Tag Archives: Claim Construction

Fascinating Split Decision on Impact of a Rule 36 Affirmance that May have Significant Consequences

Ethics, , ,

Wow, this one — Tecsec, Inc. v. IBM (Fed. Cir. 2013) — may have huge repercussions for appellate strategy, and also for the legal impact of hundreds of existing judgments. It deserves a read in full.  Judge Reyna's dissent captures what happened:

The majority concludes that the district court misconstrued various claim terms from three TecSec, Inc. patents. It reaches this conclusion notwithstanding that the same claim terms, same constructions, same arguments, and same summary judgment order were previously before this court and reviewed on January 9, 2012. See TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp. (“TecSec I”), 466 Fed. App’x 882 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In TecSec I, this court summarily affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement pursuant to Rule 36. Id. After TecSec lost its case against IBM, and without offering any additional evidence against the other defendants now before us, TecSec stipulated to noninfringement and has once again appealed the same district court’s claim constructions to this court. I respectfully dissent because I believe that entertaining this appeal gives TecSec a second bite at the apple and undermines the utility of Rule 36. 

The key paragraph to the majority's basis for reaching a different result is this:

The Rule 36 judgment in the IBM appeal summarily affirmed the district court’s judgment that IBM did not directly or indirectly infringe TecSec’s patents. The district court’s judgment was based on two independent grounds. The district court first ruled as a matter of law that TecSec’s direct and indirect infringement claims failed for failure of proof that IBM itself or any of its customers performed every claimed step or made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported any system containing all of the limitations of the asserted claims. As the dis- trict court stated in its opinion, without questioning TecSec’s construction of the terms now at issue, “TecSec has utterly failed to come forward with any evidence that IBM itself performed any of the steps of the method claims,” and “even if some user-implemented system were to meet all of the asserted claim limitations—which, as explained below it cannot . . . —TecSec has provided no evidence that IBM ever made, used, sold, offered to sell, or imported that entire claimed system . . . .” Summary Judgment Order, 769 F. Supp. 2d at 1010, 1012 (first emphasis added). The district court drew a similar conclusion regarding indirect infringement, as to which it found, as well, insufficient proof of the required intent. Given the absence of evidence that any steps were per- formed by IBM or that an entire claimed hard- ware/software system was ever made, used, sold, offered to sell, or imported by IBM or its customers, the district court was compelled to find no direct or indirect infringe- ment. Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 949–50 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (en banc) (“Every Supreme Court decision which has addressed the issue of infringe- ment of a patent claim, beginning with Prouty v. Draper, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 335, 10 L.Ed. 985 (1842)—and the prece- dent is voluminous—has held that where a part of the claimed invention, that is, a limitation of the claim, is lacking in the accused device exactly or equivalently, there is no infringement.”) The district court, in finding a complete failure of proof regarding any act of infringe- ment by IBM or its customers, did not rely on any rejec- tion of TecSec’s constructions of the terms at issue here. Indeed, IBM represented to the court that we could affirm the district court’s judgment solely based on TecSec’s “complete failure of proof” and did not “need to get to claim construction.” TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 2011-1303, Oral Arg. at 19:30–24:55, available at http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=20 11-1303.mp3. While the district court also ruled in the alternative that TecSec failed to show that IBM’s software met various claim limitations, as construed, our Rule 36 decision does not articulate a basis for affirmance, let alone an explication on claim construction. On this record, it cannot be concluded simply on the basis of this court’s summary affirmance that we expressly or by necessary implication decided the claim construction issues in the IBM appeal .

The majority later reasoned:  "Had claim construction been the only issue in the IBM appeal, and had that claim construction been essential to sustaining the judgment of noninfringement, the preclu- sive effect of our Rule 36 judgment would have been undeniable. But that was not the case."

I have a lot of questions.  If infringement can be found, or not, only after claim construction (I think that's right, absent marginal odd-ball cases), then claim construction was necessary to the judgment.  I also wonder how this fits in with the general rules about the impact of an affirmance of a judgment on alternate grounds, which the court does not discuss (perhaps the defendants did not appreciate these obscure doctrines; I don't know).  

If the panel decision is correct, doesn't it mean that a lot of appealable judgments that were "affirmed" on appeal have no impact, even on the parties to that appeal?  Suppose the district court clearly construes the claims, and based on that finds the patent both invalid and non-infringed. The case is Rule 36'd.  Is nothing decided except claim construction?  Isn't the patent, once again, "valid" because there is no binding judgment of invalidity?  I may be missing something… 

I bet there are an enormous number of fact patterns that might be implicated by this.  I am trying to get my head around how a district court's order, which is binding on the parties, becomes non-binding when affirmed on appeal?

I know that this may have huge impact on Rule 36; if a panel's decision does not resolve claim construction, unless it is somehow more "necessary" than it was here, then perhaps a panel should not use Rule 36 very often?  Interesting case with lots of systemic ripples, perhaps.

 

 

Supreme Court’s New Patent Cases

Patent, , , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

The Supreme Court today granted writs of certiorari in two patent-related cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and one copyright case out of the Ninth Circuit.

  • Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., Docket No. 12-1184;
  • Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Sys., Docket No. 121163; and
  • Petrella v. MGM, Docket No. 12-1315.

The patent cases fit as a pair and both ask questions regarding the award of attorney fees to a prevailing party. In the US, each party to a litigation ordinarily pays its own attorney fees. Thus, although an accused infringer who successfully raises an invalidity defense will not pay damages to the patentee, that prevailing defendant will still need to pay its attorneys and experts for the thousands of hours spent defending the lawsuit. Likewise, a patentee who wins an infringement lawsuit generally takes a substantial portion of any award and turns it over to the attorneys and experts who turned the patent into cash.

Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers sanctions for litigation abuses and indicates that reasonable attorney fees can serve as one form of sanctions. In addition, the section 285 of the Patent Act provides that a “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” 35 U.S.C. § 285. The language of Section 285 was first included in the 1946 statutory revision of damage calculations. However, that rather than limiting the award to “exceptional cases” the 1946 statute provided that “[t]he court may in its discretion award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.” I have not researched the legislative history behind this particular

In general, accused infringers who win patent cases have three particular complaints regarding the “exceptional case” limitation: (1) that the court has too narrowly interpreted the statute so that attorney fees are rarely awarded; (2) The second complaint is that fees are more likely to be awarded to a prevailing patentee (typically based upon willful infringement) than to a prevailing defendant despite Supreme Court precedent that suggests “prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants are to be treated alike.” (quoting the Supreme Court copyright case of Fogerty v. Fantasy). (3) Finally, the parties complain that the Federal Circuit is too quick to overturn fee-awards rather than providing substantial deference to the district court judgment. I should point out here that – at this point – these arguments do not have strong empirical support.

Over the years, there has been substantial academic debate on the policy potential of a more rigorous loser-pay rule. The primary idea is that the loser-pays rule reduces speculative litigation and would “limit the tactical leverage gained by a party with a weak case threatening a defendant with costly litigation.” At the same time, the created-risk may also over-deter by also discouraging valid claims. As Jay Kesan explains, in general, the outcome of a balanced fee shifting regime is difficult to predict since parties who believe they have a strong case are more likely to sue (with the belief they will both compensatory recover damages and recoup attorney fees). “If both parties are pessimistic, settlement will likely occur under either system. However, if the plaintiff is optimistic, he is more likely to litigate because he will get a judgment without incurring costs.” Jay P. Kesan, Carrots and Sticks to Create a Better Patent System, 17 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 763 (2002). By making more at-stake in the lawsuit, we also likely shift the rate of appeal upward for cases that do not settle.

= = =

In Octane Fitness, the petition challenges the “rigid and exclusive” test that the Federal Circuit uses to determine whether a case is “exceptional.” A common theme of recent Supreme Court patent cases is a holding that challenged Federal Circuit rule is too rigid and should instead be more flexible. The second theme in recent Supreme Court patent cases is a holding that, when appropriate, patent law should fall in step with all other areas of law. The petition latches onto these theme and essential says “the Federal Circuit has done it again…” The particular question raised by Octane Fitness is as follows:

Whether the Federal Circuit’s promulgation of a rigid and exclusive two-part test for determining whether a case is “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 improperly appropriates a district court’s discretionary authority to award attorney fees to prevailing accused infringers in contravention of statutory intent and this Court’s precedent, thereby raising the standard for accused infringers (but not patentees) to recoup fees and encouraging patent plaintiffs to bring spurious patent cases to cause competitive harm or coerce unwarranted settlements from defendants.

Icon rephrased as follows:

Patent infringement claims between industry competitors, ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. and Octane Fitness, LLC, were decided below on summary judgment. Both lower courts held that this case was not an “exceptional” patent case that would warrant the award of attorney fees to the prevailing party. Should this Court reverse the lower courts through judicial expansion of the attorney fee-shifting statute found in 35 U.S.C. § 285?

In the particular case, the district court conducted a Markman hearing and, based upon its claim construction, held that Octane’s products did not infringe Icon’s patent covering its elliptical exercise machine.

For its part, Octane writes that the “most compelling reason[] to grant certiorari …. [is that] the Federal Circuit’s current exceptional case standard is squarely in conflict with this Court’s holding in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) … Fogerty mandates that plaintiffs and defendants be treated alike under an analogous fee-shifting provision in the Copyright Act.” Of course, one problem with the even-handed mandate is that plaintiffs and defendants lose cases for different reasons. Within this framework, a party’s status actually does make some difference for fee-shifting. Findings of willful infringement, for instance, favor only patentees, while findings of inequitable conduct during patent prosecution favor only accused infringers. Either party can be awarded attorney’s fees based on the bad faith assertion of objectively baseless claims or other litigation misconduct.

In the background are a variety statutory proposals that would accomplish much of what Octane seeks. However, a Supreme Court decision in the case is likely to arrive before any Congressional action. See Congressing.

In Highmark, former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal (now at Hogan Lovells) has asked the Supreme Court to focus on whether the Federal Circuit must give deference to a lower court award of attorney-fees to a prevailing party.

The petition asks:

The Patent Act provides that A case is “exceptional” if it is objectively baseless and brought in bad faith. After living with this case for more than six years, the District Court found that it was objectively baseless and brought in bad faith, and it awarded fees. Over a strong dissent, a Federal Circuit panel reversed, holding that a district court’s objective baselessness determination is reviewed “without deference.” The Federal Circuit denied rehearing en banc by a vote of six to five. One of the two pointed dissents from that denial accurately observed that the decision below “deviates from precedent *** and establishes a review standard for exceptional case findings in patent cases that is squarely at odds with the highly deferential review adopted by every regional circuit and the Supreme Court in other areas of law.”

The question presented is: Whether a district court’s exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285, based on its judgment that a suit is objectively baseless, is entitled to deference.

Undoubtedly, the Supreme Court will reverse in Highmark and the reasons are well understood by the Federal Circuit judges. In all likelihood, a GVR without opinion would provide sufficient instruction to the Federal Circuit in this case. However, I suspect that we will see these two cases argued and decided in parallel with a roughly identical timeline. One important aspect of the Highmark case is the question of whether attorney fees can be awarded as a deterrent against other parties’ bad behavior.

The copyright case is Petrella v. MGM and focuses on the doctrine of laches as it applies to copyright enforcement – with a particular focus on what might be termed “rolling infringement.” The copyright holder in the case is Paula Petrella whose father Peter Petrella wrote two 1970s screenplays (one titled The Raging Bull) and a book about the life of boxer Jake LaMotta. A few years later(1980), Raging Bull became an Oscar winning movie. In 2009, Petrella sued MGM for copyright infringement. Now, both MGM and Petrella claim ownership over the copyrights being asserted and MGM claims that the movie does not infringe the Petrella copyrights. However, the focus of the case at the Supreme Court is whether the doctrine of laches can block a copyright holder from suing for a new act of infringement (such as distributing another copy of the movie).

Petrella presents the question as follows:

The Copyright Act expressly prescribes a three-year statute of limitations for civil copyright claims. 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). The three-year period accrues separately for each act of infringement, even if it is one of a continuing series of acts of infringement.

The federal courts of appeals have divided 3-2-1 over whether the nonstatutory defense of laches can bar a civil copyright suit brought within the express three-year statute of limitations. Three circuits forbid any application of laches or restrict the remedies to which it can apply. Two other circuits strongly disfavor laches and restrict it to exceptional circumstances. The Ninth Circuit not only does not restrict laches or the remedies to which it can apply, but has also adopted a presumption in favor of applying laches to continuing copyright infringements.

