Tag Archives: Claim Construction

Ring Plus v. Cingular Wireless

Claim Construction, Inequitable Conduct, Patent, Patent Cases 2010, Prior Art, Rantanen, Software, , ,

By Jason Rantanen

Although the court ultimately reversed the determination of inequitable conduct based on a lack of intent, its discussion of materiality is significant because the misrepresentation at issue occurred in the patent itself, in the form of statements about a prior art reference.  Prosecutors may want to take special note of this opinion in crafting their Background of the Invention sections. 

Ring Plus, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless Corp. (Fed. Cir., August 6, 2010)
Panel: Lourie, Gajarsa and Moore (author)

Ring Plus is the assignee of Patent No. 7,006,608 (the '608 patent), which relates to a software based algorithm and method for generating and delivering messages over a phone line that replace or overlay a ring-back signal.

After granting summary judgment of noninfringement, the district court held a bench trial on the unenforceability of the '608 patent.  Following the bench trial, the district court concluded that the '608 patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.  Ring Plus appealed both determinations, along with the denial of its motion to disqualify Cingular's counsel. 

Inequitable conduct: Materiality but no Intent
The district court's inequitable conduct determination was based on two alleged misrepresentations concerning the substance of two prior art references, Strietzel and Sleevi.  The district court found that the first misrepresentation was in the Background of the Invention section of the '608 patent, which asserted that both references proposed hardware based systems but no software to operate those systems.  Contrary to this assertion, the district court found, one of skill in the art would have understood the references to disclose software-based algorithms.1 

The panel agreed that this was a material misrepresentation.  Although neither reference explicitly disclosed software, the panel could not say that the district court clearly erred in finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the references to disclose software-based algorithms. 

In arriving at the conclusion that the statement about the contents of the prior art constituted a misrepresentation, the panel rejected the contention that it was merely attorney argument.  The court did not address this issue in any depth, merely stating that because the statement was a misrepresentation, it "was outside the boundas of permissible attorney argument."  Slip Op. at 9.

Comment: I am a troubled by the court's cursory statement on this point because of the ambiguity it creates.  These types of sweeping assertions, made without addressing the substance of the argument or citing relevant authorities, are the kinds of things that are likely to tie attorneys and judges in knots.  Indeed, the court's quotation from Rothman is particularly perplexing, as Rothman reached the opposite conclusion on similar facts.  At a minimum, one would expect the court to explain why Rothman does not apply.

Ultimately, however, the panel concluded that Cingular had failed to present clear and convincing evidence of intent to deceive.  In arriving at this conclusion the court noted that the references were ambiguous as to operating software, and the prosecuting attorney's testimony gave rise to the inference that the applicants believed that the two references did not disclose software for operating a telephone system.  Because this inference was as reasonable as the district court's inference of deceptive intent, the district erred in its finding of deceptive intent.

Other holdings
The panel also addressed Ring Plus's challenge to the district court's construction of two claim terms, which formed the basis of the noninfringement ruling.  The court affirmed the district court's construction, relating to the sequence of steps in the '608 patent.  In addition, the court rejected Ring Plus's argument that Cingular's counsel should have been disqualified for ex parte contact with a Ring Plus director and officer.  The court concluded that there was no evidence of impropriety under Fifth Circuit law.

1The district court also found that the applicants made a misrepresentation about these references during prosecution; the panel concluded that this statement was not a misrepresentation.

Doctrine of Equivalents at the Federal Circuit

Doctrine of Equivalents, Patent,

By Dennis Crouch

When I wrote about the Doctrine of Equivalents (DOE) yesterday, I made a mental note that the Federal Circuit has not decided many DOE cases recently. To confirm this notion, I searched Westlaw for all Federal Circuit decisions that mention the “Doctrine of Equivalents.” Those results are presented below:

PatentLawPic1048

Notes:

  • Of course, a decision's mention of the words "doctrine of equivalents" does not suggest that the appellate decision involved the DOE. However, the majority of these cases did at least involve allegations of infringement under the DOE.   
  • The rise in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s revolves around Festo.
  • For the past decade, the number of Federal Circuit patent infringement appeals has remained relatively steady.
  • To find the number of reported patent decisions, I searched Westlaw’s database of Federal Circuit decisions for the terms “patent /2 (infring! valid! invalid! obvious!)”.
  • These results continue the trends discussed in Allison & Lemley’s 2007 article “The (Unnoticed) Demise of the Doctrine of Equivalents.” and Lee Petherbridge’s excellent 2008 article “The Claim Construction Effect.”

Genus-Species; Doctrine of Equivalents; and Patentable Subject Matter

Claim Construction, Declaratory Judgment, Doctrine of Equivalents, Patent, Patent Cases 2010, Patentable Subject Matter, ,

By Dennis Crouch

For many, the most interesting aspect of this case comes at the end in Judge Dyk’s dissent. Dyk makes the case that genes should not be patentable. 

* * * *

Intervet Inc. v. Merial Limited (Fed. Cir. 2010)

In 2006, Intervet filed a complaint against Merial — asking the DC District Court for a declaratory judgment that Intervet’s Porcine Circovirus vaccine (PCV-2) did not infringe Merial’s gene patent.  Merial’s patent claims both the isolated DNA molecule of PCV-2 and a vector that contains the DNA.  The application includes a listing of several different sequences that all fall within the PCV-2 category. 

Although Intervet also uses a PCV-2 vector. The DJ plaintiff argues that its DNA molecule is different from the one described and deposited by Merial. The district court agreed — holding that the Intervet product was only 99.7% homologous to the closest deposited sequence and therefore outside of the literal claim scope. The district court also applied prosecution history estoppel to rejected Merial’s claims of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE). On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed on both claim construction and DOE.

