Tag Archives: Claim Construction

Guest Post by Prof. Sichelman: Stop Bashing Academics: Why Mark Lemley, Peter Menell, and Rob Merges are Highly Qualified to Teach and Write about Patent Law

Patent, , , , , , ,

Guest Post by Prof. Ted Sichelman, University of San Diego, School of Law

Recently, Hal Wegner has been circulating and commenting upon the qualifications of patent law professors. For example, he lists whether patent law professors at the Top Ten IP programs as ranked by US News & World Report are licensed to practice at the USPTO, have an “understanding” of international/comparative patent law, or clerked at the Federal Circuit (see below). According to Wegner, these “credentials” are “particularly” and “uniquely” valuable (in some cases, “essential”) for professors to make “optimum” patent policy reform proposals, especially those concerning PTO practice and international harmonization.

(To provide some background, I provided Wegner a list of names of all professors in the U.S. who currently teach and write about patent law at US News ranked and unranked IP programs, with the understanding that he would circulate the list to his readers. After I sent Wegner my list, without my input, he annotated it (along with other names) with various credentials and provided commentary and alternative lists, such as the one reproduced below. Because I believe Wegner’s analysis is flawed—and given my initial participation—I feel personally obligated to respond.)

NaplesNotably absent on Wegner’s list above are any professors from Stanford, Berkeley, and George Washington (GW), the top ranked IP programs in the nation. (The same holds true for many other schools, both in and outside of the top 10. I focus on the top three schools to underscore the problems with Wegner’s approach.) Rather than effectively denigrate these programs, Wegner should have recognized the transformative role that these schools have played historically (for GW) and more recently (for all three schools) in elevating patent law to a prominent place in the academy and developing unparalleled educational opportunities for future patent professionals and scholars.

Importantly, an unintended implication of Wegner’s discussion is that patent law professors without the stated qualifications—particularly, a patent bar registration number—are unfit to teach and write about patent law more generally. For instance, on his e-mail blog, Greg Aharonian recently circulated the comments of an anonymous patent lawyer who referred to Stanford’s Mark Lemley as “one of a small army of law school academics that have built very successful . . . careers studying intellectual property law, especially patent law, albeit without ever actually having practiced before a patent office, done research, or even studied science or engineering.”

These sorts of criticisms are misguided. First, many patent law professors have extensive patent litigation experience, including on-going experience as “of counsel” lawyers, experts, and consultants. Although having patent prosecution experience is clearly beneficial for teaching and writing about patent law, patent litigation is as well and should not have been disregarded. For instance, Wegner and Aharonian presumably know well that Mark Lemley is a partner at a top-tier IP litigation boutique, Durie Tangri, and spends numerous hours on real-world matters. In fact, he has argued or is scheduled to argue three Federal Circuit patent cases so far this year, has argued before the Federal Circuit eleven times (in addition to four arguments in the regional circuits), and has represented another ten parties on briefs in the court. Additionally, he has been counsel for a party in the Supreme Court twice in patent cases (both patentees, incidentally). Lemley has been the lead author or co-author on 40 amicus briefs in the Supreme Court and the courts of appeals. And if that were not enough, his articles have been cited nine times in Supreme Court opinions and 145 times by courts overall. Finally, he’s conducted extensive empirical analyses of USPTO and judicial practice in many academic papers. (Ah, I forgot to mention that he’s represented parties in 85 cases in the district courts, too.)

So Lemley clearly is highly qualified (in fact, uniquely qualified) to write about and teach patent law. Nonetheless, Lemley often is maligned by practitioners because of a proposal he made (along with now Federal Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore) about a decade ago to restrict continuation practice. Yet, regardless of whether you agree with his views—and I often disagree with him—he’s clearly well-situated to write about and suggest reforms concerning PTO practice, the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court, and the Patent Act more generally. In this regard, Lemley has written over 125 articles, many of them offering outstanding suggestions to reform the patent system, such as his idea for “gold-plated” patents. Lemley should not be unfairly singled out for one unpopular proposal or simplistic mischaracterizations of his views.

In a response to e-mails Wegner received asking why patent litigation was not listed in his chart, including one of my own, he responded that while patent litigation “may well be the best practice background for a patent academic . . . . no patent faculty seeking to make an optimum contribution to patent policy or harmonization can do so without  someone on the faculty having expertise in international/comparative and Agency practice.” Wegner’s position is too sweeping. Although it is certainly useful to have faculty members who have prosecution experience—and Wegner’s criterion of simply having a patent bar number is in any event not too indicative of such experience—it isn’t necessary to have such experience to make outstanding policy proposals, even when it comes to PTO practice. Indeed, only a few judges at the Federal Circuit itself would meet such criteria. It seems hard to fathom that Wegner believes that the Federal Circuit cannot make an “optimum” contribution to patent policy, including practices at the PTO, given their lack of such credentials. The same should hold true for academics. And to go one step further—as does the anonymous lawyer’s blanket assertion on Aharonian’s e-mail blog that a professor cannot sucessfully “study,” write about, or presumably teach patent law without having worked as a patent prosecutor or an engineer—is simply preposterous.

Second, many patent law professors, such as UC Berkeley’s Peter Menell and Rob Merges (also absent on Wegner’s chart)—in addition to having extensive prior and on-going experience as experts and consultants in patent litigation matters—have spent numerous hours writing casebooks and patent law practice guides. Rob Merges and John Duffy’s Patent Law and Policy is the leading patent law casebook, and contains extensive commentary from its authors. Merges is also co-founder and Senior Policy Advisor of Ovidian LLC, a Berkeley-based consulting and informatics company specializing in assessing and valuing patent portfolios. That experience is invaluable for the next generation of patent law professionals working in the emerging patent “marketplace.” Finally, because Berkeley—like GW and Stanford—offers separate courses in patent prosecution and patent litigation taught by prominent practitioners, it is hard to see how its students are not getting broad, deep, and practical exposure to patent law.

After co-founding the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology (BCLT) in 1995, Peter Menell soon began working with a team of top patent and other IP litigators to provide an annual four-day intensive training program on IP law and case management for federal judges, as well as numerous other national and regional events. That work led to the development of the Patent Case Management Judicial Guide, a comprehensive treatise that has been referred to as “the bible” for judges and litigators. Menell has also worked with district courts on the development and revision of patent local rules and filed amicus briefs in important IP cases. He also served as one of the PTO’s inaugural Edison scholars. His empirical research on patent claim construction with Jonas Anderson, a former BCLT Fellow—in which they reviewed every claim construction order issued by the Federal Circuit since 2000—was cited numerous times in the Federal Circuit’s recent en banc Lighting Ballast decision. Any comprehensive evaluation of patent law programs would value these qualifications.

The same holds true for professors who write about specific topics in patent law, but do not teach it. For instance, Berkeley’s Pam Samuelson is a world-renowned copyright expert and a winner of the “genius” grant from the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. She occasionally writes about software patents, including for her column in the Communications for the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) journal, which is mainly read by software and computer science professionals. As Professor Samuelson’s work shows, one need not be an expert on every nuance of the patent system, especially the nitty-gritty of prosecution, to make sound reform proposals.

Other academics are permanent and full-time but not on the “tenure-track.” For example, BCLT Executive Director Robert Barr—who directs the Berkeley IP program and organizes numerous IP events there—is former chief patent counsel at Cisco, is licensed to practice before the PTO, and has long been a leader in the Silicon Valley and national patent law community. Along with John Whealan—former Solicitor at the PTO and another highly-regarded national leader in patent law who directs GW’s IP program—Wegner left Barr off the list.

Finally, many patent law professors have significant industry experience. For example, blog commenters on a recent Patently-O post of mine referred to me as “ivory tower” and as having “a lack of ‘real world’ experience.” In fact, before becoming a law professor, in addition to practicing patent litigation for four years, I founded three tech companies, raising nearly $5 million in financing, including being CEO of Unified Dispatch, a software company that makes innovative speech recognition systems for ground transportation companies. At Unified Dispatch, I designed and oversaw most of the company’s software products, which included writing detailed specifications and managing programmers and other engineers, and was the lead inventor on several patent applications and one patent. As part of that process, I also managed our outside patent counsel for several years during prosecution. Before attending law school, I earned an M.S. in Physics. Since becoming a patent law professor, I’ve consulted and served as an expert on an-going basis in patent litigation matters and related projects. So not only is the “ivory tower” label is inaccurate, it also misapprehends the often close ties between academia and practice.

The same sorts of backgrounds and relevant experience hold true for many other academics who teach and write about patent law. For example, Donald Chisum—yes, the author of the leading patent law treatise—is not registered to practice before the USPTO (he majored in philosophy). Granted, practicing before the PTO is helpful to writing about PTO practice, but would anyone doubt that Chisum is sufficiently knowledgeable to do as much?

I commend Hal Wegner’s efforts in calling attention to the patent law programs and scholars (which is why I assisted him in the process). There are clearly limitations to the US News ranking system, and I agree it’s valuable to see the credentials of those teaching at patent law programs across the country. However, it was irresponsible for him to omit the founders and leaders of many of the most important IP programs on his list of academics with “practical experience” in “key areas” merely because they don’t have a patent bar reg #, don’t have a deep understanding of comparative patent law, didn’t clerk for the Federal Circuit, or aren’t technically “tenure-track.” Patent litigation, industry experience, and other credentials are just as relevant.