The question presented is: Whether the nonstatutory defense of laches is available without restriction to bar all remedies for civil copyright claims filed within the three-year statute of limitations prescribed by Congress, 17 U.S.C. § 507(b).

The case has obvious implications for patent law since patent law doctrine includes a similar non-statutory laches doctrine and six-year statute of limitations. It is possible that the Supreme Court will essentially eliminate the laches doctrine (but leave a claim of equitable estoppel).

It should be an interesting year in patent law.

Amending the America Invents Act 2013

Patent, , , , , , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

One aspect of the Goodlatte discussion draft legislation is a series of “Improvements and Technical Corrections to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.” The AIA was passed in September 2011 and is gradually being fully implemented across the US patent system. The further changes here are fairly substantial, although buried within the proposed bill itself. The following post offers some explanation of the provisions with only a few comments on the policy implications.

1. REPEAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO OBTAIN A PATENT

For several years, the PTO has been pushing to weaken or eliminate the “civil action” option that is currently available to patent applicants who are refused a patent. The current system allows a patent applicant to file a federal lawsuit that asks a district court to order the PTO to issue a patent covering the claimed invention. The civil action approach allows for extensive presentation of evidence, live witness testimony, and an ultimate decision by a district court judge. And, since the civil action is not an “appeal” per se, substantial deference is not given to prior factual findings by the PTO (as long as the applicant presents its own evidence on point). The civil action approach is not widely used because of the expense of pursuing a district court claim. However, it has been a very successful approach for a number of patent applicants. Under the new provision, the only avenue for challenge an adverse PTO decision on the merits of an application would be through appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

2. POST GRANT REVIEW ESTOPPEL SUBSTANTIALLY NARROWED

The current estoppel rules of post-grant review indicate that a petitioner will be estopped from latter asserting in-court that the challenged patent “invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that post-grant review.” The amendment would substantially narrow the estoppel to cover only grounds that the petitioner actually raised.

This change would result in Post-Grant review being much more of a parallel option rather than an alternative option to challenging patent validity.

3. CONSTRUING CLAIMS DURING POST-GRANT and INTER-PARTES REVIEW

The proposal would require that the claims under review be construed in the same way that they would be construed by a district court rather than using a “broadest reasonable construction.” The statute as written requires that the PTAB construe “each claim of the patent in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” However, that method is somewhat different than what has been ruled as the law by the Federal Circuit.

4. CODIFICATION OF DOUBLE PATENTING DOCTRINE

The statute would create a new statutory provision that is intended to codify the obviousness-type double patenting doctrine. This ensures that the doctrine is carried through into the AIA. I have not parsed through the new provision to see if it does what they say it does:

35 U.S.C. §106 that reads as follows:

A claimed invention of a patent issued under section 151 (referred to as the ‘first patent’) that is not prior art to a claimed invention of another patent (referred to as the ‘second patent’) shall be considered prior art to the claimed invention of the second patent for the purpose of determining the non-obviousness of the claimed invention of the second patent under section 103 if—

(1) the claimed invention of the first patent was effectively filed under section 102(d) on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the second patent;

(2) either—

(A) the first patent and second patent name the same inventor; or

(B) the claimed invention of the first patent would constitute prior art to the claimed invention of the second patent under section 102(a)(2) if an exception under section 102(b)(2) did not apply and, if applicable, if the claimed invention of the first patent had not been effectively filed under section 102(d) on (but was effectively filed before) the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the second patent; and

(3) the patentee of the second patent has not disclaimed the rights to enforce the second patent independently from, and beyond the statutory term of, the first patent.

5. EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF COVERED_BUSINESS_METHOD REVIEWS

The AIA creates an option for third parties to attack patents on non-technological “covered business method” innovations through the use of a new post-grant review proceeding. Through the review program, third parties can raise any ground of invalidity and can use this approach to pre-AIA patents. The amended provision would appear to sweep-in virtually all software-type patent claims.

Under the changes, the 7-year sunset provision would be removed; the expansive definition of business methods found in SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Dev. Group, Inc., CBM2012-00001, 12 Paper 36 (January 9, 2013), would be codified; and the “non-technological” requirement would be clarified/expanded to make clear that a claim’s recitation of technological features does not make the claim technological “if it is readily apparent that the recited [technological] feature is anticipated by or obvious in light of the prior art.”

6. SHRINKING PATENT TERM ADJUSTMENT

The bill proposes a clear rule that no PTA can be awarded for any delays that occur following the filing of a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). This would reduce the patent term for a substantial portion of patents and the bill indicates that the recalculation would be retroactive against any patent application still pending at the time of enactment.

7. OVERTURNING OF GUNN V. MINTON

Although not a statutory change, the bill would make the “clarifying” statement that:

CLARIFICATION OF JURISDICTION.—Congress finds that the Federal interest in preventing inconsistent final judicial determinations as to the legal force or effect of the claims in a patent presents a substantial Federal issue that is important to the Federal system as a whole.

This provision has the potential of bringing patent malpractice claims back under Federal Court jurisprudence. And, to the extent that patent licenses depend upon the scope of a patent claim, licensee disputes would also be heard in Federal Courts.

Patent Reform 2013 – A Discussion Draft

Patent, , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte has released a new version of a "discussion draft" of proposed legislation focusing attention on "abusive" litigation tactics. In a major way, the Bill is focused on making it more difficult for patentees to enforce their patents and is designed to put additional financial risk on patentees who lose in court. Members of both the House and Senate are looking for constituent input on this topic. Senator Leahy is also likely to distribute a draft bill within the next month or so.

[Download Goodlatte – Patent Discussion Draft]

1. Raising Pleading Requirements for Allegations of Patent Infringement

Under current Federal Circuit precedent, a patentee pleading patent infringement can file a bare-bones complaint that basically only indicates the patent at suit and the general activity by the defendant that leads to the infringement accusation. In Iqbal and Twombly, the Supreme Court generally raised the pleading standards and federal courts now require significantly more factual assertions in complaints than they did a few years ago. However, the Federal Circuit found that patent infringement complaints fall within an exception that allows less-informative pleadings so long as they comply with Form 18 of the FRCP. The court has applied the higher Iqbal standards to other pleadings such as defenses and counterclaims raised in an answer and especially focused on allegations of inequitable conduct.

The bare-bones approach of Form 18 leaves tremendous wiggle. And, patentees typically do not identify, for instance, (1) which claims of the patent are being asserted, or (2) what products or services of the defendant are allegedly infringing. The amendment would essentially tell patentees that patent infringement must be pled with particularity. And, at least the patentee must identify those two important elements listed above (if known). In addition, the proposal in its current form asks for a claim chart showing "where each element of each claim . . . is found within the accused instrumentality" and a description, "with detailed specificity, how the terms in each claim … correspond to the functionality of the accused instrumentality." The complaint would also be required to list all other cases where the patent has been asserted and identify whether the patents at issue are subject to any FRAND commitment.

One exemption that appears throughout the proposal is that these changes do not apply when an innovator drug company is suing a would-be generic manufacturer. Rather, throughout the proposal an exception is made for cases where the cause of action arises under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) (the typical statutory provision invoked in innovator-generic patent litigation).

Federal courts have been using a "notice pleading" system since the 1930's – requiring a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FRCP 8. It would be interesting to see some pre-1938 complaints and consider whether the apocryphal tale that "fact pleading" was actually much more comprehensive. But the changes appear to move the patent world into the world of fact pleading. The idea behind notice pleading is to provide the accused with sufficient notice of the claim without unduly burdening the plaintiff or creating overly formalistic rules. However, for at least some cases, the current standard does not provide sufficient notice for an accused infringer to actually understand what the patentee is claiming. In addition to providing better notice, the proposed legislation would also significantly raise the burden of filing a patent infringement complaint.

The statute also requires that the Judicial Conference propose rules that would eliminate Form 18 as it stands and create a new form that complies with the new factual pleading described above.

How the courts will likely solve this problem before Congress takes action: The courts recognize that the current pleading standard is too low in patent cases (including a likely majority of Federal Circuit judges). To deal with this the court basically has two options: (1) amend Form 18 through the Judicial Conference procedures; or (2) decide that the court is not bound by Form 18.

2. Award Attorney Fees for Prevailing Parties – And Against All Interested Parties

The new bill creates a presumption in favor of attorney fees being awarded to the prevailing party. Unlike other proposals during the past couple of years, the discussion proposal here is not overtly biased against patent assertion. Rather, the attorney fee statute (§ 285) would require courts to award "reasonable fees and other expenses" to the prevailing party "unless the court finds that the position [of the losing party] was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust."

Now, in order to ensure that patent holding companies are able to pay as losing party, the provision allows for attorney fee recovery against "interested parties" that have been joined under new provision 299(d). Under 299(d), interested parties include assignees, anyone with a right to sue, anyone with a right to sublicense, and anyone with a direct financial interest in the patents. However, neither ordinary contingency fees attorneys nor equity owners of the patentee qualify for joinder despite their obvious financial interests.

3. Limit Discovery in Patent Cases.

For many reasons, patent lawsuits are hotly litigated and the discovery process is long+expensive. The discussion bill provides for particular limits on discovery prior to claim construction. Under the proposal, a court would be barred from allowing discovery prior to a claim construction decision (except for discovery necessary for claim construction).

In addition, the bill would require the judicial conference to propose a number of limits on discovery that have the potential of significantly changing the process of patent some litigation.

4. Additional Initial Disclosures for Public Release

Under current law, information on each patent lawsuit is sent to the USPTO and placed on public record there. The proposed legislation would extend that program by requiring the patentee in an infringement lawsuit to disclose (1) any assignees of the patent; (2) any entities with the right to enforce or sublicense the patent; (3) any entity with a financial interest in either the patent or the plaintiff; (4) the ultimate parent entity of any of the entities named.

In addition, the law would mandate updates of assignee information for all patents within 90-days of any change of assignee.

5. Exception for Customer Lawsuits that Allows for Stay of those Actions

Sometimes alleged infringement is simply based on the defendant's use of an infringing product. The proposed legislation would require a court to stay actions against such customers pending resolution of the case against the manufacturer. However, the grant of stay requires that the customer agrees that the court decisions in the manufacturer suit will become res judicata have preclusive affect against the customer.

6. Foreign Bankruptcy Effect on US Patent License

Business bankruptcy and reorganization is sometimes mind-bending. Bankruptcy trustees are generally authorized to choose whether to reject or enforce (assume) any of the contracts that were binding on the debtor at the time of bankruptcy filing. However, the Bankruptcy code significantly reduces that power when the contract involves the a license of the debtor's intellectual property rights. 35 U.S.C. §365(n). One issue that has arisen lately is the impact of foreign bankruptcy on the debtor's US intellectual property rights holdings. The proposed bill protect the creditor-licensees in those cases so that an IP owner's foreign bankruptcy cannot be used to unilaterally cancel one of its licensee's US IP rights. To be clear, 365(n) applies to US IP rights, but not Trademark rights or state-law rights other than trade secret rights.

Is “Insolubly Ambiguous” the Correct Standard for Indefiniteness?

Indefinite, Patent, , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

Nautilus v. Biosig Inst. (on petition for writ of certiorari 2013)

A major focus of attention in the current arena of patent reform is on the notice function of patent claims and, in particularly, the standard for definiteness. Most of the time, the scope of a patent's coverage is only known once a district court construes those claims. And, in many cases, that knowledge is really delayed until Federal Circuit review. A substantial portion of the blame in this area can be placed on patentees who intentionally draft claims of ambiguous scope. Of course, the Supreme Court has long recognized the policy benefits of allowing ambiguity in patent coverage. (See, Doctrine of Equivalents). Most technology users would prefer to understand the scope of claims before litigation and use that information to decide whether to obtain a license. However, the ambiguity (in combination with other factors) lead to the common practice of holding-out until a court construes the claims.

For indefinite claims, the statutory guidelines come from 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) that requires claims that "particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the inventor … regards as the invention." The doctrine of indefiniteness finds its statutory support from §112(b). And, when a claim is indefinite it is both unpatentable and invalid.

Once a patent issues, it tends to be quite difficult to invalidate that patent on indefiniteness grounds. The difficulty begins with the statutory presumption of validity under § 282 that requires clear and convincing evidence of invalidity. That difficulty continues with the standard for indefiniteness itself. In particular, the Federal Circuit has required that invalidity by indefiniteness requires proof that the challenged claim is ambiguous in a way that is "insoluble." In Biosig, the Federal Circuit similarly held that indefiniteness of an issued claim can only be found "if reasonable efforts at claim construction result in a definition that does not provide sufficient particularity and clarity to inform skilled artisans of the bounds of the claim."