Genus Not Limited to Examples: The asserted claim includes a limitation of a “PCV-2” DNA molecule. The District Court limited that term to cover only the DNA sequences that were deposited with the PTO. On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected that construction as overly limiting. Rather, the appellate panel held that the deposited sequences serve as a representative sample of PCV-2 DNA sequences. “Sequences are representative of the scope of broader genus claims if they indicate that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the genera. Here, the deposited strains are representative species of the larger ‘type II’ genus, where the genus is identified and claimed as the invention.” In describing its invention, the specification noted that the PCV-2 desposited sequences had a 96% homology and that the invention did not cover PCV-1 sequences that at most shared 76% homology with the deposited sequences.  Taking those quantitative limits from the specification, the Federal Circuit ruled that the claimed PCV-2 molecule should be construed as being “about 96% or more homologous with the … sequences disclosed in the present specification, and about 76% or less homologous with the [disclosed PCV-1] sequence.”

What is Equivalents are Surrendered by a Narrowing Amendment: An accused infringer may still be liable even though its product does not literally infringe every element of an asserted patent claim.  Under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE), a patentee may be able to provie infringement by showing that one or more elements of the accused product are equivalent to elements in the claim.  Under the limiting doctrine of prosecution history estoppel (PHE), a patentee will ordinarly be estopped from claiming DOE over a claim element that was narrowed during prosecution. (A narrowing amendment made for purposes related to patentability creates a rebuttable presumption that estoppel applies.)

Here, one of Merial’s original claims was directed to a markush group of open reading frames (ORFs) that had been described in the specification as “ORFs 1–13.”  In an initial rejection, the examiner suggested that the limitation could refer to ORFs of non-PCV-2 molecules. Although the patentee argued that the claim was clear, it still added the limitation that the claimed ORFs were PCV-2 ORFs.  The Federal Circuit held that this was a narrowing amendment substantially related to patentability. That narrowing amendment therefore created a presumption that the patentee had surrendered all equivalents that relate to non-PCV-2 ORFs. The district court erred, however, in holding that this narrowing amendment would estopp the the patentee from asserting that the claims cover a non-claimed PCV-2 ORF as an equivalent. “Such a draconian preclusion would be beyond a fair interpretation of what was surrendered. The rationale for the amendment was to narrow the claimed universe of ORFs down to those of PCV-2, and bore only a tangential relation to the question of which DNA sequences are and are not properly characterized as PCV-2.”

Dissenting-in-part, Judge Dyk discussed his argument that the claims directed toward the isolated form of a naturally occurring gene are likely unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

[T]he isolated DNA claim raises “substantial issues of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. . . . Neither the Supreme Court nor this court has directly decided the issue of the patentability of isolated DNA molecules. Although we have upheld the validity of several gene patents, none of our cases directly addresses the question of whether such patents encompass patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. . . .

I think that such patents do in fact raise serious questions of patentable subject matter. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bilski v. Kappos has reaffirmed that “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. No. 08-964, slip op. at 5 (U.S. June 28, 2010) (quoting Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980)); Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948). Just as the patentability of abstract ideas would preempt others from using ideas that are in the public domain, see Bilski, slip op. at 13, so too would allowing the patenting of naturally occurring substances preempt the use by others of substances that should be freely available to the public. Thus, “a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc2; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity.” Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309. These aspects are properly conceptualized as representing a public domain, “free toall men and reserved exclusively to none.” Id. (quoting Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130) (quotation mark omitted).

In Funk Brothers, the Court considered the patentability of a mixture of several naturally-occurring species of bacteria. 333 U.S. at 128-31. The patented product was a mixture of bacteria used in agricultural processes, enabling plants to draw nitrogen from the air and convert it for usage. The inventor discovered that certain strains of the bacteria were effective in combination with one another, and contrary to existing assump-tions, did not exert mutually inhibitive effects on each other. The Court held that the invention was not pat-entable subject matter. Id. at 131. The inventor “did not create a state of inhibition or of non-inhibition in the bacteria. Their qualities are the work of nature. Those qualities are of course not patentable.” Id. at 130. The Court furthermore noted:

The qualities of these bacteria, like the heat of the sun, electricity, or the qualities of metals, are part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men. They are manifestations of laws of nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none. He who discovers a hitherto unknown phenomenon of na-ture has no claim to a monopoly of it which the law recognizes. If there is to be invention from such a discovery, it must come from the applica-tion of the law of nature to a new and useful end.

Id.

In Chakrabarty, the Court considered whether a human-made microorganism is patentable subject matter under section 101. 447 U.S. at 305. The microorganism in question was a bacterium that had been genetically engineered to break down crude oil. In concluding that the man-made bacteria was patentable, the Court observed that the claim “is not to a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon, but to a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter.” Id. at 309. The Court went on to distinguish Funk Brothers on the ground that the Chakrabarty bacterium possessed “markedly different characteristics from any found in nature. . . . His discovery is not nature’s handiwork, but his own; accordingly it is patentable subject matter under § 101.” Id. at 310 (em-phasis added).

Thus, it appears that in order for a product of nature to satisfy section 101, it must be qualitatively different from the product occurring in nature, with “markedly different characteristics from any found in nature.” It is far from clear that an “isolated” DNA sequence is qualita-tively different from the product occurring in nature such that it would pass the test laid out in Funk Brothers and Chakrabarty. 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.

 

 

Divorce and Patents

Infringement, Patent, Patent Cases 2010,

Enovsys v. Nextel (Fed. Cir. 2010)

Mundi Fomukong is a co-inventor of the patents-in-suit. At the time of the invention, Fomukong was married to Fonda Whitfield. Sometime after the first patents issued, Fomukong and Witfield divorced. Later, the second patent issued; Fomukong formed Enovsys; and he (along with his co-inventor) assigned their rights to the new company. Later, when Enovsys sued Sprint-Nextel, the defendant challenged the case on standing. Sprint's argument is based on the rule that any patent infringement actions must be brought jointly by all co-owners of the patent. Specifically, Sprint argued that Ms. Whitfield retained an interest in the patent rights even after the divorce and, without Ms. Whitfield's support, Enovsys lacked standing. (Ms. Whitfield assigned her rights to Sprint.)

