Justices on the Court. By contrast, the Solicitor General’s Office under Kagan expressly endorsed the position (stated during the Bilski oral argument) that the Federal Circuit had correctly decided State Street Bank v. Signature Financial. See Transcript of Oral Argument at 44. The future also presents the possibility of a different case, with perhaps more attractive facts.

Dismissal: Still Time?

Supreme Court Rule 46.1 allows any case to be dismissed, even after the oral argument, by agreement of the parties. The Rule directs that, upon filing of such an agreement, the Clerk of the Court, “without further reference to the Court, will enter an order of dismissal.” Furthermore, Rule 46.2 allows petitioners unilaterally to seek dismissal by agreeing to pay all the court costs and fees due. (Such costs and fees are not attorneys’ fees but merely the minor costs associated with the appeal that are paid by the losing party in any case.) The grounds on which respondents may object to such a filing are strictly “limited to the amount of damages and costs in this Court alleged to be payable or to showing that the moving party does not represent all petitioners or appellants.” The Clerk of the Court is directed “not [to] file any objection not so limited.”

The Rule reflects a very clear policy that the Court will not plunge ahead to decide a case if the petitioners have decided to “fold ’em,” and that policy makes perfect sense from the Court’s perspective. The Supreme Court has plenty of cases to decide, and important issues eventually percolate back up to the Court if they really need to be decided. Indeed, in the November sitting alone, the Pottawattamie County case was dismissed even though argument had been heard two months earlier and the case involved an important issue about the scope of prosecutors’ immunity.

True, if the Solicitor General’s Office were unwilling to agree to the dismissal, it is unclear what would happen. At oral argument, however, the advocate for the Solicitor General’s Office emphasized that the government thought the Court should never have taken the case because it was an “unsuitable vehicle” to decide questions of patentable subject matter. Transcript of Argument at 48. Moreover, the Solicitor General’s Office is very much a repeat player at the Supreme Court, and thus the Office tends to be willing to follow not just the letter but also the spirit of the Court’s rules. Since those rules reflect a fairly clear policy that petitioners’ dismissals should not be opposed unless the petitioner either is not willing to pay costs or does not represent all petitioners, the Solicitor General’s Office seems unlikely to attempt to thwart dismissal where the petitioners comply with the conditions of Rule 46.

A Final Point: A Desired Defeat?

All of the above makes the crucial assumption that the petitioners in Biski want to sustain the patentability of business method patents such as their own. But that assumption may be wrong. The patent application at issue is no longer owned by Bernard Bilski, Rand Warsaw or even WeatherWise, the small start-up company that holds similar patent claims on hedging energy consumption risks and is merely a licensee of the patent application at issue in the case (see Paul Schaafsma news article noting the licensing relationship). As the petitioners’ briefs in the Supreme Court disclose, the real party in interest in the case is Equitable Resources Inc., renamed EQT Inc. during the pendency of the case. See Petitioners’ Reply Brief at (i). That corporation has market capitalization of $5.4 billion (see EQT Financial Report). A quick search of the PTO’s database does not show any issued patents owned by this corporation, and the company’s most recent annual report filed with the SEC makes no mention of patents or intellectual property. It is not at all clear that such a company really wants to have patent protection for innovative ways to manage energy costs or risks, or for any other form of business method. Large companies are often the targets of patent infringement litigation, and start-ups often see patents as a means to compete against established firms. Indeed, the Warsaw patent on hedging risk—which is assigned to WeatherWise, not EQT—could itself provide a reason why the petitioners’ side of the case would welcome defeat.

It remains a puzzle why the petitioners in this case are persisting in an appeal that seems not only doomed but also capable of establishing new and unpredictable restrictions to the scope of patentable subject matter. I had previously thought that “irrational exuberance” provided the best answer—that the Bilski petitioners were likely to remain unrealistically optimistic about their chances for success right up to the end. But the presence of a multibillion-dollar corporation controlling the litigation decreases the chances that the strategy is due to simple inventor over-optimism. Perhaps the entity controlling the petitioners’ side of the case is really quite wily, for there would be no cause to “fold ’em,” if the petitioners’ side would view thorough defeat as victory. That would explain much.  