In a new petition, John Vandenberg's team at Klarquist Sparkman has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider the Federal Circuit's standard on this point. Nautilus presents the following questions:

1. Does the Federal Circuit's acceptance of ambiguous patent claims with multiple reasonable interpretations—so long as the ambiguity is not "insoluble" by a court—defeat the statutory requirement of particular and distinct patent claiming?

2. Does the presumption of validity dilute the requirement of particular and distinct patent claiming?

Many of these same issues have been previously addressed by the Supreme Court in pre-1952 decisions. See, for example, United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228 (1942). In Union Carbide, the court wrote that:

The statutory requirement of particularity and distinctness in claims is met only when they clearly distinguish what is claimed from what went before in the art and clearly circumscribe what is foreclosed from future enterprise. A zone of uncertainty which enterprise and experimentation may enter only at the risk of infringement claims would discourage invention only a little less than unequivocal foreclosure of the field. Moreover, the claims must be reasonably clear-cut to enable courts to determine whether novelty and invention are genuine. . . . Whether the vagueness of the claim has its source in the language employed or in the somewhat indeterminate character of the advance claimed to have been made in the art is not material. An invention must be capable of accurate definition, and it must be accurately defined, to be patentable.

Interpreting the precursor to Section 112(b), 35 U.S.C. § 33 (1932). The old § 33 included the parallel requirement of claims that "particularly point out and distinctly claim the part, improvement, or combination which he claims as his invention or discovery."

In the Union Carbide, the court's problem with the claims was what it called functionality, writing: [T]he claims are but inaccurate suggestions of the functions of the product, and fall afoul of the rule that a patentee may not broaden his claims by describing the product in terms of function. Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co., 277 U.S. 245; General Electric Co. v. Wabash Corp., 304 U.S. 371. The particular claims at issue in Union Carbide are as follows:

1. Substantially pure carbon black in the form of commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded, smooth aggregates having a spongy porous interior.

2. As an article of manufacture, a pellet of approximately one sixteenth of any inch in diameter and, formed-of a porous mass of substantially pure carbon black.

See U.S. Patent No. 1,889,429. Read the claims again and look for the functional limitations, then read the Supreme Court's decision.

In General Electric Co. v. Wabash Corp., 304 U.S. 364 (1938), the Supreme Court similarly took issue with the indefiniteness of issued patent claims.

The limits of a patent must be known for the protection of the patentee, the encouragement of the inventive genius of others, and the assurance that the subject of the patent will be dedicated ultimately to the public. The statute seeks to guard against unreasonable advantages to the patentee and disadvantages to others arising from uncertainty as to their rights. The inventor must inform the public during the life of the patent of the limits of the monopoly asserted, so that it may be known which features may be safely used or manufactured without a license and which may not.

. . . . Patentees may reasonably anticipate that claimed inventions, improvements, and discoveries, turning on points so refined as the granular structure of products, require precise descriptions of the new characteristic for which protection is sought. In a limited field, the variant must be clearly defined.

GE v. Wabash.

Reaching further back to the 19th century, the court wrote in Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568 (1876) that a patentee has no excuse for ambiguous or vague descriptions.

The growth of the patent system in the last quarter of a century in this country has reached a stage in its progress where the variety and magnitude of the interests involved require accuracy, precision, and care in the preparation of all the papers on which the patent is founded. It is no longer a scarcely recognized principle, struggling for a foothold, but it is an organized system, with well-settled rules, supporting itself at once by its utility, and by the wealth which it creates and commands. The developed and improved condition of the patent law, and of the principles which govern the exclusive rights conferred by it, leave no excuse for ambiguous language or vague descriptions. The public should not be deprived of rights supposed to belong to it, without being clearly told what it is that limits these rights. The genius of the inventor, constantly making improvements in existing patents,—a process which gives to the patent system its greatest value,—should not be restrained by vague and indefinite descriptions of claims in existing patents from the salutary and necessary right of improving on that which has already been invented. It seems to us that nothing can be more just and fair, both to the patentee and to the public, than that the former should understand, and correctly describe, just what he has invented, and for what he claims a patent.

Merrill (1876). These cases are in obvious tension with the Federal Circuit's current standard. However, there remains only a small chance that the Supreme Court will hear the case.

One key to the petition here is the argument that the Federal Circuit made it triply difficult to invalidate a claim on indefiniteness ground by (1) using the presumption of validity of § 282 to create stringent elements for the invalidity defense and then (2) also requiring clear-and-convincing evidence to prove those elements; all while (3) regularly ignoring the reality that indefiniteness is a question of law (as are patentable subject matter and obviousness).

Jenner & Block allegedly walks away from contingent fee client without just cause, but still wants to be paid $3m

Ethics,

I testified as an expert in this case a long time ago, and it's now on appeal — Parallel Networks, LLC v. Jenner & Block LLP, NO. 05-13-00748-CV in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, in Dallas.  The opening brief was just filed.

Boiled down, J&B represented Parallel Networks (PN) in a patent suit, doing so on a contingent fee.  J&B lost summary judgment of noninfringement after the Markman hearing.  J&B advised PN that its case was relatively worthless and advised PN to settle for what it could get. Concluding that it was not in the firm's economic interest to continue to represent PN, J&B dropped PN as its client.

PN hired other counsel, appealed the case to the CAFC, and got the claim construction reversed.  Then the accused infringers ponied up settlement money… a lot of money.

And J&B then demanded $10m in fees, seemingly based on its full hourly rate.  PN refused to pay and the fee dispute went to arbitration.  An arbitrator apparently awarded quantum meruit, somewhere north of $3m. PN is appealing the district court's affirmance of the arbitral award.

I shall try to post the brief and a link to it.  Let's just say that it's quite an interesting read, especially if you read the contingent fee agreement's termination provisions.  

All of this post, to be clear, is based upon statements in PN's brief, and there's obviously a lot more in the brief about who did what and so on, and no doubt J&B will tell a different story.

Oral Argument Recap: Lighting Ballast Control v. Philips

Patent, , , ,

Guest Post by Jonas Anderson, Assistant Professor at American University, Washington College of Law.

This morning, the Federal Circuit sat en banc in the case of Lighting Ballast Control v. Philips.  The case is the latest and most significant challenge to the court’s de novo standard of review in claim construction cases.  In taking the case en banc, the Federal Circuit asked the parties to brief three questions:

  • Should the Federal Circuit overrule Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs. Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (in which the Federal Circuit held that “as a purely legal question, we review claim construction de novo on appeal including any allegedly fact-based questions relating to claim construction.”)?
  • Should the Federal Circuit afford deference to any aspect of a district court’s claim interpretation?
  • If so, which aspects should be afforded deference?

Both parties in this case agree that de novo review is not the appropriate standard of review for all aspects of claim construction.  The parties’ positions differ, however, as to the proper scope of appellate deference: Lighting Ballast argues that the court should completely abandon its practice of de novo review and afford deference to all aspects of claim construction decisions; Universal Lighting Technologies (the appellee), on the other hand, argues that deference is appropriate only in resolving “disputed issues of historical fact.”  The PTO echoes ULT’s stance.  In a recent paper forthcoming in the Northwestern University Law Review co-authored with Professor Peter Menell of Berkeley Law School, we argue that de novo review has already been replaced at the Federal Circuit with a more deferential standard, albeit informally.  We find evidence for out theory in the significant drop in reversal rate that has occurred over the past decade: from a high of 44% of terms in 2004 to 20% reversed in 2011.

Despite both parties arguing that Cybor should be modified to some degree and numerous Federal Circuit judges having expressed that belief in prior cases, the tone of the arguments today was certainly one of skepticism.  The three main topics addressed:

National Uniformity Concerns -  Judge Lourie’s initial question was whether deference would disrupt the national uniformity of patent law that the Federal Circuit was designed to achieve.  ULT admitted that the possibility of non-uniform claim construction decisions would be a negative outcome of overruling Cybor, but FRCP 52(a) is in tension with a pure de novo review of claim construction.  The acting Solicitor of the PTO, Nathan Kelley, closed his argument by addressing the non-uniformity concern.  Kelley argued that any non-uniformity that occurred in light of a lowered deference standard would be a benefit to the public because it would result in reduced patent scope in some parts of the country.  While that is obviously not ideal, Kelley’s point was that the concern should not be an overriding one for the court since any non-uniformity is a benefit, not a burden, to the public. 

Line-drawing Problems between Issues of Fact and Issues of Law – The issue that perhaps most captivated the Judge’s attention was whether a deferential standard was workable.  Judge Moore, perhaps one of the court’s most vocal critics of Cybor, was clearly troubled with the solution offered by ULT and the PTO.  She asked for a precise definition of a “historical fact” no less than three times, and never received an answer that satisfied her.  Because claim construction is ultimately an effort to decipher the meaning that a PHOSITA would ascribe to a claim term, she feared that every claim construction decision (other than when the patentee acts as his own lexicographer) would be considered a question of fact.  Despite the PTO and appellee’s repeated assurances that their preferred level of deference would amount to no more than a “small change” in the law, Judge Moore and others (including Judge Dyk, Lourie, and Reyna) seemed troubled by the potential implications of the change.  Judge Lourie asked whether every case would now involve litigants attempting to frame legal determinations as factual determinations.

The Impact of Stare Decisis – This issue, pursued extensively by Judge Taranto, seemed to take the litigants by surprise.  Judge Taranto repeatedly asked about the court’s ability to revisit a clearly established en banc precedent with no intervening Supreme Court case or other change in the law.  Neither side seemed to have a ready answer to his question.

Judge O’Malley, who was on the original panel decision, played a pivotal role in the argument, attempting to clarify the position of the PTO and ULT.  She interpreted their position as one in which a district court judge’s decision as to the historical meaning of a claim that was based on extrinsic evidence would be given deference, but if that interpretation runs counter to the Federal Circuit’s de novo review of the intrinsic evidence the district court’s decision would not impact the case.  This middle position was clearly not satisfactory to a number of judges.  In light of the skepticism, ULT’s counsel essentially backed away from his position that Cybor should be modified; on rebuttal he suggested that the court may well not want to modify Cybor. 

Ultimately, it will be interesting to see if the court decides to maintain the de novo standard or tries to find a way to disentangle factual issues from legal ones.  As a skeptical Judge Dyk quipped about the latter option, “let’s just experiment and see how difficult it would be.”  I sense that some on the court would like to make those distinctions (Judge O’Malley in particular), but I’m unsure whether enough votes exist to make the change.  I don’t think the court will gravitate to Lighting Ballast’s position of a pure legal error standard.  Characterizing all claim construction decisions as factual seems too radical of a departure to the court. Judge Lourie appeared taken aback when Lighting Ballast’s counsel suggested that the specification should be treated as parole evidence: “That is an extraordinary argument.”  Indeed, switching from de novo review to complete deference to all district court claim construction decisions appears, at this stage, very unlikely.

Ed.: You can listen to the oral argument here.

High Point v. Buyer’s Direct – Tell me more, tell me more (about design patents and § 103)

Patent, , , ,

Guest Post By Sarah Burstein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law

High Point Design LLC v. Buyer’s Direct, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2013) Download High Point v Buyers Direct
Panel:  Schall (author), O’Malley, Wallach

High Point Design LLC (“High Point”) and Buyer’s Direct, Inc. (“BDI”) both manufacture fuzzy slipper-socks. In this case, BDI accused High Point of infringing U.S. Des. Patent No. D598,183 (the “D’183 patent”). In May, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of High Point, concluding that the patented design was invalid as obvious and as functional. It also dismissed BDI’s trade dress claim.

The most interesting parts of this decision deal with the issue of obviousness. In the design patent context, the § 103 analysis has two steps. First, the court must identify a proper primary reference—i.e., a “something in existence” that has “basically the same” appearance as the claimed design. Second, other references can be used (assuming certain conditions are met) to modify the primary reference “to create a design that has the same overall visual appearance of the claimed design.”