In the US, patent ownership rights are primarily controlled by state laws. At times, patent attorneys are called to understand their local laws of contracts, employment, inheritance, and (here) divorce. Thus, in deciding this case, the court looked first to the law of California — the site of the marriage, invention, and divorce.

California is a "community property" state and “all assets acquired during a marriage are presumptively community property.” In their divorce filings, however, Fomukong and Whitfield checked the box next to the statement that “We have no community assets or liabilities.” Without citing specific California law, the Federal Circuit held that that the final divorce decree coupled with this box-checking stripped Whitfield of her community property rights in the patent. "[A]lthough the final divorce decree was silent as to particular property, it nevertheless adjudicated the parties’ rights with respect to that property because it was based on an uncontested complaint which alleged that there was no community property."

With the issue of ownership settled, the court then affirmed the lower court's claim construction and infringement verdict.

 

Sun Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly: obviousness-type double patenting in the pharmaceutical context

Claim Construction, Obviousness, Patent, Patent Cases 2010, Pharma, Rantanen,

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Company (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2010)

By Jason Rantanen

Double-patenting issues arise when two commonly owned applications cover the same or similar inventions.  The issues in this appeal revolved around an earlier patent claiming a composition of matter and describing a method for using that composition, and a later patent claiming that method of use. 

Both of the patents in this case, Patent No. 4,808,614 (the '614 patent) and Patent No. 5,464,826 (the '826 patent) relate to gemcitabine, the active ingredient of Lilly's Gemzar® product.  The '614 patent claims both gemcitabine itself, as well as a method of using it to treat viral infections.  In addition, the '614 patent's specification discloses using gemcitabine to treat cancer.  The '826 patent claims a method of treating cancer comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of gemcitabine.  The difference was important: the '614 patent expired on May 15, 2010, while the '826 patent does not expire until November 7, 2012.

Note: The applications leading to both the '614 and '826 patents were filed on the same day, December 4, 1984.  The '614 was a continuation-in-part of application No. 473,883 ("the '883 application"), which did not disclose using gemcitabine to treat cancer.  That information was added as part of the continuation-in-part. 

After filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") for a generic version of Gemzar®, Sun Pharmaceuticals, sought a declaratory ruling that the '826 patent was invalid and not infringed.  Lilly counterclaimed for infringement of the '826 and '614 patents.  The '614 patent was not at issue in this appeal.

Obviousness-type double patenting applies
Applicants are barred from obtaining multiple patents covering the same invention by the doctrine of double patenting.  There are two types of double patenting: statutory double patenting, which prohibits a later patent from covering the identical invention, and obviousness-type double patenting, which prevents a later patent from covering a slight variation of an earlier patented invention.

On appeal, the panel agreed with the district court and Sun that the latter type of double patenting occurred here, thus invalidating the asserted claims of the '826.  The basis for the court's decision were two prior opinions, Geneva v. GlaxoSmithKline, 349 F.3d 1373, and Pfizer v. Teva, 518 F.3d 1353.  In Geneva, the earlier patent claimed a compound and the specification disclosed its effectiveness for inhibiting beta-lactamase.  The later patent claimed a method of using the compound to affect beta-lactamase inhibition.  Similarly, in Pfizer, the earlier patent claimed several compounds and the specification disclosed their use in treating inflamation; the later patent claimed a method of using these compounds for treating inflammation.  In both cases, the court ruled that the claims were not "patentably distinct," and thus the latter claims were invalid for obviousness-type double patenting.  

While Lilly argued that Geneva and Pfizer did not apply because "the specification of the earlier patent disclosed a single use for the claimed compound, which was an essential part of the patented invention and thus necessary to patentability," Slip Op. at 8, the court rejected that argument for two reasons.  First, the court disagreed that the specification in Pfizer disclosed more than one utility for the claimed compound.  In addition, the court read the rule of Pfizer as simply that "obviousness-type double patenting encompasses any use for a compound that is disclosed in the specification of an earlier patent claiming the compound and is later claimed as a method of using that compound.  Pfizer never implies that its reasoning depends in any way on the number of uses disclosed in the specification of the earlier patent."  Slip Op. at 10. 

The court also rejected Lilly's argument that the specification of an earlier application should have been consulted, as opposed to the specification of the '614 patent.  Drawing upon its claim construction precedent, the court noted that the specification is relevant to determining the coverage of the claims, which is at the heart of the obviousness-type double patenting analysis.  The court further noted that "consulting the specification of the issued patent, as opposed to an earlier version, is consistent with the policy behind double patenting," which rests "on the fact that a patent has been issued and later issuances of a second patent will continue protection, beyond the date of expiration of the first patent of the same invention or an obvious variation thereof."  Slip Op. at 14-15.

Claim Construction, Infringement, Patent, Patent Cases 2010

Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group (Fed. Cir. 2010)

Tyco appealed a jury verdict that its safety needles infringed BD’s US Patent No. 5,348,544.  The claims require a “spring means” that is “connected to said hinged arm” and is designed “for urging said guard along said needle cannula.” 

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the infringement decision based on claim construction — holding that as a matter of English-language-logic, the claims require a spring and hinged arm that are structurally distinct.

The unequivocal language of the asserted claims . . . requires a spring means that is separate from the hinged arm. . . . Where a claim lists elements separately, “the clear implication of the claim language” is that those elements are “distinct component[s]” of the patented invention. (Quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). . .  There is nothing in the asserted claims to suggest that the hinged arm and the spring means can be the same structure.

If the hinged arm and the spring means are one and the same, then the hinged arm must be “connected to” itself and must “extend between” itself and a mounting means, a physical impossibility. A claim construction that renders asserted claims facially nonsensical “cannot be correct.”

Because the hinged arm of the Tyco needles performed the spring function themselves (as opposed to having a separate spring), the court ruled that those needles could not infringe.

