Digital-Vending Services International, LLC v. The University of Phoenix, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2012)
In a split decision, the Federal Circuit has reversed the lower court's claim construction and vacated the summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to impacted claims. On remand, the district court will be required to reconsider whether whether Digital-Vending's patents covering aspects of internet-based content delivery are valid and infringed. Chief Judge Rader penned the opinion and was joined by Judge Linn and joined-in-part by Judge Moore. In her partial dissent, Judge Moore focused on the doctrine of disavowal of claim scope – arguing that the "exacting" standard for disavowal of claim scope was met in this case and therefore takes precedence over other canons of construction in the analysis of claim scope.
Method Claim Written as an Apparatus: Before getting to the heart of the claim construction debate, it is important to mention the court's recognition here that a Beauregard claim should properly be interpreted as a method claim rather than an apparatus or composition of matter claim. In some instances, patent law treats method claims differently than it treats apparatus claims. Because of this distinction, many patent attorneys choose to include both method and apparatus claims within the same patent whenever possible. In discussing the asserted claims, the Federal Circuit opines that claims 1-22 of asserted Patent No. 6,282,573 are all "method claims" despite the fact that claims 13-22 expressly claim "a computer storage medium" containing data and instructions for causing a computer to perform a particular method. Noting this potential discrepancy, the court wrote that these Beauregard claims are "functionally-defined claims" that "should be treated as method claims to avoid exalting form over substance." QuotingCyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The court also noted that independent claim 23 – directed to a "computer architecture" with various interconnected servers should be treated as a system rather than a method. (Note – Judge Moore did not dissent from this portion of the opinion).
How Prosecution History Impacts Claim Scope: In many patent cases, the most hotly contested legal issue is claim construction and the resulting claim scope. Broadly construed claims cast a wider net over potential infringers, but are also more likely to be held invalid than those that are more narrowly construed. There a variety of thoughts on how the specification and prosecution history should impact claim construction. Strongly-held maxims include the notion that claims should be interpreted in light of the specification, but limitations found in the specification should not be automatically added as implicit limitations of claim scope. In Phillips, we learned that the specification should be given greater consideration. Phillips also gave credence to arguments associated with claim differentiation. Thus, in that case, the fact that a claim referred to "steel baffles … strongly implie[d] that the term 'baffles' does not inherently mean objects made of steel." (quoting Phillips). An additional and important claim construction canon involves the limitation of claim scope that has been the subject of clear disavowal. A problem with canons of construction is that they often conflict and the difficulty for courts comes in deciding which of the many canons to give precedence. Here, there is no question on the law that a clear disavowal of claim scope takes precedence over other canons of construction. The dispute in the case is on whether a disavowal occurred.
In this case, some of the patented claims refer to a "registration server being further characterized in that it is free of content managed by the architecture" and others refer to the "registration server," standing alone. This difference between the claims provides a strong suggestion that athe bare "registration server" limitation does not require that the server be free of managed content. In its analysis, the majority court noted that the patentee repeatedly referred to the registration server as being free of managed content, but also that the patent attorney had been "careful" to "avoid any hint [in the specification] that the inventors clearly disavowed claim scope with respect to the method claims." Thus, the court allowed a broad interpretation of the "registration server" term.
The dissent disagreed with this analysis and instead argued that the majority opinion "allows the patent owner to reclaim surrendered claim scope, thus subverting the public notice function of patents." Here, the dissent focused on the patentees "repeated statements in the specification" indicating that "each" of the registration servers are separated from any managed content and that such an architecture is a "requirement" not to be "violated." For Judge Moore, those statements lead her to the conclusion that "[i]t is difficult to imagine a clearer case of disavowal."
On remand, the lower court will be asked to determine whether the defendants infringe the asserted claims under the broader claim interpretation put forth by the majority.
In yet another case, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has identified the wide chasm separating members of the court on issues involving patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The majority opinion here – penned by Judge Plager and joined by Judge Newman – argues that courts should avoid the metaphysical question of whether an invention is unpatentably abstract whenever possible and instead focus on the conditions of patentability found in §§ 102, 103, and 112 of the patent act.
Judge Plager writes:
[C]ourts could avoid the swamp of verbiage that is § 101 by exercising their inherent power to control the processes of litigation, Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991), and insist that litigants initially address patent invalidity issues in terms of the conditions of patentability defenses as the statute provides, specifically §§ 102, 103, and 112. If that were done in the typical patent case, litigation over the question of validity of the patent would be concluded under these provisions, and it would be unnecessary to enter the murky morass that is § 101 jurisprudence. This would make patent litigation more efficient, conserve judicial resources, and bring a degree of certainty to the interests of both patentees and their competitors in the marketplace.
In a sense, § 101 of the Patent Act can be thought of as the patent law analogy to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. The latter sets in the broadest terms (“due process,” “equal protection”) the fundamental parameters of the citizenry’s legal right. In the context of patent law, § 101 similarly describes in the broadest terms the legally-protected subject matter an inventor can seek to patent: a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter . . . .” The Supreme Court has wisely adopted a policy of not deciding cases on broad constitutional grounds when they can be decided on narrower, typically statutorily limited, grounds. Following the Supreme Court’s lead, courts should avoid reaching for interpretations of broad provisions, such as § 101, when more specific statutes, such as §§ 102, 103, and 112, can decide the case.
On the merits of the decision, the majority affirmed a lower court summary judgment holding that the asserted claims are invalid as anticipated and obvious under §§ 102 and 103(a) respectively.
In this case, the lower court never ruled on the question of patentable subject matter and none of the party briefs refer to Section 101, unpatentable abstract ideas, or Bilski v. Kappos. However, the majority felt compelled to discuss Section 101 based upon the dissenting opinion by Judge Mayer who opined that the patent intrinsically raises a threshold question of patentable subject matter that must be addressed.
Judge Mayer writes in dissent:
The issue of whether a claimed method meets the subject matter eligibility requirements contained in 35 U.S.C. § 101 is an “antecedent question” that must be addressed before this court can consider whether particular claims are invalid as obvious or anticipated. In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 975 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 2009). GraphOn Corporation (“GraphOn”) owns four patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,324,538 (the “‘538 patent”), 6,850,940, 7,028,034, and 7,269,591, which contain exceedingly broad claims to a system that allows users to exert control over the content of their online communications. This court must first resolve the issue of whether the GraphOn patents are directed to an unpatentable “abstract idea” before proceeding to consider subordinate issues related to obviousness and anticipation. See Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3225 (2010) (noting that whether claims are directed to statutory subject matter is a “threshold test”); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593 (1978) (“Flook”) (emphasizing that “[t]he obligation to determine what type of discovery is sought to be patented” so as to determine whether it falls within the ambit of section 101 “must precede the determination of whether that discovery is, in fact, new or obvious”); Comiskey, 554 F.3d at 973 (“Only if the requirements of § 101 are satisfied is the inventor allowed to pass through to the other requirements for patentability, such as novelty under § 102 and . . . non-obviousness under § 103.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). I therefore respectfully dissent from the court’s judgment.
The dissent agrees with the majority (and our) suggestion that § 101 be treated as analogous to the US Constitution – but argues that the statute “is the standard expressed in the Constitution and it may not be ignored.” Rather, the dissent writes “a robust application of section 101 is required to ensure that the patent laws comport with their constitutionally-defined objective.”
Below, I have excerpted claim 1 of the patentee’s U.S. Patent No. 6,324,538 with a 1995 priority filing date:
1. A method of publishing information on a computer network comprising the steps of: creating a database entry containing information recieved from a user of the computer network, wherein the information includes data representing text, a universal resource locator, an image, and a user-selected category; generating a transaction ID corresponding to the database entry; password protecting the entries; displaying the entries in accordance with the user-selected category; presenting the information to a user in hyper text markup language in response to a user’s request.
The dissent is correct that the invention as claimed is incredibly broad. However, this is the exact type of case that is just as easily eliminated on grounds of anticipation or obviousness.
Note for a later post — the majority opinion is also important for its statement on the theory and practice of claim construction.
Wind turbine technology is coming into its own. GE and Mitsubishi are both global leaders. Mitsubishi imports wind turbines into the US, and GE filed a complaint with the US International Trade Commission (USITC) alleging infringement of three patents. Patent Nos. 7,321,221, 6,921,985, and 5,083,039. The '039 patent expired in 2011 and, because the USITC's only remedy is injunctive relief to stop ongoing and future infringement, the court has dismissed all charges associated with that expired patent.
During its proceedings, the USITC Administrative Law Judge found the GE patents infringed, enforceable, and "not invalid." However, patents are only enforceable at the USITC if there is a "domestic industry" for the claimed invention. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a). The statute specifically requires a US industry that can show "with respect to articles protected by the patent" significant investment in plant and equipment; employment; or investment in exploitation, "including engineering, research and development, or licensing." The ALJ found a domestic industry, but the full Commission rejected that finding and additionally held that Mitsubishi did not infringe the '221 patent.
Win for GE: In a decision penned by Judge Newman and joined by Chief Judge Rader and Judge Linn, the Federal Circuit has affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, reversed-in-part, and remanded. Overall, this is a win for GE because the appellate court ruled that a domestic industry exists in relation to the '985 patent and it appears that the USITC already agrees that the '985 patent is valid and infringed.
USITC Domestic industry jurisprudence is a mess. Here, the basic question boiled down to whether there is at least one claim – GE's wind turbines are would infringe the claims in its asserted patents. That decision obviously turned on claim construction and particularly whether GE's domestic turbines included a "converter controller coupled with the inverter … to shunt current from the inverter." The problem with GE's domestic turbines is that its controller is within the inverter and the Commission held that it could not therefore be "coupled to" or shunt current "from" the inverter. On appeal, the court rejected that analysis and instead held that the claim does not require that the controller be separate from the inverter.
A similar argument was rejected in NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005), where some of the claims recited a receiver "connected to" or "coupled to" a processor or that the receiver "transfers" information to the processor. The accused infringer in NTP had argued that "connected to," "coupled to," and "transfer from" each requires the receiver and the processor to be separate, but the court concluded that "the two components could be connected, joined, or linked together by wires or other electrical conductors and still be located in the same housing or even on the same circuit board." 418 F.3d at 1310-11. The court also held that the function that information is transferred between two entities does not require physical separation of the entities. Id. at 1310.
Based upon its corrected claim construction, the Federal Circuit was able to conclude that claim 15 of the '985 patent "covers the domestic industry turbines" and that GE therefore has a right to bring an action on the patent in the ITC.
Notes:
GE filed a parallel lawsuit requesting damages and injunctive relief against Mitsubishi in the Southern District of Texas That case has been stayed pending the outcome of the ITC action. In a separate case, GE is fighting with one of its former employees — Thomas Wilkins who is claiming joint inventorship rights to the patents. Wilkins has apparently assigned his rights to Mistubishi.
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. ("Pioneer") v. Monsanto Technology LLC ("Monsanto") (Fed. Cir. 2012)
Both Pioneer and Monsanto claim to have invented the genetically modified variety of Zea Mays corn. In 1988, Pioneer filed its patent application and received U.S. Patent No. 6,258,999 in 2001 with a simple broad claim:
1. A fertile transgenic Zea mays plant comprised of stably incorporated foreign DNA, wherein said foreign DNA consists of DNA that is not from a corn plant and that is not comprised of a T-DNA border.
Monsanto filed its related GM Zea mays patent application in 2005 but asserted priority back to a 1990 filing date. The Board declared an interference in 2009 and assigned Pioneer as the senior party based upon its earlier filing date.