Business Method Patents: Insurance Companies Fighting over Patented Annuity Plans

Infringement, Patent, Patentable Subject Matter

Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. v. Transamerica Life Insurance Co. (Fed. Cir. 2010)

It is not unusual to see insurance companies in litigation. What is unusual here is that the context is patent infringement. Lincoln is pursuing Transamerica and others for infringement of its patents covering a method of administering a variable annuity plan with a guaranteed minimum payment that continues even after an account had been exhausted. Although clearly a business method, the asserted claims do recite (in the preambles) that the method is "computerized."  U.S. Patent No. 7,089,201.

A jury found the claims valid and infringed and awarded $13 million in damages. On appeal, Transamerica asked for reversal of the infringement verdict and for an opportunity to present its case on patentable subject matter. The Federal Circuit reversed on infringement.

Non-Infringement: The asserted claims require that scheduled payments be made "even if the account value is exhausted before all payments have been made." Transamerica argued that it could not infringe because (1) none of its subscribers had ever "exhausted" their accounts and (2) that its computer system has not been configured to automatically pay on an exhausted account.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the patentee that the claim did not require that any accounts actually be exhausted. Rather, the claim only requires a particular action if the accounts are exhausted.

On the second point, however, the Federal Circuit agreed with the accused infringer — finding that "nothing in the record" shows that Transamerica uses a computer system to make scheduled payments once an account has been exhausted.

Legal Obligation to Infringe: As an interesting tid-bit, Transamerica's contracts apparently do required the company to continue making scheduled payments even after its accounts had been exhausted.  The Federal Circuit rejected the legal obligation as proof of infringement — holding instead that the claims require computer implementation of the method. Furthermore, a contractual obligation to perform a method does not constitute infringement. Rather, infringement requires performance: "A contractual obligation to perform an act is not performance; indeed, a party could avoid infringement simply by breaching its contract."

Non-Patentable Subject Matter: Based on its non-infringement holding, the Federal Circuit left the Section 101 question undecided as moot.

    

Federal Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment of Obviousness for Bulk EMail Patent

Anticipation, Obviousness, Patent, Patent Cases 2009, Patentable Subject Matter, , ,

Perfect Web Technologies v. InfoUSApic-79.jpg (Fed. Cir. 2009)

Perfect Web’s asserted patent covers a method of managing bulk e-mail distribution. Claim 1 of the application (filed in 2000) reads as follows:

1. A method for managing bulk e-mail distribution comprising the steps:

(A) matching a target recipient profile with a group of target recipients;

(B) transmitting a set of bulk e-mails to said target recipients in said matched group;

(C) calculating a quantity of e-mails in said set of bulk e-mails which have been successfully received by said target recipients; and,

(D) if said calculated quantity does not exceed a prescribed minimum quantity of successfully received e-mails, repeating steps (A)-(C) until said calculated quantity exceeds said prescribed minimum quantity. (Pat. No. 6,431,400).

The district court held the claims invalid as anticipated and obvious as well as for failing to claim statutory subject matter under Section 101. On appeal, the Federal Circuit upheld the obviousness finding and left the alternative reasons undecided.

Of course, in 2000, targeted bulk e-mail was already around, and the defendants provided prior art evidence of steps (A)-(C). That is, marketers were already identifying target recipients, sending out e-mails, and calculating the percent received. Missing from the prior art was step (D) – iteratively repeating steps (A)-(C) until the number of recipients reaches the a prescribed quantity.

Evidence of Common Sense: The district court held on summary judgment that KSR style “common sense” would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the iterative step (D). On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed that finding – holding particularly that the finding of common sense does not require “explication in any reference or expert opinion.”