In dissent, Judge Gajarsa provides a de-construction of the majority opinion — writing that:

The majority avoids the critical issue upon which this decision turns; i.e., whether 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 governs the claim construction of the “spring means” limitation. In a brief footnote, the majority sweeps and brushes aside the means-plus-function analysis as unnecessary in light of the “plain language of the claims.” Without having analyzed the scope of the claims, the majority somehow concludes that the claim language covers only devices having separate “spring means” and “hinged arm” structures. Then applying this simplistic claim construction to analyze the sufficiency of the evidence, the majority improperly overturns the jury’s verdict finding infringement.

PatentlyO071

SGI v. AMD: Chief Judge Rader on Claim Construction

Patent

Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI) v. ATI Technologies, Inc. and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) (Fed. Cir. 2010)

In his first opinion as Chief, Judge Rader provided the parties with a lesson in claim construction. This decision is a case-in-point for the high value of professional patent drafting because the decision turns on the esoterics of claim construction. This decision also highlights the primacy of claim construction in the infringement analysis. Namely, the question of whether ATI chips infringe was boiled-down into an interpretation of the claim language.

SGI’s patent is directed to graphics processing hardware that uses floating point calculations.

Meaning of “A”: The asserted patent claims include “a rasterization circuit . . . that rasterizes the primitive according to a rasterization process which operates on a floating point format.” Although the accused ATI chips do use floating point numbers, the ATI rasterization process also uses fixed-point numbers. The district court held that the ATI chips could not infringe because their rasterization process does not operate in floating point format “as a whole.”

On appeal, the Federal Circuit re-parsed the claim language and rejected the district court’s construction as erroneous. Rather, the fact that a circuit rasterizes using fixed point format does not preclude the circuit from also using “a rasterization process which operates on a floating point format” as required by the specification.

The use of the indefinite article “a” in the claim, when coupled with the list of processes provided in the specification, makes it clear that the claims’ references to “a rasterization process” means “one or more rasterization processes.”

The limitation “a rasterization process which operates on a floating point format” therefore means that “one or more of the rasterization processes (e.g., scan conversion, color, texture, fog, shading) operate on a floating point format.” This construction is also in line with the rest of the specification. Nowhere does the specification teach that all rasterization processes must operate on a floating point format.

Summary of the Invention: The claim also requires that the rasterization circuit perform “scan conversion.” The district court required that the scan conversion be accomplished entirely using floating point numbers. On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with that interpretation. In making its decision to limit the breadth of the term, the court looked to a statement from the Summary of the Invention that: “the scan conversion process is now handled entirely on a floating point basis” and another statement from the specification that “this rasterization process is performed exclusively in a floating point format.” In several places, the specification indicated that various operations could be performed using fixed point numbers. However, the court held those statements insufficient because they were never specifically directed to the scan conversion process. “Thus general language in the specification permitting some operations to be done in fixed point does not work to contradict the specific language that requires scan conversion in floating point.”

Claim Construction Internal Consistency

Patent

PatentLawPic1001Haemonetics v. Baxter Healthcare (Fed. Cir. 2010)

This decision is important for its endorsement of the claim construction canon that the internal logic and grammar of an individual claim takes primacy over inter-claim consistency.

Haemonetics’ asserted claim was directed to: 16. A centrifugal unit comprising a centrifugal component and a plurality of tubes . . . with the centrifugal unit having a radius between 25 and 50 mm and a height between 75 and 125% of the radius.

The preamble of Claim 16 clearly indicates that the centrifugal unit includes both a centrifugal component a plurality of tubes. However, other claims and the specification indicate that the centrifugal unit did not include the tubes. 

On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the clarity of Claim 16 controlled the term’s construction for that claim.  Regardless of its use elsewhere, in claim 16, the centrifugal unit includes the tubes.

[C]laim 16’s beginning and, in our view, controlling language could hardly be clearer. Claim 16 states: “A centrifugal unit comprising a centrifugal component and a plurality of tubes . . . .” It does not merely state the intended field of use in a preamble, as Haemonetics argues. Rather, it unambiguously defines “centrifugal unit” as “comprising” two structural components: a centrifugal component and a plurality of tubes. The claim then further recites, not the centrifugal component and not a centrifugal unit, but “the centrifugal unit” as “having a radius between 25 and 50 mm and a height between 75 and 125% of the radius.” Reading “the centrifugal unit” in the context of the dimensional limitations to refer exclusively to the vessel, as the district court did, ignores the antecedent basis for “the centrifugal unit,” and fails to give effect to the claim language “comprising a centrifugal component”.

. . .

The patentee’s inconsistent use of identical height and radius limitations for two different embodiments thus indicates that “the centrifugal unit” inthe context of the dimensional limitations must have different meanings in the context of different claims. (internal citations omitted)

The Massachusetts-based district court had reached the opposite conclusion. Based on the erroneous construction, the Federal Circuit vacated the jury verdict and remanded for a new application of the facts.

Osenga: The PTOs Fast Track Takes Us in the Wrong Direction

Patent, ,

Professor Kristen Osenga (Richmond) has written a new essay for the Patently-O Patent Law Journal entitled The Patent Office’s Fast Track Will Not Take Us in the Right Direction, 2010 Patently-O Patent L.J. 89. In a 2005 article, Professor Osenga proposed a multi-tiered approach to patent examination. In her Patently-O essay, Professor Osenga explains why her suggestions are “better than the system proposed by the Patent Office.”

  • Download the Patently-O Patent Law Journal Essay: [File Attachment: Osenga.pdf (32 KB)].
  • Read Osenga’s 2005 Article titled Entrance Ramps, Tolls, and Express Lanes – Proposals for Decreasing Traffic Congestion in the Patent Office [Link].
  • On his blog “Inventive Step”, Patent Attorney Matt Osenga (Prof Osenga’s husband) provides further discussion. [Link]

Other Recent Patently-O Patent Law Journal publications:

Judge Plager: “The Walls Surrounding the Claimed Invention [Should] be Made of Something Other than Quicksand”

Patent, , ,

Enzo Biochem and Yale University v. Applera Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2010)

The district court initially held Enzo’s patent claims invalid as indefinite because of the ill-defined term “not interfering substantially.” On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed — finding that the someone of skill in the art “would understand what is claimed.”