Even more troubling is Wegner’s assertion that having someone on the faculty with one of his criteria is “essential” for making “optimum” policy proposals. And most troubling is that Wegner provides fodder for commenters such as those on Aharonian’s e-mail blog that professors without such credentials cannot successfully write about or apparently teach patent law more generally, not to mention commenters on this blog calling professors like me “ivory tower,” when it is simply not the case. Wegner and the commenters should do their homework. Otherwise, their “analysis” remains at best misguided and at worst scapegoating.

Berkeley and Stanford serve—and, historically, GW has served (and soon again will serve)—as model programs for training patent practitioners, scholars, and judges. The same holds true for many law schools I have omitted in this short blog post. Rather than denigrate these schools, Wegner would have done better to highlight the tremendous value offered to students and the patent law community more generally from this talented and highly qualified group of scholars.

Substantial Unresolved Issues Unravel Preliminary Injunction

Patent

By Dennis Crouch

Vasculary Solutions v. Boston Scientific (Fed. Cir. 2014)

In a one-paragraph non-precedential decision, the Federal Circuit has vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction.

A preliminary injunction is a ‘drastic and extraordinary remedy that is not to be routinely granted.’ Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Intel Corp. v. ULSI Sys. Tech., Inc., 995 F.2d 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). As evidenced by the extended argument before this court, there are too many unresolved issues at this stage of the case and the record is too incomplete on issues of claim construction, infringement, and ultimate validity to warrant the grant of a preliminary injunction. For these reasons, we vacate the preliminary injunction.

A preliminary injunction requires that the movant (typically the patentee) show a likelihood of success on the eventual merits of the case. Here, the court’s basic take-away is that the “likelihood of success” should be based on a substantially complete understanding of the merits and not merely a guess.

The PTO’s Role (none) in Defining the Elements of Unenforceability.

Ethics,

In a comment below, someone asserted that the PTO has tried to define the elements of inequitable conduct.  I wrote an article about this issue, with my (now fellow lawyer) Seth Trimble.  It is here (I hope already available).  Here’s the intro:

 

In 1992, the patent office amended a federal regulation known as Rule 1.56.[1] The amendment require less disclosure of patent applicants than had been required by the federal courts’ interpretation of the prior version of Rule 1.56, as well as less than had been required by courts in determining enforceability of a patent.  Thus, since 1992, the PTO has required less disclosure under Rule 1.56 than courts have long required to obtain an enforceable patent. This article addresses the tremendous and unnecessary confusion that has arisen from that amendment.

Although our analysis turns on principles of statutory construction and separation of powers, the impact of our conclusion is practical and important.  Those who prosecute applications need to disclose more broadly than is required by Rule 1.56 to best serve their clients. Those who litigate inequitable conduct claims should not rely on the narrow definition of materiality in Rule 1.56.  The two definitions of “materiality” are distinct: one applies during patent examination, and the other during litigation.   A change in the meaning of one does not mandate a change in the other and, most pertinent here, a regulatory change by the PTO cannot mandate a change in the substantive standard applied to determine enforceability.


[1]     37 C.F.R. 1.56.

Means Plus Function: What Structure are you Referring To?

Patent

By Dennis Crouch

University of Pittsburgh v. Varian Medical Systems (Fed. Cir. 2014)

Pitt won its infringement lawsuit against Varian with a $100 million verdict. The patent basically covers a digital image processor that watches surgical patients and provides a warning signal if the patient moves. U.S. Patent No. 5,727,554.

A divided Federal Circuit has affirmed – with the division being over the construction of the claimed “processing means comprising means determining movement of said patient from digital image signals, including movement associated with breathing by said patient.”

The patent statute permits patentees to claim elements according to their function using so-called means-plus-function language. 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). However, the properly interpreted scope of the means-plus-function claim terms is limited to corresponding structures found in the patent specification and their equivalent.

Here, the claim construction debate is on whether the corresponding structure for the processing means is a computer processor programmed to perform either (a) a two-step process or (b) a thirty-two step algorithm. The difficulty in interpretation is that the patent does not affirmatively link the claim language with either structure but instead leaves readers to their own conclusions. On appeal, a two judge majority (Judges O’Malley and Lourie) agreed with the lower court that the proper interpretation was the broader two-step requirement while the dissent (Judge Dyk) would have chosen the more narrow interpretation that would have likely led to a non-infringement determination. To the dissent, the “two-step process” disclosed in the specification only offers more functional language – not structure. The dissent explains his position:

The majority’s identification of structure—the two steps of detecting and tracking fiducials—relies on a single statement in the specification that “[a]s will be discussed fully, the patient motion detector 47 detects and identifies the fiducials 39 and then tracks their movement.” The majority concludes that this disclosure identifies the corresponding structure as a two-step algorithm because the specification “links this algorithm to the function of determining patient movement.” But the statement in the specification does not explain how the fiducials are detected and tracked or how performing those steps accomplishes the function of determining a patient’s movement during radiation treatment.

One rule that would likely flip this decision would be if ambiguity in claim language were construed against the drafter (i.e., the patentee).

= = = = =

The majority did reverse the willfulness finding that almost tripled the damage. On that issue, the court found that the infringer’s non-infringement and invalidity defense were reasonable (or at least not objectively unreasonable).

Judge Robinson Finds Patentee Violated Rule 11 for Asserting a Claim that Required “printed” Material Covered Amazon’s Kindle

Ethics

The order in Technology Innovations, LLC v. Amazon, Inc., 2014 WL 1292093 (D. Del. March 31, 2014) is here.  It’s a nice order addressing what appears to be a very overly aggressive claim construction position by the patentee, where it asserted that its patent covered Amazon’s Kindle.  This picture perhaps explains the result:

picpicpic

pic

The opinion points out that Amazon in its brief had cited the NYT Op-ed I co-wrote with Chief and Prof. Chief to support the argument that section 285 sanctions may be proper where a litigant “distorts a patent claim far beyond its plain meaning and precedent for the purpose of raising the legal costs of the defense.”

Patent Reform Moving Forward in Congress

Patent

By Dennis Crouch

While the attention of the patent community rightly be focused on the Supreme Court for the next few months, patent reform initiatives are rapidly moving forward in Congress, the US Patent Office, State Legislatures, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The only area where patent reforms are seemingly stalled is WIPO.

Congressional Patent Reforms: In particular, I expect that major patent reforms will pass in the Senate by May 2014 in a strongly bi-partisan bill supported by President Obama. This is one area where the parties see the potential for getting something done and are ready to move. The House of Representatives has already passed a companion bill that would (a) dramatically raise the pleading standards for filing a patent infringement action; (b) require that courts award the prevailing party attorney fees and expenses except for certain cases; (c) allow defendants to force joinder of those with a direct financial interest in the patents at issue as a mechanism for both ensuring that the prevailing party fees are paid and that the financial interests behind patent litigation become public; (d) limit discovery until after claim construction; (e) require more particular pre-filing notice for willful infringement; (f) boost transparency of patent ownership requirements; (g) limiting PGR estoppel only to actually raised issues and eliminating the “reasonably could have raised” provision; (h) etc.

The Senate is moving forward with consideration of its leading patent reform bill, S. 1720 known as the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013. The Judiciary Committee is holding hearings on the proposal on April 3, 2014.

Supreme Court to Consider De Novo Review of Claim Construction

Patent, Supreme Court,

By Dennis Crouch

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (Supreme Court 2014)

The Supreme Court has granted Teva’s petition for writ of certiorari on the issue of de novo review of district court claim construction. Rather than mounting a facial challenge to all de novo review, the petitioner here argues that, at minimum, a district court’s explicit factual conclusions should be given deference. The case will be heard next term.

The question presented is as follows:

Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that in matters tried to a district court, the court’s “[f]indings of fact . . . must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.”

The question presented is as follows: Whether a district court’s factual finding in support of its construction of a patent claim term may be reviewed de novo, as the Federal Circuit requires (and as the panel explicitly did in this case), or only for clear error, as Rule 52(a) requires.

In its responsive brief, Sandoz re-characterized the question as follows:

Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) requires an appellate court reviewing a district court’s construction of patent claims to defer to conclusions that are based on a litigation expert’s declaration that expressly contradicts the patent record.

The case involves Teva’s multi-billion-dollar drug Copaxone that is arguably covered by a set of nine different patents. The appellate decision by the Federal Circuit rejected the lower court’s claim construction and, as a consequence, found several of the patents invalid. The result is that the remaining patents expire in May 2014 rather than September 2015. Teva’s daily US sales of the drug are about $8 million.

I’ll speculate here that the result will be a unanimous rejection of the Federal Circuit’s no deference policy.

Supreme Court to Address Standard of Review for Claim Construction

Patent, Supreme Court,

This morning the Supreme Court granted Teva’s petition for certiorari in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.  Teva’s petition presents the following issue:

Whether a district court’s factual finding in support of its construction of a patent claim term may be reviewed de novo, as the Federal Circuit requires (and as the panel explicitly did in this case), or only for clear error, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) requires.