In High Point, the district court identified two Woolrich slippers, the “Penta” and the “Laurel Hill,” as primary references. In particular, the district court found that the Penta slipper “looks indistinguishable” from the claimed design and that the Laurel Hill slipper had some “insubstantial” differences but “nonetheless has the precise look that an ordinary observer would think of as a physical embodiment” of the claimed design. The district court did not, however, include any images of these designs. For your reference, however, here is a chart comparing the Penta slipper to some of the drawings from the D’183 patent: 

High Point

On appeal, the Federal Circuit decided that the district court erred in its primary reference analysis in a number of ways. According to the Federal Circuit, the district court “erred by failing to translate the design . . . into a verbal description.” On this point, the court relied on its 1996 decision in Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., Inc. In Durling, the court divided the first step of the § 103 analysis (i.e., the determination of whether there is a proper primary reference) into two parts, instructing district courts to: “(1) discern the correct visual impression created by the patented design as a whole; and (2) determine whether there is a single reference that creates ‘basically the same’ visual impression.” According to the Federal Circuit, the district court’s analysis in High Point failed to satisfy both of these requirements.

As to the “first part of the first step”—i.e., “discern[ing] the correct visual impression”—the Federal Circuit noted that, under Durling, “the trial court must first translate [the design patent’s] visual descriptions into words,” so that “the parties and appellate courts can discern the internal reasoning employed by the trial court to reach its decision as to whether or not a prior art design is basically the same as the claimed design.”[1] The Federal Circuit found the district court’s description of the D’183 patent to be insufficient because it described the claimed design at “too high a level of abstraction.” So it reversed and remanded on the issue of obviousness, instructing the district court to “add sufficient detail to its verbal description of the claimed design to evoke a visual image consonant with that design.” The Federal Circuit did not, however, explain how much detail would be “sufficient” to meet this evocation standard.

This part of the opinion may seem strange in light of the 2008 en banc decision in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., in which the Federal Circuit cautioned district courts against “attempt[ing] to ‘construe’ a design patent claim by providing a detailed verbal description of the claimed design.” In Egyptian Goddess, the Federal Circuit did attempt to distinguish Durling, stating in a footnote that “[r]equiring such an explanation of a legal ruling as to invalidity is quite different from requiring an elaborate verbal claim construction to guide the finder of fact in conducting the infringement inquiry.” Whether that distinction is persuasive is an issue for another day.

As to the second part—i.e., determining whether there is a reference with “basically the same” impression—the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court failed to adequately explain its reasoning. It stated that, on remand, “the district court should do a side-by-side comparison of the [potential primary reference and the claimed design] to determine if they create the same visual impression.”

The Federal Circuit identified a number of other errors in the district court’s § 103 analysis, including its use of an “ordinary observer” standard. The Federal Circuit reiterated that “the obviousness of a design patent must . . . be assessed from the viewpoint of an ordinary designer,” notwithstanding some unfortunate dicta (my characterization, not the court’s) in the 2009 case of Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.

However, despite all of its criticisms of the district court’s analysis, the Federal Circuit did not say that the district court’s conclusion was wrong. Indeed, the Federal Circuit expressly refused to take a position on the ultimate issue of whether the D’183 patent was obvious. And the Federal Circuit did not say that the Penta or the Laurel Hill slippers could not qualify as primary references. So it will be very interesting to see what happens on remand.

A Random Thought on IPR, BRC, and Life

Ethics

In preparing for class, I was reading through the old case about product-by-process claims, which recognizes that under the broadest reasonable construction standard, a claim is unpatentable if the product is old, but it's valid, after issuance, if just the product is old.  In other words, the limitations are ignored during prosecution because the claims are viewed as product claims.  Atlantic Thermoplastics, 970 F.2d 834 (Fed. CIr. 1992).

Okay, so… this just makes my head spin.  Suppose a patent issues, covering "a shoe made by the process of A and B."  To invalidate the claim, an accused infringer would have to show the prior art had a shoe made by the process of A and B, but in IPR, he merely has to show the shoe in the prior art.

I don't even know how to make sense of that result.  Assume no stay, you end up with an unpatentable valid patent…. sort of ….

 

Trading Technologies v. Open E Cry: Doctrinal Formalism in Patent Law

Patent,

By Jason Rantanen

Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. Open E Cry, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2013) Download Trading Tech v Open E Cry
Panel: Lourie (author), Plager, Benson (District Judge)

The traditional – and certainly most widely held – view in patent law is to view its issues as formally distinct doctrines; crystalline pillars supporting the temple.  This view emphasizes the formal distinction between patent law doctrines and rejects attempts to cross between them.  Each doctrine is an independent whole.  Trading Technologies v. Open E Cry exemplifies this view.  (It's worth noting that this opinion notwithstanding, some of the most successful patent litigators that I've met have succeeded by rejecting the formality of doctrines and building their litigation strategy around the intersticial spaces between the doctines.)

Trading Technology ("TT") owns a series of related patents generally pertaining to software for electronic trading on a commodities exchange.  The four patents at issue in this appeal claim priority based on an application that ultimately issued as Patent No. 6,772,132.  In an earlier appeal, Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the Federal Circuit considered the correct construction of claims of the '132 patent that required a graphical user interface having a "static" display of market price information.  In eSpeed, the Federal Circuit held that "static," as used in the claims of the ’132 patents, "required a price column that moves only in response to a manual re-centering command."  In reaching this result, eSpeed concluded (among other things) that:

“[t]he inventors’ own specification strongly suggests that the claimed re-centering feature is manual” because the written description “only discusse[d] manual re-centering commands” and referred to “the present invention” as including a manual one-click re-centering feature.

While the earlier litigation was pending, TT filed the applications that matured into the patents involved in this suit. In those applications, TT introduced new claims that lacked the term "static" in any form.  As a result, three of the new patents had identical written descriptions to the '132 patent but claims that differed in one key way: they did not include "static" limitations.  (In the fourth patent TT pursued the strategy of filing a continuation-in-part; the result was that TT was able to add new disclosures). 

TT filed multiple actions based on this second round of patents. The district court consolidated the actions and subsequently grand summary judgment of invalidity of the four  new patents based on lack of adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).  The district court based its ruling on the earlier eSpeed opinion, concluding that eSpeed required holding the claims invalid for lack of written description. The Federal Circuit summarized the district court's action as follows:

According to the district court, eSpeed’s construction of “static” in the ’132 and ’304 patents turned “on the premise that the invention described in the specification was limited to static price axes that move only with manual re-centering.” Id. at 1045. Because the ’411 patent’s claims lacked that term and therefore appeared to cover displays with automatic re-centering, the district court concluded that any decision upholding those broader claims as supported by the same written description “would be at odds with the Federal Circuit’s binding findings in the eSpeed Decision.” Id. In granting the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the district court expressly declined to evaluate the parties’ evidence or make its own findings on the merits because the court determined “as a matter of law that the eSpeed Decision controls.”

Slip Op. at 12.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected this reasoning, reversing the grant of summary judgment and remanding for further proceedings.  The court based its conclusion on the formal distinction between the doctrines of claim construction and written description, a distinction that it explained in detail:

Despite their similarities, however, claim construction and the written description requirement are separate issues that serve distinct purposes.

In construing claims, a court seeks to discern the meaning of a particular term used in one or more claims of a patent, based, inter alia, on evidence drawn from the specification, the surrounding claim language, the prosecution history, and relevant extrinsic sources….While guided by the specification, the focus of claim construction remains on defining a discrete claim term to better ascertain the boundaries of a claim. In contrast, the written description analysis considers the bounds of the specification itself. The written description requirement prevents patentees from claiming more than they have actually invented and disclosed to the public, as measured by the written description of the invention provided with their patent applications.

This case illustrates the distinction. In eSpeed, we were called upon to evaluate the proper construction of “static,” a term used in the claims of the ’132 and ’304 patents. Accordingly, we considered the evidence relevant to a proper reading of that term, starting with those patents’ common written description. eSpeed, 595 F.3d at 1353–55. Noting that the patents referred to one-click centering as part of the invention and did not discuss automatic re-centering, we concluded that the specification “strongly suggests” that a “static” price column would require manual re-centering. Id. at 1353–54. And even though the patents described price columns that “do not normally change positions unless a re-centering command is received,” ’132 patent col. 7 ll. 46–48 (emphasis added), we concluded that “the inventors jettisoned the word ‘normally’ during prosecution” by limiting the term “static” in response to an indefiniteness rejection, eSpeed, 595 F.3d at 1354. In sum, we concluded that the disputed claim term should be limited to require a manual re- centering command in the claims of the ’132 and ’304 patents.

But our decision in eSpeed did not thereby determine whether the same written description would also support different claims drawn to a non-“static” display. In particular, we did not make “findings regarding the specification . . . that are dispositive” as to the present written description challenge. See Summary Judgment Order, 852 F. Supp. 2d at 1044. On the contrary, we merely determined the best construction for a single disputed claim term, a term that is absent from the claims of the ’411, ’768, and ’374 patents now before us. That analysis did not require us to pass on the outer limits of the pa- tents’ written description, nor did we endeavor to do so. In fact, our prior examination of that written description did not even settle the limited claim construction issue then facing the court, see eSpeed, 595 F.3d at 1353–54 (concluding that the specification “strongly suggests” that the claimed re-centering feature is manual), much less conclusively find that the same written description could never support any claim to a display with a non-“static” price axis.

Slip Op. at 17-18.

Prosecution History Estoppel: The court also reversed grant of summary judgment of prosecution history estoppel, concluding that statements made in connection with the earlier '132 patent did not extend through to the subsequent patents in the same lineage in this case.  "Prosecution history estoppel can extend from a parent application to subsequent patents in the same lineage, Elkay, 192 F.3d at 981, as can a prosecution disclaimer, Omega Eng’g, 334 F.3d at 1333–34. But “arguments made in a related application do not automatically apply to different claims in a separate application.” Biogen, Inc. v. Berlex Labs., Inc., 318 F.3d 1132, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2003)….In this case, the intrinsic record specific to the ’055 patent distinguishes eSpeed and compels a different result." Slip Op. at 24.

Disclosure: Several years ago, Dennis represented Trading Technologies in a previous case at the District Court level. That said, we haven't talked about the substance of these cases.

Judge Rader’s Obviousness Tutorial: Including the Conclusion that Older Prior Art is Less Credible and a Restatement that Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness Play a Critical Role

Obviousness, Patent, , , , , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Ltd. v. Rea, 2013 WL 4054937 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

In a pre-AIA filing, Galderma challenged Leo’s U.S. Patent No. 6,753,013 in an inter partes reexamination before the USPTO’s now renamed Board of Patent Appeals. The patent claims a “storage stable and non-aqueous” pharmaceutical composition used to treat skin conditions such as psoriasis. Prior to the invention, it was well known that a combination of Vitamin-D along with a corticosteroid could form the basis of an effective treatment. However, no one had been able to manufacture a storage stable form of the combination. This was especially challenging because the stable forms of the active ingredients prefer different pH levels. To achieve the storage stable results, Leo added a solvent to the mixture. The claim identifies the solvent in a markush group that likely includes thousands of potential compounds. During the reexamination, Leo also added the particular limitation that “said pharmaceutical composition is storage stable and non-aqueous.”

In reviewing the case, the Board first construed these new terms “storage stable” and “non-aqueous” and then found the patent invalid as obvious over the prior art. On appeal, the Federal Circuit has reversed.

Claim Construction: The Federal Circuit continues, for the time being, to give no deference to PTO claim construction decisions. Here, the term “storage stable” was difficult to construe because it was never used during prosecution of the original patent application and only added during reexamination. However, the patent does discuss the composition’s “ability to resist degradation” according to test results presented in the specification and the PTO accepted that definition as proper. Noting that one of ordinary skill “would have reasonably looked to the described stability test as defining what was meant by ‘storage stable.'” On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected that definition as impermissibly narrow and that instead allowed a broader definition. Although not elucidated by the opinion, the patentee is walking a fine line with this amendment between (1) having a sufficiently broad patent and (2) improperly adding new matter to the claims in violation of the written description requirement.

Obviousness: This decision may become a somewhat important obviousness case for patentees. The Board found the patent claims obvious in light of a combination of three prior art references. The Board basically found that it would have been obvious for someone of skill in the art to take the prior art combination of Vitamin-D and corticosteroids and add in the claimed solvent in order to achieve storage stability.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit faulted the Board for failing to give credence to the patentee’s identification of the problem (that a stable form should be designed). The prior art did not particularly recognize the problem but rather “either discouraged combining vitamin D analogs and corticosteroids … or attempted the combination without recognizing or solving the storage stability problems.” Leo also presented evidence that, at the time of the invention, researchers were being “warned that vitamin D should not be combined with other drugs requiring a low pH ( e.g., corticosteroids).”