Both parties filed motions to the Board asking that the respective priority claims be denied. The board sided with Monsanto – finding that Monsanto's patent claim drafted in 2005 properly claimed priority to the 1990 filing document but that Pioneer's patented claim was not sufficiently disclosed in its 1988 application. That ruling made Monsanto the new senior party. On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed.
Interference Claim Filing Date: On appeal, Pioneer argued that Monsanto's late-filed patent claim was time-barred by 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(1). Under the statute, an interference can only be declared if the junior party makes a claim "prior to one year from the date on which the [senior party's] patent was granted." Here, the Federal Circuit affirmed the BPAI's ruling that Monsanto's patent claim submitted in 2005 was not time-barred even though it was filed four years after Pioneer's patent. That odd conclusion is based upon the [factual] conclusion that the 2005 was "sufficiently congruent" to patent claims filed by Monsanto before the critical date, even though no prior claim included all of the limitations found in the 2005 claim.
Burden of Proving/Disproving Priority: The second point on appeal focused on whether Pioneer's patent could properly claimed priority to its 1998 filing. Pioneer argued that the BPAI had improperly shifted the burden onto Pioneer for justifying an early priority date rather than forcing Monsanto to prove that Pioneer's patent claim was not entitled to the early filing-date priority. On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed that Monsanto had the burden of showing why Pioneer should be deprived of its interference priority. However, the court agreed with the Board that Monsanto had met that burden by demonstrating that Pioneer's original application lacked any express reference to an embodiment in which the foreign DNA did not comprise a T-DNA border.
Deference: The case is perhaps most interesting for the clear deference that the appellate panel gives to the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences – repeatedly focusing on whether the board committed reversible error rather than jumping to the underlying question of whether the Board made the correct decision. The Supreme Court's decision in Dickinson v. Zurko requires substantial deference be given for BPAI factual findings, although questions of law are still reviewed de novo.
Notes:
How this Relates to Marine Polymer: For this statute, the court provides a broad interpretation of the word "claim" that is not bound to the actual and literal text of the claim that is the subject of the interference. It is a parallel approach that led Judge Dyk to his conclusion in Marine Polymer that arguments made during prosecution change the scope of the claim and therefore should count as "amendments" under 35 U.S.C. 252. The issue of claim amendments under is important for reexaminations and reissue patents because those post-grant amendments (when "substantial") lead to absolute intervening rights for anyone using the invention prior to the amendments. The Federal Circuit has agreed to rehear the Marine Polymer case en banc later this year.
Factual: In the text is bracket the word "factual" because it is not clear to me whether the conclusion of sufficiently congruent claims is a factual question regarding the scope of invention or a question of law based upon claim construction.
Conference on Industry/Academic Collaborations: Lessons from the Trenches
Innovation remains a major driver of economic growth in this country, and research universities provide a key reservoir of innovation. Increasingly, universities and industry have joined forces to translate that potential into jobs and commercial industries. Designing the complex legal and business frameworks for these collaborations is an evolving art, which will be discussed by those at the forefront of these transactions. On February 29, at UC Hastings College of Law, individuals from some of the biggest companies in the world will discuss their relationships with Universities. Google, Hoffman-LaRoche, Intel, Pfizer and BP will speak about their collaborations. The Keynote Speaker will be Chris Vein, The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Guest speakers include: Robin Feldman, Susan Capello, Paul Willems, Louisa Daniels, Jeff Walz, Laura Berner, and many others. This event will also be streamed online for individuals who are unable to attend. [Link]
Federal Court Dismisses OSGATA Lawsuit
The OSGATA suit against Monsanto has been dismissed by the US District Court for the Southern District of NY. OSGATA claimed that they did not want or intend to grow crops containing Monsanto patented gene traits and they feared being sued by Monsanto. Judge Naomi Buchwald noted that, Monsanto averages about 13 patent infringement lawsuits targeted towards farmers per year, which is considered insignificant compared to the number of farms in the US. The court held that there was no case or controversy because Monsanto has yet to take action against any of the plaintiffs. [Link]
USPTO Detroit Office Update
The Elijah J. McCoy United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will open in Detroit, Michigan in July 2012. The USPTO plans to hire for more than 100 positions, including patent examiners and Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences judges. The USPTO hopes to fill more than 50 percent of the positions by the end of the summer. Vacancy announcements for patent examiner positions and judges have been posted on the USA Jobs website.
Student Writing Contest
The Pennsylvania Bar Association IP Law Section is accepting papers for its annual IP writing contest. The competition is open to all students enrolled in one of the Pennsylvania law schools and Pennsylvania residents enrolled at other law schools within the US. The first place winner will receive $2500 and the paper will be published. [Link]
Patent Jobs:
Banner & Witcoff is seeking an International IP Manager with a minimum of 10 years of experience in management to work in their DC or Chicago office. [Link]
Axiom is looking to hire patent attorneys with 7+ years of experience to work remotely. [Link]
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox is looking for electrical IP attorneys with 1-4 years of experience to work in their DC office. [Link]
Hiscock & Barclay is seeking patent attorneys/agents with a minimum of 3-5 years of experience to work at their Syracuse & Rochester offices. [Link]
The Coca-Cola Company is searching for a patent agent with 2-4 years of experience to work at their Atlanta location. [Link]
The USPTO is looking for patent examiners with a BS degree in engineering to work at their Alexandra location. [Link]
Steptoe & Johnson is seeking IP associates with a minimum of 4 years of experience in IP litigation to work in their DC office. [Link]
Fish & Richardson is looking for technical advisors with a background in EE, physics, or CS to work at one of their several offices. [Link]
Klemchuk Kubasta is searching for a patent associate with at least 4 years of experience to work in their Dallas office. [Link]
Guntin Meles & Gust is seeking patent attorneys with 3+ years of experience and a degree in EE or Computer Engineering to work in their Chicago office. [Link]
Levine Bagade Han is looking for a patent associate with 2-6 years of experience to work in their Palo Alto office. [Link]
Myers Wolin is searching for a patent attorney with 3-5 years of experience and a degree in EE to work at their Morristown, NJ office. [Link]
Young Basile is seeking a patent attorney with 2+ years of experience and a degree in ME, EE, or CS to work in their Ann Arbor office. [Link]
Upcoming Events:
The Florida Bar 3rd Annual IP Law Symposium will be held on March 1-2 on Orlando. The IP Symposium will address recent developments and important issues in IP law, including: Perspectives on the America Invents Act, Copyright Law and the First Sale Doctrine, Third Party Liability in IP, Enforcing IP on the Internet, Latest Developments in Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Law, and Recent Developments at the TTAB. Guest speakers include; Anne Gilson LaLonde, Scott Bain, John Welch, and many others. [Link]
Section 101 Gatekeepers: Finding the Patentable Subject Matter Line in a Judicial Sandstorm, webinar will be hosted by AIPLA on March 7. The webinar will be presented by Professor Christopher Holman and attorney Robert H. Fischer. [Link]
LES (USA & Canada) 2012 Winter Meeting will be held March 12-14 in Anaheim, CA. The meeting will focus on cutting-edge issues in the high tech space with overlapping content in related industries, including clean tech, nanotech, and medical devices. Featured speakers include Honorable Randall Rader, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; Catherine Casserly, CEO, Creative Commons; and Patrick Ennis, Head of Global Technology, Intellectual Ventures. Patently-O readers save $100 with code PO1. [Link]
The New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association will hold a half-day Patent Litigation Seminar on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:45 am to 5:45 pm. Guest speakers include: Paul Berghoff, Kara Stoll, William McElwain, Richard Bress, Barbara Fiacco, and Lewis Ho. [Link]
C5's 22 Forum on Biotech Patenting conference will take place March 14-15 in Munich, Germany. The conferencebrings together experienced in-house counsel from both innovator and generic pharma and biotech companies and their expert legal advisors from various jurisdictions across the globe. Session will cover the patentability of gene sequence patents in Europe and the US, current developments on biotech products and patent considerations for bio-deposits, and many other sessions. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
American Conference Institute's FDA Boot Camp conference is scheduled for March 20-21 in New York, NY. ACI's FDA Boot Camp has been designed to give products or patent litigators, as well as patent prosecutors, industry in-house counsel, and life sciences investment and securities experts, a strong working knowledge of coreFDA competencies. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
American Conference Institute's PTO Procedures Under the America Invents Act conference is scheduled for March 26-27 in New York, NY. This conference will serve as a practical and tactical guide for PTO practice post-Patent Reform. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
The ABA Section of IP Law will hold its 27th Annual IP Law Conference March 28-30 in Arlington, VA. The conference is recognized for its national and international scope and preeminent programming. It attracts IP practitioners from across the nation and around the world. Speakers and moderators include: Sharon Marsh, Keisha Hylton-Rodic, Alexander Wilson, Steven Emmert, Teresa Rea, James Bikoff, David Kappos, and many others. The discounted early registration deadline is March 14. [Link][Link]
The IP Section of the Atlanta Bar Association and Georgia State University Law School will hold its 8th annual SpringPosium at the Barnsley Gardens resort on April 13 &14. Some example seminars will include: the new America Invents Act, Federal Court best practices, IP law and life practice management, and recent developments in damages law. Guest speakers include: Clerk of Court and Chief Deputy Clerk of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Jan Horbaly and Pamela Twiford and Clerk of Court of the US District Court for the North District of Georgia, James Hatten.
The European Generic Medicines Association is hosting the 10th EGA International Symposium regarding Biosimilar Medicines on April 19-20 in London. Greenblum & Bernstein is providing a pre-symposium workshop on April 19, 2012 titled: Biosimilars In America: IP Strategy and Due Diligence. The workshop will explore the mechanics of the Biologics Act with an emphasis on how the Act relates to the involved intellectual property and how the intellectual property may impact the biosimilar applicant's strategy for entering the market. [Link]
ACI will hold its 6th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes conference on April 24-25 in New York City. The conference will cover topics such as: the impact of the AIA on Hatch-Waxman litigation, claim construction, prior art obviousness and obvious-type double patenting, and many other topics. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
Conference on Industry/Academic Collaborations: Lessons from the Trenches
Innovation remains a major driver of economic growth in this country, and research universities provide a key reservoir of innovation. Increasingly, universities and industry have joined forces to translate that potential into jobs and commercial industries. Designing the complex legal and business frameworks for these collaborations is an evolving art, which will be discussed by those at the forefront of these transactions. On February 29, at UC Hastings College of Law, individuals from some of the biggest companies in the world will discuss their relationships with Universities. Google, Hoffman-LaRoche, Intel, Pfizer and BP will speak about their collaborations. The Keynote Speaker will be Chris Vein, The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Guest speakers include: Robin Feldman, Susan Capello, Paul Willems, Louisa Daniels, Jeff Walz, Laura Berner, and many others. This event will also be streamed online for individuals who are unable to attend. [Link]
Federal Court Dismisses OSGATA Lawsuit
The OSGATA suit against Monsanto has been dismissed by the US District Court for the Southern District of NY. OSGATA claimed that they did not want or intend to grow crops containing Monsanto patented gene traits and they feared being sued by Monsanto. Judge Naomi Buchwald noted that, Monsanto averages about 13 patent infringement lawsuits targeted towards farmers per year, which is considered insignificant compared to the number of farms in the US. The court held that there was no case or controversy because Monsanto has yet to take action against any of the plaintiffs. [Link]
USPTO Detroit Office Update
The Elijah J. McCoy United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will open in Detroit, Michigan in July 2012. The USPTO plans to hire for more than 100 positions, including patent examiners and Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences judges. The USPTO hopes to fill more than 50 percent of the positions by the end of the summer. Vacancy announcements for patent examiner positions and judges have been posted on the USA Jobs website.