Although a court need not have documentary support of its common sense analysis, a court (or patent examiner) must at least clearly explain its reasoning.

We reiterate that, on summary judgment, to invoke “common sense” or any other basis for extrapolating from prior art to a conclusion of obviousness, a district court must articulate its reasoning with sufficient clarity for review.

In this case, the appellate panel agreed that the idea of repeating already known steps until a threshold is met was simply a common sense extension:

Thus, this last step, and the claim as a whole, simply recites repetition of a known procedure until success is achieved. Recognizing this, the district court explained: “If 100 e-mail deliveries were ordered, and the first transmission delivered only 95, common sense dictates that one should try again. One could do little else.”

The court added an interesting caveat regarding expert testimony and the level of one of skill in the art — noting that expert testimony may well be necessary for “complex” technology.

If the relevant technology were complex, the court might require expert opinions. Here, however, the parties agreed that ordinary skill in the relevant art required only a high school education and limited marketing and computer experience. No expert opinion is required to appreciate the potential value to persons of such skill in this art of repeating steps (A)-(C).

Obvious to Try: As a corollary to its common sense holding, the appellate court also held that the additional step (D) would have been “obvious to try” under KSR. “[S]imple logic suggests that sending messages to new addresses is more likely to produce successful deliveries than re-sending messages to addresses that have already failed. . . . [I]ndeed, the predictable and actual result of performing step (D) is that more e-mail messages reach more recipients.”

Long-felt Need: The patentee argued that a nonobviousness conclusion was supported by evidence of the secondary consideration of long-felt need. Particularly, the method helps solve the recognized competing problems of reaching customers without “burning up” the mailing list by oversending.

The Federal Circuit rejected these arguments because the patentee had failed to provide any evidence of improved efficiency beyond “bare assertion.” In addition, the court suggested that any proof of long-felt need would be insufficient to “overcome [the] strong prima facie showing of obviousness.” (quoting Asyst Techs (2008))

Claim Construction: Interestingly, the court issued its summary judgment order prior to claim construction. The Federal Circuit found no error because construction of the disputed claim terms would not have changed the obviousness outcome.

Notes: The patent was originally titled “Statement regarding federally sponsored research or development.” That is apparently a typographical error fixed in a subsequent certificate of correction.   

Bilski Briefs: Supporting the Government (In Name)

Patent, Patentable Subject Matter, , , ,

UPDATE: More briefs added Oct 5, 2009, 11:30 am

The final round of amicus briefs have been filed in the pending Supreme Court case of Bilski v. Kappos. Mr. Bilski is appealing the Federal Circuit's en banc rejection of his patent application. In that decision, the court held that Bilski's claimed method of hedging risk did not qualify as patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the method was neither tied to a particular machine nor transformative of any physical article. Bilski challenges this "machine-or-transformation" test as unduly narrow. Bilski's legal position was supported in a large set of amicus briefs including a strong textualist argument made by Professor John Duffy.

Briefs supporting the government position have been filed. As summarized below, the vast majority of briefs also reject the Federal Circuit's machine-or-transformation test as the sole test of patentable subject matter for a claimed process. In my summaries, I have attempted to capture what I learned from each brief, of course the briefs and arguments are much more extensive and nuanced than my squibs suggest.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Kauffman Foundation: Business method patents are harmful and should not be allowed. The long history of US patentable subject matter indicate that a patentable process must provide a technological advance. Likewise the mere fact that a process uses a machine or computer does not immediately render the process patentable subject matter. Rather to be patentable, the advance must be a technological advance. EFF etc amicus brief.pdf.

Red Hat: Software methods do not become patentable simply because they are tied to a computer. Benson. Download 08-964bsacRedHatInc.

William Mitchell College of Law IP Institute: This case does not properly present the issue of patentability of claims that include a mix of statutory and non-statutory subject matter. The court should wait for an appropriate case to decide that issue. Parsing Section 101 provides few real answers as to patentable subject matter. Download 08-964 William Mitchell College of Law Intellectual Property Institute.