[T]he record shows no reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to attempt to improve upon either Dikstein or Serup using Turi. The ordinary artisan would first have needed to recognize the problem, i.e., that the formulations disclosed in Dikstein and Serup were not storage stable. To discover this problem, the ordinary artisan would have needed to spend several months running storage stability tests Only after recognizing the existence of the problem would an artisan then turn to the prior art and attempt to develop a new formulation for storage stability. If these discoveries and advances were routine and relatively easy, the record would undoubtedly have shown that some ordinary artisan would have achieved this invention within months of Dikstein or Serup. Instead this invention does not appear for more than a decade.

Now, the Federal Circuit’s language here obviously includes some amount of doublespeak or could perhaps be described as slicing the bologna awfully thin since according to the court, researchers (1) recognized that vitamin D could not be stably combined with low pH drugs such as corticosteroids but (2) did not recognize that vitamin-D could not be stably combined with corticosteroids.

Old Prior Art: In the discussion, Judge Rader uses an interesting between-the-lines or perhaps behind-the-scenes analysis of the prior art:

First, the Board found motivation to combine Dikstein or Serup with Turi because one of ordinary skill would have used vitamin D to solve the well-known side effects of steroid treatment. However, combining Turi and vitamin D to address the side effects of a steroid treatment is only straightforward in hindsight. Turi was publicly available in the prior art for twenty-two years before the ′013 patent was filed, yet there is no evidence that anyone sought to improve Turi with vitamin D. According to the record, even when Serup published the well-known side effects of steroid-induced atrophy in 1994, no one—including Serup—sought to improve Turi by adding vitamin D to Turi’s corticosteroid composition. Serup even targeted the precise side effects that the Board believed would have motivated the addition of a vitamin D analog to Turi’s corticosteroid composition, yet Serup did not seek to improve Turi by adding vitamin D. . . .

The elapsed time between the prior art and the ′013 patent’s filing date evinces that the ′013 patent’s claimed invention was not obvious to try. Indeed this considerable time lapse suggests instead that the Board only traverses the obstacles to this inventive enterprise with a resort to hindsight. It took over a decade—after Dikstein’s disclosure of the benefits of combining vitamin D and corticosteroid treatments into one formulation—for Dikstein’s formulations to be tested for storage stability. And, until the advancement made by the inventors of the ′013 patent, no one had proposed a new formulation that would be storage stable. The problem was not known, the possible approaches to solving the problem were not known or finite, and the solution was not predictable. Therefore, the claimed invention would not have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art. Indeed ordinary artisans would not have thought to try at all because they would not have recognized the problem.

Under Judge Rader’s point of view here, older prior art should be seen as less credible in the obviousness analysis. The logic obvious improvements would have happened quickly and the long time span between improvements suggest that the improvement was not an obvious one. This logic is bolstered in cases such as this where research is ongoing in the area and a market has already developed.

Although the patentee claimed a wide variety of solvents, the Federal Circuit also found that there were many more potential solvents available to try and the PTO did not offer specific reasons why the ones selected would have been particularly obvious to try.

In addition, the Board found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of selecting the correct formulation from available alternatives. Specifically, the Board found more than eight different classes of additives ( e.g., diluents, buffers, thickeners, lubricants). The Board also found more than ten different categories of composition forms ( e.g., liniments, lotions, applicants, oil-in-water or water-in-oil emulsions such as creams, ointments, pastes, or gels). “Based on these broad and general disclosures,” the Board reasoned that an artisan would have been able to “mak[e] choices about what ingredients to include, and which to exclude” in formulating a composition with a vitamin D analog and steroid. To the contrary, the breadth of these choices and the numerous combinations indicate that these disclosures would not have rendered the claimed invention obvious to try. See Rolls–Royce PLC v. United Techs. Corp., 603 F.3d 1325, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2010) (claimed invention was not obvious to try because the prior art disclosed a “broad selection of choices for further investigation”). . . . .

This court and obviousness law in general recognizes an important distinction between combining known options into “a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,” KSR, and ” ‘merely throwing metaphorical darts at a board’ in hopes of arriving at a successful result,” Cyclobenzaprine, quoting Kubin. While the record shows that, as early as 1995, the prior art indicated that both vitamin D analogs and corticosteroids were effective treatments for psoriasis, that same prior art gave no direction as to which of the many possible combination choices were likely to be successful. Instead, the prior art consistently taught away from combining vitamin D analogs and corticosteroids.

One important feature of PTO decision making is that Board conclusions of fact only require substantial evidence to be affirmed on appeal. Here, the Federal Circuit avoided that issue by indicating that all of its decisions were based upon the Board failure to properly apply the law to those facts. “In this case, however, with no material factual disputes, this court cannot share the Board’s analysis and application of the law to those facts.”

Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness: Judge Rader writes:

The court now turns to the Board’s analysis of the objective indicia of nonobviousness. The Board reasoned that “the strong case of obviousness outweighs the experimental evidence and testimony about the advantages of the claimed composition.” Contrary to the Board’s conclusion, this court finds the objective indicia, in concert with the entire obviousness analysis, present a compelling case of nonobviousness. In fact, the objective indicia of nonobviousness highlight that the Board’s analysis regarding the combination of Serup or Dikstein with Turi was colored by hindsight.

Whether before the Board or a court, this court has emphasized that consideration of the objective indicia is part of the whole obviousness analysis, not just an afterthought. … When an applicant appeals an examiner’s objection to the patentability of an application’s claims for obviousness, the PTO necessarily has the burden to establish a prima facie case of obviousness which the applicant then rebuts. However, during inter partes reexamination, the Board is reviewing evidence of obviousness—including objective indicia—submitted by two adversarial parties for the claims of an issued patent. Thus, the Board should give the objective indicia its proper weight and place in the obviousness analysis, and not treat objective indicia of nonobviousness as an afterthought.

Objective indicia of nonobviousness play a critical role in the obviousness analysis. They are “not just a cumulative or confirmatory part of the obviousness calculus but constitute[ ] independent evidence of nonobviousness.” Ortho–McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2008). This case illustrates a good reason for considering objective indicia as a critical piece of the obviousness analysis: Objective indicia “can be the most probative evidence of nonobviousness in the record, and enables the court to avert the trap of hindsight.” Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1310 (Fed.Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the objective indicia of nonobviousness are crucial in avoiding the trap of hindsight when reviewing, what otherwise seems like, a combination of known elements.

Unexpected results are useful to show the “improved properties provided by the claimed compositions are much greater than would have been predicted.” See In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 751 (Fed.Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). This record shows “extensive experimental evidence” of unexpected results that contradict the Board’s obviousness finding. J.A. 14. The Board concluded that the “unexpected results” claimed by Leo Pharmaceuticals were not surprising or unexpected. J.A. 19. However, substantial evidence does not support the Board’s conclusion.

During reexamination, the inventors of the ′013 patent submitted test results that analyzed the Dikstein and Serup formulations. The inventors found that the formulations disclosed by Dikstein and Serup result in significant degradation of the vitamin D analog and corticosteroid. See J.A. 1041–46 (testing formulations in Serup); J.A. 1625–27, 2152–2154 (testing formulations in Dikstein). The inventors also tested an improvement of Serup using Turi, by replacing Serup’s solvent with POP–15–SE, and still found significant degradation of the corticosteroid component. See J.A. 1045–46. These test results are a strong indication that the ′013 patent’s combination of known elements yields more than just predictable results.

In addition to evidence of unexpected results, Leo Pharmaceuticals provided other objective indicia of non-obviousness. For example, the commercial success of Leo Pharmaceutical’s Taclonex® ointment is a testament to the improved properties of the ′013 patent’s claimed invention. Taclonex® is the first FDA-approved drug to combine vitamin D and corticosteroids into a single formulation for topical application. While FDA approval is not determinative of nonobviousness, it can be relevant in evaluating the objective indicia of nonobviousness. See Knoll Pharm. Co., Inc. v. Teva. Pharm. USA, Inc., 367 F.3d 1381, 1385 (Fed.Cir.2004). Here, FDA approval highlights that Leo Pharmaceutical’s formulation is truly storage stable, something that the prior art formulations did not achieve.

The record also shows evidence of long felt but unsolved need, i.e., the need for a single formulation to treat psoriasis. The length of the intervening time between the publication dates of the prior art and the claimed invention can also qualify as an objective indicator of nonobviousness. See Ecolochem, Inc. v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361, 1376–77 (Fed.Cir.2000). Here, the researchers were aware of the benefits of using both vitamin D and corticosteroids in the treatment of psoriasis as early as 1986. See, e.g., Dikstein col. 1, ll. 9–16. And Turi, upon which the Board relied to make its case, issued in 1978. Yet, it was not until the ′013 patent’s filing in 2000— twenty-two years after Turi and fourteen years after Dikstein-that the solution to the long felt but unsolved need for a combined treatment of vitamin D and corticosteroid was created. The intervening time between the prior art’s teaching of the components and the eventual preparation of a successful composition speaks volumes to the nonobviousness of the ′013 patent.

Here, the objective indicia—taken in sum—are the most “probative evidence of nonobviousness … enabl[ing] the court to avert the trap of hindsight.” Crocs, Inc., 598 F.3d at 1310. Viewed through the lens of the objective indicia, as opposed to the hindsight lens used by the Board, the ′013 patent would not have been not obvious over Turi in combination with Dikstein or Serup. Therefore, this court reverses the Board’s obviousness determination.

SkinMedica v. Histogen

Patent, , ,

By Jason Rantanen

SkinMedica Inc. v. Histogen Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013) Download SkinMedica v Histogen
Panel: Rader (dissenting), Clevenger, Prost (author)

SkinMedica owns Patents No. 6,372,494 and 7,118,746, which relate to methods for producing pharmaceutical compositions containing "novel conditioned cell culture medium compositions,…[and] uses for the[m]."  A conditioned cell culture medium is an artificial environment that supplies the components necessary to meet the nutritional needs of the growing cells.  The conditioned medium at issue here also included extracellular proteins that, according to the patentees, may be useful for treating skin conditions such as wrinkles, frown lines, etc. 

The written descriptions of the '494 and '746 patents explain that a novel and important aspect of their invention is the difference between growing cells in two-dimensions and growing cells in three-dimensions. 

Claim 1 of the '494 patent:

1. A method of making a composition comprising:

(a) culturing fibroblast cells in three-dimensions in a cell culture medium sufficient to meet the nutritional needs required to grow the cells in vitro until the cell culture medium contains a desired level of extracellular products so that a conditioned medium is formed;

(b) removing the conditioned medium from the cultured cells; and

(c) combining the conditioned medium with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier to form the composition.

(emphasis added by court).  At issue was the phrase "culturing…cells in three-dimensions."  The district court construed this phrase to mean "growing…cells in three dimensions (excluding growing in monolayers or on microcarrier beads."  Following claim construction, the district courted summary judgment of noninfringement for Histogen as it was undisputed that Histogen grew its cells on microcarrier beads. 

Limits on Ordinary Meaning: On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's claim construction. The court first agreed with SkinMedica that "the ordinary meaning of “culturing . . . cells in three-dimensions” would reach the use of beads."  However,

If the specification reveals “a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs.”…. And if the specification reveals “an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor,” the scope of the claim, “as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive.”
Slip Op. at 13 (citations omitted).  An  high hurdle applies when dealing with implied rather than express redefinition, as an "implied redefinition must be so clear that it equates to an explicit one."  Id. at 29, quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer, 669 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  Here, according to the majority, the inventors did precisely that for "culturing…cells in three dimenations":

In the written description, the patentees plainly and repeatedly distinguished culturing with beads from culturing in three-dimensions. They expressly defined the use of beads as culturing in two-dimensions. And they avoided anticipatory prior art during prosecution by asserting that the conditioned medium produced by two-dimensional cultures was inferior and chemically distinct from the conditioned medium produced by three-dimensional cultures. Because none of the evidence called to our attention by SkinMedica would reasonably lead to a different reading of the intrinsic evidence, we find that the inventors clearly redefined the scope of “culturing . . . cells in three dimensions” by disclaiming the use of beads—which would otherwise be included in the ordi- nary meaning of that phrase.