Applera requested a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc which the Federal Circuit recently denied. However, as part of that denial, Judge Plager penned an important dissent — arguing that indefiniteness law should be given more teeth and that claim construction commands too large of a role in the litigation process.

“In my view, this court’s definiteness doctrine could go considerably further in promoting that objective than it currently does, with the not inconsequential benefit of shifting the focus from litigation over claim construction to clarity in claim drafting. . . . The court now spends a substantial amount of judicial resources trying to make sense of unclear, over-broad, and sometimes incoherent claim terms. It is time for us to move beyond sticking our fingers in the never-ending leaks in the dike that supposedly defines and figuratively surrounds a claimed invention. Instead, we might spend some time figuring out how to support the PTO in requiring that the walls surrounding the claimed invention be made of something other than quicksand.”

PatentLawPic990Read the full dissent here:

Judge Plager: I respectfully dissent from the denial of the petition for panel rehearing on the question of indefiniteness.

Despite the varying formulations that this court has used over the years in describing its “indefiniteness” jurisprudence . . . , the general conclusion from our law seems to be this: if a person of ordinary skill in the art can come up with a plausible meaning for a disputed claim term in a patent, that term, and therefore the claim, is not indefinite. At least not so indefinite as to run afoul of the statutory requirement that claims shall “particularly point[ ] out and distinctly claim[ ] the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.

The corollary derived from this understanding is that if several persons of ordinary skill come up with competing but plausible interpretations of a disputed terms is typically the case with competing “expert witnesses” in patent infringement litigation—the problem is not one of an inherently ambiguous and potentially indefinite claim term, but rather the problem becomes simply one of picking the “right” interpretation for that term. Since picking the “right” interpretation—claim construction—is a matter of law over which this court rules, and since the view of the trial judge hearing the case is given little weight, so that the trial judge’s view on appeal becomes just a part of the cacophony before this court, it is not until three court of appeals judges randomly selected for that purpose pick the “right” interpretation that the public, not to mention the patentee and its competitors, know what the patent actually claims. The inefficiencies of this system, and its potential inequities, are well known in the trade.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), by contrast, appears to be taking steps to give the statutory requirement real meaning. In 2008, the patent examining corps was given a five-page instruction on “Indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” The memo initially observes that “[t]he primary purpose of the definiteness requirement for claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so that the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent.” The memo reviews in detail a recent opinion of this court, following which the memo states the position of the PTO: “If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpre-tation then a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate.”

This memo was followed later in the year by a rare precedential opinion issued by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) in Ex parte Miyazaki. The Board noted that this court has in post-issuance patent infringement cases held “that the definiteness requirement ‘does not compel absolute clarity’ and ‘[o]nly claims “not amenable to construction” or “insolubly am-biguous” are indefinite.’” Recognizing that this court has never set forth a different standard of review for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for pre-issuance pending claims as compared with post-issuance patent claims, the Board concluded that the Federal Circuit’s reading of the indefiniteness requirement was counter to the PTO’s broader standard for claim construction during prosecution. Accordingly, the Board announced that, “rather than requiring that the claims are insolubly ambiguous, we hold that if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.”

The Board is clearly right in recognizing that the circumstances are different between pre-issuance and post-issuance application of the definiteness standard with regard to claim terms. At the same time, the PTO and the Board are clearly right in insisting that, if the public notice function of the patent law is to be honored, claim terms must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention. In my view, this court’s definiteness doctrine could go considerably further in promoting that objective than it currently does, with the not inconsequential benefit of shifting the focus from litigation over claim construction to clarity in claim drafting.

To begin the discussion of how this court could move in that direction, I would grant the petition for panel rehearing. The court now spends a substantial amount of judicial resources trying to make sense of unclear, over-broad, and sometimes incoherent claim terms. It is time for us to move beyond sticking our fingers in the never-ending leaks in the dike that supposedly defines and figuratively surrounds a claimed invention. Instead, we might spend some time figuring out how to support the PTO in requiring that the walls surrounding the claimed invention be made of something other than quicksand.

I respectfully dissent from the loss of that opportunity through the panel’s denial of rehearing.

Substantially: As a claim limitation, “substantially” is being used less frequently than ever before. The chart below shows the percentage of issued patents that include “substantially” as a claim limitation. The data is grouped accourding to the patent issue year. (For the 1980’s and 1990’s, I grouped the data by decade.)

PatentLawPic991

PatentLawPic992

 

 

 

Donald Chisum: Ariad (2010) and the Overlooked Invention Priority Principle

Patent, , ,

In a new essay for the Patently-O Patent Law Journal, Donald Chisum considers the "invention priority principle" and its role in the written description analysis. 

There may be a solution: application of an established patent law priority principle. The principle focuses on a specific embodiment of a generically claimed invention as a constructive reduction to practice, that is, as a completion of the inventive process. Adopting this solution would preserve the written description of the invention's (WDIs) independence and applicability to original claims but would remove WDI as a standard for assessing the scope of a patent claim. WDI would continue to govern whether, at the time an applicant files an application, he or she has completed the inventive process, that is, "possesses" the invention. But only enablement would govern how broadly the applicant is entitled to claim that invention. It may be possible to implement this priority principle interpretation of Ariad without contradicting its clear holdings.

Cite as Donald S. Chisum, Written Description of the Invention: Ariad (2010) and the Overlooked Invention Priority Principle, 2010 Patently-O Patent L.J. 72.

Other Patently-O Patent Law Journal publications: 

Donald Chisum: Ariad (2010) and the Overlooked Invention Priority Principle

Patent, , ,

In a new essay for the Patently-O Patent Law Journal, Donald Chisum considers the "invention priority principle" and its role in the written description analysis. 