SFLC (Moglen and Ravicher): Standing alone, software is not patentable. This result is derived from the Supreme Court's decision in Microsoft v. AT&T that “[a]bstract software code [uninstalled in a machine] is an idea without physical embodiment.” 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007). Download 08-964 Software Freedom Law Center.

SIIA: The patent eligibility of software is well established and should not be disturbed. Download 08-964 Software & Information Industry Association.

Knowledge Ecology Int'l: The goal of the system is to encourage progress, not to reward inventors. Further, patent protection is not a "necessary policy intervention to reward successful investment in new medical technologies. . . . [M]any of the greatest medical advances have benefited significantly, and in some cases exclusively, from mechanisms that exist completely outside of the patent system." Download 08-964 Knowledge Ecology International.

Mark Landesmann: The evidence of the negative social impact of business method and software patenting is properly directed at the PTO's allowance of patents that were not substantially novel and that were not properly disclosed or claimed. There is no evidence that patents on novel, non-obvious and properly disclosed business-method process inventions create any harm. Download 08-964 Mark Landesmann.

Nevada State Bar Ass'n: The machine-or-transformation test harms emerging Nevada businesses – especially in the growing areas of solar energy, gaming, and digital communications. Download 08-964bsacintellectualpropertysectionnevadastatebar.

American Bar Ass'n: The court should use an incremental approach to excluding claims to subject matter where patenting does not make sense and creates a problem. Categorical limits such as the machine-or-transformation test may limit innovation. That said, the "[p]atent law should not interfere with the exercise of human intellect by granting a monopoly on processes in which thinking is central." A specific target of the ABA is to eliminate patents covering tax planning methods. Download 08-964 American Bar Association.

American Insurance Ass'n: Regardless of their novelty, insurance policies should not be the subject of patent protection – even when combined with a computer. Download 08-964 American Insurance Association.

Bank of America, Google, et al.: The patent laws should bar patentability of "accounting methods, tax mitigation techniques, financial instruments, and other means of organizing human behavior—or software used to implement those methods." Download 08-964 Bank of America et al..

Bloomberg: Limiting a method to use on a general purpose computer should not render the method patentable. Download 08-964 Bloomberg.

CCIA: It is important that the Federal Circuit eliminated the overbroad State Street test. The current tension in the patent system can largely be traced to that unprecedented over-expansion of the system. Tight limits on patentable subject matter are important because (inter alia) of the strict liability nature of patent infringement. "Tying patentability to physical subject matter is not a perfect solution. However, it limits the reach of patents in important ways that can significantly reduce the risks of inadvertent infringement and the scope of potential liability."Download 08-964 Computer & Communications Industry Association.

FFII: Patents on business methods have been considered and were rejected by the Statute of Monopolies in 1623. Patents greatly harm the Free & Open Source Software (FOSS) movement. Download 08-964 Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure.

Professors Menell and Meurer: The Constitution creates a real limit on patentable subject matter – i.e., the subject matter of the patent must be within the "useful Arts." Economic evidence indicates that business method patents (especially internet related business methods) are harmful. 08-964 bsac Menell.pdf.

Law Professors and the AARP (Including Josh Sarnoff): Patents should only cover "inventions in the application." Patents can not cover "non-inventive applications of public domain science, nature, and ideas." The right interpretation of the statute requires that the invention "reside in the application, rather than in a discovery preceding or employed by it. This is because the science, nature, or ideas must be treated as if they are already in the prior art, i.e., are publicly known and free for all to use. Absent invention in applying such discoveries, there is simply no invention to patent." 08-964 bsac Brief of Eleven Law Professors and AARP.pdf.