This case will be heard next term.  You can find the briefs on Scotusblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/teva-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc-v-sandoz-inc/

Edit: See above for Dennis’s more thorough discussion of the parties’ positions!

 

Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International

Patent, , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the patent subject matter eligibility case of Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International. Alice Corp.’s patent covers a computerized escrow system and method that CLS Bank allegedly uses in the process of settling trillions of dollars in transactions each week.

Question presented

Whether claims to computer-implemented inventions-including claims to systems and machines, processes, and items of manufacture-are directed to patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101 as interpreted by this Court?

As petitioner, the patentee (Alice Corp) will argue first. Respondent’s time will be split between CLS Bank and the US Government who has filed an amicus brief highlighting a misguided argument that “the abstract idea exception is patent law’s sole mechanism for excluding claims directed to manipulation of non-technological concepts and relationships.”

A transcript should be available in the afternoon.

See: Dennis Crouch, Software Patent Eligibility: Alice Corp v. CLS Bank on the Briefs (March 13, 2014).

= = = = =

The Supreme Court is working through a number of patent related decisions this term:

  • Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International (subject matter eligibility of computer implemented inventions and software). Oral arguments March 31, 2014 with decision expected June 2014.
  • Teva v. Sandoz (whether a district court’s finding of fact in support of claim construction should be reviewed de novo as required by the Federal Circuit). Petition granted March 31, 2014.
  • Lexmark Int’l v. Static Control (allegations of patent infringement against non-competitor can create Lanham Act claim). Decided March 25, 2014.
  • Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness (proper standard for determining an “exceptional case” in the attorney fee shifting context of 35 U.S.C. §285). Oral arguments held February 26, 2014 with decision expected by June 2014.
  • Highmark v. Allcare Health Mgmt. (standard of appellate review for fee shifting decisions). Oral arguments held February 26, 2014 with decision expected by June 2014.
  • Nautilus v. Biosig (standard for determining when a patent claim is invalid as indefinite). Oral arguments scheduled for April 28, 2014 with decision expected in June 2014.
  • Limelight v. Akamai (determining whether inducement should be severely narrowed by the no-joint-infringement doctrine). Oral arguments scheduled for April 30, 2014 with decision expected in June 2014.
  • Medtronic v. Mirowski (holding that patentee has the burden of proving infringement even in declaratory judgment actions by a licensee in good standing). Decided January 22, 2014.
  • Petrella v. MGM (considering the laches doctrine in the copyright context). Argued January 21, 2014, awaiting decision.
  • ABC, Inc., v. Aereo, Inc (when does an internet transmission count as a “public performance” under the copyright laws?). Argument scheduled for April 22, 2014.
  • POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola (who has standing to challenge a food or beverage label as misleading or false under the Lanham Act). Argument scheduled for April 21, 2014.

Preclusion in Patent Litigation

Patent

By Dennis Crouch

Brain Life, LLC v. Elekta (Fed. Cir. 2014)

Res Judicata: Patent litigation preclusion doctrines are – at times – confusing. The doctrine of claim preclusion is linguistically challenging in patent cases because the precluded “claim” does not refer to a patent claim as found in the issued patent but instead to a legal claim or cause of action asserted in a lawsuit. I think it is helpful to think of the legal claim as being broader than a patent claim. As an example, lawsuit alleging that a product of infringes patented Claim 1 and its dependent Claim 2 would be seen as asserting a single legal claim that is, for claim preclusion purposes, indivisible. In that vein, if the patentee had instead asserted infringement of only Claim 1, claim preclusion may well block a later lawsuit asserting infringement of Claim 2.

This case involves the second time that Elekta is defending its products against Brain Life’s medical imaging software patent. U.S. Patent No. 5,398,684 (claiming functional integration of scans from a variety of image sources). In the first case, Elekta’s products were found non-infringing based upon a Federal Circuit claim construction decision. However, the original case only focused on the asserted patent’s apparatus claims. (Prior to trial, the court had dismissed the method claim allegations without prejudice.) In the new lawsuit, Brain Life has asserted the accompanying method claims from the patent that appear to be somewhat broader in scope (and thus may well capture Elekta’s activities).

In defense, Elekta argues res judicata. Res Judicata, a.k.a. claim preclusion, bars a later lawsuit where a prior lawsuit (1) involved the same legal claim or cause of action; (2) reached a final judgment on the merits; and (3) involved the same parties or their privies. Importantly, claim preclusion applies both to legal claims that were actually asserted as well as those that could have been brought. (Note here that issue preclusion is a wholly separate, but often overlapping preclusion doctrine).

In thinking through the problem here, the Federal Circuit first noted that “without a doubt” the final judgment associated with the apparatus patent claims has a res
judiciata effect later assertion of the method claims. However, the court notes two major caveats:

  1. Scope of Infringement: The res judicata effect will only apply when the accused infringing acts are “essentially the same” as those that were the subject of the original lawsuit; and
  2. Timeline of Infringement: The res judicata effect will only apply to accused infringing acts that could-have-been the subject of the original lawsuit.

According to the Federal Circuit this second caveat means that res judicata does not apply to acts of infringement that occurred following final judgment in the original case. This result follows from the Federal Circuit’s legal construct that each act of infringement is a separate and distinct tort rather than merely being part of a flow or a temporally extended tort.

[T}o the extent Brain Life’s allegations of infringement are directed to products created and, most importantly, acts of alleged infringement occurring after entry of the final judgment in the MIDCO Litigation, those claims are not barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. Quite simply, Brain Life could not have asserted infringement claims against the products in question for acts of alleged infringement that postdate the final judgment in the MIDCO Litigation in the current litigation.

The district court had applied claim preclusion and thus was reversed-in-part on that issue.

Issue Preclusion: Where claim preclusion is applied to entire causes of action, issue preclusion is more narrowly focused on issues of fact or law decided in prior cases:

Issue preclusion bars subsequent litigation on an issue of law or fact that was actually litigated. If an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, that determination is conclusive in any later action between the parties on the same or a different claim. Importantly, where the parties consent to a judgment on an issue prior to trial, it cannot be said that the issue was actually litigated to finality.

Here, the now-asserted the method claims from the ‘684 patent were, in the original case, dismissed without prejudice and with consent of the parties. Thus those infringement claims “were not fully, fairly, and actually litigated to finality between these parties” and, consequently, ” issue preclusion does not stand as a bar to a second suit on those claims.”

Kessler Doctrine: In a 1907 case, the Supreme Court announced the little-known Kessler doctrine that adds an additional wrinkle to patent litigation preclusion doctrine. See Kessler v. Eldred, 206 U.S. 285 (1907). Eldred’s patent covered an electric lamp lighter. U.S. Patent No. 492,913. Eldred first sued Kessler in Indiana — alleging that Kessler’s electric cigar lighters infringed the patent. The issue as between Eldred and Kessler was fully decided when the Indiana court found no infringement. Issue preclusion would then apply to bar Eldred from re-litigating this issue against Kessler. However, Eldred was not deterred. Rather, the then sued Kirkland in New York for selling a similar lighter and won (on appeal) an infringement holding. Emboldened, Kessler then sued one of Kessler’s customers in New York and Kessler intervened on its customer’s behalf. After considering the issues, the Supreme Court held that, because the infringement issue was already decided in Kessler’s favor, that equity requires that original holding to apply in this subsequent case where Kessler intervened. The Supreme Court expressly refused to speculate what the outcome of the case would have been if Kessler had not intervened.

Interpreting this holding, the Federal Circuit writes:

In sum, the Court granted Kessler a limited trade right to continue producing, using, and selling the electric lighters that were the subject of the first suit and to do so without fear of allegations of infringement by Eldred—even when the acts of infringement occurred post-final judgment and even when it was third-parties who allegedly engaged in those acts of infringement. The Supreme Court concluded that Kessler was entitled to continue the same activity in which it engaged prior to the infringement allegations once it had defeated those contentions in the first suit. The Court did not rely on traditional notions of claim or issue preclusion in crafting this protection for Kessler.

The Federal Circuit applied Kessler in MGA, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 827 F.2d 729 (Fed. Cir. 1987) in a similar scenario where a manufacturer first won its case and then intervened in a customer lawsuit.

In the current case, we do not have the issue of customer lawsuits. However, the Federal Circuit still found that Kessler applies as something of a broadened issue preclusion doctrine. The court holds that since Elekta’s won final judgment of non-infringement of some claims in the ‘684 patent, those non-infringing products (while in Elekta’s hands) are now immune from all claims of the ‘684 patent. “Elekta’s GammaKnife, GammaPlan, and SurgiPlan products have acquired the status of noninfringing products as to the ‘684 patent.”

The hook for this outcome comes from Kessler‘s statement that “The [trial] court … conclusively decreed the right of Kessler to manufacture and sell his manufactures free from all interference from Eldred by virtue of the [Eldred] patent, and the corresponding duty of Eldred to recognize and yield to that right everywhere and always.” In my view, the Federal Circuit here is likely taking Kessler’s statements out of context since the Supreme Court did not consider the effect of non-asserted patent claims. The oddity of the Federal Circuit’s broad interpretation of Kessler is that the court also expresses reticence about the value of the doctrine altogether. Thought in the end, I would argue that the rule is likely a good one from a policy perspective.