Student Writing Contest
The Pennsylvania Bar Association IP Law Section is accepting papers for its annual IP writing contest. The competition is open to all students enrolled in one of the Pennsylvania law schools and Pennsylvania residents enrolled at other law schools within the US. The first place winner will receive $2500 and the paper will be published. [Link]
Patent Jobs:
Banner & Witcoff is seeking an International IP Manager with a minimum of 10 years of experience in management to work in their DC or Chicago office. [Link]
Axiom is looking to hire patent attorneys with 7+ years of experience to work remotely. [Link]
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox is looking for electrical IP attorneys with 1-4 years of experience to work in their DC office. [Link]
Hiscock & Barclay is seeking patent attorneys/agents with a minimum of 3-5 years of experience to work at their Syracuse & Rochester offices. [Link]
The Coca-Cola Company is searching for a patent agent with 2-4 years of experience to work at their Atlanta location. [Link]
The USPTO is looking for patent examiners with a BS degree in engineering to work at their Alexandra location. [Link]
Steptoe & Johnson is seeking IP associates with a minimum of 4 years of experience in IP litigation to work in their DC office. [Link]
Fish & Richardson is looking for technical advisors with a background in EE, physics, or CS to work at one of their several offices. [Link]
Klemchuk Kubasta is searching for a patent associate with at least 4 years of experience to work in their Dallas office. [Link]
Guntin Meles & Gust is seeking patent attorneys with 3+ years of experience and a degree in EE or Computer Engineering to work in their Chicago office. [Link]
Levine Bagade Han is looking for a patent associate with 2-6 years of experience to work in their Palo Alto office. [Link]
Myers Wolin is searching for a patent attorney with 3-5 years of experience and a degree in EE to work at their Morristown, NJ office. [Link]
Young Basile is seeking a patent attorney with 2+ years of experience and a degree in ME, EE, or CS to work in their Ann Arbor office. [Link]
Upcoming Events:
The Florida Bar 3rd Annual IP Law Symposium will be held on March 1-2 on Orlando. The IP Symposium will address recent developments and important issues in IP law, including: Perspectives on the America Invents Act, Copyright Law and the First Sale Doctrine, Third Party Liability in IP, Enforcing IP on the Internet, Latest Developments in Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Law, and Recent Developments at the TTAB. Guest speakers include; Anne Gilson LaLonde, Scott Bain, John Welch, and many others. [Link]
Section 101 Gatekeepers: Finding the Patentable Subject Matter Line in a Judicial Sandstorm, webinar will be hosted by AIPLA on March 7. The webinar will be presented by Professor Christopher Holman and attorney Robert H. Fischer. [Link]
LES (USA & Canada) 2012 Winter Meeting will be held March 12-14 in Anaheim, CA. The meeting will focus on cutting-edge issues in the high tech space with overlapping content in related industries, including clean tech, nanotech, and medical devices. Featured speakers include Honorable Randall Rader, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; Catherine Casserly, CEO, Creative Commons; and Patrick Ennis, Head of Global Technology, Intellectual Ventures. Patently-O readers save $100 with code PO1. [Link]
The New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association will hold a half-day Patent Litigation Seminar on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:45 am to 5:45 pm. Guest speakers include: Paul Berghoff, Kara Stoll, William McElwain, Richard Bress, Barbara Fiacco, and Lewis Ho. [Link]
C5's 22 Forum on Biotech Patenting conference will take place March 14-15 in Munich, Germany. The conferencebrings together experienced in-house counsel from both innovator and generic pharma and biotech companies and their expert legal advisors from various jurisdictions across the globe. Session will cover the patentability of gene sequence patents in Europe and the US, current developments on biotech products and patent considerations for bio-deposits, and many other sessions. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
American Conference Institute's FDA Boot Camp conference is scheduled for March 20-21 in New York, NY. ACI's FDA Boot Camp has been designed to give products or patent litigators, as well as patent prosecutors, industry in-house counsel, and life sciences investment and securities experts, a strong working knowledge of coreFDA competencies. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
American Conference Institute's PTO Procedures Under the America Invents Act conference is scheduled for March 26-27 in New York, NY. This conference will serve as a practical and tactical guide for PTO practice post-Patent Reform. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
The ABA Section of IP Law will hold its 27th Annual IP Law Conference March 28-30 in Arlington, VA. The conference is recognized for its national and international scope and preeminent programming. It attracts IP practitioners from across the nation and around the world. Speakers and moderators include: Sharon Marsh, Keisha Hylton-Rodic, Alexander Wilson, Steven Emmert, Teresa Rea, James Bikoff, David Kappos, and many others. The discounted early registration deadline is March 14. [Link][Link]
The IP Section of the Atlanta Bar Association and Georgia State University Law School will hold its 8th annual SpringPosium at the Barnsley Gardens resort on April 13 &14. Some example seminars will include: the new America Invents Act, Federal Court best practices, IP law and life practice management, and recent developments in damages law. Guest speakers include: Clerk of Court and Chief Deputy Clerk of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Jan Horbaly and Pamela Twiford and Clerk of Court of the US District Court for the North District of Georgia, James Hatten.
The European Generic Medicines Association is hosting the 10th EGA International Symposium regarding Biosimilar Medicines on April 19-20 in London. Greenblum & Bernstein is providing a pre-symposium workshop on April 19, 2012 titled: Biosimilars In America: IP Strategy and Due Diligence. The workshop will explore the mechanics of the Biologics Act with an emphasis on how the Act relates to the involved intellectual property and how the intellectual property may impact the biosimilar applicant's strategy for entering the market. [Link]
ACI will hold its 6th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes conference on April 24-25 in New York City. The conference will cover topics such as: the impact of the AIA on Hatch-Waxman litigation, claim construction, prior art obviousness and obvious-type double patenting, and many other topics. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. B-Tek Scales, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2012) Download 11-1173-1200 Panel: Bryson, Moore (author), Reyna
In my Introduction to Intellectual Property class this week we discussed the classic tension between (1) reading the claims in light of the specification and (2) not importing limitations from the specification into the claims. In most instances the court attempts to strike a balance between these two canons (exemplified by Phillips). When means-plus-function claims are involved, however, different rules apply – as this case illustrates.
At issue in Mettler-Toledo was technology for weighing objects, such as large commercial trucks. The first of Mettler's asserted patents, No. 4,815,547, describes an individual load cell; the second, No. 4,804,052, describes a system and method for correcting weight measurements based on the location of objects on a scale. Following jury findings that the patents were not infringed and that the '052 patent would have been obvious, the district court denied Mettler's JMOL. Mettler appealed.
On appeal, Mettler challenged a key construction of the '547 patent claims: that several of the means-plus-function terms require a multiple slope integrating A/D converter, and equivalents thereof, rather than any generic A/D converter. Mettler contended that by limiting the claims in this way the district court erred by importing the structure of only the preferred embodiment into the claims.
The CAFC rejected this argument. "Our case law is clear that a means-plus-function claim limitation is limited to the structures disclosed in the specification and equivalents." Slip Op. at 7. Here, the patentee chose to disclose only a single embodiment; thus, the means-plus-function claim was necessarily limited to that embodiment. "If a patentee chooses to disclose a single embodiment, then any means-plus-function claim limitation will be limited to the single disclosed structure and equivalents thereof." Id. Nor was a single reference to an "A/D converter" in the Abstract sufficient to compel a broader structural disclosure because it was not linked to any claimed function.
Obviousness: The CAFC also affirmed the district court's denial of JMOL of nonobviousness of the '052 patent. Mettler's challenge was based on the argument that a prior art reference did not teach correcting for load position, an element of each claim of the '052. The CAFC rejected this argument, first noting that the issue of what is disclosed by a prior art reference is a question of fact, then concluding that substantial evidence supported the jury's finding as to the teaching of the 'prior art reference.
B-Tek's Cross Appeal for Sanctions: During the litigation B-Tek requested documents relating to Mettler's manufacturing capacity in order to rebut Mettler's lost profits damages claim. Although Mettler stated that it had no such documents, during trial a Mettler employee admitted that certain documents existed (a production schedule and plant diagram). Mettler further admitted that it provided some of these documents to its damages expert. The district court denied B-Tek's motion for sanctions on the grounds that the possible existence of these documents had been disclosed during a deposition, these documents were of marginal relevance, and that B-Tek could not show any harm or prejudice given that it prevailed on the issue of infringement.
On appeal, the CAFC concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to sanction Mettler, correctly considering the relevance of the documents and the any harm to B-Tek.