Id. at 15.  In support of this conclusion, the majority opinion walks through a lengthy discussion of the text of the specification and prosecution history, addressing language such as "beads, as opposed to cells grown in three dimensions and the use of "i.e."  The result was a disavowal of beads from the scope of the claim term at issue:

"In sum, although the inventors never explicitly redefined three-dimensional cultures to exclude the use of beads, their implicit disclaimer of culturing with beads here was even “so clear that it equates to an explicit one. Without fail, each time the inventors referenced culturing with beads in the specification, they unambiguously distinguished that culture method from culturing in three-dimensions."

Id. at 27. 

Incorporation by Reference: One of SkinMedica's counter arguments was that the written description incorporated a voluminous technical treatise, Cell & Tissue Culture: Laboratory Procedures ("Doyle") in its entirety and that Doyle describes three-dimensional culturing with beads.  Among the majority's bases for rejecting SkinMedica's argument was the lack of any specific reference to Doyle:

Third, even if we assume that the passage from Doyle discusses what one of ordinary skill in the art might understand to be three-dimensional culturing with beads, the inventors’ general citation of Doyle does not indicate any reliance on that particular passage to define “culturing in three-dimensions” and to abandon the otherwise clear disclaimer of beads in the specification. When discussing cell culture methods, the patentees make the following reference to Doyle:

The cells may be cultured in any manner known in the art including in monolayer, beads or in three-dimensions and by any means . . . . Methods of cell and tissue culturing are well known in the art, and are described, for example, in [Doyle], supra; Freshney (1987), Culture of Animal Cells: A Manual of Basic Techniques, infra.

’494 patent col. 10 ll. 2–6.

It is clear from that passage that the inventors did not refer to Doyle in order to define what they meant by “three-dimensional culturing” in their patent. They did not indicate their reference to Doyle was for that purpose; nor did they even refer with any detailed particularity to the passages in Doyle that, according to SkinMedica, may have discussed three-dimensional culturing with beads. When the inventors wanted to use Doyle to explain the potential scope of terms they used, they did so specifically….We see no reason for such a non-specific reference to trump the clear disclaimer in the specification of culturing with beads.

Slip Op. at 35-36. 

Judge Rader's Dissent: Writing in dissent, Judge Rader disagreed that the patentee had met the "heavy presumption" in favor of the ordinary meaning of claim language.  Central to Judge Rader's opinion was the distinction between growing cells "on beads" and growing cells in three-dimensions using beads.  

Deference battle? Judge Rader's dissent also relied on testimony by SkinMedica's technical expert, Dr. Salomon.  The majority agreed with district court's decision to give Dr. Salomon's testimony "no weight"; in Judge Rader's eyes, "Dr. Salomon's testimony, when viewed as a whole, deserves great weight and respect."  Slip Op. at 47. 

Some Random Thoughts on Good Appellate Practice at the CAFC

Ethics

I read a lot of briefs this last year while clerking at the CAFC, and developed some pretty unexpected opinions and some that confirmed "conventional wisdom."

First, the quality of briefing, even in signficant cases, is too often abysmal.  I too often saw some bad writing, bad reasoning, bad judgment, and bad research.  Fundamental issues were often overlooked. Smaller points:  don't load up your questions presented ("did the distict court err by ignoring the overwhelming evidence of deceit and foulness that was undisputed including sworn testimony by the Pope…").  Get the standard of review right, and focus on it in your argument.  The court does not decide everything de novo, and that principle does often matter.  The fact that a judge thinks the jury was "wrong" does not matter if the question is substantial evidence, for example.  Cast your arguments in terms of the standard of review!

Second, a lot of people say you should "never" use trial as appellate counsel. I would never say never, but I would say that even if it makes sense to use trial counsel on appeal (economically, or for whatever reason), have someone else with appellate experience read the briefs and moot the lawyers.  The CAFC is not a jury, and sometimes skill sets that do great at trial don't fare so well on appeal.

Third, do not — do not, do not, do not — raise more than you absolutely need to on appeal.  If you are raising more than three or four broad errors, you better have a very good reason to do so.  Why?  First, you don't have space.  Second, think about the message you are sending: the district court got nothing right.  Third, chances are some of those arguments are weak. They will weigh down the better arguments.  They give the other side easy targets.  Don't hand the other side a hammer.

Fourth, at oral argument, cut to the chase.  Don't start with a bunch of hot air.  Don't spend time to castigate opposing counsel or the district court. Explain, dispassionately but effectively, what was wrong and how it warrants appellate relief.  And, know the record.  Moot the argument before hand with people who have read, only, the briefs and appellate record — not those who tried the case. Also, if you sense the panel is done with your argument, especially as appellee, ask if they have any other questions and if not, sit down, shut up, and think about having a nice coffee afterward. You do not need to talk until the red light goes on.  Oh, and when the red light goes on, stop or ask permission to finish your remark. If the red light goes on and the court says "do you have any final words" say two sentences, not twenty.

Fifth, if you won below, think VERY carefully about cross-appeals. You may not be able to raise as an alternate grounds to affirm invalidity, for example, if you won non-infringment.  Think carefully about claim construction.  Again, you probably need an appellate person to help you out, not just trial people, and, more particularly, someone familiar with CAFC appeals.

Sixth, be respectful in the briefs.  I know how hard this is; I was a lawyer for a long time (well, I still am but I was ONLY a lawyer for a long time).  Things get heated.  Judges sometimes seem to favor the other side.  Money gets wasted and clients are unhappy with that. Usually no one wants to be in litigation.  But it does not help your cause to let heat obscure the light. Be respectful.

For what that's worth.

USPTO: Software Composition Inventions are Unpatentable under §101 unless they Clearly Disavow that the Storage Mechanism is a Transitory Wave or Signal

Patent,

By Dennis Crouch

Ex parte Mewherter (PTAB 2013)

The USPTO has recently designated Ex parte Mewherter as a precedential decision with regards to its treatment of rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The opinion basically holds that standard Beauregard claims (computer readable storage media) are not patent eligible because they could encompass transitory signals that are unpatentable under the Federal Circuit’s Nuijten decision.

IBM’s Patent Application Serial No. 10/685,192 is directed to a “system for converting slide show presentations” that converts each slide into “raster imagery” and then extracts contextual data (such as titles) and places those “in proximity to the raster imagery.” The claim at issue here is claim 16, that is written as follows:

16. A machine readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program for converting a slide show presentation for use with a non-presentation application, the computer program comprising a routine of set instructions for causing the machine to perform the steps of:

Extracting a slide title for a first slide in a slide show presentation produced by a slide show presentation application executing in memory of a computer;

Converting said first slide with said slide title into a raster image;

Disposing both said slide title and said raster image of said slide in a markup language document; and

Repeating said extracting, converting and disposing steps for a selected group of other slides in the slide show presentation.

The examiner rejected the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming non-statutory subject matter. In particular, the examiner indicated that the instructions could be imbedded in a signal or wave and are therefore unpatentable under In re Nuijten (Fed. Cir. 2007). In its appeal to the PTAB, IBM argued that its claimed “machine readable storage medium” is sufficiently fixed to avoid the transitory concerns expressed by the Federal Circuit in Nuijten. In the appeal, however, the PTAB affirmed the examiner’s rejection – finding that under the “broadest reasonable interpretation” a “machine readable storage medium” continues to encompass unpatentable transitory signals. Here, the specification does not particularly define the claim term and IBM did not offer any promise that the claim is limited to non-transitory signals.

In its 2012 examination training, the USPTO offered parallel guidance:

When the specification is silent (no special definition of a CRM provided in original disclosure):

– It is acceptable to amend the claims to exclude the signal embodiment by adding “non-transitory” to modify the computer readable media.

– See “Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media” (Jan. ’10)

“Non-transitory” is not a requirement, but simply one option.

– Applicant can choose other ways to amend the claim in accordance with the original disclosure.

– Not acceptable to just add “physical” or “tangible”

– Nuijten’s ineligible signals were physical and tangible.

– Not acceptable to add “storage” absent support in original disclosure because the broadest reasonable interpretation of computer readable storage media based on common usage covers signals/carrier waves.

The bottom line here is that patent applicants must now specifically disclaim transitory waves or signals as their compositional carrier of any software claims.

Working out the Kinks in Post-Issuance Reviews: Versata v. SAP

Patent, , , , , , , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

The Versata saga provides an important case history showing the power of the new post-grant review procedures before the USPTO and the Office’s seeming new power to operate without fear of judicial review. However, over the next year the Federal Circuit will have its opportunity to review the PTAB’s controversial decisions.

= = = = =

Versata’s hierarchical pricing engine software had strong sales in the mid 1990’s, that ended when SAP and others added the component to their product line – an extra add-on was no longer needed. SAP indicated that its software replaced the need for Versata’s add-on and actively discouraged customers from using Versata.

Versata’s In-Court Victories: Versata eventually sued SAP in 2007 and won a first jury verdict and then a second jury verdict (finding that SAP’s “patch” did not cure the infringement) with a $300 million + damage award. That final decision was later affirmed on appeal.

Petition for Post-Grant Review of Covered Business Method: Meanwhile, following the district court’s second finding of infringement (but prior conclusion of the aforementioned appeal), SAP filed a petition for Post Grant Review available to “Covered Business Methods” as part of the America Invents Act. SAP had clearly been anxious to use this approach and filed the PGR petition at its first opportunity on September 16, 2012 (the first day such petitions were allowed). CBM2012-0001.

If you remember, post-grant review (including CBM review) allows for challenge on “any ground that could be raised under paragraph (2) or (3) of section 282 (b) (relating to invalidity of the patent or any claim).” This has been interpreted by the PTO to include validity challenges raised under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 102, 103, or 112. But see Can a Third Party Challenge Section 101 Subject Matter Eligibility in the USPTO’s new Post-Grant Review Procedure?

SAP’s petition challenged the patent claims as (1) directed toward unpatentable subject matter under §101; (2) lacking written description; (3) indefinite; and anticipated.

USPTO Grants Petition for Post Grant Review: In a January 2013 order, the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) granted the petition after finding that the challenged claims are “more likely than not unpatentable.” In particular, the PTAB allowed the challenge to move forward on the Section 101 and 102 grounds.

The PTAB made two additional important rulings:

What is a Covered Business Method?: First, the Board ruled that the ‘350 patent claims qualified as covered-business-methods because the claims are directed to a method for the “management of a financial product or service” and are not “technological inventions.” The PTO’s working definition of “technological” is rather unhelpful in that it simply asks whether the claim recites a new “technological feature” or “solves a technical problem using a technical solution.” Relevant claims of the patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350) are shown below (claims 17 and 26). And, you will note that the method claim 17 does not recite any steps that could not be done with pencil and paper.

Issue Preclusion / Collateral Estoppel Does Not Apply: The ordinary rule in federal courts is that preclusion applies following final judgment by a district court. The fact that an appeal is pending does not impact the finality of the district court judgment unless & until the appellate court takes some action. In Pharmacia, the Federal Circuit wrote that the “vast weight of case law” supports the notion that a judgment should be given its full preclusive effect even when an appeal is pending. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm., 170 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, Versata argued that the PTO should follow that general rule and since SAP already had a full and fair opportunity to challenge the patent validity and had lost its federal lawsuit resulting in final judgment. The PTAB rejected Versata’s argument finding instead that it would would not respect any final judgment subject to a pending appeal to the Federal Circuit.

As the final judgment in the related Versata v. SAP litigation is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit, we hold that the district court’s judgment is not sufficiently firm to be accorded conclusive effect for purposes of 37 C.F.R. 42.302 as it is still subject to reversal or amendment.

On this issue, it is interesting to note that the appeal brief filed by SAP did not challenge district court’s validity finding. Thus, although the district court decision in general could have been rejected on appeal (it wasn’t), there was simple no chance even in January 2013 that the appellate panel was going to opine on patent validity issues.

At this point, in January 2013, the PTAB was beginning its review of the ‘350 patent’s validity and, in parallel the Federal Circuit was considering SAP’s appeal that focused on noninfringement and remedy arguments.