 

What I Learned at the Emory Troll CLE

Ethics,

We have a great turn-out and a good time at Emory.  The panel consisted of me, an in-house lawyer for a big company, and an outside patent litigator.

First, whether someone innovates, or not, is what defines “troll” to most people.  Thus, an aggregator is a “troll” because it doesn’t invent anything. It’s not the act of manufacturing that bothered people — it is the lack of innovation. So, Bob the Inventor can file a suit and no one would call him a troll.  Likewise, if Google were to assert a patent that, for whatever reason, it was not commercializing, no one would call it a troll.  Same thing with universities, which pretty much only license.

Second, condemning the purchaser of patents for asserting them ignores the innovation, and payment, that preceded the purchase.  For example, if an aggregator, or Google, acquires a patent from Bob the Inventor, that’s a good thing. Bob may not be able to commercialize his invention.  Further, sometimes patents are purchased in distress circumstances (e.g., bankruptcy) and liquidity is good.

Third, the problem does (as Chief Judge Rader, Professor Chien and I argued in our NYT op-ed) come from the fact that a non-practicing entity doesn’t make anything.  But it’s because it can (a) take advantage of asymmetric discovery costs; (b) has no business disruption; (c) doesn’t have to worry about counterclaims; and (d) doesn’t have to worry about its reputation in the market.  It is not that it doesn’t innovate — it paid the innovator.

Fourth, better enforcement of 285 is only part of the solution. If the patentee is an LLC with no asset besides the patent, then getting fee shifting may not work. (Query:  can 285 be used to shift fees to plaintiffs’ counsel?).  What may work is early claim construction followed by greater enforcement of Rule 11 against patentees who assert infringement after an adverse Markman ruling.  (In my second edition of my patent ethics – litigation book, I survey the Rule 11 cases and pretty much all of them are not for incorrectly filing a suit (how can a judge sanction a lawyer on a close claim construction question when the CAFC reverses district judges so much?), but for continuing to assert infringement after a Markman ruling makes it clear there is none. So, if you move up Markman, and then apply those cases… sanctions are available against the lawyers.

Finally, what is the real gripe seems often to be with patent quality.  That’s not solved by looking at who owns a patent, however.

Bose v. SDI: Post-verdict intent

Patent

Bose Corporation v. SDI Technologies, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (nonprecedential) 13-1347.Opinion.3-12-2014.1
Panel: Chen, Clevenger (author), Hughes

Despite being nonprecedential, this opinion is interesting because it’s the first time to my knowledge that the Federal Circuit has endorsed a “points in time” approach to an intent-based patent infringement doctrine such as inducement.

Background: Bose alleged that SDI indirectly infringes Patent No. 7,277,765, relying on both inducement and contributory infringement theories.  The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement in SDI’s favor based a failure to meet the claim limitations as construed (for 144 of the accused products) and on a lack of intent to infringe (for the remaining product).

Intent to infringe: On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to the inducement issue. (It affirmed, however, the court’s ruling of noninfringement with respect to the other 144 products on claim construction grounds).

On the issue of intent, the Federal Circuit agreed that there were periods of time during which SDI might have possessed the requisite level of intent, and thus summary judgment as to those periods was inappropriate.  First, between the time when SDI learned of the patent and May 22, 2009, when it received an opinion of counsel, SDI may have possessed the requisite intent – that was an issue for the jury to decide:

Where the record reveals no basis for a good-faith belief sufficient to thwart liability, summary judgment of no liability cannot stand. Whether SDI had such a good-faith
belief prior to receiving the opinion of counsel is a triable issue for the jury to consider. Therefore the summary judgment incorrectly absolves SDI of liability from December 10, 2008 until May 22, 2009, when SDI received the opinion of counsel.

Slip Op. at 18.  The CAFC did conclude that for the period after SDI received the letter, it could not be liable for inducement, particularly since Bose never challenged the competency of the counsel who drafted the letter or even entered it into evidence despite possessing a copy.

But, the CAFC declined to extend that conclusion into the future – specifically, to the period after judgment would be rendered in this case:

Bose further argues that the District Court improperly allowed the opinion of counsel to absolve SDI of potential post-verdict liability. The District Court found that the patent’s validity and the iW1 device’s infringement were both triable issues for the jury. A jury could, at trial, find the patent not invalid and infringed. In this scenario, SDI’s opinion of counsel would not shield it from postverdict liability because SDI could not credibly argue that it maintained its good-faith belief of invalidity following a verdict to the contrary. The summary judgment improperly absolved SDI of potential post-verdict liability.

Slip Op. at 18.  This move is significant because it’s the first time that I’m aware of that the Federal Circuit has considered the state of mind of the accused infringer at various time periods when evaluating intent (rather than adopting some sort of “omniscient being” standpoint) or adopted a post-verdict theory that intent must follow (which both I and Tim Holbrook have argued is the right way to think about intent in inducement cases).  Here, I think the court gets the reasoning exactly right.

Judge Kozinski Reversed by Federal Circuit: Google May be Liable for Street View

Patent

By Dennis Crouch

Vederi v. Google (Fed. Cir. 2013)

This case arises from a decision by Alex Kozinski who is Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who sat by designation in deciding on summary judgment that Google’s streetview product does not infringe Vederi’s asserted patents. U.S. Patent Nos. 7,239,760; 7,577,316; 7,805,025; and 7,813,596. Through his role on the Ninth Circuit, Judge Kozinski has played an important role in the development many areas of intellectual property and internet law. However, as with Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit, Judge Kozinski has largely been denied any direct input in the patent context.  Here, that denial continues as the Federal Circuit has vacated Judge Kozinski’s decision — finding that Judge Kozinski erred in his claim construction that resulted in a non-infringement determination.

The patent here covers the method of mounting a set of cameras atop an automobile to capture images as the vehicle moves throughout a geographic area. Those images are then integrated with into a system that allows virtual visual navigation.

All of the asserted claims include a limitation that the views be “substantially elevations” Here, the term elevation appears derived from architectural usage meaning a flat representation of one façade of a structure and the Google Streetview images are better thought of as a perspective view. This difference can be seen somewhat by comparing Jefferson’s Rotunda sketch with a photograph of the Rotunda.


Judge Kozinski found that the Google Streetview images were not elevation views because they show images that are curved representation of the world.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that Kozinski’s view of something being substantially an “elevation” view was too limiting based upon the intrinsic evidence. In particular, the patent specification discloses the use of a fish-eye lens to create a photograph of the street in “substantially elevation” form. In the usual case, a fish-eye photo of a building will not be in elevation form but instead provide a curved representation of reality. The result then, according to the Federal Circuit, is that the “substantially” element of the claim provides substantial leeway on the meaning of elevation. The broader claim construction means that now Google may well infringe.

= = = =

An interesting element of the provisional priority document (filed in 2000) is that it includes a listing of the actual software code for taking the GPS and image data to create panorama views and allow a user to navigate through those results. The inventors here, Enrico Di Bernado and Luis Goncalves actually built the system back in 2000 while graduate students at Caltech by attaching a set of cameras and a GPS monitor atop Di Bernado’s car and driving around Pasadena. The results were then made available on the City of Pasadena website.

Should the Claim Construction Standard for PTAB Post-Grant Proceedings Be Changed?

Patent, , , ,

Guest Post by Bernie Knight. Knight is a partner at McDermott Will & Emery LLP and was USPTO General Counsel from 2010-2013.

Now that the new post-grant proceedings of the America Invents Act (AIA) have been underway for over a year, some have questioned whether the claim construction standard used by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is the correct one.  Currently, proposed legislation in Congress would change the claim construction standard for PTAB post-grant proceedings from the broadest reasonable interpretation to the same standard used by district courts, i.e., one having a goal of preserving validity in deference to 35 U.S.C. Sec. 282.   Of course, outside of such legislation, the USPTO has the ability to change the claim construction standard by amending the regulations and the practice guide.  The question arises, would changing the claim construction standard improve the patent system?

The answer is no. Yet, with that said, there is a certain tension between the claim construction standard and the patent owner’s ability to amend claims in the new post-grant proceedings. Recent decisions of the PTAB have made it difficult for patent owners to amend their claims. When we decided to adopt the broadest reasonable interpretation claim construction standard, we did so under the assumption that patent owners would be able to amend their claims without significant impediments. This was a sound decision for the patent system and follow-on innovation because the claims would be amended with more precise language. It would then be easier for other companies and inventors in the same technology space to design around the amended claims. Simply put, the broadest reasonable interpretation claim construction standard seems like a fair standard in light of the patent owner’s ability to amend claims. Such an approach also seems good for the patent system and follow-on innovation.

A tension arises with this trade off because of recent decisions of the PTAB requiring the patent owner to establish that the amended claims are patentable not only over the cited prior art, but also any art of which the patent owner has knowledge. See, e.g., IPR2012-00027, paper 66 (Final Written Decision). In addition, the PTAB sometimes requires that the patent owner submit an expert declaration to establish the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether the new claim limitations are obvious. At the urging of many patent owners, Congress is responding by proposing legislation that would change the claim construction standard for USPTO proceedings to the same standard employed by the district courts.