The USPTO will be accepting application for their patent externship until February 29. Last year there were about 200 students who participated in the program. The program will last anywhere from 8-10 weeks and is at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. This is a great opportunity for anyone who wants to work in the patent field. [Link]
Chisum Patent Academy
The Chisum Patent Academy will hold its next Intensive Patent Law Training Seminar in New York City on Feb. 22-24, 2012. Topics to be addressed include the America Invents Act of 2011, recent nonobviousness decisions, inequitable conduct post-Therasense, and the continuing schism in the Federal Circuit over patent claim construction. The Chisum Patent Academy offers what CLE providers and patent bar review courses simply can’t: premium-quality patent law education in a unique seminar-style setting. Co-taught by leading patent law scholars Donald Chisum and Janice Mueller, the intensive three-day seminars are limited to ten (10) participants and conducted in roundtable, interactive style. [Link]
Patent Jobs:
Stoel Rives is searching for an associate attorney with 3-5 years of experience in patent prosecution and an EE background to work at their Salt Lake City office. [Link]
Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson is seeking a patent attorney with 3-5 years of experience and a background in EE to work at their Oakland office. [Link]
Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner is looking for patent attorneys with 2+ years of experience or 5+ years of experience if telecommuting. [Link]
Holland & Knight is searching for 2 IP litigation associates with 4-6 years of experience to work at their Boston or Chicago offices. [Link]
Howard & Howard is seeking IP associates with 4-8 years of experience of patent prep experience to work at their Royal Oak, Michigan office. [Link]
Armstrong Teasdale is looking for patent attorneys with 2-6 years of experience to work in one of their offices. [Link]
Pramudji Law Group is searching for a patent agent/attorney/engineer with at least 2 years of patent experience to work at their Houston office. [Link]
Shook, Hardy & Bacon is seeking a litigation associate with 3-4 years of litigation experience work in their Kansas City office. [Link]
Paul Hastings is searching for a patent litigation associate with a computer science degree and experience with patent litigation to work in their Atlanta office. [Link]
Krieg DeVault is looking for an IP associate with 3-7 years of experience to work in their Indianapolis office. [Link]
UTC Power is searching for an IP paralegal with 2-4 years of IP experience to work at their South Windsor, Connecticut location. [Link]
Fennemore Craig is seeking an experienced patent attorney to work in their Phoenix or Denver office. [Link]
Gore Medical Products is searching for an IP technical specialist to work at their Flagstaff location. [Link]
Wells St. John PS is looking for a patent attorney with 4+ years of experience in all aspects of IP practice to work at their Spokane office. [Link]
Sutherland is seeking a patent associate/agent with 2-5 years of experience and a degree in chemical engineering to work at their Atlanta office. [Link]
Upcoming Events:
IBC Legal’s 20th Annual Biotech & Pharmaceutical Patenting Conference 2012 will be held on February 21-22 in Munich, Germany. Get advice and analysis from a diverse team of international life science and IP experts on recent case law and developments, patent filing, patent life cycles, SPCs, patent infringement, EC Bolar implementation and more! Patently-O readers get a 10% discount when registering with this link. [Link]
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP will present a free one-hour CLE webinar, “Patent Reexaminations in Parallel with Litigation,” on February 22, 2012 at 12 noon EST. Joseph E. Shipley will discuss the factors that should be considered in deciding whether to seek reexamination as an alternative or adjunct to litigating patent validity in the federal courts. Topics will include what can and cannot be achieved in reexamination, current statistics on outcome, associated risks and costs, time frames, and reexamination options and alternatives. The upcoming new USPTO procedures–Post-Grant Review and Inter Partes Review–will also be covered. [Link]
The 7th Annual Conference on EU Pharma Law & Regulation will be held on February 22-23 in London. The conference will bring together eminent in-house counsel from the world’s largest pharma and biotech companies, top legal practitioners and regulatory experts in an outstanding speaker panel. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
Maurer School of Law Center for IP Research will hold a CLE Fundamentals of Federal Circuit Advocacy event on February 23. Greg Castanias will lead a discussion of patent appeals before the Federal Circuit. Also appearing: Center for Intellectual Property Research senior advisor Donald Knebel, Prof. Mark D. Janis, and former Federal Circuit clerk Allison Kerndt. [Link]
The Florida Bar 3rd Annual IP Law Symposium will be held on March 1-2 on Orlando. The IP Symposium will address recent developments and important issues in IP law, including: Perspectives on the America Invents Act, Copyright Law and the First Sale Doctrine, Third Party Liability in IP, Enforcing IP on the Internet, Latest Developments in Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Law, and Recent Developments at the TTAB. Guest speakers include; Anne Gilson LaLonde, Scott Bain, John Welch, and many others. [Link]
Section 101 Gatekeepers: Finding the Patentable Subject Matter Line in a Judicial Sandstorm, webinar will be hosted by AIPLA on March 7. The webinar will be presented by Professor Christopher Holman and attorney Robert H. Fischer. [Link]
LES (USA & Canada) 2012 Winter Meeting will be held March 12-14 in Anaheim, CA. The meeting will focus on cutting-edge issues in the high tech space with overlapping content in related industries, including clean tech, nanotech, and medical devices. Featured speakers include Honorable Randall Rader, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; Catherine Casserly, CEO, Creative Commons; and Patrick Ennis, Head of Global Technology, Intellectual Ventures. Patently-O readers save $100 with code PO1. [Link]
C5’s 22 Forum on Biotech Patenting conference will take place March 14-15 in Munich, Germany. The conferencebrings together experienced in-house counsel from both innovator and generic pharma and biotech companies and their expert legal advisors from various jurisdictions across the globe. Session will cover the patentability of gene sequence patents in Europe and the US, current developments on biotech products and patent considerations for bio-deposits, and many other sessions. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
American Conference Institute’s FDA Boot Camp conference is scheduled for March 20-21 in New York, NY. ACI’s FDA Boot Camp has been designed to give products or patent litigators, as well as patent prosecutors, industry in-house counsel, and life sciences investment and securities experts, a strong working knowledge of coreFDA competencies. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
American Conference Institute’s PTO Procedures Under the America Invents Act conference is scheduled for March 26-27 in New York, NY. This conference will serve as a practical and tactical guide for PTO practice post-Patent Reform. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
The European Generic Medicines Association is hosting the 10th EGA International Symposium regarding Biosimilar Medicines on April 19-20 in London. Greenblum & Bernstein is providing a pre-symposium workshop on April 19, 2012 titled: Biosimilars In America: IP Strategy and Due Diligence. The workshop will explore the mechanics of the Biologics Act with an emphasis on how the Act relates to the involved intellectual property and how the intellectual property may impact the biosimilar applicant’s strategy for entering the market. [Link]
The USPTO will be accepting application for their patent externship until February 29. Last year there were about 200 students who participated in the program. The program will last anywhere from 8-10 weeks and is at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. This is a great opportunity for anyone who wants to work in the patent field. [Link]
Chisum Patent Academy
The Chisum Patent Academy will hold its next Intensive Patent Law Training Seminar in New York City on Feb. 22-24, 2012. Topics to be addressed include the America Invents Act of 2011, recent nonobviousness decisions, inequitable conduct post-Therasense, and the continuing schism in the Federal Circuit over patent claim construction. The Chisum Patent Academy offers what CLE providers and patent bar review courses simply can’t: premium-quality patent law education in a unique seminar-style setting. Co-taught by leading patent law scholars Donald Chisum and Janice Mueller, the intensive three-day seminars are limited to ten (10) participants and conducted in roundtable, interactive style. [Link]
Patent Jobs:
Stoel Rives is searching for an associate attorney with 3-5 years of experience in patent prosecution and an EE background to work at their Salt Lake City office. [Link]
Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson is seeking a patent attorney with 3-5 years of experience and a background in EE to work at their Oakland office. [Link]
Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner is looking for patent attorneys with 2+ years of experience or 5+ years of experience if telecommuting. [Link]
Holland & Knight is searching for 2 IP litigation associates with 4-6 years of experience to work at their Boston or Chicago offices. [Link]
Howard & Howard is seeking IP associates with 4-8 years of experience of patent prep experience to work at their Royal Oak, Michigan office. [Link]
Armstrong Teasdale is looking for patent attorneys with 2-6 years of experience to work in one of their offices. [Link]
Pramudji Law Group is searching for a patent agent/attorney/engineer with at least 2 years of patent experience to work at their Houston office. [Link]
Shook, Hardy & Bacon is seeking a litigation associate with 3-4 years of litigation experience work in their Kansas City office. [Link]
Paul Hastings is searching for a patent litigation associate with a computer science degree and experience with patent litigation to work in their Atlanta office. [Link]
Krieg DeVault is looking for an IP associate with 3-7 years of experience to work in their Indianapolis office. [Link]
UTC Power is searching for an IP paralegal with 2-4 years of IP experience to work at their South Windsor, Connecticut location. [Link]
Fennemore Craig is seeking an experienced patent attorney to work in their Phoenix or Denver office. [Link]
Gore Medical Products is searching for an IP technical specialist to work at their Flagstaff location. [Link]
Wells St. John PS is looking for a patent attorney with 4+ years of experience in all aspects of IP practice to work at their Spokane office. [Link]
Sutherland is seeking a patent associate/agent with 2-5 years of experience and a degree in chemical engineering to work at their Atlanta office. [Link]
Upcoming Events:
IBC Legal’s 20th Annual Biotech & Pharmaceutical Patenting Conference 2012 will be held on February 21-22 in Munich, Germany. Get advice and analysis from a diverse team of international life science and IP experts on recent case law and developments, patent filing, patent life cycles, SPCs, patent infringement, EC Bolar implementation and more! Patently-O readers get a 10% discount when registering with this link. [Link]
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP will present a free one-hour CLE webinar, “Patent Reexaminations in Parallel with Litigation,” on February 22, 2012 at 12 noon EST. Joseph E. Shipley will discuss the factors that should be considered in deciding whether to seek reexamination as an alternative or adjunct to litigating patent validity in the federal courts. Topics will include what can and cannot be achieved in reexamination, current statistics on outcome, associated risks and costs, time frames, and reexamination options and alternatives. The upcoming new USPTO procedures–Post-Grant Review and Inter Partes Review–will also be covered. [Link]
The 7th Annual Conference on EU Pharma Law & Regulation will be held on February 22-23 in London. The conference will bring together eminent in-house counsel from the world’s largest pharma and biotech companies, top legal practitioners and regulatory experts in an outstanding speaker panel. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
Maurer School of Law Center for IP Research will hold a CLE Fundamentals of Federal Circuit Advocacy event on February 23. Greg Castanias will lead a discussion of patent appeals before the Federal Circuit. Also appearing: Center for Intellectual Property Research senior advisor Donald Knebel, Prof. Mark D. Janis, and former Federal Circuit clerk Allison Kerndt. [Link]
The Florida Bar 3rd Annual IP Law Symposium will be held on March 1-2 on Orlando. The IP Symposium will address recent developments and important issues in IP law, including: Perspectives on the America Invents Act, Copyright Law and the First Sale Doctrine, Third Party Liability in IP, Enforcing IP on the Internet, Latest Developments in Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Law, and Recent Developments at the TTAB. Guest speakers include; Anne Gilson LaLonde, Scott Bain, John Welch, and many others. [Link]
Section 101 Gatekeepers: Finding the Patentable Subject Matter Line in a Judicial Sandstorm, webinar will be hosted by AIPLA on March 7. The webinar will be presented by Professor Christopher Holman and attorney Robert H. Fischer. [Link]
LES (USA & Canada) 2012 Winter Meeting will be held March 12-14 in Anaheim, CA. The meeting will focus on cutting-edge issues in the high tech space with overlapping content in related industries, including clean tech, nanotech, and medical devices. Featured speakers include Honorable Randall Rader, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; Catherine Casserly, CEO, Creative Commons; and Patrick Ennis, Head of Global Technology, Intellectual Ventures. Patently-O readers save $100 with code PO1. [Link]
C5’s 22 Forum on Biotech Patenting conference will take place March 14-15 in Munich, Germany. The conferencebrings together experienced in-house counsel from both innovator and generic pharma and biotech companies and their expert legal advisors from various jurisdictions across the globe. Session will cover the patentability of gene sequence patents in Europe and the US, current developments on biotech products and patent considerations for bio-deposits, and many other sessions. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
American Conference Institute’s FDA Boot Camp conference is scheduled for March 20-21 in New York, NY. ACI’s FDA Boot Camp has been designed to give products or patent litigators, as well as patent prosecutors, industry in-house counsel, and life sciences investment and securities experts, a strong working knowledge of coreFDA competencies. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
American Conference Institute’s PTO Procedures Under the America Invents Act conference is scheduled for March 26-27 in New York, NY. This conference will serve as a practical and tactical guide for PTO practice post-Patent Reform. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
The European Generic Medicines Association is hosting the 10th EGA International Symposium regarding Biosimilar Medicines on April 19-20 in London. Greenblum & Bernstein is providing a pre-symposium workshop on April 19, 2012 titled: Biosimilars In America: IP Strategy and Due Diligence. The workshop will explore the mechanics of the Biologics Act with an emphasis on how the Act relates to the involved intellectual property and how the intellectual property may impact the biosimilar applicant’s strategy for entering the market. [Link]
Guest Post by Scott McKeown, Greg Gardella, and Lisa M. Mandrusiak all of OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.[1]
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is currently considering en banc the panel decision in Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc. The panel decisioncan be interpreted as suggesting that intervening rights can arise from an argument made during a post grant patent proceeding, such as a patent reexamination proceeding,[2] even if the patent owner is merely urging a claim interpretation that is consistent with the manner in which the term would have been understood at the time the underlying patent application was filed. In cases where the post grant record simply clarifies the way in which a skilled artisan would have understood a claim term at the time of filing, or reiterates the positions of the previous intrinsic record, the scope of the claims cannot properly be said to have been altered during the subsequent proceeding.
Post grant PTO patent proceedings often focus on the meaning of different aspects of originally issued claim language than were considered during the earlier application prosecution. Therefore, much of the argument made by the patent owner during the subsequent PTO proceeding is directed to new issues not previously considered by the PTO. It is to be expected that re-opening the intrinsic record via post grant file histories will often include substantively new discussion of various claim terms.