No Challenge to PTO Decision to Grant Post-Issuance Review Petition: Versata also opened a third-front – filing suit in Virginia district court to overturn the PTO’s decision to grant the post-issuance review petition. In a recent decision, the Virginia court rejected that request in Versata Development v. Rea (as Director of USPTO) and SAP AG, 2013 WL 4014649 (E.D. Va. 2013) (no subject matter jurisdiction). The AIA indicates that the PTO’s determination of whether or not to institute post-grant proceedings are “final and nonappealable.” 35 U.S.C. 324. Versata argued that “nonappealable” in the statute should be seen as merely limiting direct appeals to the Federal Circuit and that its request for review was akin to a “civil action” under 35 U.S.C. 145 and not an “appeal.” Bolstering that argument is the language of 35 U.S.C. 329 and 141 that define appeal in post-issuance proceedings as appeals to the Federal Circuit. However, the district court rejected Versata’s argument and held that the court lacked jurisdiction under the statute and that, in any case, the decision to grant the review was only an interlocutory decision. It is unclear, but Versata may appeal this decision soon. [As an aside, the language of the district court opinion suggests that petition is denied

Federal Circuit Decision (Largely) Affirms Lower Court: The next event in this long saga came in May 2013 when the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination of infringement and the damages award. The only modification of the judgment was to ask the lower court to be more particular in injoining infringement without injoining sales of SAP products in general.

PTAB Final Judgment: The following month in June 2013, the PTAB came out with its final ruling holding that the patent claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101 as unpatentably abstract. This decision obviously temporally follows both the district court decision and that of the Federal Circuit. Yet, the PTAB found itself to differ on both claim construction and validity.

In particular, the PTAB determined that it would apply the “broadest reasonable interpretation” (BRI) standard to claim construction during post-issuance proceedings even though the terms had already been construed by the district court in a final judgment. The PTO’s rational is that (1) it is not bound by the district court judgment since “appeals from this proceeding are exclusively the Federal Circuit rather than to district courts” and that (2) the patentee’s ability to amend claims during review suggests that BRI should apply.

In the 101 analysis, the panel found that the claimed method of determining a price using product group hierarchies was a “disembodied concept” capable of being performed mentally, on paper, or on a general purpose computer. The PTO final judgment did not substantially revisit the issues of preclusion or whether the PTO has standing to challenge the patent under Section 101.

At the PTAB, the current status is that the Board is considering a rehearing request by Versata with the primary new focus being on the Federal Circuit’s Ultramercial decision. Versata again raised the contention that §101 is not a permissible ground for post grant review. Versata writes “Because § 101 is not a condition for patentability, much less specified as such as required by 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(2), it is not reviewable in a post-grant review (or CBM review).”

All these issues are likely to come to a head as the case is appealed to the Federal Circuit over the next year.

= = = = =

Claims at Issue:

17. A method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization comprising: arranging a hierarchy of organizational groups comprising a plurality of branches such that an organizational group below a higher organizational group in each of the branches is a subset of the higher organizational group; arranging a hierarchy of product groups comprising a plurality of branches such that a product group below a higher product group in each of the branches in a subset of the higher product group; storing pricing information in a data source, wherein the pricing information is associated, with (i) a pricing type, (ii) the organizational groups, and (iii) the product groups; retrieving applicable pricing information corresponding to the product, the purchasing organization, each product group above the product group in each branch of the hierarchy of product groups in which the product is a member, and each organizational group above the purchasing organization in each branch of the hierarchy of organizational groups in which the purchasing organization is a member; sorting the pricing information according to the pricing types, the product, the purchasing organization, the hierarchy of product groups, and the hierarchy of organizational groups; eliminating any of the pricing information that is less restrictive; and determining the product price using the sorted pricing information.

26. A computer readable storage media comprising: computer instructions to implement the method of claim 17.

Rembrandt v. Johnson & Johnson: Expert Reports and Inconsistent Testimony

Patent

By Jason Rantanen

Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013) Download Rembrandt v J&J
Panel: Dyk, Clevenger, Moore (author)

While this opinion is precedential, it does not contain any major legal prouncements.  It does, however, illustrate the importance of procedural rules in patent litigation.  Here, Rules 26 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure played the pivotal role in the outcome of the infringement suit. 

Rembrandt sued Johnson & Johnson Vision Care (JJVC) for infringement of a patent covering a type of soft gas permeable contact lenses.  At issue during trial was whether JJVC's lenses were "soft" under the parties' agreed upon claim construction ("a contact lens having a Hardness (Shore D) less than five"). To support its position that JJCV's lenses met this limitation, Rembrandt relied on the testimony of its expert witness who allegedly conducted a hardness test using procedures described in his expert report.

While on the stand at trial, however, Rembrandt's expert "suddenly changed course in the middle of cross-examination and testified that he did not follow the procedures listed in his expert report."  Slip Op. at 4-5 (quoting district court).  Instead, he testified that he followed a different procedure that was less susceptible to many of the criticisms that JJVC was leveling at the methodology described in the report.  Based on the inconsistency, the court struck the expert's testimony under FRCP 26 and 37 and, because his testimony was the only evidence that the "soft" limitation was met, granted JMOL in favor of JJVC.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings on appeal.  "Rule 26 requires an expert witness to disclose an expert report that contains “a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them.” Slip Op. at 7, quoting FRCP 26(a)(2)(B)(i). Furthermore, "[a]n expert witness may not testify to subject matter beyond the scope of the witness’s expert report unless the failure to include that information in the report was “substantially  justified or harmless.” Id. (quoting FRCP 37(c)(1)). 

At issue was whether the expert's failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 26 was "substantially justified or harmless.  The Federal Circuit agreed that it was not substantially justified: 

The court rightly found that “[t]here is simply no excuse for Dr. Beebe waiting until cross-examination to disclose his testing procedures.” JMOL Order, 282 F.R.D. at 664. Dr. Beebe submitted his expert report nearly six months prior to trial. Id. at 663–64; J.A. 96. Leading up to trial, the contents of his expert report were the subject of his deposition and were at issue in the pre-trial briefing, including dispositive motions. JMOL Order, 282 F.R.D. at 663–64. JJVC moved to exclude Dr. Beebe’s testimony on the basis that his Shore D testing did not comply with industry standards. Id. at 658. JJVC also moved for summary judgment on the ground that the testing was not sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the Shore D Hardness values of the accused lenses. Id. Nevertheless, even though the adequacy of his Shore D Hardness testing methodology was in dispute prior to trial, Dr. Beebe never attempted to supplement his expert report. As the district court observed, “Dr. Beebe thus apparently either did not review his expert report or forgot how he had actually performed the test.” Id. at 664.

Slip Op. at 8.  Nor was it harmless:

JJVC prepared its noninfringement defense based on the methodology disclosed in Dr. Beebe’s expert report, and opted to challenge that methodology rather than introduce competing expert testimony. JMOL Order, 282 F.R.D. at 664. Nothing during the course of the proceedings alerted JJVC to the possibility that Dr. Beebe would change his testimony. To the contrary, Rembrandt stood behind Dr. Beebe’s expert report at summary judgment and Dr. Beebe testified to the veracity of his report on direct examination. Id. at 657–58. Dr. Beebe even initially defended his testing methodology upon cross-examination. Id. at 658–59. Dr. Beebe only recanted his expert report when, after being “repeatedly challenged on cross-examination,” he was “[u]nable to explain how his written procedures complied with the standards” that govern hardness testing. Id. at 659, 668. While Dr. Beebe characterized the errors in his report as “typo[s],” it is undisputed that the shift in his testimony was both substantive and substantial. Such a late change in course significantly hampered JJVC’s ability to adequately cross-examine Dr. Beebe and denied it the opportunity to develop or introduce competing evidence.

Id. at 8-9.  The expert's testimony was the only evidence that Rembrandt pointed to on the Shore D Hardness requirement.  What about other evidence of the "soft" limitation?  Because Rembrandt agreed to the construction of "soft" as requring the lenses to have a Hardness (Shore D) less than five, JJVC's characterization of its lenses as "soft" was irrelevant.  "Generic statements that the accused lenses are “soft” had the potential to confuse the jury and did not bear on whether the accused lenses had a Shore D Hardness of less than five."  Id. at 10.

Judge Plager: Construe Ambiguous Terms Against the Drafter

Patent,

3M Innovative Properties Companies v. Tredegar Corp (Fed. Cir. 2013)

In 2009, 3M filed sued – alleging that Tredegar’s elastomeric laminates (used for diaper waistbands) infringed four 3M patents. U.S. Patent Nos. 5,501,679; 5,5691,034, 5,468,428, and 5,344,691. After claim construction, District Court Judge Donovan Frank 3M stipulated to a finding of non-infringement. The appeal focuses on construction of the asserted claims.

In its decision, the Federal Circuit panel issued three different opinions – each offering different notions on the correct construction of the various claim terms and each offering some disagreement with Judge Frank’s initial opinion.

The most interesting opinion of the four is Judge Plager’s concurring opinion that focuses on the intentional ambiguity inserted into the claims by 3M. Judge Plager argues that courts should begin to apply the contract doctrine of contra proferentem and construe ambiguous terms against the drafter (i.e., the patent holder). Judge Plager writes:

I appreciate that there are four different patents involved, and that the particular technology for manufacturing the product is quite detailed, although the products themselves are fairly basic—the material at issue is used for example in diapers. Nevertheless, when claims are larded with terms such as “substantially,” “preferentially,” and “relatively,” and when it takes four judges and some seventy pages of densely written opinions to find meaning in these terms, there is considerable evidence of a failure by the claim drafters to be clear and precise, and, beyond that, of a shortcoming in the patent examination process that permits claims to be so drafted.

Sometimes such ambiguity is the result of sloppy drafting, and sometimes it appears that claims are drafted with a degree of indefiniteness so as to leave room to later argue for a broad interpretation designed to capture later-developed competition. The problem is exacerbatedwhen, as here, there is a conflicting or indeterminate written description and prosecution history with regard to the claim terms at issue. Claim construction then becomes a game of crystal ball gazing, not resolved until this court’s gaze is announced.

The particular claim construction issue that divides the three appellate judges provides a perfect example of the problem. The claim term, “continuous microtextured skin layer,” truly is perplexing. Does “continuous” apply to the microtexturing, the skin layer, or both? Does it mean the microtexturing is everywhere (except perhaps for manufacturing flaws), or can it cover only a part of the skin layer as long as that part is continuous? Relying on the Chicago Manual of Style, 3M argues that “continuous” and “microtextured” are adjectives that separately modify “skin layer,” and thus, the claim term does not require that the microtexturing itself be continuous. According to 3M, if the applicant wanted “continuous” to modify “microtextured,” the applicant would have used the adverb “continuously.”

3M makes an interesting argument to be sure. But the argument creates its own grammatical problems. For example, there is no comma between “continuous” and “microtextured.” And the Chicago Manual of Style also tells us that adjectives that separately modify a noun are generally separated by a comma, unless of course the second adjective is a unit with the noun being modified (which would favor Tredegar’s construction). The Chicago Manual of Style § 6.33 (16th ed. 2010). The applicant seems to have understood this comma concept, and in fact used it when referring in the written description to a “continuous, deeply textured, microstructured surface.” ‘034 patent, col.15 ll.2-3. But the nuances of comma usage, like 3M’s adverb argument, seem to me a tenuous foundation for an entire claim construction on which substantial liabilities may rest. See United States v. Palmer, 16 U.S. 610, 638, 4 L. Ed. 471 (1818) (noting that “the use of the comma is exceedingly arbitrary and indefinite”); United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 249, 109 S. Ct. 1026, 1035, 103 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1989) (characterizing a comma as a “capricious bit of punctuation”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Much like the claim’s grammar, the written description provides little help deciphering the meaning of the disputed term. Certainly, the ‘034 patent has a lot of disclosure: nearly 30 columns of it. The patent has 33 different examples, 16 tables, and 24 figures. The patent’s problem does not lie in the quantity of its disclosure; it lies in the disclosure’s relevance to the language used in the claims.

The applicant knew or should have known that the claim term “continuous microtextured skin layer” was highly relevant to the patented technology. The applicant wrote the term nine times in the first eight claims. Strangely, however, the disclosure does not reflect this relevance. “Continuous microtextured skin layer” does not appear one single time in the written description. The written description provides no discussion of “continuous microtextured skin layer,” no definition. Language resembling the claim term appears here and there, but mutated versions of claim terms often confuse more than they elucidate.

While ultimately I have voted to join Judge Reyna for the reasons I explain shortly, Judge O’Malley in her dissent-in-part makes an argument for the opposite construction based on the prosecution history. The argument is not without merit, although again, I do not find the prosecution history a shining example of clarity.

Cases like this—claim construction issues such as this one—may well deserve application of a principle analogous to the contract doctrine of contra proferentem. See Williston on Contracts § 32:12 (4th ed.). When a term is ambiguous, a crystal ball matter, the ambiguity should be construed against the draftsman. (Or better yet, the claim should simply be invalidated as indefinite, though our court has not seen fit to go there as yet.)