There may be a solution: application of an established patent law priority principle. The principle focuses on a specific embodiment of a generically claimed invention as a constructive reduction to practice, that is, as a completion of the inventive process. Adopting this solution would preserve the written description of the invention's (WDIs) independence and applicability to original claims but would remove WDI as a standard for assessing the scope of a patent claim. WDI would continue to govern whether, at the time an applicant files an application, he or she has completed the inventive process, that is, "possesses" the invention. But only enablement would govern how broadly the applicant is entitled to claim that invention. It may be possible to implement this priority principle interpretation of Ariad without contradicting its clear holdings.

Cite as Donald S. Chisum, Written Description of the Invention: Ariad (2010) and the Overlooked Invention Priority Principle, 2010 Patently-O Patent L.J. 72.

Other Patently-O Patent Law Journal publications: 

Design Patents: Eliminating the Ornamental/Functional Dichotomy

Patent, ,

PatentlyO042Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc. (on petition for en banc rehearing at the Federal Circuit, 2010)

In its March 9, 2010 decision, the Federal Circuit held that design patent infringement should focus only on ornamental aspects of the patented design. Richardson’s Design Patent No. D. 507167 covers a multi-function carpentry tool (a FUBAR). On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed that Arizona district court properly “factored out” functional elements during the claim construction process and that the ornamental features of the patented design (upper right) were not similar-enough to the ornamental features of the Stanley Works FUBAR (lower right). 

PatentlyO043Now, Richardson has petitioned the Federal Circuit for an en banc rehearing based on the argument that the focus on ornamental features creates a “points-of-ornamentation” test that is contrary to Gorham v. White.  The AIPLA and Apple Computers have both filed briefs in support of the rehearing.

In a comical (but serious) diagram, AIPLA shows the results of “factoring out” functional elements of the Richardson design. The AIPLA concludes that the “panel’s approach (which seeks to separate out ornamental and functional elements) conflicts with the tenet that a design patent protects the overall appearance of the claimed design, and is fraught with logistical problems.”

PatentlyO041

Apple argues that the functionality of an individual portion of the design should have “no direct bearing on design patent infringement or validity.”  Rather, the whole focus of design patents is to cover articles of manufacture that are inherently functional.  There is a functionality limitation for design patents, but the Supreme Court has applied that only to the design as a whole and only when the design is “dictated by function alone.”

Notes:

Interpreting Claims in an Interference: USPTO Rules Now Follow the Law

Patent,

The USPTO has cancelled 37 C.F.R. § 41.200(b). That rule required the BPAI to give claims their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent or application in which it appears” but applied only to interference proceedings.

In interferences, one party typically copies claims from the opposition’s application/patent in order to provoke an interference. The copy is then interpreted to have the same claim scope as the original. In Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit held that Rule 41.200(b) was contrary to this rule of interpretation – thus, the rule was already dead from a legal standpoint.

75 FR 19558

Are Appeals at the Federal Circuit a “Coin Flip”?

Patent, , ,

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

A general patent counsel at a Fortune 500 company recently remarked, "[T]he Federal Circuit does a coin flip and reverses district court decisions left and right. You might as well just roll the dice."[1] When I was in legal practice, many patent litigators echoed this sentiment.

In a recent article, I collected data from the University of Houston's PatStats project, Professor David Schwartz's exhaustive study on claim construction appeals, internal studies by the Federal Circuit, and the Administrative Office of the Courts to test this seemingly widespread belief.

By and large, the belief is false. Reversal rates for patent cases at the Federal Circuit are not particularly high, and roughly the same as civil reversal rates in other circuits, especially those for complex civil cases. On an issue-by-issue level, although claim construction, § 102(a) anticipation, indefiniteness, and a few other issues have noticeably high reversal rates, for most patent law issues, the rates are about average when compared with rates for private civil appeals in other circuits.

Figure 1 below shows case-by-case reversal rates at the Federal Circuit from 2000-2009 for patent infringement cases appealed from district courts. (This data includes cases that were fully reversed or vacated, and appears to take into account summary affirmances.)

Figure 1. Reversal Rates at the Federal Circuit for District Court Patent Appeals (2000-2009).

In comparison to the 8-18% rates shown in Figure 1, the private civil litigation reversal rates across the regional circuit courts are roughly 7-18%. The reversal rate in 2009 for bankruptcy cases in the regional circuit courts was 15.1%. Although it is somewhat out-of-date, the most exhaustive study of securities and contract appeals in federal courts reports reversal rates of 29.4% and 22.8%, respectively, from 1988-1997. In sum, the case-by-case reversal rates at the Federal Circuit are roughly the same or lower than the reversal rates in the regional circuits for private civil actions, particularly complex ones, like bankruptcy, securities, and contracts cases.

Figure 2 below shows issue-by-issue reversal rates at the Federal Circuit from 2000-2007 for those issues appealed in at least 20 cases (for a more exhaustive set of reversal rates, see my article). According to the data sources I used to compile these figures, these rates derive from all appeals decided by the Federal Circuit, including summary affirmances. (However, I believe some of the summary affirmances from the early 2000s may be missing from one of the sources–if so, this would only lower the issue-by-issue reversal rates, strengthening my argument.)

PatentLawPic965 

As Figure 2 shows, the average reversal rate across all issues (other than claim construction) is 18% and 21% (including claim construction). Of course, a number of issues appear to have inordinately high reversal rates–with the oft-appealed issue of claim construction (at 33%) near the top of the list. But like the case-by-case reversal rates, the average reversal rate across all issues–that is, even taking into account the large number of claim construction reversals–is roughly the same as the overall civil reversal rate in other circuits, and roughly the same or lower than case-by-case reversal rates for complex civil cases.

Thus, the actual reversal rates–whether generated on a case-by-case or issue-by-issue basis–belie the assertion that appeals at the Federal Circuit are a "coin flip" or "dice roll." When compared with reversal rates for private and complex civil actions in other circuits, the Federal Circuit rate is no different, perhaps even lower. So why do so many attorneys believe otherwise?