Microsoft, Philips, and Symantec: Nobody (except Bilski) believes that his claims deserve patent rights. The machine-or-transformation test should not be seen as the exclusive test of patentable subject matter of a process claim – in part because the test has already "proven overly difficult to implement in practice." Like Professor Hollaar, Microsoft would simplify the test by requiring that the invention "involve one or more disclosed physical things." Today's computers – although complex – are not fundamentally different from Babbage's 1836 mechanical computer. Process claims that use computers should be patentable. Am Brief.pdf.

Professor Hollaar and the IEEE: Just restating the general principles of patentable subject matter is unhelpful. Rather, clear rules are needed – especially because the subject matter question is most frequently addressed by patent examiners who have little legal training and little time to ponder abstractions. A clear and time-tested rule would be: A process is patentable subject matter when it involves making or using a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. This means that software method patents that require a computer would be patentable, but Bilski's method of hedging would not be patentable. bilski-sc-amicus.pdf.

American Medical Association: The machine-or-transformation test should not supplant the requirement that a patent claim "address a technology." A patent should not be allowed to cover "every possible application of a scientific observation." Rather, claims should be limited to "a particular new and useful application or use of the observation. The Supreme Court should use this case to make a statement especially directed to "overreaching claims in the life sciences. . . . Such patents chill research, and patents such as those in Labcorp and Prometheus chill talking and thinking of ideas by making talking and thinking into a tort." 08-964 bsac The American Medical Association.pdf.

Adamas Pharma and Tethys: Section 101 should be interpreted in a way that is objective, predictable, and not duplicative of the other patentability requirements. The machine-or-transformation (MoT) test does not meet any of these requirements. The Federal Circuit test also violates US treaty obligations under TRIPS and NAFTA and potentially subject the US to trade disputes adjudicated at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Under these US-initiated treaties member countries agreed to offer patent rights "in all fields of technologies." A major purpose of the agreements was to ensure that countries offered a full scope of patent rights, and by limiting the scope of rights, the US "will no longer be able to credibly argue in Special 301 trade disputes that failure to protect healthcare inventions made by cutting-edge U.S. companies constitutes inadequate protection of intellectual property rights." Some Congressional intent can be gleaned from the legislative history of Section 287(c) of the patent act. As originally proposed, that provision would have limited the subject matter eligibility of medical and diagnostic methods. After some debate, a compromise was reached to continue to allow their patenting, but to limit the remedies available. 08-964 bsac Adamas Pharmaceuticals.pdf.

Robert Sachs and Daniel Brownstone: Software should be patentable and has been for a long time. The Federal Circuit test greatly confuses the issue. Although software is an abstraction from the physical world, it is not "abstract." SF-5270929-v1-Bilski_v_Doll_Amicus_Brief_of_R_Sachs_and_D_Brownstone_as_amici_curiae_2009-08-06.PDF.

Big Internet Retailers, including Crutchfield, Overstock, and LL Bean: Patent Trolls are hurting online retailers and one way to stop them is to eliminate business method patents (including software business method patents). In effect, business method patents amount to a tax on Internet commerce. (The companies don't mention – unlike offline retailers – internet companies are often exempt from paying sales tax…) Internet Retailer Amicus Brief.pdf.

Brief of CASRIP (U. Washington): The US Constitution sets a bound on the scope of patentable subject matter – limiting them to the Constitutionally proscribed "useful Arts" as that term was understood at ratification. For new methods, one key is to consider the purpose of the method. Methods of entertaining a cat using a laser and telling a joke into a microphone should not be patentable regardless of their tie to particular machines because neither of those functions have ever "been considered a useful Art, and surely . . . is not the kind of discovery that the Patent Clause contemplates." Some methods also exist that should be patentable even though they fail the machine-or-transformation test. Despite its problems, the machine-or-transformation test is "superior to its competitors in filtering out preemptive claims to basic principles." However, it should not be the sole test of eligibility. Bilski's claim is unpatentable because hedging against price inflation (the purpose of the method) is not within the useful Arts. CASRIP am cur brf.pdf.

In re Ferguson: Patentable Subject Matter

BPAI, Patent, Patent Cases 2009, Patentable Subject Matter, Software, , ,

In re Ferguson (Fed. Cir. 2009)

Scott Harris has been discussed several times on Patently-O. Harris is a former Fish & Richardson partner. Fish handles the most patent litigation of any firm in the country. In addition to being a patent attorney, Harris is an inventor. He has contracted with the plaintiffs firm Niro Scavone in several actions to enforce patents against Google and other companies. Harris is one of the named inventors of the Ferguson application and he handled the [futile] appeal.

The claimed invention focuses on a “method of marketing a product” and a “paradigm for marketing software.” These claims focus on methods and structures for operating a business.

Methods Under Bilski: Claim 1 reads as follows:

A method of marketing a product, comprising:

developing a shared marketing force, said shared marketing force including at least marketing channels, which enable marketing a number of related products;

using said shared marketing force to market a plurality of different products that are made by a plurality of different autonomous producing company, so that different autonomous companies, having different ownerships, respectively produce said related products;

obtaining a share of total profits from each of said plurality of different autonomous producing companies in return for said using; and

obtaining an exclusive right to market each of said plurality of products in return for said using.

Under Bilski, this case is open and shut. The claim is not even arguably tied to a machine — especially under the Nuijten construction of machine to be a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices [including] every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result.” (Quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 531, 570 (1863)). Thus, the 1863 touchability definition of machine appears to hold weight. On the second Bilski prong, the claim does not require transformation of any article into a different state or thing. The only transformation is that of legal rights and organizational relationships that were explicitly excluded in the Bilski decision: “transformations or manipulations simply of public or private legal obligations or relationships, business risks, or other such abstractions cannot meet the test because they are not physical objects or substances, and they are not representative of physical objects or substances.”

Harris asked the court to consider a different test of patentable subject matter: “Does the claimed subject matter require that the product or process has more than a scintilla of interaction with the real world in a specific way?” The CAFC panel rejected that proposal primarily based on the precedential value of Bilski: “In light of this court’s clear statements that the “sole,” “definitive,” “applicable,” “governing,” and “proper” test for a process claim under § 101 is the Supreme Court’s machine-or-transformation test, see Bilski, passim, we are reluctant to consider Applicants’ proposed test.” The court went on to determine that the “scintilla” test would create too much ambiguity as well.

Non Method Claims: The application also included claims directed to a “paradigm for marketing software” made up of a marketing company that markets software in return for a contingent share of income. Although “instructive,” the Federal Circuit did not directly follow Bilski. Rather, the court looked to determine whether the claimed paradigm fit within one of the four statutory classes listed in Section 101:

Inventions Patentable: “… any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof…”

In a gentle Koan, the Court stated that it “need not resolve the particular class of statutory subject matter into which Applicants’ paradigm claims fall, [however], the claims must satisfy at least one category.” In fact, the court did attempt to resolve the particular class, but was unable to fit the paradigm claim into any of the four.

Applicants’ paradigm claims are not directed to processes, as “no act or series of acts” is required. Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355. Applicants do not argue otherwise. Applicants’ marketing company paradigm is also not a manufacture, because although a marketing company may own or produce tangible articles or commodities, it clearly cannot itself be an “‘article[]’ resulting from the process of manufacture.” Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356. Again, Applicants do not argue otherwise. And Applicants’ marketing company paradigm is certainly not a composition of matter. Applicants do not argue otherwise.  

Again applying the touchability notion of machine, the Court also rejected the notion that the company paradigm could be a machine:

Applicants do assert, however, that “[a] company is a physical thing, and as such analogous to a machine.” But the paradigm claims do not recite “a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices,” Nuijtent, and as Applicants conceded during oral argument, “you cannot touch the company.”

Ending in a flourish, the court found that in fact, the Ferguson paradigm claims are “drawn quite literally to the paradigmatic abstract idea.” (quoting Warmerdam).

Judge Newman offers a poignant concurring opinion.  

Obviousness; Scope and Content of the Prior Art; Secondary Considerations

CAFC, Chemical, Obviousness, Patent, Patent Cases 2009, Patentable Subject Matter

Süd-Chemie v. Multisorb Technologies (Fed. Cir. 2009)

Süd-Chemie holds a patent covering a desiccant container for keeping products dry in shipment. In an infringement action, the Kentucky district court found the patent invalid as obvious. On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated – holding that the lower court had erred in its analysis of the scope and content of the prior art. There are two primary take-away points from Sud-Chemie. First, obviousness jurisprudence continues to require detailed analysis of the claims and the prior art. I.e., KSR did not suddenly allow handwaving as a substitute for evidence and clear argument. Second, well presented secondary indicia of nonobviousness continue to be important in rebutting obviousness allegations.

Here, the claimed patent required the use of “compatible polymeric materials” used in a laminate seal. The prior art disclosed the use of laminate materials taken from the same general class of materials. However, the Federal Circuit recognized that the prior art did not specify that the selected materials be “compatible” in a way to allow for a proper laminate seal.

This is a case where a definition of the claim term in the specification greatly aided the patentee. The specification defined “compatible” materials as those that “mix on a molecular scale and will crystallize homogeneously.” The prior art reference did not teach this form of compatibility. In fact, the prior art appeared to teach “incompatible” materials.  

Multisorb ignores the fact that while the ’942 patent requires the inner surfaces of the laminate and microporous films to have similar softening points, Komatsu [the prior art] requires the films to have dissimilar softening points. Komatsu thus does not teach the use of a microporous film that is compatible with the inner surface of the laminate film.

Looking at secondary considerations, the Federal Circuit instructed district courts to “attend carefully to any evidence of … secondary considerations of nonobviousness.” Here, the focus is on the surprising and unexpected result that compatible materials formed stronger bonds even without adhesive.

The Federal Circuit did not apply these findings to form a conclusion on the issue of obviousness. Rather, the court remanded for further development of the facts.

[NOTE- This decision is from January 2009]

Orion and Taurus: NPEs at the Federal Circuit

CAFC, Patent, Patentable Subject Matter

Erich Spangenberg has at least two pending appeals at the Federal Circuit: Taurus IP v. Daimlerchrysler (and Hyundai) and Orion IP v. Hyundai Motor. In the Taurus case, the Wisconsin District Court found the asserted patent (6,141,658) invalid and also asserted jurisdiction over Spangenberg and Orion IP via a veil-piercing theory. In a recent order, the Federal Circuit properly refused to allow Chrysler and Mercedes to present argument and documents “in camera” in that case. [Link] In the Orion case, a Texas court found Hyundai liable for infringement of the asserted patent (5,367,627) and awarded $34 million in damages. Hyundai has posted $25 million bond to stay the full payment until the appeal is concluded. [LINK ]. The general rule is that money damages will be stayed pending appeals if bond is posted, and that injunctive relief might be stayed.

The ‘627 patent is patent reformer’s poster child for damages reform. The patent covers a method that helps a sales clerk properly order the parts that match a customer’s needs. It is hard to know what the value of the incremental invention as compared with the prior art back in 1989 when the original application was filed. I will note that the $34 million patent has only 15 claims and includes means-plus-function language in the claims. Claim 1 of the patent is reproduced below:

1. A computerized method of selling parts for particular equipment specified by a customer, comprising the steps of:

a) receiving information identifying a customer’s parts requirements for the equipment, comprising the step of receiving equipment application information, comprising an identification of the equipment with which one or more parts are to be used;

b) electronically specifying information identifying a plurality of parts and specifications for the parts;

c) gathering parts-related information for one or more parts within the plurality of parts which meets the customer’s requirements, comprising the step of electronically associating at least one of the parts within the plurality of parts with the received equipment application information; and

d) receiving the gathered parts-related information and compiling the parts-related information into a proposal meeting the customer’s requirements.

