Tag Archives: Claim Construction

American Piledriving v. Geoquip: Resolving Different Courts’ Constructions

Patent, ,

By Jason Rantanen

American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc. and American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. v. Bay Machinery Corporation (Fed. Cir. 2011) Download 10-1283
Panel: Bryson, Gajarsa, and Linn (author)

One of the Federal Circuit's primary purposes is to ensure consistent claim construction results.  American Piledriving v. Geoquip highlights this role. 

American Piledriving holds Patent No. 5,355,964, which relates to counterweights for "vibratory pile drivers."  By rapidly rotating these unevenly weighted counterweights in opposite directions, vibratory forces are generated that force the pile into the ground.  Early counterweights possessed several drawbacks that the invention of the '964 purport to solve.

The district court proceedings on appeal involved two suits brought by American Piledriving, one in the Eastern District of Virginia and the other in the Northern District of California, against distributors of vibratory pile drivers manufactured by Hydraulic Power Systems, Inc. (These two suits were part of a set of seven brought by American Piledriving, all in different districts).  The crucial portion of representative claim 1 reads:

a counterweight rotatably carried in said receiving means for rotation about a rotational axis, said counterweight having a cylindrical gear portion and an eccentric weight portion integral with said cylindrical gear portion, said eccentric weight portion having at least one insert-receiving area formed therein, said counterweight being made of a first metal;

At issue were the district courts' constructions of three claim terms, two of which the courts construed differently: "eccentric weight portion" and "insert receiving area." (The courts reached the same contruction for "integral," a construction the appellate court affirmed).  Based on their constructions of these terms, the two district courts granted summary judgment of noninfringement.

On appeal, the CAFC agreed fully with the Virgina court, affirming its constructions and grant of summary judgment.  The Calfornia court fared slightly less well: the panel disagreed with the additional limitations the trial court added but nonetheless affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement for the two products that were also involving in the Virginia litigation, reversing and remanding for further proceedings on a third product at issue only in the California litigation. 

Although much of American Piledriving comes across as a typical claim construction opinion concluding that well-established principles of claim construction supported the district courts' interpretations, the portions of American Piledriving addressing the two courts' different interpretations of "eccentric weight portion" and "insert receiving area" are somewhat noteworthy.  All three courts determined that some structure provided by the specification was required; however, the CAFC concluded that the California court's constructions went beyond what the rules permitted:

While both district courts indicated that the term should be defined as extending from the face of the gear, the California court also required that the “eccentric weight portion” extend from a particular portion of the gear, extend in a specific direction, and include a receiving area formed to receive a tungsten rod. This court agrees with American Piledriving that nothing in the specification compels the reading of these additional limitations into the construction of “eccentric weight portion.”

Unfortunately, the CAFC's discussion of the differences between these two courts' analyses of the use of the structure in the specification to limit the functional claim elements is limited to this brief passage and a similar passage in its section on "insert receiving area."  This is disappointing given the court's build-up at the beginning of the opinion, which held promise for a thorough dissection of where the cutoff might be in terms of how much structure from the specification should be part of the claim constuction.  See Slip Op. at 10 ("In the course of construing the claims in this case, the Virginia district court carefully avoided redefining the claims and reading limitations into the claims from the written description. The California district court, however, inappropriately added several limitations not contained in the inventor’s claimed definition of the scope of his invention. This disparate treatment of the same issues before two competent and capable district courts is thus instructive."

Using Foreign Infringement Judgment to Prove Infringement in the US

Patent,

Quad/Tech v. Q.I. Press Controls (Fed. Cir. 2011)

Quad/Tech sued QI, alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 5,412,577. The ‘577 patent is directed to a “color registration system for a printing press.” According to the briefing, QI has already lost a parallel patent infringement lawsuit in Germany and is subject to a permanent injunction based upon a “virtually identical” patent claim. In the German case, QI lost at lower court level and then failed to appeal.

Preliminary Relief: The district court denied Quad/Tech’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Although interlocutory, the grant or denial of preliminary injunctive relief is immediately appealable. However, a district court’s decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion that requires a “showing that the court made a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors or exercised its discretion based upon an error of law or clearly erroneous factual findings.” Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

On appeal, the Federal Circuit issued a two paragraph non-precedential opinion upholding the district court conclusion that, based upon a preliminary claim construction, that the infringement claim may fail and that Quad/Tech had failed to prove likely irreparable harm absent preliminary injunctive relief.

Using Foreign Infringement Judgment to Prove Infringement in the US: An interesting aspect of this decision is the district court’s use of the German opinion. In particular, Quad/Tech requested that the court “adopt Q.I.’s acceptance of the judgment in Germany as an admission of infringement of a virtually identical claim.” The district court rejected that argument – holding that:

  1. Quad/Tech had failed to provide sufficient evidence of the German judgment (the company had only submitted an affidavit from a corporate VP); and
  2. Foreign patent determinations are not binding upon US litigation concerning US patents.

In its analysis, the district court cited several prior cases where US courts have refused to rely upon foreign analysis of family-member patents. In Medtronic, Inc. v. Daig Corp., 789 F.2d 903 (Fed.Cir.1986), the accused infringer asked the court to rely upon a German tribunal holding that the parallel family-member patent was invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit rejected that argument – calling it “specious.” The Medtronic decision was followed in both Allen v. Howmedica Leibinger, Inc., 197 F.Supp.2d 101 (D.Del.2002) and Oki Am. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 2006 WL 3290577 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 13, 2006). In the Oki Am case, the court specifically held that the “the action taken by the European Patent Office rejecting counterpart application over the same reference is neither controlling nor persuasive.” In his patent digest, Robert Matthews concludes that:

Generally, a validity determination by a foreign patent office has little relevance or weight in considering the validity of a corresponding United States patent. The Federal Circuit has instructed that because the theories and laws of patentability vary from country to country, as do examination practices, caution must be exercised in extrapolating any consequences arising out of acts taken in a foreign proceeding.

Matthews, Annotated Patent Digest, § 15:53 (2011).

There are several important distinctions between Quad/Tech’s case and Medtronic. Perhaps most notably is the fact that Quad/Tech is requesting consideration of the foreign judgment only at this preliminary stage when the court is attempting to speculate on the likelihood of success on the merits.

Old Reliable v. Cornell: Federal Circuit Again Rejects Award of Attorneys’ Fees

Patent, ,

By Jason Rantanen

Old Reliable Wholesale, Inc. v. Cornell Corporation (Fed. Cir. 2011) Download 10-1247
Panel: Newman, Mayer (author), and Bryson

For the second time this year the Federal Circuit has issued a precedential decision reversing an award of attorneys' fees entered against a patentee.  Perhaps most noteworthy is the extent to which the judges on the court appear to be in agreement on the relevant standard and its application: although the panel compositions for Old Reliable and iLor v. Google do not overlap, the two opinions contain remarkably similar language and employ analogous analyses to reverse the exceptional case findings, suggesting a strong meeting of the minds on this issue.

Background
In 2006, Old Reliable filed an infringement action against Cornell, contending that one of Cornell's insulated roofing products (VT-1) infringed Patent No. 5,069,950.  Following depositions of the named inventor and Old Reliable's expert, the district court granted summary judgment of anticipation and obviousness based on based on a prior Cornell product (VT-2) and a third party product (the Air-Flo).  The Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity judgment in December 2009 via a Rule 36 summary disposition.

Meanwhile, Cornell had moved for an exceptional case determination and requested an award of its attorneys' fees.  In February 2010, the district court granted Cornell's motion, although it limited its fee award to only the portion of the litigation following the September 2007 deposition of the named inventor, at which he admitted that the VT-2 "did the same thing as his invention."  The district court concluded that Old Reliable's decision to continue the suit following this deposition was "improper and unjustified," warranting a finding of exceptional case. Old Reliable appealed. 

Litigation Not "Objectively Baseless"
On appeal, the Federal Circuit drew heavily on its recent pronouncements in iLor v. Google, focusing its scrutiny on the "objectively baseless" element of the meritless case inquiry.  As in iLor, the CAFC began its analysis by looking to Brooks Furniture: "Absent misconduct in conduct of the litigation or in securing the patent, sanctions may be imposed against the patentee only if both (1) the litigation is brought in subjective bad faith, and (2) the litigation is objectively baseless.” Slip Op. at 8, quoting Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Int’l, Inc., 393 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2005).  This second element, the court noted, involves a purely objective inquiry.  "Unless an argument or claim asserted in the course of litigation is “so unreasonable that no reasonable litigant could believe it would succeed,” it cannot be deemed objectively baseless for purposes of awarding attorney fees under section 285."  Slip Op. at 8, quoting iLor, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 516, at *12 (Fed. Cir. 2011).   

The CAFC concluded that this "exacting standard" was not met in this case.  The inventor's testimony failed to establish anticipation, which requires that all of the claim elements and their limitations be shown in a single prior art reference.  Nor were Old Reliable's arguments distinguishing the VT-1 from the VT-2 "objectively meritless."  "There was nothing frivolous or inherently implausible about Old Reliable’s [noninfringement assertion]."  Slip. Op. at 12.  Similarly non-frivolous was Old Reliable's argument that the third party product did not anticipate. 

Effect of PTO Proceedings
On June 15, 2010 – after the CAFC's affirmance of the invalidity finding – the PTO issued a notice of intent to issue an ex parte reexamination certificate confirming the patentability of the '950 patent over references including the VT-2 and Air-Flo.  Although this notice was withdrawn shortly thereafter (citing  the CAFC affirmance), the panel nonetheless took judicial notice of the reexamination certificate and concluded that "the fact that the PTO confirmed the validity of the ’950 patent on reexamination provides probative evidence on the issue of whether Old Reliable had a reasonable basis for its assertion that its patent was not anticipated."  Slip. Op. at 19.

Comment: The court's emerging doctrine of exceptional case determinations envisions a threshold "objective" requirement that must be met, regardless of whether the underlying theory is one of willful infringement or meritless suit.  In the context of willful infringement, the infringer must have acted "despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent;" in the context of an exceptional case determination the conduct must be "objectively baseless."  Subjective considerations of bad faith play no role in this determination. An actor may have a completely wrongful intent, but if the conduct itself does not meet the objective threshold that intent just doesn't matter.  Given the extraordinarily high hurdle required to satisfy the objective standard – "Unless an argument or claim asserted in the course of litigation is 'so unreasonable that no reasonable litigant could believe it would succeed,' it cannot be deemed objectively baseless for purposes of awarding attorney fees under section 285" (Slip Op. at 8 (emphasis added) – one would expect such findings to be rare indeed. 

Update: Scott Daniels of the blog Reexamination Alert has a discussion of the implications for reexamination.