I think two forces are at work here. First, nearly all of the widely publicized studies on the Federal Circuit have focused on claim construction and obviousness–both of which have high reversal rates. And some of these studies excluded summary affirmances, a practice which artificially inflates the reversal rates by roughly 30%. Second, my sense is that many attorneys who regularly appear before the Federal Circuit are subject to "memory bias." Specifically, as a number of psychologists have generally recognized, these attorneys very likely recall their unpredictable appeals and forget their predictable ones.

Hopefully, the data presented here and in my article will help dispel these widespread myths and diminish some of the undeserved criticism of the Federal Circuit regarding appeals.

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

[1] Patent Troubles: Does The Patent System Need Fixing?, Corporate Legal Times, June 2005, at 61 (statements of Richard J. Rodrick, General Patent Counsel, S.C. Johnson & Son Inc.).

Patently-O Bits and Bytes: Queries from Readers

Patent
  • Query 1: A means-plus-function claim is limited to corresponding structures found in the specification as well as their equivalents. In litigation, is the process of identifying corresponding structures merely claim construction that is reviewed de novo on appeal?
  • Query 2: In the original application, applicant received a restriction requirement and withdrew the apparatus claims without filing divisional. Now, in the reissue application (filed within two years of issuance), the applicant wants to add new apparatus claims (that are different from the original claims), but the examiner argues that by failing to file a divisional, applicant surrendered rights to all potential apparatus claims. This appears to be an expansion of Orita, 550 F.2d 1277 (CCPA 1977), but is it proper? See MPEP 1412.01. Doyle, 293 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2002) involved a similar situation where the patentee requested a reissue to add claims that were similar (but broader) than the original non-elected group. However the Doyle decision does not specifically decide this issue. Doyle does indicate that the “so-called Orita doctrine therefore precludes a reissue applicant from obtaining substantially identical claims to those of nonelected groups identified in an examiner’s restriction requirement.”

Means-Plus-Function Claims: Defining the Scope of the Corresponding Structure

Patent,

Pressure Products Medical Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2010)

A five-judge Federal Circuit panel has narrowed the district court’s construction of the patentee’s means-plus-function claim limitations. This decision might be seen as the foil to the Federal Circuit’s recent broad interpretation of a means-plus-function element in Hearing Components v. Shure. Interestingly, Judges Lourie and Rader signed both opinions.

The Pressure Products patent covers a mechanism for inserting and removing catheters and pacemaker leads. The asserted claims include a “means for” facilitating the removal of both a hemostatic valve and a sheath from the disposed catheter. The parties agreed that this limitation should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation, but disagreed as to the proper scope of the limitation. Under 35 USC 112p6, a means-plus-function limitation is construed to “cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” The district court judge held that the corresponding structure described in the specification used a “score line” to allow the hemostatic valve to separate. During trial (after the close of the plaintiffs case) the Judge updated its definition to include a “linear perforation; slit; slot; tab; line; severing; weakening; or tear that can be partial or complete.” The jury found infringement and awarded $1.1 million in past damages.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed.

Claim Construction During Trial: The Federal Circuit first looked at the lower court’s procedure and held that the timing of claim construction is in the discretion of the lower court so long as the court works to avoid “surprise and prejudice” that could accompany a late change to the construction.

While recognizing the potential for surprise and prejudice in a late adjustment to the meaning of claim terms, this court also acknowledges that the trial court is in the best position to prevent gamesmanship and unfair advantage during trial. Moreover, this court understands that a trial judge may learn more about the technology during the trial that necessitates some clarification of claim terms before the jury deliberates.

 

Scope of the Corresponding Structure: The “score line” structure was discussed in the specification and was clearly a “corresponding structure” to the means-for element. At dispute, however, was the scope of the structure disclosed. Namely, the patent specification included a “laundry list” of prior art references and the district court used the disclosures from those references to expand the definition of a “score line” beyond the structure that was literally described in the specification. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that approach was wrong and that “the trial court impermissibly expanded the corresponding structure of claim 1 to include structures not described in the specification.”

Trial courts cannot look to the prior art, identified by nothing more than its title and citation in a patent, to provide corresponding structure for a means-plus-function limitation. . . . Although many of the disclosed alternatives may well be determined to be structural equivalents permitted by section 112, paragraph 6—a question of fact for the jury—these alternative methods . . . cannot be treated as the disclosed structures for the removal means. Simply mentioning prior art references in a patent does not suffice as a specification description to give the patentee outright claim to all of the structures disclosed in those references.

“This court remands for further proceedings in light of the proper construction of the term ‘score lines.'”

Writing in Dissent, Judge Newman argued that the patentee should have been allowed to rely upon the disclosures discussed in the specification in order to identify the scope of the disclosed corresponding structure.

Inequitable Conduct: This case also includes an important procedural decision on inequitable conduct – affirming the district court’s refusal to allow the defendant to amend its answer to include an inequitable conduct defense.

Fleshing-Out Design Patent Infringement Doctrine

Patent, , , , ,

Crocs, Inc. v. US International Trade Commission (ITC) (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“In the matter of CERTAIN FOAM FOOTWARE”)

In 2006, the ITC began an investigation to determine whether knock-off imports of the iconic Crocs foam shoes infringed either the Crocs utility patent (Patent No. 6,993,858) or the Crocs design patent (Patent No. D. 517789). After a full investigation, the ITC found no patent violation – holding instead that the utility patent was obvious and that the design patent was not infringed. The ITC also held that Crocs had not established a “domestic industry” relating to the patented product and thus, that the Commission did not have standing. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed.

Design Patent Claim Construction:

As is ordinary, the Crocs design patent claims “the ornamental design for ___, as shown and described.” Here, the blank (___) was filled by the word “footwear.” Following utility patent claim-construction precedent the ITC had described the drawings and used that description to limit the claim scope. On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected that approach and instead holding that in the usual case, a design patent’s drawings typically needs very little textual description. The court also held that design patent claim construction should be less textually detailed because design patent infringement (and validity) are judged by looking at the design as a whole. An element-by-element description unduly draws attention to the details and “away from consideration of the design as a whole.”