For example, during post grant proceedings patent claims are accorded the broadest reasonable interpretation ("BRI"). Determining the BRI requires a different analysis than carried out in a district court during claim construction, and notably, there is no requirement that the PTO consider the earlier prosecution record in ascertaining the BRI and meaning of an originally issued patent claim. This often places patent owners in the position of having to re-argue distinctions which were implicitly or explicitly accepted by the previous patent examiner. When the PTO requires amendment of a claim in post grant proceedings the amendment may in fact be a simple restatement of previously agreed upon claim scope, which should not give rise to intervening rights.
The rule adopted by the Court should be flexible so as to accommodate the foregoing situations and permit intervening rights only in the appropriate circumstances. The application of argument-based intervening rights should be limited to situations in which the patent owner clearly and unambiguously revises the issued claim scope by urging that a limitation has a meaning that is plainly at odds with the interpretation a court would have given the originally issued claim language.
Dealertrack v. Huber (Fed. Cir. 2012) Download 09-1566 Panel: Linn (author), Plager (concurring in part and dissenting in part), and Dyk
The Federal Circuit's opinion in Dealertrack adds to the evolving law on subject matter patentablility of computer-related inventions. It should be read in connection with two other recent decisions in this area, Ultramercial v. Hulu, 657 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
At issue was the subject matter patentability of claims 1, 3, and 4 of Patent No. 7,181,427. Claim 1 is representative:
1. A computer aided method of managing a credit application, the method comprising the steps of: [A] receiving credit application data from a remote application entry and display device; [B] selectively forwarding the credit application data to remote funding source terminal devices; [C] forwarding funding decision data from at least one of the remote funding source terminal devices to the remote application entry and display device; [D] wherein the selectively forwarding the credit application data step further comprises: [D1] sending at least a portion of a credit application to more than one of said remote funding sources substantially at the same time; [D2] sending at least a portion of a credit application to more than one ofsaid remote funding sources sequen-tially until a finding [sic, funding] source returns a positive funding decision; [D3] sending at least a portion of a credit application to a first one of said remote funding sources, and then, after a predetermined time, sending to at least one other remote funding source, until one of the finding [sic, funding] sources returns a positive funding deci-sion or until all funding sources have been exhausted; or, [D4] sending the credit application from a first remote funding source to a second remote finding [sic, funding] source if the first funding source de-clines to approve the credit application.
On appeal, the CAFC agreed with the district court that these claims are "directed to an abstract idea preemptive of a fundamental concept or idea that would foreclose innovation in this area," and thus are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101. In its simplest form, the court reasoned, the claimed process explains the basic concept of processing information through a clearinghouse. "Neither Dealertrack nor any other entity is entitled to wholly preempt the clearinghouse concept." Slip Op. at 35.
Nor was the link to a computer sufficient to limit the claims to an application of the idea. "The claims are silent as to how a computer aids the method, the extent to which a computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. The undefined phrase "computer aided" is no less abstract than the idea of a clearinghouse itself." Slip Op. at 35. "Simply adding a computer aided limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible." Id. at 36. In essence, the claimed process was akin to the unpatentable binary-coded decimal to pure binary conversion in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), and covered a clearinghouse process "using any existing or future-devised machinery."
This opinion completes a trio of recent opinions dealing with the patentability of computer-related inventions, the others being Ultramercial and CyberSource. In Ultramercial, authored by Chief Judge Rader and joined by Judges Lourie and O'Malley, the court concluded that a process for monetizing copyrighted products using a computer fell on the patentable side of the abstract ideas versus patentable application divide. Reaching the opposite result on the issue of abstractness, the CyberSource panel of Judges Bryson, Dyk (author) and Prost concluded that a method of verifying a credit card transatction over the Internet constituted an unpatentable process. In Dealertrack, the court drew upon the reasoning in CyberSource while distinguishing Ultramercial.
The court also addressed issues of claim construction and indefiniteness. Particularly noteworthy was the court's conclusion that "i.e.:" in the context of a patent-in-suit could not be read definitionally. Slip Op. 17-20.
Towards a more efficient judicial process: Writing in partial dissent, Judge Plager disagreed with the majority's decision to address subject matter patentability:
[A]s a matter of efficient judicial process I object to and dissent from that part of hte opinion regarding the '427 patent and its validity under §101, the section of the Patent Act that describes what is patentable subject matter. I believe that this court should exercise its inherent power to control the processes of litigation, Chamberes v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991), and insist that litigants, and trial courts, initially address patent invalidity issues in infringement suits in terms of the defenses provided in the statute: "conditions of patentability," specifically §§102 and 103, and in addition §§112 and 251, and not foray into the jurisprudential morass of §101 unless absolutely necessary.
Judge Plager appears to be thinking in the same direction as suggested by Professors Crouch and Merges in their recent article Operating Efficiently Post-Bilski by Ordering Patent Doctrine Decision-Making, 25 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1673 (2010), in which they proposed that "the § 101 issue of Bilski be considered only when doing so is absolutely necessary to determine the validity of a claim or claims in a patent. We believe any claim that can be invalidated under one of the less controversial and less complex requirements for patentability—§§ 102, 103, and 112, for instance—ought to be disposed of without considering subject matter patentability. In other words, the Bilski issue should be avoided wherever it is not strictly necessary."
Guest Post by Jon E. Wright and Joseph E. Mutschelknaus of Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC1
On September 16, 2011, the America Invents Act (“AIA”) changed the threshold standard for initiating inter partes reexamination. The new standard requires a requester to demonstrate that:
[T]he information presented in the request shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the request.
America Invents Act – Sec. 6(c)(3)(A)(i)-(ii). We refer to the new standard as the “RLP” standard. The RLP standard is significant because it matches the future standard for initiating inter partes review under the AIA.
This post addresses the new RLP standard. First, we review case law surrounding the “reasonable likelihood” standard as it exists in other contexts such as preliminary injunctions. Next, based on our analysis of every single post-AIA inter partes reexamination the PTO has acted upon, we analyze how the Office has been applying the new RLP standard in reexamination orders. Finally, we consider how inter partes reexamination requests (and future petitions for inter partes review) should be structured for the best chance at meeting the RLP threshold.
The “Reasonable Likelihood” Standard
Patent practitioners are familiar with the “reasonable likelihood” standard in the context of preliminary injunctions. For a court to grant a preliminary injunction, a patentee must demonstrate four factors, one of which is a “reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.” Ranbaxy Pharm., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 350 F.3d 1235,1239 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This standard may be instructive in learning how the Office will deal with the new RLP standard for current inter partes reexamination requests and inter partes review petitions later this year.
According to the Federal Circuit, the reasonable likelihood of success standard for preliminary injunctions must be made “in light of the presumptions and burdens that will inhere at trial on the merits….” Id. In the context of inter partes patentability proceedings at the Office, claims do not enjoy the presumption of validity that they do before a district court. Rather, the standard of proof before the Office is the “preponderance of evidence” standard. MPEP § 706.I. The same is true for the new inter partes review proceedings. See AIA § 316(e). Therefore, Requesters (or Petitioners) must demonstrate a “reasonable likelihood” that they can invalidate at least one claim of the patent for which reexamination is sought under the preponderance of the evidence standard.
But what does this really mean? In the context of preliminary injunction proceedings, the Federal Circuit has stressed that “[a]t this preliminary stage, the trial court does not resolve the validity question….” New England Braiding Co., Inc. v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 970 F.2d 878, 882-83 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Rather, the decision maker “must … make an assessment of the persuasiveness of the challenger’s evidence, recognizing that it is doing so without all evidence that may come out at trial.” Id. This is just as true in inter partes reexamination (or review) because both parties to the proceeding are permitted to submit additional evidence in support of their positions, at least during the first round of replies and comments.
Moreover, in addition to recognizing that it may not have all the facts, the decision maker must also assess the persuasiveness of the evidence. This may include making credibility determinations. As the Federal Circuit stated in New England Braiding, “[a] credibility determination is well within the court’s province when ruling on a preliminary injunction motion.” Id.
If the preliminary injunction standard for determining a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits is any guide, we can thus surmise the following with respect to requests for inter partes reexamination (or future petitions for inter partes review):
The request or petition must be based on “evidence,” which at the initial stage will likely be limited to prior art patents or printed publications;
The request or petition must reviewed by the Office under the “preponderance of evidence” standard, with the burden placed on the requester or petitioner;
The request or petition need not conclusively demonstrate unpatentability;
The Examiner (or Board) may properly make credibility determinations; and
The Examiner (or Board) must make an assessment of the persuasiveness of the evidence and accompanying argument set forth by the requester or petitioner, recognizing that it does not have all the evidence.
As shown next, the Office appears to be adhering to these standards.
The Office’s Application of the RLP Standard
As of the date of this post, the Office has acted on forty-two (42) requests for inter partes reexamination that were filed on or after September 16, 2011. The authors analyzed each one to determine how the Office is implementing the new RLP standard. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the Central Reexamination Unit is still struggling with the new standard. But nonetheless, several observations can be made from these orders.
First, despite the change, early data suggests that the Office continues to be granting reexaminations at about the same rate under the new RLP standard as it was under the old “substantial new question” or “SNQ” standard. In fiscal year 2011, for example, the Office granted 342 inter partes reexamination requests out of 366 total decisions. That accounts for a 93% grant rate under the old SNQ standard. Of the 42 orders issued under the new RLP standard, 38 have been granted (at least in part), putting the current grant rate under the RLP standard at about 90%. Thus, while the sample set is still limited, the Office appears to be granting reexamination requests at about the same rate under the RLP standard as it had been under the SNQ standard. This runs contrary to the general belief among practitioners that the RLP standard would be stricter than the SNQ standard.
Second, in finding an RLP, the Office appears to be focusing on the persuasiveness of the requester’s evidence on the merits. The Office is also correctly placing the burden of establishing the reasonable likelihood prevail on the requester. In cases where RLPs are denied, the Office frequently uses language like, “Requester has failed to show the claim step is taught by the reference.” (See, e.g., 95/001,809, p. 6.) At the same time, the Office is not shying away from addressing the underlying legal issues presented in the request, such as claim construction. For example, in several cases, the Office explicitly construed claim terms, and then made a finding that the cited references do not teach claims under that construction. (See, e.g., 95/001,785, 95/001,792.) Thus, in establishing whether there is an RLP, the Office is considering the merits of the cited prior art against the claims on both factual and legal bases.
Third, while the importance of the art’s strength against the claims may have increased with the RLP standard, the importance of the art’s “newness” may have decreased. Under the SNQ standard, the Office would almost always take into account the prosecution history and discuss whether the cited prior art was presented a new light. In contrast, of the forty-two (42) orders issued under the RLP standard, only three (3) make any discussion of the prosecution history or cumulativeness of the art. And in no case did this appear to be dispositive. This is consistent with the AIA, which made the newness requirement effectively discretionary on the Office. See AIA codified at 35 U.S.C. § 325 (“In determining whether to … order a proceeding under [the inter partes reexamination/review chapter], the Director may take into account whether, and reject the … request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments were previously were presented to the Office.”) (emphasis added). In sum, the weight given to the art’s newness appears to be waning.
Practice Tips
Given the above observations, drafting a strong, persuasive request supported by quality prior art references remains paramount under the new RLP standard, just as it was under the old SNQ standard. But in view of the Office’s tendency to now focus more intently on the merits of the individual rejections under the new standard, requesters may want to provide and justify claim constructions in their initial requests. Also, requesters may want to consider including expert declarations with their request, especially if the art upon which the reexamination is based is complicated and would benefit from expert clarification or explanation. Keep in mind, though, that reexaminations must still be based on patents and prior-art publications, not expert declarations.