The PTAB has done a terrific job handling the onslaught of petitions that have been filed since enactment of the AIA.  It is reported that the USPTO has the third busiest patent docket in the country, after the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware.   I had the pleasure of working with the PTAB in getting the final AIA rules issued and the proceedings implemented within the one year period mandated by Congress. So, here comes the “but.” This is a good time for the USPTO to look at the requirements for a patent owner’s amendment to make certain that because the claims are broadly construed, the patent owner still has a reasonable opportunity to amend the claims.

The regulations that we implemented provide that amendments will be allowed if they are supported by the written description in the application, the amendments are narrowing amendments and the amendments relate to a claim and ground upon which the proceeding was instituted. See 37 C.F.R. 42.121, 42.221. The patent owner must make an initial showing that the amended claims are patentable. The question arises how much support should be required from the patent owner at the time of the motion to amend claims and how much of the burden should be placed on the petitioner to show that the amended claims are unpatentable.

The additional requirements placed on the patent owner by the PTAB make it more difficult for a proposed amendment to survive a PTAB proceeding. An alternative approach might be to only require the patent owner to show that the amended claims are patentable over the prior art cited by the petitioner and relied on by the PTAB in instituting the proceeding. If the patent owner fails to disclose prior art that the patent owner has knowledge of and that can affect the validity of the claims, there may be a future inequitable conduct defense if the patent owner brings an infringement action. In addition, there may be a basis for an Office of Enrollment and Discipline complaint if evidence that is contrary to a position being taken at the USPTO is intentionally withheld by the patent owner. With respect to the need for expert witnesses to support the amendments, a possible alternative approach would be to place the burden on the petitioner to produce the expert to support an obviousness challenge to the new amended claims. The current PTAB decisions place that burden on the patent owner up front to disprove such an argument even before it is raised. More of the burden might be placed on the petitioner to show that the amended claims are unpatentable.

If the requirements for a patent owner amendment were less onerous, then a much stronger case can be made that the broadest reasonable claim construction standard should be retained. Without the ability to reasonably amend the claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation claim construction standard seems a bit unfair to the patent owner because the claims are broadly construed with little opportunity to amend.

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of McDermott Will & Emery or its other partners.

Court: Claim Term Lacks Definiteness but is not Legally Indefinite

Indefinite, Patent,

Every Penny Counts v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28106 (M.D. Fl. 2014).

In a ruling this week, Judge Merryday rejected Wells Fargo’s indefiniteness argument made in a pre-trial summary judgment motion. Like claim construction, indefiniteness is seen as a question of law that can be resolved by a district court judge. In fact, the Federal Circuit has written that “Indefiniteness is a matter of claim construction, and the same principles that generally govern claim construction are applicable to determining whether allegedly indefinite claim language is subject to construction.” Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

EPC’s invention is software for rounding-up credit and debit transactions to the nearest dollar and then putting the extra money to a special use. See U.S. Patent 8,025,217. Claim 1 of the ‘217 patent is listed as follows:

1. A system for accumulating credits from a customer account belonging to the customer and managed by an institution and placing the credits into a provider account, comprising:

an information processor; said information processor including a data store with data identifying the customer, the rounding determinant, the managed institution, and the account;

said data store including machine readable instructions authorizing the processor to access and read the customer account;

said data store including machine readable instructions to calculate rounders after receiving a plurality of payment transactions from the read customer account and to calculate an excess based on the rounders;

said data store including machine readable instructions to withdraw the excess from the customer account;

said data store including machine readable instructions to transfer the withdrawn excess to the provider account.

The indefiniteness issue with the claim is that the claim introduces two types of accounts – a customer account and a provider account – and then refers to “the account” without identifying which of the two accounts are being referenced. Wells Fargo argues that there are “at least four equally plausible interpretations” of “the account” – it could be the customer account, the provider account, both accounts, or some other account. Adding to the difficulty of interpreting the term, Wells Fargo highlights the fact that the patent itself is riddled with seeming typographical errors that make interpretation difficult. The court writes:

The patent is infested with scrivener’s (and other) errors, and the prospect of a missing “s” fits comfortably within the patterns discernible in the patent. For example, the patent states, “The actual transfer . . . concludes with the [transfer of] funds to each listed PC (provider account) . . . .” “PC” is used nowhere else in the patent, and the patent later clarifies that “PA” is the intended acronym for “provider account(s).” But even the creation of the correct acronym, “PA,” is tardy – by the time the patent defines the acronym, the patent has already deployed either “provider account” or “provider accounts” four times and “PA” twelve times. And after the “PA” acronym is created, the patent no longer uses the acronym but uses “provider accounts.” In other examples of error, the patent bungles nearly every acronym, conflates “i.e.” and “e.g.,” and writes “invention invention,” “FIG. 7A” (not “FIG. 7” – no figure 7A exists), “FIG. 4B” (although Figure 4B exists, “FIG. 4C” is intended), step “8120” (not”120″), “2 $300.14” (not “$300.14”), “pa id” (not “paid”), “saving s,” and “piece s.” These errors – which say nothing of the drafter’s grammatical and syntactical incompetence and bemusing judgment – confirm that “account” lacking an “s” by mistake accords with the level of compositional adroitness and dexterity that pervades the patent.

In sum, as used in claims 1 and 2, the phrase “the account” lacks definiteness. “[T]he account” might mean “the customer account,” “the provider account,” or otherwise; no informed and confident choice is available among the contending definitions.

Now, here’s the trick – after finding that the phrase lacks definiteness, the court next went on to hold that the phrase is not legally indefinite. Rather, there exist a spectrum of definiteness levels, and the forfeiture of patent rights due to indefiniteness (currently) requires extreme indefiniteness. Thus, a claim term that is only somewhat indefinite will not render its respective claim invalid as indefinite. And, because of the conceptual separation of most patentability doctrines, the lack of definiteness shown here will have no other adverse impact on the patent.

In particular, a claim term is only found indefinite if clear and convincing evidence sufficient to overcome the statutory presumption of validity proves that the claim is “insolubly ambiguous” and “not amenable to claim construction.” Taking that standard, the court could only find the claim sufficiently definite:

Although the entire patent is awkwardly drafted, the oppugned claim is simple. The specification is simple. The drawings are simple. The patent as a whole, notwithstanding the deficiencies, seems understandable; the claim seems understandable. In short, the indefiniteness of the term “the account” leaves no unmanageable gap in the information available for determining the scope of the claim. No practical incapacity or disabling uncertainty appears as a consequence of the fact that “the account” might mean one thing or the other. In sum, the extent of the indefiniteness in the term “the account” is inconsequential and falls far short of the “insoluble ambiguity” required to invalidate the claim.

Holding: Claim not invalid as indefinite.

This case tightly linked to the outcome in Nautilus. If the court changes the standard for determining indefiniteness there then we’ll likely see a modified holding here as well.

[Updated on 3/8/14 with updated information that opinion was written by Judge Merryday not Magistrate Judge McCoun. Via W.Pollack]

 

Apple Loses on Claim Construction and Indefiniteness

Indefinite, Patent,

by Dennis Crouch

Ancora Tech. v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)

Ancora’s patent covers a verification system to ensure that the software running on a computer are properly licensed.  U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941.  Following claim construction, Ancora stipulated to a summary judgment of non-infringement — agreeing that the district court’s construction of the claim term “program” was so narrow that Apple’s verification system did not fit within its bounds.  In particular, the examples from the original 1998 patent application all focused on application programs — ones that rely upon an operating system in order to run and thus exclude the (Apple) operating system itself.

Asserted claim 1 is written as follows:

1. A method of restricting software operation within a license for use with a computer including an erasable, non-volatile memory area of a BIOS of the computer, and a volatile memory area; the method comprising the steps of:
selecting a program residing in the volatile memory,
using an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS, the verification structure accommodating data that includes at least one license record,
verifying the program using at least the verification structure from the erasable non-volatile memory of the BIOS, and
acting on the program according to the verification.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected a narrow construction of the term “program”  — finding that the patentee gave no reason to move the term from its ordinary meaning in context.

A claim term  should be given its ordinary meaning in the pertinent context, unless the patentee has made clear its adoption of a different definition or otherwise disclaimed that meaning. . . There is no reason in this case to depart from the term’s ordinary meaning.

Although not stated in the opinion, I suspect that this is one case that would have turned-out differently under a deferential standard of review. However, in Lighting Ballast, the Federal Circuit reconfirmed that a district court’s claim construction is given no deference and instead reviewed de novo on appeal.
= = =
You’ll note that the claim also includes references to “volatile memory” and “non-volatile memory.”   In a cross-appeal, Apple argued that those terms were invalid as ambiguous under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).  The panel here easily rejected that argument:

The Supreme Court currently is considering how to refine the formulations for applying the definiteness requirement. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., Sup. Ct. No. 13-369, cert. granted, 2014 WL 92363 (Jan. 10, 2014). In this case, we think that we can reject the indefiniteness challenge without awaiting the Court’s clarification. However other circumstances may be evaluated, it suffices to reject the challenge in this case that the claim language and the prosecution history leave no reasonable uncertainty about the boundaries of the terms at issue, even considering certain aspects of the specification that could engender confusion when read in isolation.