Although the ‘658 patent does not claim priority to the earlier ‘627 patent, it does have one overlapping inventor and a large amount of overlapping scope.

Classen v. Biogen: Request for Rehearing

Patent, Patent Cases 2009, Patentable Subject Matter

In Classen v. Biogen, the Federal Circuit issued a one paragraph non-precedential opinion rejecting Dr. Classen's claimed method for evaluating a vaccine immunization schedule. The problem with the claims stems from the Bilsmane or transformation test. The appellate panel found that "the claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dr. Classen's claims are neither "tied to a particular machine or apparatus" nor do they "transform[] a particular article into a different state or thing." Bilski, 545 F.3d at 954."

Now, Classen has filed its request for a rehearing en banc and is looking for further amicus support. The brief cites only one case — Bilski — and argues the facts: that at least the claim limitation of "immunizing mammals" is a qualifying transformation of matter.

Notes:

BPAI Again Rejects System Claims under Bilski

BPAI, Patent, Patent Cases 2009, Patentable Subject Matter

Ex parte Atkins (BPAI 2009)

The BPAI has again raised the issue of Post-Bilski patentable subject matter sua sponte. Like most claims challenged under Section101, Atkins claims also have serious nonobvousness and indefiniteness problems.

Atkins claims a method of “converting a unidirectional domain name to a bidirectional domain name.” In reviewing the claim under Bilski, the BPAI noted that the claims do not “recite any machine or apparatus or call for transforming an article into a different state or thing. A domain name is simply a series of characters representing the address of a resource, such as a server, on the World Wide Web. All of the steps are data manipulation steps.”

Atkins also claims a parallel “system” for converting the domain name. The BPAI rejected the system claims under Bilski since “those claims encompass any and all structures for performing the recited functions. As a result, [the system claims] are at least as broad as method claims … which we have determined recite patent ineligible subject matter under Bilski.”

Bilski at the Supreme Court

Patent, Patent Cases 2009, Patentable Subject Matter, ,

Bernard Bilski’s petition for certiorari is due within days (unless an extension is granted). I think that there is a real question of whether (and how) the patent community should react to presentation of the case. Should the patent community support this case for Supreme Court review, wait for a better situated case, or sit content with the machine-or-transformation test outlined by the Federal Circuit in the en banc Bilski decision? Each position has its merits.

The case is well developed, parties and amici have already invested time standing behind the case. Yet, the underlying invention is not compelling (a method of hedging the risk of bad weather by using commodities trading) and issues of obviousness would almost certainly cloud the issues. There are many other potential cases in the pipeline, and the Supreme Court may properly wait to see how the new Bilski rule develops before weighing-in.

Federal Circuit Revises (Muzzles) Comiskey

En Banc, Patent, Patent Cases 2009, Patentable Subject Matter,

In re Comiskey (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Revised Panel Opinion)(En Banc Order)

After a request for en banc rehearing, the original Federal Circuit panel has revised its decision in Comsikey – erasing the “misunderstood” phrases of the original opinion linking Sections 101 (subject matter) and 103 (nonobviousness). The original opinion implicitly held that any portion of an invention that would constitute nonstatutory subject matter would be considered de facto obvious. [Link]

The new opinion finds that Comiskey’s method claims do not present patentable subject matter and remanded the case to the PTO to determine the subject matter eligibility of the system claims. The Federal Circuit refused to consider nonobviousness issues – even though nonobviousness was the sole issue presented in the original appeal. Subject matter eligibility had been raised sua sponte by the panel.

Judges Moore and Newman each dissented from the en banc order. Judge Moore argued that the decision violates the court’s “well established precedent that this court will not consider new grounds of rejecting patent claims on appeal.”