At the same time, requesters may need less discussion in their requests of how their art is noncumulative or new with respect to what the Office has already considered. This could result in structural change to reexamination requests. For example, prior inter partes reexamination requests usually included two separate questions, one developing and showing the SNQ and a second section with the proposed rejections—i.e., the manner and pertinency of applying the prior-art references. Now, with the increased focus on the substantive merits of the proposed rejections and the decreased focus on newness or cumulativeness of the art, the second section becomes the most important section. Indeed, a fully developed set of proposed rejections would seem to be sufficient in proving up the RLP standard.
In sum, the authors believe it was a good idea for Congress to immediately implement the RPL standard for inter partes reexaminations. It gives patent practitioners a taste of what is to come for inter partes review under the AIA, and the ability to prepare for that change. It also appears as if the Office is adopting evaluation standards similar to those used the context of preliminary injunctions. We hope this post provide some new insight into the RLP standard—a standard with which we will have to live for the foreseeable future.
1Jon Wright is a Director and Joe Mutschelknaus is an Associate at Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC www.skgf.com. The views expressed herein are the authors’ alone and should not be attributed to the firm or its clients.
Edited on 2/2/2012 to reflect that it was Congress's decision to immediately implement the RPL standard.
IPCom is the German version of a “patent troll.” Or, as Lord Justice Jacob wrote in Nokia v. IPCOM, EWCA Civ 6 (2011), “IPCom is a ‘non practising entity’, i.e. a patentee with no business of its own in products covered by the patents.” The company is run by Bernhard Frohwitter, one of the most successful German patent litigators and backed by New York private equity. As suggested by this introduction, IPCom is pursuing patent battles against telecommunications device manufacturers around the world. [Even though I used the word “troll” here, I certainly believe that non-practicing entities should generally have a right to enforce their patents.]
In 2011, IPCom sued the Taiwanese company HTC Corporation in the US for infringement of its Patent No. 6,879,830. The patent covers an apparatus for solving the wireless communications problem of handing-over a data-stream connection to another base station as the wireless device travels geographically. The patent was originally owned by the German company Bosch who transferred rights to IPCom as part of a major IP asset purchase.
IPXL: The district court held the asserted claims invalid on summary judgment as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112. Following IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the district court rejected the claims as reciting an apparatus with method steps. On appeal, the Federal Circuit has reversed – holding that the lower court misconstrued the language of the claims.
I have reproduced a representative claim below, but the basic gist is that a mobile station apparatus is claimed that operates with a network. The network provides a number of functions regarding the handover process, including storing data, holding information in reserve, and then later deleting the information after the handover. The claim includes only one element for the mobile station – requiring that the mobile station comprises “an arrangement” for reversing the handover if it is unsuccessful.
Claim 1. A mobile station for use with a network including a first base station and a second base station that achieves a handover from the first base station to the second base station by: storing link data for a link in a first base station, holding in reserve for the link resources of the first base station, and when the link is to be handed over to the second base station: initially maintaining a storage of the link data in the first base station, initially causing the resources of the first base station to remain held in reserve, and at a later timepoint determined by a fixed period of time predefined at a beginning of the handover, deleting the link data from the first base station and freeing up the resources of the first base station, the mobile station comprising: an arrangement for reactivating the link with the first base station if the handover is unsuccessful.
In IPXL, the court held a claim invalid that was structured as an apparatus claim that also required the performance of method steps. Here however, the Federal Circuit interpreted the claim language as having an apparatus defined by its capability to perform a set of defined tasks. The legal distinction here is in whether the apparatus must perform the step or merely be capable of performing the step. In addition, the language discussing the function of the network does not create any problem because the claim itself is actually claiming a mobile station. Thus, the “prohibition on hybrid claiming” identified in IPXL does not apply to this case.
In interpreting the claim, the court relied on its old rule of construction that claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Using ordinary meaning as a starting point ,the court also walked through the specification and prosecution history in reaching its conclusion that the seeming action-items were directed to the network rather than the mobile device itself.
Prosecution History: One basis of HTC’s argument came from the prosecution history where the applicant referred to the six action elements in the claim as a “process” and the examiner called them “steps.” The Federal Circuit held that HTC (and the lower court) placed too much emphasis on those statements – especially because “in most cases” the examiner was referring to parallel method claims not at issue here. In looking at the prosecution history, the court also sent the reminder that prosecution history is less important in interpretation than claim and specification language. “Although the district court was correct in considering the prosecution history, the claim language and specification in this case are better sources for the correct construction.”
Because the court identified the source of error claim construction rather than indefiniteness, the case was reviewed
Means-Plus-Function and Waiver: HTC also offered a separate invalidity challenge based on the claimed “arrangement for reactivating.” HTC argued that – as a means-plus-function limitation – the scope of the term is defined by the corresponding structure found in the specification. Further, HTC argued that the specification did not include any supporting structure and that the claim must therefore be held invalid as indefinite. The district court rejected that argument – holding that the disclosed processor and transceiver served as the corresponding structure. On appeal, the Federal Circuit identified that holding as in error because the claimed function must be tied to a more particular structure. Here that structure would ideally be an algorithm that defines in some terms how the arrangement would work. See Aristocrat Techs. Austl. PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
After identifying the error, the appellate panel refused to reverse because HTC had failed to properly preserve an objection for the appeal. The problem: At the trial court, HTC had argued that more hardware disclosure was necessary beyond the “processor and transceiver,” while on appeal, HTC (and in the reply brief) shifted its argument to focus on the need for an algorithm. The appellate court held that this late-stage argument was too late.
To be clear, HTC had argued that the means-plus-function limitation was indefinite because it lacked sufficient corresponding structure in the specification. HTC’s error was that it identified the patent’s problem as lacking sufficient description of the hardware that would perform the claimed function while the Federal Circuit saw the patent’s problem deriving from lacking a sufficient description of the algorithm that would perform the claimed function. The Federal Circuit’s point was that no more hardware need be disclosed so long as the algorithm is there. This result is a bit odd for a few reasons. The practical reason for this failing is likely that these issues were litigated before the Federal Circuit’s 2008 decision on point. However, from a factual standpoint I suspect that HTC is absolutely correct – the lack of disclosed structure could-have been entirely solved by further disclosure of specific hardware designed to achieve the claimed function and without any further disclosure of the particular algorithm. Thus, the disclosure of a video graphics processor would likely serve as sufficient structure for a computer graphic processing function with a known solution even without disclosing the particular algorithm used for the processing. In the same way a nail could serve as the structure of a fastening claim even without a description of the particular process for hammering the nail into place. Likewise here, a particularly designed and disclosed circuitry could serve as the structure for achieving the claimed reactivating function even without disclosing its process flow per se. The fact that the Federal Circuit here chooses a different structure that should-have-been disclosed does not suggest that HTC waived its argument that the claimed function lacked sufficient structure. This leads me to a second and broader point about the accused infringer’s role in the invalidation process. It is not normally the accused infringer’s role to identify what the patentee should have invented or disclosed. Rather, invalidity is more simply based on a showing that the patentee did not do enough. In this sense, the accused infringer takes on a role parallel to a food critic who can identify poorly presented food even if she herself cannot cook. In my world, this is akin to my own low level spelling prowess. I usually know when a word is misspelled. However, I can only rarely posit the correct spelling formulation without assistance. Thus, the Court’s ruling here leaves a bad taste because it puts a new burden on accused infringers to take the additional step of identifying what the patentee should have said in the patent and then binds them to their suggested counterfactual.
Harmless Error on Remand: The Federal Circuit identified an error in the lower court’s judgment but, because of waiver, did not require the lower court to re-open this issue on remand. Odds are that the lower court will not stick to its original opinion that has now been adjudged legally incorrect. Instead the court will more likely assert its discretionary power to take a fresh look at the issue of indefiniteness. This is especially likely if the district court broadly considers Supreme Court precedent such as Leer v. Adkins and the associated policy that “bad patents” should be invalidated even if that means bending some of the norms of civil procedure.
Court of Appeals: For Judge O’Malley (the opinion’s author), the waiver portion of the opinion appears to be written as a reminder to patent litigators that the Federal Circuit is a Court of Appeals rather than a trier of fact or court of first instance. This legal reality continues to be lost on some of her colleagues on the appellate bench.
Means-Plus-Function in Combination: A final MPF issue that could also create trouble for IPCom involves the fact that the Federal Circuit’s new construction of the claim includes only one element and that element is a means-plus-function language. The basis for means-plus-function claiming is found in 35 U.S.C. § 112¶6. That paragraph includes an apparent limitation that MPF elements are available only in “a claim for a combination.” The result: single element claims may not use MPF language to define that lone element. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
This case involves an interesting 20+ year history between Mr. Krippelz and Ford Motor Company, including 14 years of litigation over a mirror lamp. Ford has won what appears to be the final round.
* * * * *
Back in 1991, Mr. Krippelz sent Ford Motor Company a copy of his patent covering a downward-facing side-mirror light and a license inquiry. Ford was not interested in a license, but in 1997 began selling cars with downward-facing side-mirror lights. Krippelz sued in 1998. A paper battle continued over the next decade and even after Mr. Krippelz death in 2010. During that time, the USPTO confirmed the patentability of the asserted claims in a reexamination, the judge awarded summary judgment of infringement, the jury the patent valid and awarded $23 million in damages; and the judge boosted that figure to $56 million based upon pre-judgment interest and enhanced damages for willful infringement.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit has reversed – finding the patent invalid as anticipated by a 1951 French Patent invented by Charles DuBois of the former French West African colonial territories.
A court may find issued patent claim invalid as anticipated only when presented with clear and convincing evidence that a single prior art reference discloses each and every element of a claimed invention.
The focus here was on the Krippelz patent’s claimed “conical beam of light” and whether that beam was disclosed by DuBois. In construing the claim, the district court held that the conical limitation required that “the filament of the light bulb is at or near the focal point of an optical reflector.” DuBois included a statement that his system may also include “a bulb at the focus of the reflector.” In reviewing the difference, the appellate panel found that any reasonable jury would find the asserted claim invalid based upon DuBois and that the district court had abused its discretion in denying the motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.
Most appellants in Ford’s position would have appealed claim construction because of the lower standard of review. Here, Ford may have lost that right by not previously objecting to the claim construction. That said, the motor company was able to roll a hard eight to overcome the strong presumption of validity and the deference given to the jury determination.
Marine Polymer Tech. v. HemCon, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011)
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has announced that it will hold an en banc rehearing of the Marine Polymer Tech case. Straying from its recent practice, the Court has not suggested any particular questions that it will address nor did the Court offer to receive friend-of-the-court briefs filed without leave. Thus, under the Federal Circuit rules of practice, any amicus curiae may file a brief only with either (1) leave of court or (2) leave of all parties to the appeal. (Fed. Cir. R. 29).
The initial appellate decision focused on the potential for intervening rights created by patentee arguments made during reexamination. Here, the court held that that a narrowing claim construction argument made by the patentee in a reexamination gives rise to absolute intervening rights for an accused infringer’s products made or sold prior to the reexamination request. An important quirk of the case is that the narrow construction that the patentee suggested to the PTO was the same construction that had been ordered by a district court in this case. Thus, at the time, the argued-for construction was seen as the true construction rather than a narrowing construction. However, the argued-for construction became narrowing after-the-fact once the Federal Circuit rejected the lower court’s construction as unduly narrow.