Without labeling it as such, we have already used this principle to construe claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112. See Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 73 F.3d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Where there is an equal choice between a broader and a narrower meaning of a claim, and there is an enabling disclosure that indicates that the applicant is at least entitled to a claim having the narrower meaning, we consider the notice function of the claim to be best served by adopting the narrower meaning.”); see also A Theory of Claim Interpretation, 14 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 1, 81 (2000).

The contra proferentem principle would require the applicant to draft clear claims, using simple, direct sentences, proper grammar, and definitions in the written description where appropriate. It harmonizes with the notice function of patent law. It would result in applicants—and prospective patentees—investing more resources on the front end, during drafting, and less resources on the remedial end, during litigation. Better drafting of patent applications can only improve the efficiency of the patent system by clearly delineating a patentee’s property rights, thereby reducing wasteful and unnecessary litigation.

Specifically in this case, when I gaze in my crystal ball, I see, in addition to the verbal jousting, a district judge who struggled at length to make sense of the claims, and I see a patentee (more correctly a patent applicant) who had the last clear chance—infringement is after all a tort—to avoid this kind of unnecessary claim construction game. My crystal ball tells me to vote against the patentee’s construction of “continuous microtextured skin layer” and in favor of a competitor who should not have the risk of guessing wrong about what a claim term could possibly mean.

Judge Plager’s solution is gets to the heart of the matter – claim construction is problematic because patents and patent claims are so often drafted in ways that hide the invention rather elucidate the inventor’s contribution.

Charles Machine Works v. Vermeer Mfg: CAFC continues rolling back the vitiation doctrine

Patent

By Jason Rantanen

The Charles Machine Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Manufacturing Company (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Panel: Dyk, Mayer, Moore (author)

The Charles Machine Works (CMW) holds U.S. Patent No. 5,490,569, which relates to a two-pipe apparatus for boring underground holes in the horizontal direction.  Claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis added):

1. An apparatus for boring a hole with a directional control from the surface comprising:

a body having an elongate axis and a front end;
a drill bit mounted at the front end of the body for rotary motion about a drill bit axis, the drill bit axis being constantly noncoincident with the elongate axis of the body at the front end;
a casing rigidly secured to the body and extending to the surface to selectively rotate the body independent of the drill bit to position the deflection Shoe to deflect the apparatus within the bore;
a deflection shoe mounted on a first side of the body; rotating structure to rotate the drill bit continuously to bore the hole, the rotating structure extending to the surface.

In 2011, CMW brought an infringement suit against Vermeer Manufacturing.  A central issue in the dispute was the design of the drill casing.  "Vermeer’s apparatus for boring is a “bent sub,” in which two sides of the body or casing are attached together to form a bend or elbow in the casing."  Order Granting Summary Judgment for Defendant, Charles Machine Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Manufacturing Co., No. 4-11-cv-507-CRW-CFB (June 21, 2012).  CMW contended that this "bent sub" structure met the "deflection shoe" and "mounted on" limitations.  After construing "mounted on" to mean "attached to" and "deflection shoe" to mean a "structure that can be attached to the side of the body or casing and that can be positioned to deflect the boring apparatus from a linear path," the district court granted summary judgment of nonfringement, both literal and equivalents.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's claim construction and summary judgment of no literal infringement without substantive discussion. The Court then turned to the doctrine of equivalents.  From the district court's summary judgment order:

Also there is no infringement in this record under the doctrine of equivalents. A bent sub is plainly different from and not the equivalent of the “deflection shoe” described over and over in the ‘569 patent that must be “mounted on” the apparatus, fully described with drawings in the patent itself. This record does not establish that persons learned in the art would deem the bent sub and mounted shoe interchangeable. See Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605, 609 (1950). None of Vermeer’s products described in this summary judgment record infringes any of the claims in the ‘569 patent.

Order Granting Summary Judgment for Defendant at 8.  The Federal Circuit disagreed and found that the testimony of CMW's expert was sufficient to raise a genuine factual dispute under the "function-way-result" test for determining equivalency.

Vitiation: In addition to arguing the factual issue of equivalency, Vermeer's brief also raised a vitiation argument: that allowing the "bent sub" to satisfy the deflection shoe limitation would "read the “deflection shoe” and “mounted on” limitations out of the claims."  Vermeer Response Brief at 58. In addressing this argument, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed its pushback against the vitiation doctrine.  Just as the court did in Deere and Brilliant Instruments, Charles Machine Works treats vitation not as an exception to equivalency, but as simply the application of the "function-way-result" or "insubstantial differences" tests:

Vitiation is “a legal determination that ‘the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could determine two elements to be equivalent.’” Deere, 703 F.3d at 1356 (quoting Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 39 n.8). “[S]aying that a claim element would be vitiated is akin to saying that there is no equivalent to the claim element in the accused device based on the well-established ‘function-way-result’ or ‘insubstantial differences’ tests.” Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, LLC, 707 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

…

We also conclude that the doctrine of claim vitiation does not bar CMW’s application of the doctrine of equivalents. On summary judgment, the appropriate question for the court was whether no reasonable jury could find equivalence based on the record. Deere, 703 F.3d at 1356. Based on CMW’s expert declaration, we hold that a reasonable jury could have found equivalence, and the court erred by making a contrary legal determination.

Slip Op. at 8-9.  The court's conclusion in this case is particularly notable given that it applied vitiation in a very different way to a "mounted on" limitation in Asyst Technologies, Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc. 402 F.3d 1188, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2005), ("This case falls within both that doctrine and its corollary, the "specific exclusion" principle, since the term "mounted" can fairly be said to specifically exclude objects that are "unmounted."). 

CMW's Lack of Notice: The Federal Circuit also reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to Vermeer's non-commercial prototypes (which include a structure called a wear pad) on the ground that CMW had insufficient notice that the summary judgment decision would include the prototypes.  Vermeer's moving papers were titled "MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT VERMEER’S COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTS DO NOT INFRINGE," its proposed rulings bore the heading "GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THAT VERMEER’S COMMERCIAL PRODUCT DOES NOT INFRINGE THE ASSERTED CLAIMS . . . OF THE
’569 PATENT," and at oral argument it indicated that the prototypes were not the focus of the motion and trial would still be required on the prototypes. 

 

Guest Post: Why Lighting Ballast Won’t Solve Claim Construction

Patent, ,

Guest post by Thomas W. Krause and Heather F. Auyang.

In our recently-published article, What Close Cases and Reversals Reveal About Claim Construction at the Federal Circuit, 12 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 583 (2013) (available at http://jmripl.com/issues/article/310), we focus on two independent sets of cases that reveal some deep truths about the current state of claim construction jurisprudence, and which show that the current problems with claim construction have little to do with the narrow "deference" issue in Lighting Ballast. 

The article reports on (1) claim construction cases in which the Federal Circuit judges disagreed on an issue of claim construction, and (2) claim construction cases where the Federal Circuit reversed a district court. 

Close Cases

We call the former set "close cases," since they are typically decided by a 2-1 vote, as opposed to a 3-0 vote.  The notion is that 3-0 cases are not all that interesting — if all the judges agree on an issue, then odds are it is not that controversial.  2-1 cases, by contrast, often reflect differences in approach between the judges.

Here is a chart that shows that in close cases, some judges predictably vote for a broader interpretation, others predictably vote for a narrower interpretation, and the remaining judges vote unpredictably. 

Krause Figure 1

If predictability is the goal, then the easiest solution would be for the Court to choose between Judges Linn and Lourie, and let that judge's principles guide claim construction in every case.  Until such a "choice" is made, claim construction in "close" cases will always be panel dependent. If Judges Lourie and Linn are both deemed “wrong,” then it is difficult to see how we will ever attain predictability in claim construction at the Federal Circuit.  The basic divide seems to be over what we call the “actually invented” standard – the approach taken by Judge Lourie (and others), and opposed by Chief Judge Rader (and others).  The Federal Circuit’s failure to take this issue en banc in Retractable Technologies guarantees that there will be a steady flow of dissents in claim construction cases for the foreseeable future.

We also looked at the same set of cases in terms of whether the judges were (i) more or less likely to be accused of "importing" a limitation from the specification, (ii) more or less likely to affirm a district court claim construction, and (iii) more or less likely to vote for the patentholder.  These parameters are not independent of the decision to vote broad or narrow (since a narrow interpretation typically aligns with the district court [see below] and against the patentholder), but it’s interesting to look at the ways in which the data do not track.  Some judges vote against the patent holder and against the district court more often than one would expect based on their broad/narrow voting tendencies, and others vote for the patent holder and for the district court more often than one would expect.  Figures 2-4 in the article show these results.

We also created individual charts for each judge, which show case by case how the judges voted in terms of broad/narrow, pro-affirm/pro-reverse, and pro-patent/anti-patent.  Here are a few contrasting examples, which underscore some of the more dramatic differences:

Krause Figure 2
Krause Figure 3
Krause Figure 4
Krause Figure 5

Just looking at these charts (without even trying to figure out what they mean) shows that these judges vote very differently from each other.  The article provides itself provides a few observations based on the charts (and an explanation of how to read them, if it’s not readily apparent).

Reversals

The reversals are also very interesting.  We focused on these cases because they – by definition – are cases in which the district court did something wrong.  What we found is that when district courts err, they tend to err in favor of a narrower interpretation.  In other words, while one might expect, all things being equal, that district courts would err as often in a broadening as a narrowing direction, all things are clearly not equal.  Over 2/3 of the time, the district court's mistake was in going narrow.  On reflection, this should not be surprising.  A narrower interpretation often permits a district court to grant summary judgment of non-infringement and thereby get the case up to the Federal Circuit without having to put the parties and the court through the time and expense of a trial.  But given this nearly systematic bias, perhaps giving more deference to district courts will not be particularly helpful.

Krause Figure 6
Krause Figure 7
Additional charts and discussion are in the article.

We welcome any comments.

Thomas W. Krause is an Adjunct Professor of Law at the Georgetown Law Center and Special Counsel for Intellectual Property Litigation at the United States Patent & Trademark Office.  Heather F. Auyang is Senior Counsel at LTL Trial Attorneys in Redwood City, California. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of the United States Patent and Trademark Office or LTL Trial Attorneys.

 

Model Order Addressing Numerosity of Claims and Prior Art [UPDATED]

Patent

By Jason Rantanen

UPDATE: On Wednesday, the content of the Advisory Council page on the Federal Circuit's website was removed and replaced with the message "This site is being updated and will be posted soon."  Consequently, the two Model Orders referenced below are no longer available at the Court's website.

This morning the Federal Circuit Advisory Council, a committee including practitioners and academics formed to advise the Federal Circuit on the rules and internal operating procedures of the court, released its Model Order Re: Excess Claims and Prior art.  Download Model Order Excess Claims

The Model Order is being provided as an aid to trial courts should they choose to exercise their discretion to limit the number of claims and prior art references asserted by patent holders and accused infringers.  While it is not binding on district courts, and its specific language has not been approved by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, this model order holds the potential to be a powerful mechanism for standardizing the procedures of patent litigation.  (It's also worth noting that Chief Judge Rader, three district court judges and an ITC judge served on the Model Order committee itself).  It should also be noted that the order itself is flexible and can be tailored to individual cases.

Some key points:

  • Limits imposed at two points: A preliminary stage occuring after production of "core" technical documents but before claim construction and a final stage after claim construction but before expert reports consisting of a subset of the preliminary claims/references.
  • At both stages the patent holder first identifies the asserted claims.  Fourteen days later the patent defendant identifies the prior art references.   
  • Preliminary stage: the patent holder is limited to no more than 10 claims from each patent and not more than 32 claims total, while the patent defendant is limited to no more than 12 prior art references against each patent and not more than 40 references total.
  • Final stage: the patent holder is limited to no more than 5 claims from each patent and not more than 16 claims total, while the patent defendant is limited to no more than 6 prior art references per patent and not more than 20 references total.  
  • The Model Order also includes a three-page explanation, with citations, of why adopting an order limiting excess patent claims and prior art benefits both the court and the parties themselves. 

The Model Order Re: Excess Claims follows on the heels of the Advisory Council's E-Discovery Model Order, which Dennis previously wrote about.  I've heard from several practitioners that the E-Discovery Model Order has produced a substantial positive impact on discovery in patent litigation, and that the trend is toward leaner, more focused discovery.  I'd be interested in hearing whether that's reflective of patent litigation more broadly.