Most importantly, there is no dispute that the terms “volatile memory” and “non-volatile memory” have a meaning that is clear, settled, and objective in content. Both parties and the district court agreed that, as a general matter, “[t]o one of ordinary skill in the art, a volatile memory is memory whose data is not maintained when the power is removed and a non-volatile memory is memory whose data is maintained when the power is removed.” That meaning leaves the relevant public with a firm understanding of the scope of the claim terms, unless something exceptional sufficiently supplants that understanding.

Apple’s particular indefiniteness argument was based upon the fact that the specification refers to a “hard disk” as an example of volatile memory when, in reality, a hard disk is ordinarily thought of as quite the opposite.  According to Apple, those references so blur the meaning of volatile and non-volatile that the terms should be seen as indefinite.  The Federal Circuit rejected Apple’s argument for several reasons.

Under our claim-construction law, a clear ordinary meaning is not properly overcome (and a relevant reader would not reasonably think it overcome) by a few passing references that do not amount to a redefinition or disclaimer.

Under our claim-construction law, a clear ordinary meaning is not properly overcome (and a relevant reader would not reasonably think it overcome) by a few passing references that do not amount to a redefinition or disclaimer. . . . [Furthermore], it is well known that a computer’s hard disk is routinely used as “virtual” memory to provide temporary storage when there is insufficient RAM to complete an operation.

It will be interesting to see here if Apple asks petitions for certiorari on either de novo review or indefiniteness.

My exhaustive (and last, really I promise!) post about why 101 is not a defense, nor properly raised in CBM proceedings

Ethics, , , , , , , 
This is from a declaration I filed in a patent case.

I.               Because Section 101 is not “specified” as a “condition for patentability,” and, further, is not a condition for patentability, a “violation” of Section 101 may not be raised in a covered business method proceeding.

The starting point of my analysis is a consideration of the statutory limitation on grounds that can be raised in a CBM proceeding. As part of a limited transitional program, Congress expressly and plainly limited the grounds that can be asserted in a CBM proceeding to a small subset of those than those that can be raised in patent infringement suits.  Specifically, although 35 U.S.C. § 282 lists defenses in patent suits, under the AIA in CBM proceedings only the defenses listed in subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3) can be raised.  37 C.F.R. § 42.304.  It is clear that subsection (b)(3) does not cover Section 101, since it cites only to sections 112 and 251.

As a consequence, the only potential basis for Section 101 to be a defense – and therefore a proper basis for CBM Review – is if it is within subsection (b)(2), which states: “(2) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit on any ground specified in part II [of Title 35] as a condition for patentability.”  35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(2).

            Unless Section 101 is “specified” in “part II” as a “condition for patentability,” it is not a proper basis for instituting a CBM proceeding.  Sections 100 to 212 are in part II of the Patent Act.  Thus, Section 101 is in part II.  However, of those one hundred and twelve separate sections, two are “specified” as “conditions for patentability” – sections 102 and 103.  Their titles state:

102.  Conditions for patentability; novelty.

103.  Conditions for patentability; non-obviousness subject matter.

Thus, plainly sections 102 and 103 each is “specified” as a “condition for patentability.”  Just as plainly, Section 101 is not “specified” as a “condition for patentability:”

101.  Inventions patentable.

In my opinion, the words “specified” as “a condition for patentability” in subsection 282(b)(2) point to only two sections of the one hundred and twelve sections in part two: sections 102 and 103.  Congress knew how to specify a condition for patentability by putting the words “condition for patentability” in the title: Section 101 is not specified as a condition for patentability. Any other reading of subsection 282(b)(2) renders the word “specified” superfluous, and it also renders the phrase “conditions for patentability” superfluous.  Either result violates a basic tenet of statutory interpretation.  Just as it is improper to read “in part II” out, it is improper to read these other express limitations out of the statute.

Even putting aside the fact that only two statutes in part II are specified as “conditions for patentability,” and assuming courts are free to allow defenses to be raised under subsection 282(b)(2) even though they are not specified as “conditions for patentability,” it is clear that, in substance, Section 101 is not a “condition.”

First, reading the statute as a whole (which proper analysis requires), there is no doubt that Congress knew how to write a “condition for patentability.” In substance, sections 102 and 103 are express conditions for patentability.  Section 102 begins, “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . .”  Section 103 states that “a patent for an invention may not be obtained  . . . if the differences” would have been obvious at the time of the invention.  Section 102 conditions patentability on novelty; section 103 conditions patentability on non-obviousness.

In stark contrast, Section 101 permissively states that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process . . . or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,” but doing so is “subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” Thus, Section 101 grants permission to an inventor to apply for a patent, subjecting issuance to the conditions and requirements of the title.  Further, Section 101 does not limit the person’s entitlement to a patent, unlike Section 102 and 103.  It is in my opinion that Section 101 does not “condition” patentability on the invention falling within Section 101: if Congress had wanted to condition patentability on Section 101, it perhaps could have done so, but it plainly did not.

Further, the same legislation that codified the transitional CBM proceeding expressly describes Section 101, not as providing a condition for patentability, but as merely setting forth “categories of patent-eligible subject matter.”  AIA § 18(e).  Consistent with this, Congress authorized the PTO to rely on certain prior art to invalidate a claim under sections 102 and 103, AIA § 18(c), but the statute never mentions Section 101 as a basis for invalidity.

For these reasons, it is in my opinion clear that, although it is in part II of the Patent Act, Section 101 is not specified as a “condition for patentability” and it is in substance not a condition.  Consequently, it is not a ground for review in the CBM proceeding sought by defendant herein.

In my opinion, the clarity of the text ends the inquiry.  The text of the statute is not ambiguous. Nor is it absurd to conclude that Congress chose not to make “ineligible subject matter” a basis for CBM:  indeed, given the Congressional purpose of speedy review of covered business method patents, a Section 101 inquiry would bog down the PTO in the myriad factual issues underlying the inquiry – many of which involve facts external to the PTO, such as whether the patent “preempts” other methods (i.e., whether there are non-infringing alternatives), what was “routine” or “conventional” in the art, and other facts not likely to be shown entirely by prior art. Omitting Section 101 is far from absurd but instead matches the purpose and intent of Congress to create a speedy, certain proceeding.  See generally, Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (identifying some of the factual inquiries inherent in the question of eligible subject matter).

Even assuming, nonetheless, that it is proper to look beyond the text, in my opinion it is proper to look to the purpose of the statute and legislative intent.  Both confirm the plain meaning of the statute.

The purpose of the statute confirms that the CBM procedure was adopted to address shortcomings with the PTO’s ability in the late 1990’s to find prior art, and that was Congress’s intent.  The House report makes clear that the purpose was to deal with the perception that in the late 1990’s, the PTO had not found the best prior art to apply under sections 102 and 103:

A number of patent observers believe the issuance of poor business-method patents during the late 1990’s through the early 2000’s led to the patent ‘‘troll’’ lawsuits that compelled the Committee to launch the patent reform project 6 years ago. At the time, the USPTO lacked a sufficient number of examiners with expertise in the relevant art area. Compounding this problem, there was a dearth of available prior art to assist examiners as they reviewed business method applications. Critics also note that most countries do not grant patents for business methods.

The Act responds to the problem by creating a transitional program 1 year after enactment of the bill to implement a provisional post-grant proceeding for review of the validity of any business method patent. In contrast to the era of the late 1990’s-early 2000’s, examiners will review the best prior art available….

H. Rep. 112-98, at p. 54 (June 1, 2011) (emphases added).  Thus, the committee report[1] shows that the purpose of the amendments is consistent with the text:  to allow those charged within infringement to show that the invention was not new or would have been obvious in light of “the best prior art available.”  The report emphasized the lack of “a sufficient number of examiners with expertise in the relevant art area.”  Nothing in the House report mentions the failure to recognize “abstract ideas” or the failure to properly apply Section 101.  Further, it is absurd to suggest that in the late 1990s lack of access to prior art or lack of sufficient examiners with familiarity with prior art had any impact on the ability to determine what is a “law of nature,” or “abstract idea,” or the like.  If anything, this shows that Congress enacted the CBM proceeding for the purpose of responding to the problem of difficulty in finding prior art and experts in the fields of business methods.

Beyond this, the legislative history of the AIA on this transitional program is, like almost all legislative histories, murky.  I have reviewed the remarks made on the Floor of the Senate, and there is no doubt that a few members of Congress mentioned business method patents.  A fair reading is that at least some members of Congress thought the source of the problem to be addressed was with “abstract” patents, while others believed the failure to consider the most pertinent prior art was the source of the problem.  What controls is the language Congress enacted, not my speculation about the intent of a handful of elected representatives.

For the reasons shown above, in my view the text and committee report focus on prior art under sections 102 and 103.  As enacted, in my opinion the AIA does not allow review of covered business methods for “eligible subject matter” in terms of Section 101.[2]

II.             Arguments I Considered but Found Incorrect.

I understand the PTO’s position is that Section 101 can be a basis for instituting a CBM Review. E.g., SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Group, Inc., CBM2012-00001 (Jan. 9, 2013).  Director Kappos justified the PTO’s position, not by focusing on the text, but by stating:  “This interpretation is consistent with both the relevant case law and the legislative history.”[3]  The PTO in its decision in Versata relied upon the same grounds. For the following reasons, this interpretation is incorrect.

First, these authorities simply do not address the text of the statute.  The statute is not ambiguous.  It is not absurd.  There is no reason whatsoever to move beyond the plain text.

Second, the Supreme Court case relied upon to support these views is Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).  That famous case about Section 103 had nothing to do with whether “eligible subject matter” was a condition for patentability, and did not decide that issue. Instead, in dicta analyzing the “condition for patentability” in Section 103, the court noted:

The Act sets out the conditions of patentability in three sections. An analysis of the structure of these three sections indicates that patentability is dependent upon three explicit conditions: novelty and utility as articulated and defined in § 101 and § 102, and nonobviousness, the new statutory formulation, as set out in § 103.  The first two sections, which trace closely the 1874 codification, express the ‘new and useful’ tests which have always existed in the statutory scheme and, for our purposes here, need no clarification. The pivotal section around which the present controversy centers is § 103 . . . .

383 U.S. at 12-13. The statement actually undermines the argument that “eligible subject matter” is a condition for patentability. Graham explains that the Patent Act of 1793 had only two conditions for patentability:  utility and novelty (both of which were once in the same statute, a precursor to sections 101 and 102).  Id. at 10 (“Although the Patent Act was amended, revised or codified some 50 times between 1790 and 1950, Congress steered clear of a statutory set of requirements other than the bare novelty and utility tests reformulated in Jefferson’s draft of the 1793 Patent Act”).  The Graham Court recognized that in 1952 Congress had added a third condition, non-obviousness.  See id. at 14 (“Patentability is to depend, in addition to novelty and utility, upon the ‘non-obvious’ nature of the ‘subject matter sought to be patented’ to a person having ordinary skill in the art.’”) (quoting Section 103).

For these reasons, even if Graham is misapprehended as a definitive interpretation of Section 101, the Court’s opinion suggests that “eligible subject matter” is not a condition for patentability.  If Graham stated that utility, novelty, and non-obviousness were conditions for patentability, then the Court’s statement that there are “three conditions”[4] means “eligible subject matter” is not one:  if “eligible subject matter” were also a condition for patentability, then there would be four, not three, conditions.

I have also seen others avoid the text but instead cite to dicta in Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) and to dicta in a footnote in Aristrocrat Techs., Austl. PTY LTd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 543 F.3d 657, 661 (Fed. Cir. 2008).  Neither case decided whether Section 101 was a condition for patentability.  Although the merits of a Section 101 issue was decided in Dealertrack, the patentee did not contend that Section 101 was not a statutory defense, and the court did not decide that issue.  Further, dicta in both cases traces directly back to the dicta from Graham.  But loose language can be found in other cases saying exactly the opposite.  For example, the Federal Circuit has stated: “The two sections of part II that Congress has denominated ‘conditions of patentability’ are § 102 . . . and § 103 . . . .”  Myspace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corp., 672 F.3d 1250, 1260-61 (Fed. Cir. 2012).   The Supreme Court made essentially the same observation in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 190-91 (1981).

The important fact to me is that none of these cases parse the statutory text, or just examine the purpose and legislative history of the AIA discussed here.  Ignoring the actual text in favor of what courts have said a statute says is obviously incorrect.  In that regard, the Supreme Court has overridden judicial interpretations of statutes that failed to adhere to the text, and has done so even after decades of having lower courts adhere to those incorrect constructions.  See Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164, 177 & 191 (1994) (overruling six decades of case law implying a cause of action), superseded on other grounds by 15 U.S.C. § 78(t)(e). Whatever a court says a statute says, the Constitution makes paramount what the enacted text actually says.

I have also considered whether this analysis improperly relies upon titles to interpret the text.  I agree it is generally improper to use the title to interpret text, at least where the title contradicts or is inconsistent with the substantive text.  But that principle has no application here:  Congress in the text of subsection 282(b)(2) limited the grounds upon which a CBM proceeding may be based to those “specified” in “part II” as “conditions for patentability.”  Thus, the statutory text of Section 282 says to look for things “specified” in “part II” as “conditions for patentability.”  Consequently, I am not using the title of any statute to interpret the meaning of Section 101:  I am applying the plain text of subsection 282(b)(2).  I am not using the title to interpret the text with respect to either “specified” as a “condition for patentability” just as I am not with respect to the statute’s use of “specified” in “part II.”  Further, as shown above, I use only the text of the statutes to conclude that Sections 102 and 103 are conditions, but Section 101 is not.  Reading those three statutes in pari materia (together), it is clear sections 102 and 103 are conditions, but Section 101 is not.  The titles confirm the interpretation of the text, but they are not the source of it.

I have also considered other aspects of the legislative history.  For example, then-Director Kappos observed:  “a key House Committee Report states that ‘the post-grant review proceeding permits a challenge on any ground related to invalidity under section 282.’ H.R. Rep. No.112-98, at 47 (2011).”[5]  Yet, it is undeniable that the text of the adopted statute points to only two subsections of Section 282, and so this sentence from that report flatly contradicts the enacted statute.  A sentence in a committee report that directly contradicts the plain language does not control.  As with most bills, the legislative history of the AIA contains many statements that are not the law, and a few that contradict the statute.

Others have pointed to this statement from a senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl:  “section 101 invention issues” were among those “that can be raised in post-grant review.”  157 Cong. Rec. S1375 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011).  Relying on this statement for the proposition that eligible subject matter is covered by the text is doubly problematic.  Foremost, “section 101 invention issues” is not in the enacted text. Further, the Supreme Court has long and repeatedly rejected relying upon one legislator’s statement as having been presented to Congress and enacted into federal law.  Doing so jeopardizes the Constitutional requirements of enactment and presentment.  This is especially true where, as here, that statement contradicts the plain text as well as other more weighty evidence of legislative intent, coming in the form of Senate reports from the AIA, Congressional reports on the 1952 Act, and Federico’s commentary, discussed above.  Those sources – which, if entitled to any weight, are entitled to more weight than one Senator’s floor statement – contradict Senator Kyl’s subjective interpretation of the statute.  Again, however, I believe none of this matters here.

To sum up, in my opinion dicta in cases does not control.  Dicta in cases that do not analyze the statutory text do not control.  A committee report that flatly contradicts the enacted text does not control.  And one Senator’s opinion is not enacted statutory text.


[1]     The Supreme Court has cautioned against giving weight even to committee reports, admonishing courts that “judicial reliance on legislative materials like committee reports, which are not themselves subject to the requirements of Article I [of the U.S. Constitution], may give unrepresentative committee members – or, worse yet, unelected staffers and lobbyists – both the power and the incentive to attempt strategic manipulations of legislative history to secure results they were unable to achieve through the statutory text.”  ExxonMobil Corp. v. Allapattah Serv., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 568 (2005).  Here, the committee report simply confirms the plain text; it is not being used to interpret the text.

[2]     As explained above, courts view legislative history, particularly more modern legislative history such that accompanying the AIA, with skepticism.  Thus, I only note that the Senate report from 1952 and persuasive commentary by P.J. Federico confirm the plain meaning.  First, both reports from 1952 Act state: “Section 101 sets forth the subject matter that can be patented, ‘subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.’  The conditions under which a patent may be obtained follow, and section 102 covers the conditions relating to novelty.” H. Rep. 1923, S. Rep. 1979 (82d Cong. 2d Session) (emphasis added).  It is a perversion of the English language to read “the conditions under which a patent may be obtained follow” Section 101, but nonetheless in Section 101.  Second and consistent with the plain text and these reports, Federico wrote that Section 4886 – which Congress in 1952 split up into what became sections 101, 102, and (in a sense at least) 103 – had “specified the subject matter for which a patent could be obtained and recited conditions for patentability.  In the new code, this section has been divided into two sections, section 101 relating to the subject matter for which a patent may be obtained, and section 102 which defines statutory novelty and states other conditions for patentability.”  P.J. Federico, Commentary on the New Patent Act (emphasis added) (available at http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/lipa/patents/federico-commentary.asp).  Thus, as a principal architect of the act, Federico recognized that while Section 4886 had both “identified the subject matter for which a patent could be obtained,” and “recited conditions for patentability,” under the 1952 Act “section 101 relat[ed] to the subject matter for which a patent may be obtained” but “section 102 defines novelty and states other conditions for patentability [e.g., statutory bars to patentability].”  Id.  Further, Federico’s description is consistent with the reviser’s note to the 1952 act, which stated that the “existing statute is split into two sections, section 101 relating to the subject matter for which patents may be obtained, and section 102 defining statutory novelty and stating other conditions of patentability.”

[3] http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/ptab_and_patentability_challenges

[4]     383 U.S. at 17.

[5]     http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/ptab_and_patentability_challenges

Means-Plus-Function: Invalidity Needs Expert Testimony

Patent,

By Dennis Crouch

elcommerce v. SAP (Fed. Cir. 2014)

Facing another functional claim limitation case, the Federal Circuit here vacated the lower court holding that the means-plus-claims were invalid as indefinite for failing to teach sufficient corresponding structure in the patent specification. Particularly, the court here holds that, in this case, attorney-argument was insufficient to prove invalidity and rather than some amount of extrinsic evidence (such as expert testimony) was necessary to provide the necessary clear-and-convincing evidence.

Patent claims ordinarily recite particular “structure, material, or acts” as elements that both provide for the requisite inventive step and also materially limit the scope of rights. However, since 1952 the patent act has provided an express avenue for drafting patent claims using functional – instead of structural – limitations. Under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), a claim element “may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof.” To a lay reader, these means-plus-function claims appear quite broad. For instance a claimed “means for connecting elements A and B” seemingly covers any method or structure that accomplishes the claimed function. However, the statute itself requires that means-plus-function claims be given a much more limited scope. That is, the statute goes-on to say that a means-plus-function claim “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Id. Thus, to know the meaning of a claimed “means for connecting,” we must look to the patent specification to see what particular connecting mechanisms were disclosed and the scope of the claim would be limited only to those disclosed structures and their equivalents. The result here is that means-plus-function claims typically have a scope that is much narrower than one might expect on the initial reading.

In recent years, a substantial number of means-plus-function claims have been invalidated as lacking definiteness under § 112(b). (I.e., invalid as indefinite). Courts follow the following logic: (a) The statute requires that a means-plus-function element be defined according to corresponding structure found in the specification; (b) If no corresponding structure is found in the specification then the term cannot be defined and (c) is therefore invalid as indefinite.

In this case, the asserted claims are directed to a system for monitoring a supply chain. Representative claim 37 in the case has nine-different means claim elements, such as a “means for monitoring” supply data; “means for extracting” supply data; “means for translating” the data into a common format; etc. As part of its claim construction, the district court found that the specification failed to include any structure for any of the claimed means and subsequently, that the claims were invalid and indefinite. One problem with the district court’s analysis is that it doesn’t come to terms with the reality that “structure” is to be seen in the eyes of one skilled in the art.

Now, the standards applied here are quite messy. We know that patents are presumed valid and, in Microsoft v. i4i, the Supreme Court explained that presumption may only be overcome with clear and convincing evidence. In a concurring opinion, Justice Breyer (joined by Justice Scalia) raised the point that the clear-and-convincing standard ordinarily applies to factfinding and questions of fact and not to questions of law. Justice Breyer writes: “Where the ultimate question of patent validity turns on the correct answer to legal questions—what these subsidiary legal standards mean or how they apply to the facts as given—today’s strict standard of proof has no application.” Ignoring that advice (sub silento), the Federal Circuit has ruled that indefiniteness must be proven with clear and convincing evidence. See TecSec, Inc. v. IBM, 731 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)(Linn, J.). That conclusion draws its foundation from the 1987 Panduit decision stating that the presumption of validity is applicable to all validity challenges. Panduit v. Dennison, 810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (Markey, J.). Drawing-in the claim construction issue, by statute, identifying the “corresponding structure” of a functional element is a claim construction issue. Such an element “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure.” And, as patent litigators are well aware, claim construction is also a question of law.

In her opinion, Judge Newman does not address any of the aforementioned conflict except for the requirement that indefiniteness be judged with clear and convincing evidence. With that framework, the opinion notes that the only way “a general purpose judge could ascertain the position of persons of skill in the art and conclude that there is not a shred of support for any of the eleven interrelated means-plus-function claim limitations. . . . The burden was on SAP to prove its case, and in the absence of evidence provided by technical experts who meet the Daubert criteria there is a failure of proof. Attorney argument is not evidence.” Here, Judge Newman’s statement regarding “not a shred of support” goes beyond the clear-and-convincing standard, but her point is made – expert testimony is necessary here.

To be clear, the Federal Circuit does not expressly hold that expert testimony is always required. We do not of course hold that expert testimony will always be needed for every situation.” However, the court does not provide any explanation of when it might not be necessary.

In prior cases, the Federal Circuit has held that claim construction and indefiniteness findings can be made without expert testimony. See, e.g., Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The majority does not address these prior precedents. However, Judge Wallach does in his dissenting opinion.

The issue in this case is whether expert testimony is required to prove indefiniteness of a means-plus-function term when the specification contains no corresponding structure. This court answered “no” in Noah, explaining that expert testimony is not required where the specification contains no algorithm corresponding to each recited function. When there is an identifiable algorithm, however, expert testimony may be helpful in determining whether the algorithm is adequate corresponding structure in the view of a skilled artisan. Id. . . .

Indeed, indefiniteness is part of claim construction, both of which are questions of law. . . . Just as there is no requirement for expert testimony when construing means-plus-function claims to cover the corresponding structure, expert testimony is not needed to hold the claims indefinite when no structure is disclosed.

Judge Wallach’s point parallels what I discussed above – that these are questions of law where expert testimony does not appear to be a requirement. However, his perspective also appears lacking because he essentially ignores the requirement that these questions be viewed from the standpoint of one of skill in the particular area of technology.

Lighting Ballast: Deference Would Have Only Masked the Problems

Patent,

By Dennis Crouch

In Lighting Ballast, the en banc Federal Circuit once again held that claim construction should be seen as a question of law that is reviewed de novo on appeal. In the end, this is probably a good result for the patent system – but not for any of the reasons given by the court.

Over the years, the high-rate of claim construction reversal has repeatedly been highlighted as a symbolic of problems with the patent system. Some thought that the problem lay in district court failures to conduct proper analyses, but over time, most of us have come to reject that explanation. Rather, my view is that claim construction is a difficult task and it is not surprising that, out of the myriad possible definitions that a term could be given, two courts would disagree on which definition is best. I actually see this issue pointing a spotlight toward a major problem with the patent system – perhaps the largest problem – that patents often fail to provide clear notice of what is and what is not covered by the various claims.

Deference would have only masked the problem. The reversal rate would have gone down and from that high level that traditional off-kilter signal would be missing. The real difference with deference would be that patent scope would be understood as of the district court decision rather than having to wait for an appeal. That may help some litigants, but still it is a fairly ridiculous patent system where the scope of claims are not well understood until determined by a judge.

Rather, the problem has to be addressed by the US Patent Office with a renewed focus on clarity of claim scope. President Obama’s administration has recognized this with their call to “ensure claims are clear and can be consistently enforced.” The rub is that the administration’s approach of (1) encouraging glossaries and (2) providing additional examiner training are unlikely to have any meaningful impact. The good thing then is that the Federal Circuit’s continued power means that these systemic problems won’t be buried.

En Banc Federal Circuit Confirms Cybor: Claim Construction Reviewed De Novo on Appeal

Patent, , ,

By Dennis Crouch

Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics N.A. Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (En banc)

In a long awaited decision, an en banc Federal Circuit has reconfirmed the longstanding rule that claim construction is an issue of law reviewed de novo on appeal.

Writing for the majority, Judge Newman summarizes:

For the reasons we shall discuss, we apply the principles of stare decisis, and confirm the Cybor standard of de novo review of claim construction, whereby the scope of the patent grant is reviewed as a matter of law. After fifteen years of experience with Cybor, we conclude that the court should retain plenary review of claim construction, thereby providing national uniformity, consistency, and finality to the meaning and scope of patent claims. The totality of experience has confirmed that Cybor is an effective implementation of Markman II, and that the criteria for departure from stare decisis are not met.

Because of the importance of this issue and the divided court, Supreme Court review is fairly likely. The decision also guarantees that the Court will continue to be the central patent law authority.

The majority decision filed by Judge Newman was joined by five other judges (Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Moore, and Taranto). Judge Lourie wrote a concurring opinion providing “additional reasons” for confirming Cybor. Judge O’Malley filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Chief Judge Rader and Judges Reyna and Wallach. The six-member opinion carried the day as majority because Judges Hughes and Chen chose not to participate. Even then, a 6-6 tie would have confirmed Cybor but without any clear further precedent.

The majority opinion takes a Socratic approach of poking holes in every argument for changing the rule and in the end concluded that “deferential review does not promise either improved consistency or increased clarity.” And, without some clear reason to change, the default in law should be stare decisis – follow longstanding precedent that, in this case, involves hundreds of appellate claim construction decisions over the past 15 years creating a large body of precedent. The majority writes:

We have been offered no argument of public policy, or changed circumstances, or unworkability or intolerability, or any other justification for changing the Cybor methodology and abandoning de novo review of claim construction. The proponents of overruling Cybor have not met the demanding standards of the doctrine of stare decisis. They have not shown that Cybor is inconsistent with any law or precedent, or that greater deference will produce any greater public or private benefit. We conclude that there is neither “grave necessity” nor “special justification” for departing from Cybor.

The court also walked through post-Cybor policymaking by Congress as well as Supreme Court decisions and found nothing that would undermine Cybor.

[W]e have reviewed the arguments for changing the Cybor procedure of de novo review of claim construction. First, we have looked for post- Cybor developments, whether from the Supreme Court, from Congress, or from this court, that may have undermined the reasoning of Cybor. None has been found, or brought to our attention. There has been no legislative adjustment of the Cybor procedure, despite extensive patent-related legislative activity during the entire period of Cybor‘s existence.

In the end, the Court did not address the particular facts of the case – whether the “voltage source means” should be interpreted under §112p6. The district court said no but the original appellate panel said yes (on de novo review). That appellate panel will carry the day here and the plaintiff loses because the specification did not disclose sufficient structural embodiments of the claimed voltage source means.