The majority opinion was written by Judge Dyk and Joined by Senior Judge Gajarsa. Judge Lourie filed a dissent that looked to the patent statute for guidance on the legal scope of intervening rights. He argued that the statute does not create intervening rights based upon arguments but rather only apply to “amended or new claims.” See 35 U.S.C. §§ 307(b), 316(b), and 252.
The question suggested by the plaintiff-appellate Marine Polymer follows Judge Lourie’s dissent:
Whether arguments made regarding a patent claim during reexamination of a patent give rise to intervening rights under 35 U.S.C, §§ 307(b) and 252, where the patent claim in question is neither “amended” nor “new” in the reexamination.
Intellectual Ventures filed a brief supporting the en banc rehearing – noting its “concern[] with the panel’s redefining of the term ‘amended claim’ to include original claims that have not been textually altered.”
In response, HemCon argued that Marine Polymer’s formalistic argument does not make sense. In particular, HemCom noted that it would be odd “to adopt a rule under which intervening rights would apply when claims are substantively changed during reexamination by altering the actual language of the claims, [but] would not apply when claims are substantively changed through arguments made to the USPTO.”
There is some tension between this decision and that of Bettcher Industries v. Bunzl USA (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Bettcher Industries, the court held that the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) only apply once all appeal rights have been exhausted. In addition, the case is directly in tension with Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir 1998). In that decision (penned by Judge Lourie), the court followed a two step process to determine whether intervening rights applied. First, the court looked to determine whether the text of the patent claim had changed. Since the text had changed in that case, the court then looked to see whether the change was “substantial.”
My expectation is that this decision will be reversed by a strong majority on rehearing.
On January 5 the PTO proposed a new 37 CFR §1.290 in the Federal Register for third party pre-issuance submissions of prior art in patent applications of others. The new rule is needed to implement the new statutory provision – 35 U.S.C. §122(e) – found in Section 8 of the AIA [Leahy Smith America Invents Act]. 35 U.S.C. §122(e) will be effective as of September 16, 2012, and will be usable against any pending applications [including reissues but not reexaminations] filed before or after that date. It will permit anyone to submit patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications, to the USPTO for consideration and inclusion in the record of a patent application as long as the submission includes a "concise statement of relevance" and meets some other paperwork requirements, which need not be discussed here since they will be clearly spelled out in the final PTO rules. As discussed below, §122(e) includes a significant expansion of the time period for submitting prior art documents to be put into someone else's pending application. The statute also expands what you can say about the documents (accompanying explanations and arguments) well beyond the present limitations found in 37 CFR §1.99. The submission process will remain cheap and simple, but it will still present the same conundrums as to whether or not you should use it?
In the same Federal Register is the proposed PTO rulemaking for amending 37 CFR §1.501 to accommodate the amendment of 35 U.S.C. §301. This amendment will slightly expand what information anyone can submit to the USPTO for inclusion in an already issued patent file when accompanied by a written explanation regarding the "pertinency and manner of applying" the information to at least one patent claim. That expand [new] information which can be put into an issued patent file will include written statements made by the patent owner before a Federal court or the Office regarding the scope of any claim of the patent. But the Office's use of such written statements will be limited to determining the meaning of a patent claim in reexamination proceedings and post grant review proceedings. This provision is also effective on September 16, 2012.
The Present Situation [PRE AIA]
First keep in mind that the PTO considers it to be actionable unethical conduct to put any papers into anyone else's ex parte [normal] patent application file unless there is an express statutory basis for doing so. Furthermore, papers attempted to be filed in a reexamination in which you are not a party [other than just the initial request papers for an ex parte reexamination], will not be entered. Adverse prior art submissions for anything in the PTO are quite restricted.
37 CFR §1.291 "Protests by the public against pending applications" and 37 CFR §1.292 "Public use proceedings" have existed for many years, but have been rarely used, and I suspect that few PTO practitioners or PTO personnel have ever seen one. Some senior PTO officials I asked at a CLE meeting several years ago doubted if there had been more than a handful per year. The rare Rule 292 proceedings are mostly used in connection with a parallel interference. Rule 291's potential usage was significantly restricted when the statute providing for U.S. 18 month application publications went into effect, ending Rule 291 "protest" filing opportunities after an application publication date.
The PTO at that time also put severe rule constraints that were not statutorily required into a 37 CFR §1.99 limiting what could be submitted and when. Rule 99 has a short time limit of only two months following the application publication date. Rule 99 also expressly states at (d) that a "submission under this section shall not include any explanation of the patents or publications, or any other information. The Office will not enter such explanation or information if included in a submission under this section." There is also a limit of 10 submitted documents. The PTO even threatened to reject submitted prior art patent copies if they were merely marked or high-lined to show the examiner where the relevant teaching or disclosure was buried in the patent! It seemed obvious to me at that time that the PTO did not really want to be bothered with any extra examiner work from third party prior art submissions. [The AIA has now at least made it clear that that is not quite what Congress has in mind.] An English language translation must be provided for all relevant portions of any listed non-English language document to be considered by the examiner, and that requirement will continue under the proposed new rules. Some patent attorneys reportedly consider it preferable to just send prior art to an applicant's patent attorney by registered mail and rely on the inequitable conduct concerns of that patent attorney to get that patent attorney to file the prior art the application, or to set up an IC defense if they do not.
35 U.S.C. §301 above [with its original 37 CFR §1.501] was enacted years ago accompanying the first [ex parte] reexamination system. It is simply to allow people to place prior art in an issued patent file without having to initiate a reexamination, so that the art might hopefully be considered if anyone subsequently requested a reexamination. It is understood that §301 has rarely been used, and I am not aware of any PTO statistics to the contrary, even though §301 says that it can be done anonymously. My very limited experience was that the PTO clerical staff did not know what to do with the [rare] §301 submittal and it was not placed in the patent file until we made follow-up efforts. [A copy of the PTO submittal mailed to the patent owner was helpful for a licensing discussion, but I wouldn't count on that happening often.]
What's New?
New 35 U.S.C.122(e)(1) and its proposed new rule 37 CFR §1.290 will greatly expand when you can legally put prior art into someone else's pending application file. As shown below, that is awkwardly expressed as "before the earlier of .. or the later of" three events in an application. But clearly it will normally be available for a much longer time period than the mere 2 months after a patent application is published of present Rule 99. It may be submittable for several years for applications not yet having a first office action with a claim rejection, as long as there is as yet no notice of allowance. Nor can the present unreasonable Rule 99 prevention of any explanations or comments on the submitted art remain, since "a concise description of the asserted relevance of each submitted document" is specifically required by this new statute:
(e) Preissuance Submissions by Third Parties-
(1) IN GENERAL- Any third party may submit for consideration and inclusion in the record of a patent application, any patent, published patent application, or other printed publication of potential relevance to the examination of the application, if such submission is made in writing before the earlier of–
(A) the date a notice of allowance under section 151 is given or mailed in the application for patent; or
(B) the later of–
(i) 6 months after the date on which the application for patent is first published under section 122 by the Office, or
(ii) the date of the first rejection under section 132 of any claim by the examiner during the examination of the application for patent.
(2) OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Any submission under paragraph (1) shall–
(A) set forth a concise description of the asserted relevance of each submitted document;
(B) be accompanied by such fee as the Director may prescribe; and
(C) include a statement by the person making such submission affirming that the submission was made in compliance with this section.
As noted, the proposed amended 37 CFR §1.501 for the AIA amendment of 35 U.S.C. §301 will just slightly add totheinformation can be submitted to the PTO to merely put into an issued patent file. That information can now comprise or include written statements made by the patent owner before a Federal court or the Office regarding the scope of any claim of the patent, and that information can supposedly be used in subsequent actual reexaminations. However, even if that made sense tactically or strategically in some situation, perhaps in anticipation of a potential ex parte reexamination initiated by the patent owner itself, I fail to see how that kind of material can affect that many reexaminations? The Fed. Cir. requirement that claim scope in a reexamination apply a "broadest reasonable interpretation" test is not the same as claim interpretation in patent litigation.
But Do You Really Want To Do It & How Likely Is the Overall Usage?
How likely is it that this somewhat increased opportunity to cite prior art in applications or patent files of others will be used? That depends largely on whether you think doing so is really a good idea or not. That obviously includes guessing how likely is a regular examiner in normal ex parte patent examination [not a reexamination] going to consider and apply that prior art to reject claims? A prior statistical study published by Prof. Crouch on his Patently-O blog of a low examiner usage rate of prior art cited by the applicants themselves is not encouraging. But perhaps a novel third party submission is more likely to get an examiner's attention and claim rejections than routine applicant IDS dumps?
Even if that effectiveness was predictable, there is clearly a serious risk in third party submissions of art into applications of others under any system. It will case the application owner to think that someone else thinks their patent application is important enough be worth attacking its claim scope. That is logically going to cause the patent application owner to put extra effort into getting that application allowed, with broad and variable scope claims, including possible RCE's and appeals if necessary, and possibly filing and keeping divisionals and continuations pending. Furthermore, the claims can be amended to distinguish the third party cited art without incurring "intervening rights" as would be the case in a reexamination. While the third parties citing the prior art do not face dangerous estoppels [as in inter partes reexaminations or PGR] they do risk greatly strengthening the enforceability of the resultant patent against that or similar prior art if not all potentially infringed claims are finally rejected.
The rare use of any of the present third party prior art submission systems does not suggest their likely future use, [unlike the increasing use of reexaminations]. The PTO has apparently never kept statistics on the number of prior art filings in other peoples patent applications under present 37 CFR 1.99 (in force since 2000), or otherwise. But I was cognizant of a docketing operation that was handling thousands of pending patent applications, and only one such third party prior art submission was ever identified as being filed against any of those thousands of U.S. applications [excluding those in interferences] and it was not successful in getting any claims rejected.
Perhaps there will be somewhat higher usage and success rates for the new 35 U.S.C.122(e)(1) and 37 CFR §1.290 because it will allow attached explanations of the relevance of the cited art. But until that is demonstrated, the conservative tendency of patent attorneys to save prior art defenses until they think they can be used more effectively later, especially in an inter partes reexamination [where the patent owner cannot make completely unchallenged ex parte arguments against the cited art] seems likely to prevail.
There is of course an academic myth, supported by some companies presumably for its PR value, that was at play in the lead-up to these AIA changes. Namely a strange inherent assumption that large numbers of the public have nothing better to do with their time and money than to undertake the tens of thousands of prior art searches and claim-relevant submissions that would be needed to have any significant effect on patent examination quality for the more than 500,000 patent applications a year, even though they are not aware of any that could ever threaten any of their products. A mere couple of hundred patent applications were provided with prior art submissions under a pilot "Peer to Patent" system, despite all its publicity, of which only a minority resulted in claims being rejected using the submitted prior art.
As usual, I would appreciate comments from others with relevant information on these subjects.
MarcTec LLC v. Johnson & Johnson and Cordis Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2012) (O’Malley, J.) on appeal from the Southern District of Illinois
In this decision, the appellate panel (Judges Newman, Prost, and O’Malley) focused on the question of whether the district court properly found the case “exceptional” leading to the award of attorney fees and expenses of over $4 million. Its answer – Yes.
The patents in suit are directed to various surgical implants heat-bonded to antibiotic-containing polymer material. The district court construed the term “bonded” in a way that excluded the accused Cordis devices and thus resulted in a summary judgment of non-infringement. That decision was affirmed on appeal in 2010.
On remand, the district court determined that the case was “exceptional” because the patentee MarcTec’s attorneys had “engaged in litigation misconduct.” The particular misconduct was that MarcTec alleged theories of claim construction and infringement that were clearly incorrect.
MarcTec engaged in litigation misconduct when it: (1) misrepresented both the law of claim construction and the constructions ultimately adopted by the court; and (2) introduced and relied on expert testimony that failed to meet even minimal standards of reliability, thereby prolonging the litigation and the expenses attendant thereto.
Regarding its claim construction argument, the court found that MarcTec had improperly argued for a plain meaning interpretation of the term “bonded” despite clear language in the specification and prosecution history that contradicted the plain meaning being advanced. In the process, MarcTec misrepresented the law on claim construction and encouraged the court to ignore the specification unless it found an insoluble “ambiguity” in the claim language. This mischaracterization of the law coupled with its unsupported allegations of infringement was sufficient to support the conclusion of litigation misconduct.
There is a significant and growing overlap between patents in reexamination and patents in litigation. These parallel processes raise practical issues priority and precedence between decisions by a court compared with actions by an executive agency. In her recent dissent in the appellate decision of In re Construction Equipment Company (CEC), —- F.3d —-, 2011 WL 6224539 (Fed. Cir. 2011), Judge Newman argued that a reexamination proceeding requested by an accused infringer (PowerScreen) after a court had already finally rejected the accused infringer's obviousness defense should be considered an an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers and a violation of principles of res judicata and issue preclusion. The majority (Judges Prost and O'Malley) affirmed the PTO determination on reexamination that CEC's claimed invention is obvious and therefore unpatentable.
The facts of the case are simple:
Litigation: In 1996, CEC sued PowerScreen for infringement. PowerScreen argued that the patent was invalid as both obvious and anticipate. However, the district court rejected those arguments and upheld the patent's validity and issued a permanent injunction. The Federal Circuit affirmed that decision in 2000. Powerscreen then unsuccessfully petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Reexamination: In 2007, PowerScreen decided to take another bite at the apple and filed a reexamination request - identifying the same prior art references rejected in the district court decision as well as a few others. See Reexam No. 90/008,447 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The examiner rejected the claim, BPAI affirmed, and CEC appeal to the Federal Circuit.
Back to Litigation: Based upon the reexamination results, PowerScreen would like for the district court to lift the permanent injunction.
Judgment:
The Majority rejected Judge Newman's contentions largely based upon the Federal Circuit's 2008 Swanson decision. In that case, the court allowed a reexamination to proceed even though the requesting party had unsuccessfully asserted some of the same prior art in litigation of the same patent. There, the court explained the general principle that issue preclusion does not apply to patent validity judgments (although it does apply to patent invalidity judgments).
Open door to estoppel: Although the majority agreed that the patent was properly invalidated during the reexamination, it refused to opine on whether the adjudged infringer “might or might not be entitled to seek abrogation of the injunction” based upon the reexamination results.
Invalidity affirmed.
Notes on the Case:
As an aside, at oral arguments, Judge O'Malley asked the patentee to explain the “points of novelty” of the invention.
Scott A. McKeown writes that under this case “the infringer could attempt to 'undo' the effect of the earlier, final, court judgement by invalidating the patent via the EXP filing.”
Michael Barclay writes “Judge Newman sure likes patents.”
PHawk writes that the “ruling is merely exemplary of the present policy to eviscerate patent protection for all but large corporations.”
On December 20th the USPTO released its updated website. The new website seems to be more user friendly and the design is more attractive than the previous website design. [Link]
The USPTO in cooperation with the Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation (COECI) launched the USPTO Innovation Challenge, a $50,000 prize to develop new algorithms to aid in patent examination. [Link]
Chisum Patent Academy
The Chisum Patent Academy will hold its next Intensive Patent Law Training Seminar in New York City on Feb. 22-24, 2012. Topics to be addressed include the America Invents Act of 2011, recent nonobviousness decisions, inequitable conduct post-Therasense, and the continuing schism in the Federal Circuit over patent claim construction. The Chisum Patent Academy offers what CLE providers and patent bar review courses simply can't: premium-quality patent law education in a unique seminar-style setting. Co-taught by leading patent law scholars Donald Chisum and Janice Mueller, the intensive three-day seminars are limited to ten (10) participants and conducted in roundtable, interactive style. [Link]
Student Writing Competition
Georgia State University College of Law will hold its first annual Intellectual Property Student Writing Competition in 2012. The GSU Intellectual Property Writing Competition seeks papers addressing legal issues and challenges in the intellectual property field. Winners will have the opportunity to have their paper published in the conference materials for the 2012 Corporate IP Institute (CIPI) and also win a cash prize. [Link]
Evil Twin Debate
On November 18, the University of Richmond School of Law hosted the Fifth Annual Evil Twin Debate, featuring Professor Daniel Crane of University of Michigan Law School and Professor Michael Carrier of Rutgers University School of Law at Camden. The video of the event has been posted on YouTube and is very entertaining. [Link]
Patent Jobs:
Zagorin O'Brien Graham is seeking patent attorneys with 2+ years of experience and a degree in electrical engineering to work in their Austin, Texas office. [Link]
Pioner is searching for IP attorneys with 5-7 years (or more) prior experience in patent prosecution and a background in life sciences to work at their Iowa location. [Link]
Bristol-Myers Squibb is seeking an IP Counsel with 5+ years of patent attorney experience and a background in molecular biology or biochemistry to work at their New Jersey location. [Link]
Guntin Meles & Gust is looking for patent attorneys with2+ years of patent prep and prosecution experience and a degree in EE or CE to work at their Chicago office (remote locations may be considered). [Link]
Steinfl & Bruno is seeking a patent agent with 2-3 years of experience and a degree in EE or related fields to work in their Pasadena, California office. [Link]
Klarquist Sparkman is searching for an IP litigation associates with 1-2 years of experience in IP to work at their Portland office. [Link]
Klarquist Sparkman is looking for a patent attorney/agent with an advanced degree in organic chemistry and 3+ years of experience to work at their Portland office. [Link]
Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole is searching for a patent attorney with 2-4 years of experience and a degree in EE to work at their McLean, Virginia office. [Link]
Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole is searching for a patent attorney with 2-4 years of experience and a degree in chemical engineering to work at their McLean, Virginia office. [Link]
Clements Bernard is seeking a patent attorney/agent with a degree in electrical/computer engineering to work at their Charlotte office. [Link]
Wells St. John is looking for a patent attorney with 4+ years of experience in all aspects of IP to work at their Spokane office. [Link]
An IP firm in Northern Virginia is seeking a patent attorney/agent with at least 3 years of experience and a background in semiconductor inventions (telecommuting option). [Link]
Upcoming Events:
The American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law, Young Lawyers Division, ABA-IPL Young Lawyers Action Group and the ABA Center for Continuing Legal Education will sponsor a webinar on January 20 at 1 p.m. Eastern time. The webinar, Prosecution Strategies: Tackling USPTO Obviousness Rejections will explore how the KSR standards have been applied in various technology areas and provide guidance for effective avenues of argument based on the technology area. Speakers include: Janet Hendrickson, Gregory Hillyer, Michelle O'Brien, and Zachary Stern. [Link]
The American Conference Institute (ACI) The Comprehensive Guide to Patent Reform For Life Science Companies, conference is scheduled for January 31- February 1 in New York. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
The 7th Annual Conference on EU Pharma Law & Regulation will be held on February 22-23 on London. The conference will bring together eminent in-house counsel from the world's largest pharma and biotech companies, top legal practitioners and regulatory experts in an outstanding speaker panel. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
On December 20th the USPTO released its updated website. The new website seems to be more user friendly and the design is more attractive than the previous website design. [Link]
The USPTO in cooperation with the Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation (COECI) launched the USPTO Innovation Challenge, a $50,000 prize to develop new algorithms to aid in patent examination. [Link]
Chisum Patent Academy
The Chisum Patent Academy will hold its next Intensive Patent Law Training Seminar in New York City on Feb. 22-24, 2012. Topics to be addressed include the America Invents Act of 2011, recent nonobviousness decisions, inequitable conduct post-Therasense, and the continuing schism in the Federal Circuit over patent claim construction. The Chisum Patent Academy offers what CLE providers and patent bar review courses simply can't: premium-quality patent law education in a unique seminar-style setting. Co-taught by leading patent law scholars Donald Chisum and Janice Mueller, the intensive three-day seminars are limited to ten (10) participants and conducted in roundtable, interactive style. [Link]
Student Writing Competition
Georgia State University College of Law will hold its first annual Intellectual Property Student Writing Competition in 2012. The GSU Intellectual Property Writing Competition seeks papers addressing legal issues and challenges in the intellectual property field. Winners will have the opportunity to have their paper published in the conference materials for the 2012 Corporate IP Institute (CIPI) and also win a cash prize. [Link]
Evil Twin Debate
On November 18, the University of Richmond School of Law hosted the Fifth Annual Evil Twin Debate, featuring Professor Daniel Crane of University of Michigan Law School and Professor Michael Carrier of Rutgers University School of Law at Camden. The video of the event has been posted on YouTube and is very entertaining. [Link]
Patent Jobs:
Zagorin O'Brien Graham is seeking patent attorneys with 2+ years of experience and a degree in electrical engineering to work in their Austin, Texas office. [Link]
Pioner is searching for IP attorneys with 5-7 years (or more) prior experience in patent prosecution and a background in life sciences to work at their Iowa location. [Link]
Bristol-Myers Squibb is seeking an IP Counsel with 5+ years of patent attorney experience and a background in molecular biology or biochemistry to work at their New Jersey location. [Link]
Guntin Meles & Gust is looking for patent attorneys with2+ years of patent prep and prosecution experience and a degree in EE or CE to work at their Chicago office (remote locations may be considered). [Link]
Steinfl & Bruno is seeking a patent agent with 2-3 years of experience and a degree in EE or related fields to work in their Pasadena, California office. [Link]
Klarquist Sparkman is searching for an IP litigation associates with 1-2 years of experience in IP to work at their Portland office. [Link]
Klarquist Sparkman is looking for a patent attorney/agent with an advanced degree in organic chemistry and 3+ years of experience to work at their Portland office. [Link]
Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole is searching for a patent attorney with 2-4 years of experience and a degree in EE to work at their McLean, Virginia office. [Link]
Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole is searching for a patent attorney with 2-4 years of experience and a degree in chemical engineering to work at their McLean, Virginia office. [Link]
Clements Bernard is seeking a patent attorney/agent with a degree in electrical/computer engineering to work at their Charlotte office. [Link]
Wells St. John is looking for a patent attorney with 4+ years of experience in all aspects of IP to work at their Spokane office. [Link]
An IP firm in Northern Virginia is seeking a patent attorney/agent with at least 3 years of experience and a background in semiconductor inventions (telecommuting option). [Link]
Upcoming Events:
The American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law, Young Lawyers Division, ABA-IPL Young Lawyers Action Group and the ABA Center for Continuing Legal Education will sponsor a webinar on January 20 at 1 p.m. Eastern time. The webinar, Prosecution Strategies: Tackling USPTO Obviousness Rejections will explore how the KSR standards have been applied in various technology areas and provide guidance for effective avenues of argument based on the technology area. Speakers include: Janet Hendrickson, Gregory Hillyer, Michelle O'Brien, and Zachary Stern. [Link]
The American Conference Institute (ACI) The Comprehensive Guide to Patent Reform For Life Science Companies, conference is scheduled for January 31- February 1 in New York. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
The 7th Annual Conference on EU Pharma Law & Regulation will be held on February 22-23 on London. The conference will bring together eminent in-house counsel from the world's largest pharma and biotech companies, top legal practitioners and regulatory experts in an outstanding speaker panel. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