Guest Post: Centocor, the Antibody Exception, and Claiming Only What was Invented

Patent, , , , ,

By Oskar Liivak
Assistant Professor, Cornell Law School

As Jason Rantanen’s post describes, Centocor claimed but failed to disclose any fully humanized antibodies.  Abbott consistently pushed this argument and they won.  It was the simplest and most direct way to dispose of the case.  This approach necessarily left other important issues undecided, however.  Both Eli Lilly and I separately filed amicus briefs in favor of Abbott and we both argued for a decidedly more aggressive, alternative argument for written description invalidity.  As the Court in Centocor disposed of this case by simpler means, clear judicial resolution of our arguments will have to wait for another day.

This post highlights those remaining issues, why we should still care about them, and how they are tied to a much larger ongoing struggle in patent law – can a patent claim cover more than what was actually invented (i.e. conceived and disclosed) by the inventor?  I think the answer is clear – it cannot – but not every patent attorney or CAFC judge agrees.  I think this is perhaps the most important ongoing debate in patent law.  § 112 as applied to antibodies is but one battlefront in this larger fight. 

ABANDONING THE ANTIBODY EXCEPTION
The arguments in both of our briefs would have resolved the case in favor of Abbott but would have also resolved a very problematic ambiguity relating to the written description for antibodies generally – the so-called ‘antibody exception.’  The PTO’s written description guidelines seem to suggest that disclosure of an antigen alone can provide § 112 support for any antibody that binds to that antigen.  See U.S.P.T.O., Written Description Training Materials Revision 1 March 25, 2008 at 45-46.  Cases like Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2004), have cited these guidelines but the guidelines have yet to be really at the center of a case – even here in Centocor the CAFC distinguishes them.  The trouble is that those PTO guidelines are in tension if not complete conflict with written description as described in Ariad v. Eli Lilly, 598 F.3d 1336, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).  With the rapid growth of and enormous revenues associated with antibody related therapies, patent law must clarify this issue.

The crux of the argument is simple.  I believe that the disclosure requirements of § 112 limit claims to the subject matter actually invented by the inventor and disclosed by the specification.  Ariad at 1351.  If we consistently applied this rule for disclosure in light of today’s understanding of protein structure, disclosure of a well characterized antigen alone would not provide support for an antibody that binds to that antigen.  And disclosure of one actual antibody provides § 112 support only for that antibody—not the entire genus of antibodies that binds to the antigen.  This view is in direct conflict with the antibody exception.  Here is the argument.    

Ariad reaffirmed that § 112 “requires … that the specification must … show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Id.  As best I can surmise, to invent something a person must conceive it.  Conception is how patent law decides when something is invented; conception is how patent law decides who invents something; and it should be the way patent law determines what the something is that was invented.  From the perspective of conception (namely a “definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice”) the antibody exception and the broad claims it would allow start to look totally absurd. 

The problem is, as put by Eli Lilly in their amicus brief, “[e]ven with today's most advanced scientific tools, it is impossible to predict the actual structure … of a not-yet-known antibody based on the structure of an antigen or even the structure of another antibody that binds that same antigen.”  Though my own scientific background was not in immunology (it was in the more general field of three dimensional protein structure determination) I agree with Eli Lilly.  Even given the three dimensional structure of an antigen, no person today can conceive (without actually going into the lab and making one) an antibody that will bind to that antigen.  Furthermore, even once we make one antibody that does bind to an antigen, that alone does not allow for the conception of any other antibodies (much less every antibody) that will also bind to that antigen.

As the Federal Circuit determined, Centocor’s “application only provides amino acid sequence information … for a single mouse variable region.”  Slip Op. at 14.  That meager though still useful (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infliximab) disclosure pales in comparison to the broad genus of variable regions that were claimed.  Asserted claims 2 and 3 covered any antibody with a human constant region and a human variable region that binds and neutralizes TNFα in a similar location as the deposited antibody.  There is nothing in the specification that evidences conception of any other variable regions beyond the one deposited variable region.  That disparity between the solutions disclosed versus the solutions claimed is why I viewed this case as being nearly identical to the over-reaching patentees in The Incandescent Lamp case, 159 U.S. 465 (1895).  Where a solution to a technical problem is found through trial and error (even sophisticated, elegant trial and error like for antibodies) without further discovering how to extrapolate to other solutions from the one found solution, then claims cannot exceed that one particular solution.  See id. at 472.  As a result I argued that the asserted claims are invalid under § 112 because they claim variable regions (whether humanized or not) that Centocor certainly did not invent or disclose.

From a policy perspective some might worry that this will provide incredibly narrow and worthless claims in a rapidly growing and important field.  I am not so sure.  It will certainly allow others to produce their own antibodies to the same antigen as the other antibodies will likely differ in actual variable region structure.  The narrow claims still prevent outright piracy and copying of your particular antibody but they also leave room for competition.  With tens of thousands of dollars a year for treatment for these drugs, a little fair competition doesn’t sound bad.  Lastly, the big question is the ability for generic biologic producers to piggy back on the testing data for the initial biologic.  I don’t see a problem from narrow claim scope in this regard either.  Though it depends on the details of the generic approval process for biologics, roughly speaking I wouldn’t want safety and efficacy data from one antibody to be used to confirm the safety and efficacy of structurally different antibodies even if they bind to the same antigen.

When § 112 and its usage of ‘the invention’ is rightfully tied to the subject matter actually invented (i.e. conceived and disclosed), then the shortcomings of the antibody exception become quite apparent.  In fact, when viewed in that light (which I think is the only way to interpret the statute) I cannot fathom a scenario by which the PTO could have possibly drafted the antibody related written description guidelines that have led to the antibody exception.

THE INVENTION AS THE EMBODIMENTS CONCEIVED AND DISCLOSED
But therein lies the problem: not everyone in patent law thinks about the statutory appearances of the invention in § 102, § 112, and more importantly § 271, as tied to the subject matter actually invented (i.e. conceived and disclosed).  For some the invention is just a short-hand reference for whatever subject matter the applicant claims because “the claims … define the invention….”  Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  The difference between these two views is critically important yet patent law has never confronted this confusion directly.  In fact, ask yourself, how do you conceptually and practically define the ‘invention’ in 35 U.S.C.?  I think some of our most pressing debates are fueled by talking past each other.  We are often thinking differently about the invention without actually being aware of the disagreement. 

The fight over the disclosure requirements evidenced in Ariad and Centocor is just one visible battle between these two world views.  Another important flashpoint is claim interpretation.  Just a month ago on Jan. 24 (as noted here on Patently-O) in IP Frontline, Hal Wegner described the ongoing problems with claim interpretation.  Discussing Arlington Indus. v. Bridgeport Fittings he pointed to the “festering sore” in Federal Circuit jurisprudence over the proper conceptual relationship between the claims and the specification.  He noted that “[u]ntil there is a final resolution of this debate there will never be clarity in claim construction at the Federal Circuit.”  That festering sore is another important instance of this broader fight over the proper conceptual relationship between claims, the invention, and the specification.  In a recent article, I further detail this controversy and its proper resolution.  For those interested in that broader discussion see Oskar Liivak, Rescuing the Invention from the Cult of the Claim (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1769270).

I thank Kevin E. Collins and Jason Rantanen for very helpful and insightful comments.

In re Katz (part 2): Indefiniteness of computer processes

Indefinite, Patent, ,

By Jason Rantanen

In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Panel: Newman, Lourie, Bryson (author)

In addition to the discussion of complex patent litigation management procedures, summarized yesterday, In re Katz is also notable for its analysis of the indefiniteness of computer processing-type means plus function elements.

The patents at issue relate to interactive call processing and conferencing systems.  Ten of the selected claims include "means for processing"-type limitations.   For example, claims 96, 98, and 99 of the asserted '863 patent recite a "means for processing at least certain of said answer data signals."  Applying WMS Gaming, Inc. v. International Game Technology, 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999) and Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v International Game Technology, 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the district court found the claims indefinite because the specifications disclosed only general purpose processors without disclosing any of the algorithms used to perform the claimed functions.   

The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court's analysis of three claims.  Under Federal Circuit precedent, "a computer-implemented means-plus-function term is limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof, and the corresponding structure is the algorithm."  Slip Op. at 18, citing Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2005).  "[B]y claiming a processor programmed to perform a specialized function without disclosing the internal structure of that processor in the form of an algorithm, Katz’s claims exhibit the 'overbreadth inherent in open-ended functional claims,' … in violation of the limits Congress placed on means-plus-function claims in section 112, paragraph 6."  Slip Op. at 19 (internal citation omitted).  Thus, claims 21 and 33 of the '551 patent and claim 13 of the '065 patent, which claim a “processing means . . . for receiving customer number data entered by a caller and for storing the customer number data . . . and based on a condition coupling an incoming call to the operator terminal, the processing means visually displaying the customer number data” but do not disclose an algorithm that corresponds to the “based on a condition coupling an incoming call to the operator terminal” function are invalid for indefiniteness.

The CAFC reached the opposite result on the remaining seven claims – not on the ground that the patent disclosed the requisite algorithms, but on the basis that no algorithm was necessary because the claim elements may simply claim a general process computer:

[i]n the seven claims identified above, Katz has not claimed a specific function performed by a special purpose computer, but has simply recited the claimed functions of “processing,” “receiving,” and “storing.” Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “processing,” “receiving,” and “storing,” discussed below, those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming.  As such, it was not necessary to disclose more structure than the general purpose processor that performs those functions. Those seven claims do not run afoul of the rule against purely functional claiming, because the functions of “processing,” “receiving,” and “storing” are coextensive with the structure disclosed, i.e., a general purpose processor.

Slip Op. at 20-21. 

The CAFC also reviewed the district court's grant of summary judgment on other issues of indefiniteness, as well as written description, obviousness, claim construction, and noninfringement, largely affirming.  Of these issues, patent litigators may want to take note of the court's comment that when dealing with written description issues it is permissible for the court to construe claims whose meaning has not been placed in dispute, "as claim construction is inherent in any written description analysis."  Slip Op. at 27.  Using this seemingly innocuous statement, the CAFC rejected Katz's argument that it was denied the opportunity to demonstrate specification support or proffer expert testimony on the written description issue because it "should have been clear to Katz that the construction of the claims was important to the written description analysis." 

Arlington Industries v. Bridgeport Fittings: “The specification is the heart of the patent”

Patent, , ,

By Jason Rantanen

Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Panel: Rader (author) Lourie (concurring in part and dissenting in part), Moore

At first glance, Arlington v. Bridgeport presents a seemingly typical claim construction opinion, as the majority opinion reads like any another decision addressing the perpetual question of whether the district court improperly imported a limitation from the specification or instead correctly interpreted the claims in light of the specification and prosecution history.  In an eloquent dissent, however, Judge Lourie reveals his deepest beliefs as to what patents should really be about: permitting the patent holder to claim what is disclosed in the specification – and nothing more.

 
Background
2010-1025The claim construction issue in this appeal involved the term "spring metal adaptor," a key component in the invention: a new fitting for an electrical junction box.  Prior to the invention of Patent No. 5,266,050, held by Arlington, most junction box connectors used a threaded nut that was screwed into the junction box – a tricky operation.  The '050 patent solved this problem by using a fitting with a spring metal adaptor (20) containing two types of outward pointing tangs (22 and 23).  The new fitting could simply be snapped into place rather than needing to be screwed.

During the district court proceedings, the court construed the claim term "spring metal adaptor" to mean a "*split* spring adaptor," commenting that "a necessary feature of the "spring" metal adaptor is that it is 'split.'  Without the split, it would not spring."  Summary judgment of non-infringement was granted in Bridgeport's favor based on this construction.

Majority: The District Court Imported a Limitation from the Specification
Treating the appeal as a standard question of claim construction, Judge Rader, writing for the majority, held that the district court erred by importing a "split" limitation into its constructions of "spring steel adaptor."  The majority first dismissed Bridgeport's argument that "spring" should be construed to mean that the metal adaptor performs a "springing" function, and instead held that it refers to the type of steel used in the adaptor. It then rejected the argument that "spring metal adaptor" should be defined by implication to require a split, considering both the specification and prosecution history, as well as the doctrine of claim differentiation, before concluding that the intrinsic evidence "reveals no intent to lit the term 'spring metal adaptor' by using it in a manner that excludes unsplit adaptors."  Slip Op. at 15.

Judge Lourie's Dissent: "The specification is the heart of the patent"
Bringing to the boil an ideological disagreement that last eruped in Ariad, Judge Lourie's dissent takes issue less with the outcome of this particular appeal than with the CAFC's entire approach to claim construction.  Expanding upon his discussion of claim construction in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and before, Judge Lourie writes: "the basic mandate is for claims to be interpreted in light of the specification of which they are a part because the specification describes what the inventors invented….The specification is the heart of the patent.  In colloquial terms, you should get what you disclose."  Arlington dissent at 2 (internal citation omitted).  In his view, the problem is that the CAFC has gotten bogged down in its "focus on our muddy, conflicting, and overly formulaic rules…when the real task of claim interpretation is to read the specification and determine what the inventors meant when they used the language they did." Id. (internal citation omitted).

"Obviously the claims define the scope of protection accorded the owners of a patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. But in construing the claims we should avail ourselves of the knowledge we glean from the patent specification to see what the inventors disclosed as their invention. The bottom line of claim construction should be that the claims should not mean more than what the specification indicates, in one way or another, the inventors invented."

Id. Thus, Judge Lourie would have ruled differently:

"In this case, the inventors made clear in the specification of the ‘050 patent that the spring metal adapters in their invention have an opening that prevents the adap-tors from forming a complete circle. The result that the panel majority arrives at here, on remand, could be that Bridgeport might be held to be an infringer of a patent that clearly indicates that there is a split in the adaptor, by making or selling an adaptor lacking such a split. That is not a result that the patent law ought to protect."

Id. (emphasis added).

Judge Lourie's articulated ideology of claim construction offers a window into a deeper worldview: that fundamentally, patents should be narrow, limited to only that which the inventor actually contemplated at the time of filing.  If an inventor invents a circular tanged clip with a slot, the inventor should not be able to claim circular tanged clips that lack slots, period.  Following Judge Lourie's reasoning a bit further, if an inventor contemplates a circular tanged clip made out of steel, the inventor should not be able to claim circular tanged clips made out of aluminum.  Perhaps aluminum clips might be held to infringe under the doctrine of equivalents, but they are not within the literal claim scope.

This view has merit.  By placing a heavy onus on the patent applicant to think of all the possible permutations of the invention, applicants would need to think more carefully about their disclosures and patent scope would be limited to only present ideas.  Of course, inventors would necessarily be penalized because it may be impossible to imagine all permutations, especially those that rely on not-yet-envisioned technologies.   But Judge Lourie seems willing to pay this cost because of the greater certainty and narrower scope that he believes flows from limiting the inventor to only what he or she invented.   

Procedural note: There were actually two separate district court proceedings at issue, both arising in the same district.  In the first proceeding, the district court declined to adopt a "split" construction and Bridgeport was found to infringe; that appeal was stayed while the appeal of the second proceeding (in which the court did adopt a "split" construction) was pending.  The second proceeding also involved a related patent, No. 6,521,831, that contained an essentially identical term ("spring steel adapter").  The CAFC reversed the district court's construction of that term as well, a ruling Judge Lourie joined because the district court relied only on its construction of the term in the '050 patent and did not separately construe the term of the '831 in light of that specification.

Additional Commentary: In a recent article on IP Frontline, Hal Wagner offers a perspective on the ongoing discussion between Chief Judge Rader and Judge Lourie about the proper scope of claim construction.  See Wagner, "Arlington Indus. v. Bridgeport Fittings: The 20 Year Claim Construction Debate."

 

Legal Malpractice in Federal Courts

Infringement, Patent,

Warrior Sports v. Dickinson Wright and John Artz (Fed. Cir. 2010)

LacrossWarriorWarrior Sports makes lacrosse equipment and hired John Artz's firm to handle patent prosecution.  Artz later merged his firm with Dickinson Wright and brought his clients into the crease.  One case that Artz worked-on was Reissue No. 38,216.  In that case, the Artz firm failed to pay the maintenance fee — allowing the patent to lapse.  In their petition for revival, Artz explained that the docketing clerk charged with paying the fee had suddenly died of an unexplained brain infection and that she had been suffering from the malady during the time that the fee was due. Unfortunately, the clerk had kept her illness secret and the firm learned only later that the condition had impacted her performance.

When Warrior sued STX for patent infringement, the defendant argued that the patent had lapsed because of failure to pay the maintenance fee and – in addition –  that the patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during prosecution. (The inequitable conduct charge was based upon an argument that Artz had mischaracterized prior art). Rather than lose the infringement case, Warrior settled with STX (on allegedly unfavorable terms) and then sued Artz & Dickinson Wright for legal malpractice. 

Federal Court Jurisdiction over Malpractice Claims: Malpractice is a state law claim and is usually handled by state courts (absent federal diversity jurisdiction). However, when the malpractice charge would necessarily require “resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law” a federal question is raised that allows-for (requires?) federal court jurisdiction.  Christianson v. Colt Industries, 486 US 800 (1988).

District Court Dismissal: Both plaintiff and defendants agreed that the case should be heard in federal court. Nonetheless, the district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over the malpractice question.

Holding on Appeal: On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the dismissal — holding that the Michigan malpractice claim arises under patent law and therefore should be heard in Federal Court. 

Malpractice Elements: In Michigan, legal malpractice has four elements: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) negligence by the attorney in the legal representation; (3) actual injury; and (4) that the negligence be the proximate cause of of the injury.

Case within a Case: Classic patent prosecution malpractice requires a “case within a case” where, in order to prove actual injury, the malpractice plaintiff must show that someone would have infringed a properly obtained patent.  “That is, to prove the proximate cause and injury elements of its tort claim, Michigan law requires Warrior to show that it would have prevailed on its infringement claim against STX and would have been entitled to an award of damages as a result.”

Since at least one of the plaintiffs malpractice theories requires proof of infringement, the case raises a “substantial question of patent law conferring § 1338 jurisdiction.” Here, it was important that the court in the infringement case had not decided the infringement issue (it had decided claim construction).

Dismissal Vacated and Remanded.

iLOR v. Google: Rejected Claim Construction Does Not Render Case “Objectively Baseless”

Attorney Fees, CAFC, Claim Construction, Fees, Infringement, Injunctions, Patent, ,

By Jason Rantanen

iLOR, LLC v. Google, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Panel: Rader, Linn, Dyk (author)

This case involved a district court exceptional case determination based a finding that the suit was objectively baseless and brought in bad faith.  iLOR, the assignee of Patent No. 7,206,839, sued Google for infringement of the '839 patent by Google's Notebook product.  In denying iLOR's request for a preliminary injunction, the district court rejected iLOR's proposed construction of the only claim term in dispute, subsequently granting summary judgment of noninfringement.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction, agreeing that the language of the claim, the specification and the prosecution history supported the district court's construction.  See iLOR, LLC v. Google, Inc., 550 F.3d 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2008).  Following the Federal Circuit's disposition of that appeal, the district court granted Google's request to recover its attorneys' fees and costs and expenses, finding the case exceptional on the ground that it was "not close" on the merits (i.e.: ("objectively baseless") and iLOR had acted in subjective bad faith.  iLOR appealed.

In reversing the district court, the CAFC first likened the exceptional case standard for a suit brought by a patent plaintiff (absent misconduct during patent prosecution or litigation) to that of willful infringement.  "The objective baselessness standard for enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees against a non-prevailing plaintiff under Brooks Furniture is identical to the objective recklessness standard for enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees against an accused infringer for § 284 willful infringement actions under In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc)."  Slip Op. at 8-9.  Thus, just as willfulness requires an assessment of both objective and "subjective" (i.e.: known or so obvious that it should have been known) prongs, so too does the exceptional case determination. And just as for willfulness, the objective assessment "is to be determined based on the record ultimately made in the infringement proceedings."  Id. at 10.

Comment: At some points, the Federal Circuit's opinion is confusingly imprecise in its usage of "objective baselessness."  Although in some instances it refers to the "objective baselessness" standard as being identical to the overall objective recklessness standard for willfulness (which includes, according to the court, both objective and subjective elements), at other times it treats it as being identical to only the "objective" prong of the analysis.  The only reading that makes sense is that when the court indicates that "objective baselessness" is identical to the willfulness "objective recklessness" standard, what it is really referring to is the overall standard for an exceptional case determination based on a meritless case theory, while when it compares it to the "objective" prong of the willfulness analysis, it really is referring to "objective baselessness."

Applying this framework, the CAFC concluded that iLOR's claim construction was not objectively baseless, and thus it was unnecessary to consider the issue of subjective bad faith.  The CAFC pointed to iLOR's arguments supporting its proposed construction, which – although the court disagreed with them – had some merit.  The CAFC also commented on the difficulty of claim construction, "in which the issues are often complex and the resolutions not always predictable."  Id. at 13.  And the court noted that the fact that it "held oral argument and issued a precedential written opinion in the first appeal suggests that we did not regard the case as frivolous."  Id. at 13-14.  In short, "simply being wrong about claim construction should not subject a party to sanctions where the construction is not objectively baseless."  Id. at 14.

The Use of Online Databases for Legal Scholarship

Academic Studies, Patent, Rantanen, , ,

By Jason Rantanen

Many empirical studies of Federal Circuit jurisprudence rely on searches of one of the leading legal databases such as Westlaw or Lexis.1 Relying on a search of a single database is potentially problematic, however, if the substantive content of the databases is not identical – in other words, if Lexis and Westlaw don't contain the same universe of cases, any claims about the results are necessarily limited by the dataset being used. 

In order to avoid this problem in connection with an empirical study of inequitable conduct that I'm working on, I recently performed a comparison of results obtained by a keyword search on Westlaw versus an identical search on Lexis.  This comparison revealed that although the data obtained from the two sources is largely comparable, small differences do exist that certain types of searchers may want to take into account.

The chart below shows the results, by year, produced by searching for the term "inequitable conduct" in the Federal Circuit databases for Lexis and Westlaw.2,3  In large part, the results suggest that there is relatively little variation between the two databases: in the context of this analysis, only 30 out of 681 (4.4%) Westlaw opinions were not found in Lexis and only 6 out of 657 (0.9%) Lexis opinions were not found in Westlaw.  Furthermore, in no instance did a precedential opinion appear in one database but not another.  Rather, all of the single-database hits were nonprecedential opinions.  In addition, nearly all of the nonprecedential opinions appearing in only a single database issued prior to 1991.   That said, there is a significant difference with respect to nonprecedential opinions for the period prior to 1991: nearly all the nonprecedential opinions from this time period are found in only one database.4  Thus, while it may not be efficient for most practitioners to run keyword searches on multiple databases, scholars conducting empirical research on Federal Circuit decisions, or individuals searching for older party-specific nonprecedential opinions, may want to be sensitive to the differences between the two databases.

Figure 1: Hits Resulting from Search Term "Inequitable Conduct" in Lexis and Westlaw5

 
Search comparison

1 See, e.g., Christopher A. Cotropia, "Determining Uniformity Within the Federal Circuit By Measuring Dissent and En Banc Review," 43 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 801, 811 (2010); Christian E. Mammen, Controlling the "Plague": Reforming the Doctrine of Inequitable Conduct,24 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1329, 1348 (2009);  Craig Allen Nard, Toward a Cautious Approach to Obeisance: The Role of Scholarship in Federal Circuit Patent Law Jurisprudence, 39 HOUS. L. REV. 667, 678 fn 40 (2002); Christian A. Chu, Empirical Analysis of The Federal Circuit's Claim Construction Trends, 16 BERK. TECH. L.J. 1075, 1092 (2001); but see R. Polk Wagner and Lee Petherbridge, Is the Federal Circuit Succeeding? An Empirical Assessment of Judicial Performance, 152 U. PA. L. REV. 1105, 1145 (2004) (using results from both Lexis and Westlaw).  In addition, some early empirical studies used the United States Patent Quarterly as their source (see, e.g., John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, How Federal Circuit Judges Vote in Patent Validity Cases, 10 FED. CIR. B.J. 435, 436 (2001)), which apparently contains some, but not all, nonprecedential patent decisions.  See e.g., Wirco, Inc. v. Rolock, Inc., 17 U.S.P.Q.2d 1084, 1990 WL 12901 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 1990) as opposed to Mechanical Plastics Corp. v. Unifast Industries, Inc., 1988 WL 25422 (Fed. Cir. March 28, 1988).

2  For purposes of creating this chart, I used the additional limitation "CO(c.a.fed.)" to exclude CCPA and Court of Claims decisions, some of which are included in Westlaw's "ctaf" database.  In addition, I separately compared the results from a keyword search of the entire "ctaf" database to the results from the Lexis search in order to identify any Lexis-only hits that might have been excluded by the Westlaw court limiter.  This process did not reveal any such hits.

3 These results include every search hit that contained the term "inequitable conduct," regardless of the context.  It thus should not be viewed as reflecting any measure of substantive inequitable conduct determinations.  In addition, hits resulting from search terms appearing only in the database-specific casenotes were excluded, as were instances where the database contained duplicate entries of the case opinion or included a copy of a withdrawn opinion.   For more substantive analyses of inequitable conduct jurisprudence, see Lee Petherbridge, Jason Rantanen & Ali Mojibi, The Federal Circuit and Inequitable Conduct: An Empirical Assessment, ssrn id 1686102; Mammen, supra note 1.

4 In addition to double-checking the single-database cases against the search results of the other database, I also spot-checked several decisions against the Lexis/Westlaw case database as a whole by using terms from the parties' names and the Federal Reporter citation, where available.  Although in some instances this resulted in a hit, the contents of those hits were blank.  See, e.g., Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. v. Tanner, 738 F.2d 454 (1984) (nonprecedential) (no opinion in Westlaw; opinion in Lexis).

4 Although the results for 1997 appear equal, each database contained one opinion for that year that is not in the other database.

Uniloc v. Microsoft: The CAFC Rejects the 25 Percent Rule

Damages, Infringement, Invalidity, Patent, Patent Cases 2011, Rantanen, Software, , , ,

By Jason Rantanen

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Panel: Rader, Linn (author), Moore

Uniloc v. Microsoft involves a host of issues, although one stands out as particularly noteworthy.  While  "passively tolerat[ing]" the 25 percent 'rule of thumb' (a method for calculating a reasonable royalty for purposes of infringement damages) in past cases, the CAFC held today that the rule "is a fundamentally flawed tool for determining a baseline royalty rate in a hypothetical negotiation," thus precluding its use for damages calculations.

Uniloc is the owner of Patent No. 5,490,216, an early patent covering a mechanism for combating "casual copying" of software, where users install copies of a software program on multiple computers in violation of applicable software licenses.  In general terms, the patented invention involves the creation of a registration number generated by the software on the user's computer.  The number is sent to the vendor's system, which uses an identical algorithm to create a remote license ID.  If the numbers match when the application boots, the program enters a "use mode;" if they do not, it enters a "demo mode."

In the suit against Microsoft, Uniloc alleged that the Product Activation feature for Microsoft's Word XP, Word 2003, and Windows XP software programs infringed the '216 patent.  A jury agreed, finding that Microsoft not only infringed the patent, but did so willfully.  The jury also rejected Microsoft's invalidity defenses and awarded Uniloc $388 million in damages.  Following the trial, the district court granted Microsoft's motion for JMOL of noninfringement and lack of willfulness (and in the alternative, ordered a new trial on these issues), but denied its request for a JMOL on invalidity.  The court also ordered a new trial on the issue of damages.  On appeal, Uniloc challenged the district court's noninfringement, willfulness, and damages rulings, while Microsoft cross-appealed the denial of its JMOL on invalidity.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the district judge's rulings on willfulness, damages and invalidity, but reversed on the question of infringement, both with respect to JMOL and the grant of a new trial.

Damages
The damages section of the opinion is by far the most significant portion.  At trial, the jury awarded Uniloc $388 million in damages, relying on the testimony of Uniloc's expert, who opined that damages should be $564,946,803 based on a hypothetical negotiation between Uniloc and Microsoft and the Georgia-Pacific factors.  Using an internal Microsoft document relating to the value of product keys, the expert applied the 25 percent "rule of thumb" to the minimum value reported ($10 each), obtaining a value of $2.50 per key.  After applying the Georgia-Pacific factors, which he concluded did not modify the base rate, he multiplied it by the number of new licenses to Office and Windows products, producing the $565 million value.  He confirmed his valuation by "checking" it against the total market value of sales of the Microsoft products (approximately $19 billion, noting that it represented only 2.9% of the gross revenue of the products.   

The 25 Percent Rule: On appeal, the CAFC first rejected the use of the 25 percent rule to calculate patent damages.  "The 25 percent rule of thumb is a tool that has been used to approximate the reasonable royalty rate that the manufacturer of a patented product would be willing to offer to pay to the patentee during a hypothetical negotiation." Slip Op. at 36, citing Robert Goldscheider, John Jarosz and Carla Mulhern, USE OF THE 25 PER CENT RULE IN VALUING IP, 37 les Nouvelles 123, 123 (Dec. 2002).  Under the rule, "licensees pay a royalty rate equivalent to 25 per cent of its expected profits for the product that incorporates the IP at issue." Id., quoting Goldscheider et al. Included in the court's discussion of the rule is an extensive survey of the relevant literature (covering no less than nine articles), as well as an acknowledgement that the "court has passively tolerated its use where its acceptability has not been the focus of the case." Slip Op. at 39.  However, the court recognized that it  never squarely addressed the use of the rule.

Treating the issue as one of first principles, and after considering the relevant Supreme Court caselaw, the CAFC concluded that, as an abstract theory untied to particular factual circumstances of a given case, the 25 percent rule simply cannot be used for damages calculations: 

This court now holds as a matter of Federal Circuit law that the 25 percent rule of thumb is a fundamentally flawed tool for determining a baseline royalty rate in a hypothetical negotiation. Evidence relying on the 25 percent rule of thumb is thus inadmissible under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence, because it fails to tie a reasonable royalty base to the facts of the case at issue.

Slip Op. at 41.  The court based its reasoning on the Daubert standard for expert testimony, concluding that general theories are only permissible if the expert adequately ties the theory to the specific facts of the case.  Under Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) and General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 US 136 (1997), "one major determinant of whether an expert should be excluded under Daubert is whether he has justified the application of a general theory to the facts of the case."  Slip Op. at 43.

Applying this principle, the CAFC criticized the application of the 25 percent rule because there was no link between the rule and the specific case:

The meaning of these cases is clear: there must be a basis in fact to associate the royalty rates used in prior licenses to the particular hypothetical negotiation at issue in the case. The 25 percent rule of thumb as an abstract and largely theoretical construct fails to satisfy this fundamental requirement. The rule does not say anything about a particular hypothetical negotiation or reasonable royalty involving any particular technology, industry, or party.

Slip Op. at 45. In addition, the court pointed to the lack of testimony by Uniloc's expert suggesting that the starting point of a 25 percent royalty had any relation to the facts of the case, and thus the use of the rule was "arbitrary, unreliable, and irrelevant," failing to pass muster under Daubert and tainting the jury's damages calculation.  Id. at 47.

Entire Market Value Rule: The CAFC also rejected the expert's application of the entire market value rule, which he used as a check on the total damages.  "The entire market value rule allows a patentee to assess damages based on the entire market value of the accused product only where the patented feature creates the 'basis for customer demand' or 'substantially create[s] the value of the component parts.'"  Slip Op. at 48.  Here, however, there was no evidence that the patented component created the basis for customer demand, as required by the rule: "This case provides a good example of the danger of admitting consideration of the entire market value of the accused where the patented component does not create the basis for customer demand."  Slip Op. at 51.

Infringement
In opposing Uniloc's challenge on the issue of infringement, Microsoft argued that several grounds supported affirmance of the district court's grant of JMOL of noninfringement.  The CAFC rejected each argument in turn, concluding that substantial evidence supported the jury's finding of infringement. 

Standard of Review: One issue that sophisticated parties often dispute is the relevant standard that applies when reviewing jury verdicts. This appeal was no different – Microsoft contended that the jury verdict should be reviewed de novo, while Uniloc argued that it should be reviewed for substantial evidence.  The CAFC responded by distinguishing situations where "the parties conceded that under one claim construction there was infringement and under the other there was none, and were arguing only over which claim construction was appropriate." Slip Op. at 15.  In these cases, de novo review applies.  On the other hand, where "the claim construction itself is not contested, but the application of that claim construction to the accused device is," the court applies the substantial evidence standard. Id.

Comment: This distinction reinforces a basic principle of Federal Circuit appellate practice: Parties challenging a jury verdict on the issue of infringement will likely want to frame the dispute on appeal as a question of claim construction; parties defending the verdict will likely want to frame it as a question of application of an accepted construction to the accused product or method.  Of course, whether a party will be able to frame the question in a particular way depends largely on how the issue was set up in the district court – which itself is ideally part of counsel's long term strategic thinking.

Applying this standard, the Federal Circuit concluded that the jury's verdict of infringement was supported by substantial evidence, rejecting Microsoft's arguments to the contrary.  The court also rejected Microsoft's argument that a critical "means-plus-function" limitation should be read narrowly.  To the contrary, the court held, it should be read broadly, applying language from IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436 (Fed. Cir. 2000) stating that "when in a claimed 'means' limitation the disclosed physical structure is of little or no importance to the claimed invention, there may be a broader range of equivalent structures than if the physical characteristics of the structure are critical in performing the claimed function." 

Expert Testimony, redux: Also of note is the court's ruling with respect to expert testimony as it pertains to infringment.  Although the district court rejected the testimony of Uniloc's expert as "incomplete, oversimplified and frankly inappropriate," the CAFC concluded that this rejection was improper because the district court had already fulfilled its gatekeeping function under Daubert when it explicitly noted that the expert was "qualified."  Thus, it was up to the jury "to evaluate the weight to be given to the testimony of dueling qualified experts."  This application of Daubert seems to be somewhat in tension with the court's treatment of expert testimony in the damages context, which focused on the content of the testimony, not the qualifications of the person giving it.

Joint Infringement: The CAFC also rejected Microsoft's joint infringement argument.  Rather than implicating joint conduct, the court ruled, Uniloc's claim was structured so as to capture infringement by a single party by focusing on one entity.  "That other parties are necessary to complete the environment in which the claimed element functions does not necessarily divide the infringement between the necessary parties. For example, a claim that reads “An algorithm incorporating means for receiving e-mails” may require two parties to function, but could nevertheless be infringed by the single party who uses an algorithm that receives e-mails."  Slip Op. at 29.

Willful Infringement: On the issue of willfulness, the CAFC continued to apply its objective super-threshold for proving willfulness.  "If the accused infringer's position is susceptible to a reasonable conclusion of no infringement, the first prong of Seagate cannot be met." Slip Op. at 32.  Particularly obtuse is the court's triple-negative articulation of the factual holding: "Uniloc has not presented any evidence at trial or on appeal showing why Microsoft, at the time it began infringement, could not have reasonably determined that [Microsoft's algorithms] did not meet the “licensee unique ID generating means,” “licensee unique ID,” or “registration system”/“mode switching means” limitations."

Presumption of Validity: in addressing Microsoft's cross-appeal of the denial of its motion for JMOL and a new trial on invalidity, the court declined to back away from the "clear and convincing" standard for invalidity.  Rejecting Microsoft's argument that its burden was to show invalidity simply by a preponderance of the evidence – as opposed to clear and convincing evidence – because the prior art reference was not before the PTO, the court continued to apply the higher standard.  "Until changed by the Supreme Court or this court sitting en ban, this is still the law."  Slip Op. at 55.  Applying this standard, the court rejected Microsoft's argument that it was simply practicing the prior art, and thus a finding of infringement necessitated a finding of invalidity. 

Akamai v. Limelight: Joint Infringement Requires an Agency Relationship or a Contractual Obligation

Claim Construction, Infringement, Patent, Patent Cases 2010, Rantanen

By Jason Rantanen and Dennis Crouch

Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Panel: Rader, Linn (author), Prost

Three years ago, in BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the Federal Circuit sharply limited the ability of patent holders to assert claims of joint infringement.  The BMC decision was further bolstered by Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp. and I-Deal (Fed. Cir. 2008). Akamai v. Limelight expands on the "control or direct" rule announced in BMC and Muniauction, explaining that joint infringement requires an agency relationship or a contractual obligation to carry out the relevant steps. 

Akamai's Claim of Joint Infringement
In order to win a patent infringement case, a patentee must prove that a single entity practiced every element (either literally or by equivalents) of at least one valid, enforceable claim. Joint infringement issues can arise when a patent holder asserts method claims over activities whose steps are not carried out by a single party.  For example, if a patent claims a method involving performing steps A, B, and C, the patent holder may need to argue joint infringement (as opposed to straightforward direct infringement) if steps A and B are performed by one party and step C is performed by a second party. 

In Akamai, while the accused party (Limelight) performed the majority of the steps of the asserted claims, at least one of the steps of each claim was performed by its customers.  The patent, No. 6,108,703, is directed to an improved method for storing web page content.  Conventionally, the entirety of a web page, including both the page itself and embedded content (such as graphics) is stored on a single server, or mirrored in its entirety across multiple servers.  The patents-in-suit claim a new approach, which involves storing only the embedded objects on mirrored servers (called a "Content Delivery Network," or "CDN"), while having the webpage itself continue to reside on the content provider's servers.  In order to make this system work, the claims further require that the object URLs be "tagged" to resolve to the CDN. 

Daniel Lewin and his adviser Thomas Leighton devised these methods (or algorithms) while at MIT where Leighton was the head of MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.  The pair founded Akamai, and their invention continues to serve as a basis for the company's core business.  Lewin was killed aboard American Airlines flight 11 when it crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Limelight, Akamai's direct competitor in the CDN business, performed most of the claimed steps but had its customers (companies such as Netflix) tag the URLs.  Because some of the steps were performed by Limelight and some by its customers, Akamai relied on a theory of joint liability, arguing that Limelight controls or directs the activities of its customers.  At trial, the jury sided with Akamai and awarded over $40 million in lost-profit-damages. The district court rejected the jury verdict and supplemented its own non-infringement judgment – holding that there was "no material difference between Limelight's interaction with his customers and that of Thomson in Muniauction."

On appeal, Akamai contended that substantial evidence supported the infringement finding, arguing that Limelight "(1) creates and assigns a unique hostname for the content provider; (2) provides explicit step-by-step instructions to perform the tagging and serving claim steps; (3) offers technical assistance to help content providers with their performance of the claim step; and (4) contractually requires content providers to perform the tagging and serving claim steps if they utilize the Limelight service."  Slip Op at 11. 

Important holdings
In affirming the district court's judgment of noninfringement, the CAFC expanded on its ruling in BMC that "joint liability may be found when one party 'control[s] or direct[s]' the activities of another party."  Slip Op. at 9.  After noting the foundational nature of this standard, the Akamai panel further held that "what is essential is not merely the exercise of control or the providing of instructions, but whether the relationship between the parties is such that acts of one may be attributed to the other."   Id. at 12.  The court interpreted this as requiring either an agency relationship or a contractual obligation: "as a matter of Federal Circuit law that there can only be joint infringement when there is an agency relationship between the parties who perform the method steps or when one party is contractually obligated to the other to perform the steps."  Slip Op. at 14.

Analyzing the issue as a question of agency law, the CAFC concluded that no substantial evidence supported a finding that Limelight's customers perform any of the steps of the claimed method as agents for Limelight.  (Citing the Restatement (3rd) of Agency §1.01). The court also rejected Akamai's theory that Limelight's customers are contractually required to perform the tagging step.  Rather, the court stated, the contract does not obligate the customers to perform any of the method steps; instead, it "merely explains that the customer will have to perform the steps if it decides to take advantage of Limelight's service."  Slip Op. at 16.

Note: The court repeated the warning it set forth in BMC Resources, 498 F.3d at 1381, that concerns about the difficulty of proving infringement of claims that must be infringed by multiple parties "by proper claim drafting.  A patentee can usually structure a claim to capture infringement by a single party."  Slip. Op. at 17 (quoting BMC Resources).  Failing this, the court suggested (citing Mark Lemley's Divided Infringement article) that patentees may be able to correct a claim by seeking a reissue patent.

Claim Construction
Akamai also challenged the district court's construction of two claim terms in related patents, contending that both constructions imported limitations from the specification into the claims.  In a fact-intensive analysis, the CAFC rejected Akamai's arguments, concluding that the district court correctly interpreted the disputed terms given the treatment of the invention in the specification and the lack of any contrary evidence in the prosecution history. 

AstraZeneca v Apotex: Affirmance of a Preliminary Injunction

Anticipation, Injunctions, Patent, Patent Cases 2010, Pharma, Prior Art, Rantanen, , ,

By Jason Rantanen

AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Panel: Rader, Bryson (dissenting in part), Linn (majority author),

Contrary to popular opinion, it's still possible to obtain a preliminary injunction in a patent case – it's just very difficult.  Astrazeneca v. Apotex provides an example of an affirmed preliminary injunction, and is significant for that reason alone.  It also raises some interesting inducement issues relating to intent that I'll discuss in a separate post.

Background
This case revolved around AstraZeneca's budesonide inhalation suspension drug product, which consists of a vial containing a single dose of budesonide suspended in a sterile liquid.  The drug is administered by squeezing the entire contents of the vial into a jet neubulizer, then inhaling the resulting mist through a mask attached to the nebulizer.  Because budesonide is an inhaled corticosteroid, the FDA requires that the label include a warning instructing patients to "titrate down" to the lowest effective dose of the medication to avoid any adverse effects from excessive use of the medication. 

The two patents at issue, Nos. 6,598,603 and 6,899,099, both contain method claims covering the once-daily use of the nebulized dose of a budesonide composition and product claims covering AstraZeneca's drug product kit.

Apotex sought approval to market a generic version of AstraZeneca's drug product.  As an ANDA applicant, it was well aware of AstraZeneca's patents, and sought to avoid the once-daily method claims by removing any mention of once-daily dosing from its labels.  While it succeeded in part, the FDA nevertheless required Apotex to keep the titration warning language in the generic product's label.

During the preliminary injunction proceedings, Apotex raised two principal arguments in response to the method claims.  First, it contended that they were anticipated; second, it contended that its distribution of the generic version of the drug would not induce infringement of AstraZeneca's method claims.  The district court rejected Apotex's arguments, and granted a preliminary injunction enjoining Apotex from marketing its product.

Note: The district court agreed with Apotex that the kit claims were invalid.  On appeal, the panel affirmed that determination. 

Anticipation
Apotex's first anticipation argument, involving a prior art patent, turned on a question of claim construction: whether the term "budesonide composition" encompassed budesonide encapsulated in liposomes (the '603 patent teaches dispersing budesonide in a solvent, either as a solution or a suspension that may include liposomes as an excipient).  The majority agreed with AstraZeneca's position, focusing on the discussion contained within the specification and buttressing its conclusions with extrinsic evidence (in this case, expert testimony).  Judge Bryson, dissenting on this point, reached the opposite conclusion: the claim term is not limited to budesonide directly dispresed in solvent, and thus the method claims are anticipated.

Apotex's also argued that a prior art British advertisement for AstraZeneca's product describing it as a twice-daily product anticipated the patents.  The majority again agreed with AstraZeneca that this reference did not anticipate the once-daily method claims, both because it did not disclose once daily dosing and because it was not enabled with respect to that type of dosing.  (Obviousness was apparently not in dispute, as at the time of the earlier reference no one recognized that the product could be administered once per day and still be effective).  Judge Bryson again disagreed, reading the prior art advertisement to suggest the administration of the drug once a day.

Inducement of Infringement
In challenging the district court's finding of inducement of infringement, Apotex focused on the subject of intent, arguing that its instructions did not demonstrate intent to cause the users of its product to engage in once-daily dosing and that it lacked specific intent to cause infringement of Apotex's patent.  The Federal Circuit rejected these arguments, affirming the district court's conclusion that the downward-titration instructions would necessarily result in some users engaging in once-daily dosing and noting that Apotex was well aware of the infringement problems raised by once-daily dosing, yet chose to proceed nonetheless.

Preliminary Injunction "Substantial Question of Invalidity" Standard
Although not playing a major role in the ultimate outcome of this appeal, the court's articulation of the "likelihood of success" standard, along with the subsidiary "substantial question of invalidity" element, is noteworthy given the divergent views on this subject, such as those expressed by Judges Newman and Gajarsa in Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, 544 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008).  AstraZeneca v. Apotex follows the approach of requiring a seemingly high threshold for patentees/low threshold for defendants on this issue:

For a patentee to establish that it is likely to succeed on the merits, it “must demonstrate that it will likely prove infringement of one or more claims of the patents-in-suit, and that at least one of those same allegedly infringed claims will also likely withstand the validity challenges presented by the accused infringer.” Ama-zon.com, 239 F.3d at 1351. When reviewing the grant of a preliminary injunction, this court “views the matter in light of the burdens and presumptions that will inhere at trial.” Titan Tire Corp., 566 F.3d at 1376 (citation omitted). A preliminary injunction should not issue if an alleged infringer raises a substantial question regarding either infringement or validity, i.e., the alleged infringer asserts an infringement or invalidity defense that the patentee has not shown lacks substantial merit. Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Patentable Subject Matter at the Board of Patent Appeals

BPAI, Patent, Patentable Subject Matter, , , , ,

The work of the Board must go on . . . . In several recent decisions, the Board of Patent Appeals (BPAI or Board) has continued to affirm rejections of claims on patentable subject matter eligibility grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

In Ex parte Kelkar, App. No. 2009–004635 (BPAI, September 24 ,2010), the applicant had claimed a method of determining the similarity between two genetic profiles and a computer program stored on a recordable medium for accomplishing the method. The method involves the broad steps of iteratively matching gene expression profile pairs in clusters until a best match is found. Because the method neither recites any particular machinery nor transforms an article into a different state or thing, the Board held that it failed the machine-or-transformation test. Citing Flook (1978), the Board then held that the claim was improperly directed to an abstract algorithm because the underlying innovation was the unpatentable mathematical algorithm. Some of the method claims included a preamble statement that the method occurred “in a computer.” The Board found that limitation at most a “a field-of-use limitation that is insufficient to render the otherwise ineligible process . . . patent eligible.”

The Board went on to affirm the rejection of the computer program claims that were “stored on a recordable medium.”  The Board agreed with the examiner that those the storage medium limitation was broad enough to encompass unpatentable “carrier wave storage.” (See Nuijten (Fed. Cir. 2007)). The Board wrote:

When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering nonstatutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). See also, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).

In Ex parte MacKenzie, App. No. 2009–-7332 (BPAI, October 4, 2010), the Board issued a new grounds of rejection under Section 101 because the claimed method was directed to an abstract process under Bilski. MacKenzie's rejected claim 1 reads as follows:

1. A method for use in a device associated with a first party for performing a signature operation on a message substantially based on the digital signature algorithm (DSA), the method comprising the steps of:

generating in the first party device a first component associated with the signature operation based on assistance from a device associated with a second party, wherein the assistance from the second party device is received as a first message from the second party device;

transmitting the first component to the second party device;

generating in the first party device a second component associated with the signature operation based on further assistance from the second party device, wherein the further assistance from the second party device is received as a second message from the second party device, wherein the second message comprises results generated using the transmitted first component; and

outputting a form of the first component and the second component as a result of the DSA signature operation.

Although MacKenzie's claim does recite various devices, the Board saw these as “nominal” limitations to “generic devices.” The Board wrote:

As the unpatentability of abstract ideas was reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bilski (2010), clever claim drafting involving the nominal addition of generic structures cannot circumvent the principles articulated by the Court. That is, even when a claim appears to apply an idea or concept in combination with a nominal claim to generic structure(s), one must ensure that it does not in reality seek patent protection for that idea in the abstract.

In Ex parte Venkata, App. No. 2009–007302 (BPAI, October 5, 2010), the Board held that “the claim’s body recites nothing more than software [and therefore] lacks statutory subject matter.” Venkata's claim was directed to a “system” that included two “discovery agents” that operate either via a local network or via an Internet host.

Kelkar's patent application is owned by IBM and prosecuted by its in-house patent department. MacKenzie's patent application is owned by Lucent and prosecuted by the small firm of Ryan, Mason & Lewis. Venkata's patent application is owned by Nokia and prosecuted by the small firm of Hollingsworth & Funk.

Notes:

The USPTO's January 2010 guidance on the Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media is repeated as follows. I would argue that the Nuijten decision – if read to categorically exclude transitory embodiments, is no longer good law post-Bilski.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to
statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.

The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf. Animals – Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

DAVID J. KAPPOS
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office

Guest Post: An Interesting Preview of Myriad?

Patent, Patent Cases 2010, ,

By Professor Paul M. Janicke, University of Houston Law Center

The Myriad case from the Southern District of New York, involving patent eligibility of DNA isolates derived from naturally occurring DNA, drew a great deal of attention. The court basically held such isolates ineligible for patent coverage as being too similar to the natural substances, and hence barred by the product-of-nature case law. In the district court Myriad drew twenty-three amici briefs and a great deal of press attention. It is now on appeal at the Federal Circuit, where the first brief is due to be filed October 22. However, in a little-noticed partial dissenting opinion in another case, Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk has given a preview of his likely views on this important question.

The appellate case was Intervet Inc. v. Merial Ltd., decided by a Federal Circuit panel on August 4. The case involved DNA sequences encoding viruses harmful to pigs. According to the patent involved, knowledge of such sequences facilitates detection methods and production of vaccines against the harmful viruses. The patent specification gave full-length DNA sequences for five strains of these types of viruses, and a sequence for a similar but harmless pig virus for comparison purposes. The issues raised below and on appeal were: (i) whether the district court’s constructions of certain claim terms were correct; and (ii) whether a narrowing amendment made in the PTO while a claim was under prior art rejection foreclosed all access to the doctrine of equivalents for the territory between the original language and the amended language or left some of it open. No statutory subject matter issue was raised below or in the appeal.

The Intervet panel majority, consisting of Judges Prost and Bryson, decided those issues largely in favor of the patentee, Merial. Judge Dyk issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part on the appealed questions. However, he also took the occasion to caution that the court’s decision in the case did not mean the court was acquiescing in the patent-eligibility of DNA, even in isolate form: “I write separately primarily to make clear that in construing the claims, we are not deciding that the claims as construed are limited to patentable subject matter.” He proceeded to address the main issue pending in Myriad, namely, whether isolates of DNA similar to DNA found in natural sources like humans or animals are eligible for patenting, or whether they run afoul of the Supreme Court’s pronouncements about products of nature in cases such as Funk Bros., Chakrabarty, and the recent Bilski decision. Judge Dyk indicated he did not think claiming the DNA in its isolated form was sufficient to distinguish it, for eligibility purposes, from the naturally occurring substance. He read the Supreme Court cases to require subject matter that is “qualitatively different” from the naturally occurring substance, and said it was “far from clear” that DNA isolates as claimed here met that test.[8] Perhaps foreshadowing his position in Myriad, he stated:  

The mere fact that such a DNA molecule does not occur in isolated form in nature does not, by itself, answer the question. It would be difficult to argue, for instance, that one could patent the leaves of a plant merely because the leaves do not occur in nature in their isolated form.

The impact of Judge Dyk’s views is difficult to predict. His is certainly an important judicial voice. However, he may not be on the panel drawn to hear the Myriad appeal, and the case may never be heard en banc. Moreover, these might not be Judge Dyk’s final positions on the issues. Only time will tell how this important case plays out. 

* * * * *

[1] Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent & Trademark Office, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35418 (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2010). Myriad Genetics was a co-defendant and co-owner of at least one of the patents in this declaratory action and exclusive licensee under others, hence Myriad has become the popular name of the case.

[2] 2010 WL 3064311 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

[3] See U.S. Patent 6,368,601, col. 1, lines 6-10.

[4] Id. at *9.

[5] Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948).
[6] Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980). 

[7] Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010).

[8] Intervet, 2010 WL 3064311 at *11.

[9] Id.

Written Description, Claim Scope, and Showing Possession of Hidden Embodiments

Enablement, Patent, Patent Cases 2010,

PatentLawImage001Laryngeal Mask Co. v. Ambu AS (Fed. Cir. 2010)

The district court rejected LMA’s patent on summary judgment — holding that the claims covering a laryngeal mask device were invalid for lack of written description.

The written description issues here are similar to those presented in Liebel-Flarsheim and Lizard Tech.  The patented invention included both (1) a “cuff” with a “thicker and stiffer” region and (2) a “backplate.”  The described embodiments all showed the thick-stiff region of the cuff connected to the backplate,  but the accused device’s cuff-backplate connection was in a different location. The claims themselves did not expressly limit the connection-site with reference to the thick-stiff region and therefore arguably covered the accused device.  Given that broad construction of the claims (as requested by the patentee), the district court held the patent invalid on written description grounds because the patent document failed to describe or show possession of the invention as embodied by the accused device.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit panel of Chief Judge Rader, Judge Lourie, and Judge Moore rejected the district court’s findings — holding instead that the factual question of written description should be left for the jury in this case. 

Rather than focusing on affirmative evidence of possession, the Federal Circuit highlighted that nothing in the specification suggested that that design of the connection between the cuff and backplate was important or necessary to the invention.

“We agree with LMA that one of ordinary skill in the art could read these disclosures as providing for a cuff reinforcement in the distal region that need not be connected to the backplate. In addition, we agree with LMA that one of ordinary skill in the art could read the Cuff Wall Thickening Passage as disclosing a thickened cuff portion that need not be connected to the backplate.”

Because those factual conclusions raised issues of material fact, the appellate panel reversed the summary judgment holding and remanded.

The Court’s approach implicitly presumes that the asserted patent satisfies the written description requirement and then looks to see whether the evidence is sufficient to overcome that presumption. That method of analysis makes sense based on the procedural setup of the case: Namely, (1) clear and convincing evidence is required to prove that the patent lacks written description; (2) the decision being reviewed was one of summary judgment; and (3) written description is a question of fact.

Notes:

  • The court also reversed a claim construction holding that had led to summary judgment of non-infringement.
  • The asserted claims were all added during prosecution. The original claims required that the backplate be “hermetically bonded to a periphery of the main-cuff” and the new claims have a seemingly broader requirement that the backplate be “attached” to the cuff.  The original claim appears broad enough to cover the link as embodied in the accused device.

 

 

Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear

Infringement, Patent, Patent Cases 2010, ,

By: Jason Rantanen

Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Panel: Lourie, Friedman, and Moore (author)

Indirect infringement claims are particularly relevant in the context of industry-wide interoperablity standards, because frequently companies simply manufacture products capable of particular behavior while the relevant methods are actually carried out by end users.  Patent No. 4,974,952 raises an example of this issue.  The '952 patent claims a method of sending wireless messages involving fragmenting the messages in a particular manner.  Philips, the patent holder, contended that any product that complied with certain sections of the IEEE 802.11 standard infringed the asserted claims, and that by complying with the standard Netgear indirectly infringed the '952 patent (presumably by selling the accused products).

The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Netgear, determining that Phillips had failed to establish either contributory infringement or inducement.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit determined that the district court had erred on some points, but nevertheless affirmed summary judgment of noninfringment with respect to all but four products. 

Use of Standards to establish Direct Infringement: The court's discussion of the use of industry-wide standards to prove infringement may become the most widely-cited portion of this opinion.  After considering the parties' arguments, along with that of amicus Association of Corporate Counsel Intellectual Property Committee, the court held that:

[A] district court may rely on an industry standard in analyzing infringement. If a district court construes the claims and finds that the reach of the claims includes any device that practices a standard, then this can be sufficient for a finding of infringement. We agree that claims should be compared to the accused product to determine infringement. However, if an accused product operates in accordance with a standard, then comparing the claims to that standard is the same as comparing the claims to the accused product….An accused infringer is free to either prove that the claims do not cover all implementations of the standard or to prove that it does not practice the standard.

…

We acknowledge, however, that in many instances, an industry standard does not provide the level of specificity required to establish that practicing that standard would always result in infringement. Or, as with the ’952 patent, the relevant section of the standard is optional, and standards compliance alone would not establish that the accused infringer chooses to implement the optional section. In these instances, it is not sufficient for the patent owner to establish infringement by arguing that the product admittedly practices the standard, therefore it infringes. In these cases, the patent owner must compare the claims to the accused products or, if appropriate, prove that the accused products implement any relevant optional sections of the standard.

Slip Op. at 8-9. Applying this holding, the panel concluded that because the fragmentation feature in the 802.11 standard was optional, and (although present in the Netgear devices) was turned off by default, Phillips was required to prove that customers actually used the infringing feature. On this point, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that there was only evidence of actual infringing use with respect to four products.

Substantial Noninfringing Uses: The Federal Circuit applied the analysis of i4i v. Microsoft, focusing on the specific feature at issue.  Here, because the specific feature was infringing when it was activated, there was no substantial noninfringing use.

Material Part of the Invention: Phillips accused two classes of products: those that only fragmented messages and those that only defragmented messages.  Because the claims of the '952 patent were specifically drawn to the fragmenting steps, not the defragmenting steps, the district court concluded that the accused defragmenting products could not infringe.  Phillips argued that because fragmentation necessarily infringes the asserted claims, than the defragmenting products are useful only for infringement, and Netgear should be liable for them.  The panel rejected this argument: even though the usefulness of the claimed method would be lost without data receivers capable of defragmenting messages, the lack of defragmentation steps in the claims means that products that only defragment messages cannot constitute a "material part" of the invention. 

Mental State Components of Indirect Infringement: In analyzing the respective mental state components for contributory infringement and inducement of infringement, the panel found that Netgear's receipt of letters identifying the '952 patent and alleging infringement by any 802.11 compliant standard were sufficient to survive summary judgment.

Comment: my current research focuses on mental state issues in patent law, including in the context of indirect infringement.  In the near future, I'll discuss this subject in more depth. 

Other issues: In addition to the above indirect infringement issues, the Federal Circuit also concluded that the district court had erred in limiting damages based on the patent marking statute (35 U.S.C. § 287), because the claims covered a method and § 287 does not apply where the patent is directed to a process or method.  The Federal Circuit also analyzed the district's construction of relevant claim terms in Patent Nos. 6,018,642 and 6,469,993, and affirmed its grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of those patents.  The analysis in this section may be particularly relevant to those operating in the wireless technology area.

Follow-up comment: Michael Barclay also noted the importance of the standard-as-evidence holding on his blog, IPDuck.  See http://ipduck.blogspot.com/2010/09/federal-circuit-approves-use-of.html

Preambles as Limitations

Claim Construction, Patent, Patent Cases 2010,

By Jason Rantanen

American Medical Systems, Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Panel: Bryson (author), Dyk (dissenting), and Prost

It may come as no surprise that the law on whether claim preambles can serve as limitations is unclear.  The Federal Circuit is aware of this issue, and at least one judge suggests that it may be time for the court to address this issue en banc.

The patent in this case, No. 6,986,764, relates to technology for vaporizing tissue using laser radiation.  The invention can be used to treat Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia, a condition in which growth of the prostate gland restricts the passage of urine out of the bladder and through the urethra.  By vaporizing or ablating some tissue, the size of the prostate is reduced, thus reducing bladder outlet obstructions.  Although laser radiation was known in the art, various problems were associated with its use.

The inventors of the '764 patent determined that by using high "volumetric power density" (a high amount of energy delivered to a given volume of tissue) they could produce increased vaporization efficiency while minimizing one of the problems associated with the procedure, residual coagulation.  The patent is directed to various methods and devices for achieving this high volumetric power density by manipulating variables such as wavelength, output power, beam quality, irrigant composition, and distance between the optical fiber and the tissue.

The dispute on appeal hinged on whether the preamble constituted a limitation.  Claim 31 is representative of the method claims. (The apparatus claims are similar, but recite "[a]n apparatus for photoselective vaporization of tissue.")  It recites:

A method for photoselective vaporization of tissue, comprising:

delivering laser radiation to a treatment area on the tissue, the laser radiation having a wavelength and having irradiance in the treatment area sufficient to cause vaporization of a substantially greater volume of tissue than a volume of residual coagulated tissue caused by the laser radiation, wherein the delivered laser radiation has an average irradiance in the treatment area greater than 10 kiloWatts/cm2 in a spot size at least 0.05 mm2.

During claim construction, the district court determined that the preamble phrase "photoselective vaporization" was a "fundamental characteristic" of the invention, and construed the term to mean "using a wavelength that is highly absorptive in the tissue, while being absorbed only to a negligible degree by water or other irrigant."  Based on this construction, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the accused infringer.

On appeal, the majority disagreed, concluding that the preamble phrase "photoselective vaporization of tissue" does not limit the claims of the '764 patent.  The court first noted the limited circumstances in which the preamble may limit claim scope:

“Generally,” we have said, “the preamble does not limit the claims.”  Nonetheless, the preamble may be construed as limiting “if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” A preamble is not regarded as limiting, however, “when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.”  If the preamble “is reasonably susceptible to being construed to be merely duplicative of the limitations in the body of the claim (and was not clearly added to overcome a [prior art] rejection), we do not construe it to be a separate limitation.”  We have held that the preamble has no separate limiting effect if, for example, “the preamble merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.”

Slip Op. at 8-9 (internal citations omitted).  After rejecting a prosecution history-based argument and the argument that the preamble phrase provided a necessary antecedent basis, the court determined that the phrase "does not embody an essential component of the invention":

Instead, the term “photoselective vaporization” is simply a descriptive name for the invention that is fully set forth in the bodies of the claims….The bodies of the asserted apparatus claims (claims 63-64) describe a structurally complete device, including a laser adapted to deliver “radiation at a wavelength and irradiance . . . sufficient to cause [tissue] vaporization[.]” The bodies of those claims identify the covered wavelengths by function (“sufficient to cause vaporization”), and nothing in the claim language suggests that the term “photoselective” further limits those wavelengths.

Slip Op. at 10 (internal citations omitted).

Judge Dyk disagreed.  After first noting the confusing and unclear nature of the court's jurisprudence on this issue, he suggested that the court should dispense with the current articulation and instead apply the rule that preambles always limit claims:

It seems to me that a rule recognizing that all preambles are limiting would make better sense and would better serve the interests of all concerned. There is, after all, little to be said in favor of allowing an applicant, in the claim drafting process, to include material in the claims that is not binding. If patentees are allowed to include material in the claim definitions that is not bind-ing, patentees can suggest or imply one position before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”) to secure allowance of the patent on the theory that the preamble is limiting and another, inconsistent position in infringe-ment litigation on the theory that it is not limiting. Principles of fairness thus dictate that the patentee should be required to clearly define the claimed inven-tion’s scope. By creating a uniform rule that all pream-bles are limiting, we would ensure the patentee has the burden of drafting a patent that avoids confusion as to the scope of the claims….Neither the Supreme Court nor our court sitting en banc has ever addressed the preamble limitation issue. I think the time may have come for us to eliminate this vague and confusing rule.

Dissent at 3-4.  He then turned to the issue of whether the preamble phrase in this case limited the scope of the patent, and concluded that it did based on the prosecution history and what he viewed as a definition of the term in the Summary of the Invention.  He also disagreed with the majority that the district court's construction would be inconsistent with the specification. 

GPG v. ITC: Federal Circuit Review of ITC Determinations

Infringement, Patent, Patent Cases 2010,

By Jason Rantanen

General Protecht Group v. International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Majority opinion authored by Judge Dyk, joined by Judge Prost.  Dissenting opinion by Judge Newman.

ITC determinations are subject to review by the Federal Circuit under the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows for de novo review of legal determinations and review of factual findings for substantial evidence.  Although the parties in this appeal largely agreed on the meanings of the relevant claim terms, the majority concluded that the ITC's infringement finding lacked substantial evidence.  Writing in dissent, Judge Newman asserted that the majority's conclusion was based on issues never raised by the appellants.  

* * * *

The three appellants in this appeal, GPG, Trimone, and ELE, import ground fault circuit interrupters ("GFCIs") into the United States.  Pass & Seymour, Inc. obtained an exclusion order from the ITC following the Commission's finding that the devices infringed three patents: 7,283,340; 5,594,398; and 7,164,564. 

On appeal, although the appellants raised "numerous issues" challenging the Commission's determination of infringement, the panel found most of them unpersuasive.  Nevertheless, the majority did conclude that the Commission had erred in some respects, finding that (1) GPG's 2003 and 2006 GFCIs and ELE's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '340 patent because they lack a "detection circuit; (2) Trimone's 2006 GFCI's and ELE's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '340 patent because they lack the "load terminals" of the patent; and (3) GPG's 2006 GFCI's do not infringe the '398 patent because they perform the function of the "latching means" in a substantially different way than the structure disclosed in the patent.  In all other respects, the court affirmed the lower tribunal's determination.

The disagreement between the majority and dissent is illustrated by their positions on the "detection circuit" claim term, although it permeates the determinations on the other two terms as well.  The Administrative Law Judge construed "detection circuit" to mean "at least one detection circuit having a circuit segment connected between the line terminals and configured to generate a predetermined signal in response to detecting a proper wiring condition, which occurs when the line terminals are connected to a source of AC power.”  Neither ELE nor GPG challenged the construction on appeal; however, they argued that the Commission erred in adopting the ALJ's infringement finding.  The majority agreed that this element was not infringed: 

The construed claims require the “detection circuit” to “generate a predetermined signal in response to detecting a proper wiring condition.” Initial Determination, slip op. at 85 (emphasis added). But as Dr. Harman’s own testimony makes clear, his “predetermined signal” is merely the “current flow” originating from the hot line terminal. J.A. 40,396. The identified circuit does not generate this current; it is the current that comes from the AC power connection. So instead of detecting a proper wiring condition and generating a signal in response, as the properly construed claim requires, the accused GFCIs simply have power to operate, or not. Dr. Harman’s testimony is not substantial evidence to support a finding that ELE’s 2006 GFCIs infringe claims 14, 18, and 30 of the ’340 patent.

(Slip Op. at 9).  The majority applied similar reasoning with respect to GLG. 

In describing both ELE and GPG's arguments, the majority paid particular attention to the dissent's assertion that the appellants did not raise this issue, responding in a footnote that:

The dissent suggests that the parties did not raise this argument, but ELE clearly argued that “[b]y treating the ‘predetermined signal’ as including whatever AC power happens to arrive at a building from the local power plant, the Commission has broadened this limitation beyond all recognition and effectively reads it out of the claim.”

(Slip Op. at 8, fn. 3).

In a strident dissent, Judge Newman took a significantly different view of the ITC decision and majority opinion on appeal:

The Initial Decision of 170 pages and the Commission’s supplemental rulings of 32 pages present a full understanding of the technology, with rigorous discussion of the evidence and extensive analysis, findings, and conclusions. This court now finds its own facts, applies theories that were not raised by any party, uses incorrect standards of review, and creates its own electrical technology contrary to the uniform and unchallenged expert testimony.

(Dissent at 2).  With respect to the majority's "detection circuit" reasoning, after an extensive discussion of the Commission findings, Judge Newman concluded that:

[t]he court creates a theory not proposed by any party, and rules that a signal that originates from the line terminal is not generated by the detection circuit and thus is not “generated.” See Maj. Op. at 9 (“The identified circuit does not generate this current; it is the current that comes from the AC power connection.”). There is no support for this theory. The only signal generated in response to proper wiring as described in the ’340 patent is “generated” in the same way as in the accused devices, that is, the detection circuit uses power from the properly wired line terminals to supply a signal (claim 14) or response (claim 30) that allows the device to be reset. That is how the Commission, and the parties, interpreted the term. The court’s new interpretation of “generate” was not debated and is not briefed.

(Dissent at 8-9).

Notes:

  • I understand that Pass & Seymour is seeking a rehearing and rehearing en banc on the ground that the majority's approach is in conflict with the APA, and intends to raise the argument that the court based its determination on issues not preserved or presented by the parties, thus unfairly prejudicing the party against whom the issues were decided and wasting the resources of the parties and ITC.
  • The Federal Circuit also issued a companion opinion addressing Pass & Seymour's appeal from the ITC's determination that GPG's 2003 devices and Trimone's 2006 devices do not infringe the '398 patent, and that ELE's 2003 and 2006 devices, GPG's 2003 and 2006 devices, and Trimone's 2006 devices do not infringe Patent No. 7,212,386.  The appeal turned on questions of claim construction, with the majority opinion affirming the ITC's constructions largely by applying a "plain meaning" approach.  Judge Newman concurred in the result, but took the position that, with respect to the '386 patent, the majority should have adhered to the Commission's construction, rather then adopting its own construction. 

Construing the “Function” of a Means-Plus-Function Claim Element

Claim Construction, Claim Drafting Tips, Means Plus Function, Patent, Patent Cases 2010,

Gregory Baran v. Medical Device Technologies (Fed. Cir. 2010)

Dr. Baran sued MDTech for infringing his patents covering automated biopsy instruments. Soon-to-be Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley over-saw the district court case. After construing several disputed claims, Judge O’Malley ordered summary judgment of non-infringement. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed.

Means-Plus-Function: I’ll focus on an interesting question raised regarding Baran’s means-plus-function (MPF) limitation. The limitation reads as follows: a “release means for retaining the guide in the charged position.” 

35 USC 112 p6 provides for MPF claim elements expressed “as a means or step for performing a specified function.”  The statute calls for the limitation to be “construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”  Federal Circuit precedent has logically added that the statutory “corresponding structure” are structures that perform the claimed function.

What is the Claimed Function?: Here, the Federal Circuit was asked to construe Baran’s MPF element to identify the claimed function.  MDTech argued that the claimed “release means for retaining” required a structure that exhibited both a releasing function and a retaining function.  Dr. Baran argued that the claimed function was only that of retaining.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the lower court that the means-preamble “release” added a functional limitation to the claim element.

[T]he claim language recites both a release function and a retention function. Dr. Baran’s argument regarding the placement of the term “release” is unavailing. The relevant inquiry is whether the term at issue is purely functional. See Signtech USA, Ltd. v. Vutek, Inc., 174 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing “ink delivery means” to be equivalent to “means for ink delivery” because “ink delivery” was purely functional language); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[W]hen it is apparent that the element invokes purely functional terms . . . the claim element may be a means-plus-function element despite the lack of express means-plus-function language.”). In the context of the ’797 patent, the term “release” is not an idle description but a vital function to be performed by the means-plus-function element. The patent does not recite a biopsy instrument that retains indefinitely without release; rather, the contemplated function is to retain for the express purpose of producing a spring-loaded release on demand. The claim language ties both functions to the same means-plus-function element, so it is appropriate that the element be construed accordingly.

Although it is difficult to take-away lessons from claim construction decisions, a potential best-practices approach to drafting MPF claims may be to eliminate any adjectives tied directly to the “means.”  Of course, my best practice suggestion is intended for those times when you want to draft MPF claims with clarity.

Adams Respiratory Therapeutics v. Perrigo – construction of pharmacokinetic claim terms

Claim Construction, Doctrine of Equivalents, Patent, Patent Cases 2010, Rantanen,

Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Company (Fed. Cir., August 5, 2010)
Panel: Linn, Moore (author), Friedman

By Jason Rantanen

Adams holds patent number 5,372,252, which covers an extended release formulation containing guaifenesin (an expectorant used to thin, loosen, and help expel mucus that causes congestion).  Perigo sought FDA approval for a generic version of Adams' product, Mucinex®.  After construing the claims, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement.  Adams appealed that decision.

The claim terms in dispute related to pharmacokinetic parameters.  These parameters are used to characterize the rate and extent of absorption of the active pharmaceutical ingredient ("API").  The primary term at issue, Cmax, indicates the maximum concentration of the API following dosing.

"Equivalent Cmax"
The parties' main dispute was over the meaning of the term "equivalent" in the context of "provides a Cmax in a human subject equivalent to the Cmax obtained when the first of three doses of a standard immediate release formulation having one third the amount of guaifenesin is dosed."  For purposes of FDA approval, a formulation is considered to be bioequivalent if, among other things, its Cmax is within 80% to 125% of the value with which it is being compared at a 90% confidence interval. The district court agreed with Perrigo that "equivalent" should be construed to mean equivalent under the FDA bioequivalence guidelines.

On appeal, Adams challenged the requirement of a 90% confidence interval, arguing that it makes sense when seeking FDA approval, but not when proving infringement. 

The Federal Circuit agreed with Adams.  In doing so, it rejected Perrigo's argument that the inventors had expressly defined "equivalent" as te FDA's bioequivalence guidelines.  Rather, the court construed Adams' reference to the FDA guidelines as referring specifically to the 80-125% range, not to the requirement of a 90% confidence interval.  According to the court:

Requiring a 90% confidence interval would inappropriately raise the bar for establishing infringement.  Adams must show that it is more likely than not that Perrigo's ANDA product will have a Cmax within the 980-125% range. Adams is not required to show that Perrigo's product will meet this requirement 9 times out of 10.

Slip Op. at 8.

Comment: This interpretation opens up a box of statistical worms, and I suspect that down the line the court may regret its venture into probability theory.  For the time being, however, it gives parties useful language to quote when attempting to prove infringement (and perhaps invalidity) via clinical results. 

A ≈ B ≈ C therefore A ≈ C
Adams also appealed the district court's ruling that it  impermissibly compared the accused product to Mucinex.  Adams' argument was that because the accused product was bioequivalent to Mucinex, and Mucinex was bioequivalent to a standard immediate release ("IR") product, then the accused product had a Cmax equivalent to the IR product. 

The Federal Circuit agreed that, under the circumstances of this case, Adams' argument was sufficient to preclude summary judgment of noninfringement.  The court cautioned, however, that "[i]f Adams had relied on the mere fact of bioequivalence of the two sets of products (and no PK data or Cmax values, that would not be enough to survive summary judgment."  Slip Op. at 11.  Here, however, Adams presented actual PK data and Cmax values, which a fact-finder could look at when assessing equivalence between the accused product and an IR product. 

"Bioavailable"
The court also addressed the meaning of the term "bioavailable" in the context of the '252 patent.  The dispute hinged on whether the phrase "fully bioavailable in the subject's stomach" meant "both release and availability in the stomach for absorption, wherever that absorption might occur." 

Perrigo argued that because "bioavailable" is commonly understood to mean absorption, thus requiring the guaifenesin to be absorbed in the stomach.  Because guaifenesin is primarily absorbed in the small intestine, this construction would preclude a finding of infringement.

The court rejected the proposed construction as inconsistent with the specification: "Although the specification never expressly defines bioavailable, it uses the term when describing the availability of the drug for absorption, not the actual absorption."  Slip Op. at 14.  The court further noted that Perrigo's construction would exclude the preferred embodiment, which "is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support."

Doctrine of Equivalents
Finally, Adams argued that the district court erroneously precluded it from relying on the doctrine of equivalents with respect to a dependant claim requiring that the total amount of guaifenesin released in to the patient be at least 3500 hr*ng/mL.  The panel concluded that the use of a numerical limit did not preclude Adams from arguing that an amount of 3494.38 hr*ng/mL was equivalent to 3500 hr*ng/mL.