This case shows the dangers of reliance on a detailed verbal claim construction. The claim construction focused on particular features of the ‘789 patent design and led the administrative judge and the Commission away from consideration of the design as a whole. This error is apparent in the Commission’s explicit reference to two details required by the written claim construction but not by the ‘789 drawings: (1) a strap of uniform width, and (2) holes evenly spaced around the sidewall of the upper. As shown in Figure 1 of the ‘789 patent, the strap bulges to a greater width at the middle of the strap on the far left of the figure. Thus, the design figure does not require a strap of uniform width between the two round connectors. Also, as shown in Figure 4 of the ‘789 patent, the holes are not evenly spaced. Figure 4 shows a gap in the spacing (particularly towards the big toe). Nonetheless, the written claim description required uniform strap width and uniform hole spacing—contrary to the claimed invention. This error distorts the infringement analysis by the ordinary observer viewing the design as a whole. The administrative judge and the Commission needed to apply the ordinary observer test to “the design shown in Figures 1–7.”

Under the now defunct “point of novelty” tests for both infringement and validity, courts had some justification for describing specific elements of the patented design because those elements would potentially be considered as points of novelty. Although not spelled-out by the court, the recent elimination of the “points of novelty” tests also eliminates that justification.

Design Patent Infringement:

The Federal Circuit outlined the “ordinary observer” test of design patent infringement in its en banc Egyptian Goddess decision. Here, the court fleshed-out that test with further details and nuances. Infringement of a design patent requires proof that an “ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into believing that the accused product is the same as the patented design.” The hypothetical ordinary observer is considered to have knowledge of the prior art. Thus, “if the claimed design is close to the prior art designs, small differences between the accused design and the claimed design assume more importance to the eye of the hypothetical ordinary observer.” “The ordinary observer test applies to the patented design in its entirety, as it is claimed. [Therefore, minor differences between a patented design and an accused article’s design cannot, and [do] not, prevent a finding of infringement.” (quoting Payless Shoesource and Litton Sys.).

The court again emphasized that the test considers the design as a whole and that the court should not use drawing details to create an infringement checklist because “concentration on small differences in isolation distract[s] from the overall impression of the claimed ornamental features.” Rather, a better tool for determining infringement is a side-by-side comparison of the patented design and the accused product.

On the facts of this case, the Federal Circuit found that the allegedly infringing shoes were “nearly identical” to the patented design. “If the claimed design and the accused designs were arrayed in matching colors and mixed up randomly, this court is not confident that an ordinary observer could properly restore them to their original order without very careful and prolonged effort. . . . [T]his court perceives that the accused products embody the overall effect of the ’789 design in sufficient detail and clarity to cause market confusion. Thus, the accused products infringe the ’789 design.”

Domestic Industry:

In a decision of some interest for design patent utility patent holders alike, the Federal Circuit suggested what seems a tight definition of the domestic industry requirement of an ITC Section 337 action. The court wrote:

The test for the technical prong of the industry requirement “is essentially the same as that for infringement, i.e., a comparison of domestic products to the asserted claims.” Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In other words, the technical prong requires proof that the patent claims cover the articles of manufacture that establish the domestic industry. Put simply, the complainant must practice its own patent.
Although it so stated, I don’t believe that the court actually intended to require that a “complainant must practice its own patent” in order to satisfy the technical prong of 19 U.S.C. 1337(a). Rather, the statute requires that “an industry in the United States, relating to the articles patent . . . exists or is in the process of being established.” The “technical prong” of 337(a)(3)(A)-(B) require significant domestic investment or employment, but neither of those sections require that the complainant be the party that invests.  In the cited Alloc decision, the court stated instead that the question is whether the “industry produces articles covered by the asserted claims.” Here, the dicta is irrelevant because Crocs does manufacture shoes covered by the patent.

The Role of Claim Construction in the Obviousness Determination

Patent, , ,

Alloc, Inc. v. Pergo, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2010)(nonprecedential)

Alloc and Pergo both manufacture and sell laminate flooring. Pergo’s patents cover a mechanical joint that allows the “boards” to be joined together without the usual glue or nails. After being threatened, Alloc filed a declaratory judgment action – asking the Wisconsin-based district court to render the patents invalid, unenforceable, and not-infringed. The jury complied and held the patents invalid and not infringed. In a subsequent bench trial, the district court did not find inequitable conduct in the prosecution.

In error, the district court had submitted questions of claim construction to the jury. Claim construction has long been considered a matter of law to be decided only by a judge. On appeal, the Federal Circuit ruled that the jury-submission mistake to be a harmless error. However, the court’s six-page non-precedential opinion creates confusion in my mind. I would have preferred this decision to have been issued as an affirmance without opinion.

On appeal, the appellate court first affirmed — finding the prior art “more than sufficient to support the jury’s finding of obviousness.” Then, when addressing infringement, the appellate court recognized the claim construction error but identified that error as harmless because the claims were also obvious. My outstanding concern is the appellate court’s implicit holding that errors in claim construction do not affect the obviousness determination. That holding is not correct or consistent with the current notion that the obviousness question should focus on the invention as claimed.

It may be relevant to note that the appellate opinion was written by Judge Virginia Kendall sitting by designation from the Northern District of Illinois. Judges Lourie and Dyk joined the opinion. It is probably best to identify this decision as non-precedential and then walk away.

Federal Courts Closely Scrutinizing and Slashing Patent Damage Awards

Patent,

Michael Kasdan and Joseph Casino discuss recent shifts in reasonable royalty jurisprudence with a particular focus on the recent cases of Cornell, Lucent, and Lansa.  Together, these decisions "indicate an emerging trend to more carefully scrutinize the evidentiary and economic basis of reasonable royalty-based patent damages awards in the setting of the appropriate royalty base, the application of the entire market value rule, and the calculation of the appropriate royalty rate." [Download Kasdan.Casino.Damages]

Other recent Patently-O Patent Law Journal Articles: