Tag Archives: Damages

Capturing the Consumer Surplus through Downstream licensing and Infringement Lawsuits

Patent

by Dennis Crouch

Downstream users have been increasingly subject to patent infringement lawsuits even when the product manufacturer would seemingly have been a more natural and focused target. Many assign nefarious intent to these downstream user lawsuits, but it turns out there is a good faith economic reason why the lawsuits make sense for a patentee. The basic insight here is that lawsuits against parties further downstream in the market chain allow the patentee to capture a portion of the economic consumer surplus that is not available at manufacturer-level lawsuits.

A U.S. patent provides its owner with the right to exclude others from making, using, selling offering-to-sell, importing or exporting the patented invention. 35 U.S.C. § 271. The statute is broad enough to allow a patentee to target any point along the supply chain.* However, the rules on exhaustion and multiple recovery prevent a patentee from collecting duplicative royalties at from different points along the supply chain.

In a market economy, consumers typically purchase goods when the prices of those goods are less than what the consumers are willing to pay. Consumer surplus is defined as the difference between that highest price that they would be willing to pay and the price that they actually did pay. Because of pricing difficulties for producers and market competition, almost all goods and services are associated with some consumer surplus. This consumer surplus is a spillover benefit that simply cannot be fully captured by the manufacturer. Each step along a supply chain also typically involves consumer surplus, with the result being that the end-user places a substantially higher value on the good than did the original manufacturer.

This notion of consumer surplus ties back into the patent laws at the point of collecting damages. Under the patent laws, a patentee is due at least “a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer.” And, because downstream users place a higher value on the goods than do upstream manufacturers and distributers, it makes sense that the reasonable royalty award will also be relatively higher.

A typical patent scenario might involve a software developer who made check-processing software that was then sold through a vender to banks around the country. The developer, vender, and banks are all potentially liable for infringement and the patentee wanting to enforce its patent would then need to choose whom to sue for infringement. Here, the banks likely paid the vender significantly less than the actual value they receive from using the software. Similarly, a successful vender would have paid the software developer significantly less than the resale price. These differences in valuation offer fuel for the ‘hypothetical negotiation’ that serves as the fundamental basis for reasonable royalty damages. Simply stated, a party who values the invention more would tend to pay more for use of the invention.

A difficulty with customer-lawsuits is the large number of lawsuits and negotiations. Rather than dealing with a single manufacturer that may result in a single large payout, the patentee is working through dozens or even hundreds or thousands of customers who each pay their bit. In addition, patentees whose preference is to stop infringing use rather than collect royalties will likely prefer to cut focus on the manufacturer level as a better chokepoint.

Now, taking a step back toward reality: It is unlikely that these differences in valuation are driving the current preference for customer lawsuits. Rather, the settlement value of most of the customer lawsuits are driven by the cost-of-defense rather than the merits of the patent at issue or its value to the user. This means that my reasonable royalty calculation from above, even if mathematically correct, is largely irrelevant in the current climate. I should note that there are at least several legitimate criticisms to my analysis and underlying assumptions above, but I’ll save those for a later post.

DC

= = = = =

* With method-of-use claims, the end users end users are the only likely direct infringers, but even there, the suppliers may be liable for inducement or contributory infringement. (Recent cases tightening the mens rea requirement limit this somewhat).

 

Shooting Blanks: Federal Circuit finds Knock-Off Manufacturer not a “Willful Infringer”

Patent, ,

By Dennis Crouch

Jake Lee v. Mike’s Novelties (Fed. Cir. 2013)

Jake Lee’s patent No. 6,419,936 is directed to a novelty pipe whose bowl looks like a revolver cylinder and is actually rotatable so that there is more than one chamber for holding “tobacco.”

The accused device a knockoff version. In the infringement case, the jury awarded $40,000 in lost profits and the district court enhanced damages to $70,000 for willful infringement. The court also awarded $230,000 in attorney fees after finding an exceptional case.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the infringement award but reversed on willfulness – finding that the defendant’s non-infringement arguments were “not objectively unreasonable.” Because the exceptional-case attorney fee award was partially based upon the finding of willful infringement (and also litigation misconduct), the court remanded for a determination as to whether the litigation misconduct alone was sufficient to warrant the exceptional case finding.

Technical experts testify in almost every patent case and explain to the jury how the accused product does (or does not) meet the limitations as construed by the court. In a low-value case such as this, an expert would have blown the budget wide open and so the patentee did not present expert testimony. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed that expert testimony is not required to win a patent case – especially where the technology is “easily understandable” Quoting Centricut, LLC v. Esab Group, Inc., 390 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Enhanced Damages: The text of the patent statute seemingly provides courts with broad discretion to award up-to treble damages. Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, “the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” Despite the seeming broad discretion offered by the statute, the Federal Circuit tightly controls enhanced damage awards and requires that any award be based upon “willful patent infringement.” The willful component is further defined as requiring both (1) clear-and-convincing evidence that the infringer took steps to infringe the patent despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent and (2) that the accused infringer subjectively knew of the “objectively-defined risk” or should have known because the risk was so obvious. In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Further, this willfulness determination is not given to the discretion of the district court but instead reviewed de novo on appeal. Finally, a correct finding of willfulness permits the award of enhanced damages but does not require such an award.

In this case, the defendant had survived summary judgment based upon a “genuine issue of material fact” as to whether the accused turret met the weight limitation found in the claims. And, in oral arguments at the Federal Circuit, plaintiffs’ counsel admitted that the defendants’ argument was reasonable. One thing that is unclear from the case is when the defendant recognized its reasonable-but-wrong defense to infringement. Was there some time-period when the defendant continued to infringe prior to concocting its defense? And, would the infringement during that period constitute willful infringement?

Litigation Misconduct: The district court found several instances of litigation misconduct by the defendant and defendant’s counsel, including bad-faith settlement offers, bad faith conduct during discovery, and unacted-upon threats to report Lee’s counsel to state bar associations. However, the exceptional case award was based both on that misconduct and the willfulness finding. On remand, the district court will need to determine whether the misconduct alone is sufficient to make an exceptional case finding and award attorney fees. Depending upon the circumstances, the plaintiff in this case may do well to ask the district court to delay its determination until after the Supreme Court decides the two pending attorney-fee-award cases later this term.

Notes:

Guest Post by Prof. Risch: Functionality and Graphical User Interface Design Patents

Patent, , , ,

Guest Post by Michael Risch, Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law

Read the whole draft here, forthcoming in the Stanford Tech. L. Rev.

Before I was a patent guy, I was a copyright guy, and I did much of my work and research in user interfaces. In the 1980’s and 1990’s, there was a lot of uncertainty about how user interfaces would be protected by copyright. The latest version of the Copyright Act had just become effective, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs) were just taking off. Following a lot of litigation, and despite seemingly contradictory appellate rulings and an equally divided Supreme Court in one case, things eventually settled down.

It is against this backdrop that I took great interest in the Apple v. Samsung case, which is in trial right now on damages issues. Buried in all the talk about rectangles with rounded corners and pinch to zoom is a graphical user interface design patent.

Fig 1

Several of Samsung’s phones infringed this patent. In my article, I consider the implications of design patents, functionality, and graphical user interfaces. This is a realm previously limited to copyright. The difference in protection is important because design patents do not traditionally allow the same defenses — like fair use — associated with copyright.

The article answers three emerging questions:

1. Aren’t GUIs something that should be protected by copyright only? Why should there be a patent? The answer is relatively simple: the law has, since 1870, contemplated dual protection. The article traces the history to explain why the law could have evolved differently, but simply did not.

2. Display screens change, both before and after sale. How can someone patent an ephemeral screen design? It also turns out that ephemeral designs have been protected for some time. Even so, the article proposes some limitations on the protection of GUIs that should address the special nature of GUI design patents.

3. There are many differences between Apple’s patent and Samsung’s product. How can Apple own the idea of square icons in a grid with a dock bar at the bottom? This last question is the most intractable: determining when a design is infringing, and the role that functionality should play in that consideration. The bulk of the article is dedicated to answering this question. 

To answer the third question, the article draws on lessons from prior copyright disputes about GUIs. It first suggests that courts must act as gatekeepers, rather than allowing juries to determine which elements to disregard as functional. It then develops economic factors that can help the court determine whether a design element is functional, and whether to allow reuse by a competing program.

While the economic factors, such as consumer switching costs, apply to both copyright and design patents, the legal doctrine to achieve economic ends will necessarily differ. As noted above, there is no fair use doctrine in design patent law. Even so, there is a form of filtration, and the article proposes that such filtration be expanded to exclude functional elements from infringement analysis. The full article is available here.

Cisco on the Wrong Side of Xenophobia and Anti-Religious Jury Tactics

Patent,

Update – After thinking reading through this post, it is probably too harsh against Cisco. I was primarily set-off because I read this case involving Cisco's problematic litigation tactics immediately after I read about Cisco's general counsel complaining to Congress about the problematic litigation tactics of patent licensing companies.

= = = = =

By Dennis Crouch

Foreign litigants often have a real fear of American juries. Back in 2003, Judge Moore (then Professor Moore) authored an interesting article titled Xenophobia in American Courts. In her article, Judge Moore looked at a large dataset of patent cases and found substantial support for the hypothesis that foreign parties are treated worse by juries than their domestic counterparts. This issue has been explored in a number of ways by academics and has parallels to other jury bias issues based upon race or religion. In general, the notion is that it is cognitively easier for people to negatively judge the actions of someone considered an "other."

The recent case of Commil v. Cisco raises some of these issues. And, although Judge Moore was not on the panel, the Federal Circuit agreed that anti-foreign and anti-Semitic tactics before the jury create prejudice that warrant a new trial.

The patentee, Commil, is an Israeli company that filed an infringement suit against Cisco in the Eastern District of Texas. In the first trial, the jury awarded $3.7 million in damages. However, Judge Everingham ordered a new trial based upon the prejudicial effect of "Cisco's counsel's improper religious comments." In the new trial, the jury awarded $63.7 million in damages. On appeal, Cisco asked that the first trial judgment be reinstated. On appeal, however, the Federal Circuit affirmed the new trial finding.

The particular prejudicial are as follows:

  • While being cross-examined, Mr. David (the Commil inventor and co-owner) mentioned eating at a barbeque restaurant to which Cisco's counsel responded "I bet not pork." Counsel then went-on to ask Mr. David whether his cousin was a "bottom-feeder who swims around on the bottom buying people's houses that they got kicked out of for next to nothing."
  • In closing arguments, Cisco's counsel began with a reference of the trial of Jesus – saying "You remember the most important trial in history, which we all read about as kids, in the Bible had that very question from the judge. What is truth?"

Considering these statements, Judge Everingham wrote:

This argument, when read in context with Cisco's counsel's comment regarding Mr. David and Mr. Arazi's religious heritage, impliedly aligns Cisco's counsel's religious preference with that of the jurors and employs an "us v. them" mentality – i.e., "we are Christian and they are Jewish."

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2:07–CV–341, slip op. at 3 (E.D.Tex. Dec. 29, 2010).

On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that these actions warranted review and additionally highlighted other aspects from the trial:

For instance, during the voir dire, Commil's counsel explained that the case began in Israel, "the Holy Land for many religions." Later, during closing argument, Commil's counsel argued with respect to damages that Cisco wanted the jurors to "split the baby" and "You know, that wasn't wise at the time of King Solomon. It's not wise today."

Based upon these elements, the Federal Circuit had no trouble finding that the new trial was warranted.

 

[Updated to delete my harsher remarks]

= = = = =

The interesting and important legal issue in this case is how the Federal Circuit allowed a partial-new-trial rather than a full trial.

= = = = =

See also, Hal Wegner, Commil v. Cisco, a Sidebar: Judicial Denunciation of Anti-Semitic Jury Tactics, http://www.laipla.net/commil-v-cisco-a-sidebar-judicial-denunciation-of-anti-semitic-jury-tactics/ .

Apple v. Samsung: Samsung’s firm sends ‘outside counsel only’ information to Samsung Execs, who apparently use the information.

Ethics

Apple disclosed to Samsung highly sensitive licensing information marked "attorneys eyes only" under the protective order.  Yet, Samsung's counsel did not prevent a copy of its damages expert's report to be circulated to Samsung executives, even though that report repeated the key information.  Samsung's executives then told another key industry player that Samsung knew the terms because "information always leaks."  

Magistrate judge was not happy, and particularly unhappy with Samsung's lawyers basically saying to Apple, don't worry we'll put a log together some day.  Order compelling discovery is here.

Bits & Bytes from Jonathan Hummel

Patent, , ,

RECENTLY

#1. Paradigm: Intellectual Property as an Asset?

Our friends over at IPKat posted a great article about how the private sector might view intellectual property. The author compares a business centric definition of “asset” to intellectual property and explains why there are “five problems” with calling IP an “asset.”

Some of the “problems” discussed are: “intention” (acquisition v. creation) recognition in accounting books; “valuation” citing the fluctuation in price of the Kodak portfolio; “markets” public/private, primary/secondary, and “identification” whereas registered patents are easily identifiable, trade secrets and some other forms of IP are not so discreetly identifiable.

            -read the article here.

#2. Intellectual Ventures Faces Novel Attack on Business Model

Symantec and Trend Micro are fighting back against Intellectual Ventures. IV is asking for a combined $310 million from the companies for licensing a patent that cost IV $750,000 seven years ago. Symantec and Trend Micro are advancing a novel attack that basically says they shouldn’t have to pay such a large amount of money for a patent bought so “cheaply.” The two companies are asking a federal judge to bar IV from seeking such large licensing fees on the grounds that a patent acquired for so little couldn't possibly be worth so much.

            -read the Reuters article here.

#3. Public Citizen Blog: What’s this Anonymous Firm Hiding?

Scott Michelman at Public Citizen posts about the Company Doe Case. In the fall of 2011, a company calling itself “Company Doe” sued the CPSC to keep a report about one of its products out of the database, and it also sought to litigate its case under seal and without revealing its name. Public Citizen, along with Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union (the publisher of Consumer Reports), objected to the seal. The consumer groups have appealed the sealing and pseudonymity rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Fourth Circuit.

The case, Company Doe v. Public Citizen, is a first of its kind in several respects. First, it appears to be the first time a federal court has sealed the record in a civil case because of concern about a company’s reputation. Second, it appears to be the first time a court has allowed a company plaintiff to proceed under a fictitious name to protect its reputation.

 

#4. As Twitter Trots IPO, IBM Claims Infringement

Ingrid Lunden at TechCrunch reports: Twitter recently amended it’s S-1 filing and changed the share price from $17-20 up to $23-25. This increase comes in the midst of Twitter’s investor tour in anticipation of it’s IPO. Last week, I mentioned Twitter’s Puny Patent Portfolio and how that might be seen as a weakness. A spokesman said, “Many companies in these industries, including many of our competitors, have substantially larger patent and intellectual property portfolios than we do, which could make us a target for litigation…”

  • The specific patents in question are:
    • U.S. Patent No. 6,957,224: Efficient retrieval of uniform resource locators;
    • U.S. Patent No. 7,072,849: Method for presenting advertising in an interactive service; and
    • U.S. Patent No. 7,099,862: Programmatic discovery of common contacts.

 

#5. SpicyIP Leads the Way in the Push for Transparency in Indian Patent Law

Shamnad Basheer, Professor at India’s National University of Juridical Sciences writes for a the newly redesigned site SpicyIP. The website pushes for transparency in Indian IP law.

New this week, a quote from the debut: “The week saw the official unveiling of the new SpicyIP. SpicyIP 2.0 is now a website purely dedicated to covering the latest developments in the Indian intellectual property arena and all things relevant. Apart from the revamped look, we have a host of new features such as IP Polls, IP Petitions, IP Jobs and IP Events.”

 

COOL TECH

Noise Cancellation for your Windows

While noise canceling technology has been around for a years now, it seems new applications are always cropping up. Sonos has a new gadget in development that might make your house quieter than ever. Check out the product here.

 

ISSUED

Lance Whitney at C|Net reports that Apple has been granted a patent covering technology that monitors your location and then performs automation tasks. It is U.S. Patent No. 8,577,392.

 

UPCOMING

Fordham Law School’s IP Summit: Post AIA – Strategies in Litigation and Patent Prosecution

  • November 18th and 19th, 2013 – New York, NY
  • Keynote Address: Hon. Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge (ret.), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Approved for 12 hours CLE
  • Website for the event here.

 

Suffolk University IP conference: Design Patents: Modernizing an Old Property Interest

  • November 22, 2013 – Boston, MA
  • Highlights include:

o      Attorneys involved in Apple & Samsung saga
o      Jong K. Choi of Samsung will moderate
o      Attorneys from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office will provide an insider’s view of how design patents are handled.
o      Two nationally known experts in design protection, Christopher V. Carani and Perry Saidman, will discuss design protection legal issues.
o      Finally, the special damage provisions for Design Patents will be analyzed by a leading expert on patent damages.

 

Whittier Law School IP Symposium

  • The Global Medicine Challenge: The Fine Line Between Incentivizing Innovation and Protecting Human Rights
    • The Keynote Speaker will be James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, and NGO dealing with issues involving Intellectual Property.
    • This event has been approved for 5.5 hours of CLE
    • View the Program Flyer here.

 

Essay Contest

Cyberweek Ethical Dilemma Essay Contest 2013

In conjunction with 2013 ABA Mediation Week, the Ethical Dilemma for Cyberweek 2013 concerns a mediation that is conducted online.  Students, let the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution’s Ethics Committee know your thoughts.  The contest is limited to Students 18 years of age or older.  Each participant is asked to submit an online analysis of the mediator’s performance, in 750 words or less, to Cyberweek Ethical Dilemma during Cyberweek, November 4 to November 8, 2013.  Each submission will be read by two members of the Ethics Committee, scored, and the winning submission will receive $100.00 and will be published in an upcoming issue of the Section’s Just Resolutions eNewsletter.  Read the full contest rules. Each participant will receive a certificate of participation upon submission of their analysis. Read the full hypothetical. 

 

JOBS

Patent Associate/Agent (Electrical) – Law Firm – Alexandria, Va.

  • The Alexandria office of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC has an immediate opening for an Electrical patent associate or agent with a minimum of 2 years of patent experience and a degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Science.

Patent Attorney or Agent – Law Firm – Flexible Location

  • Guntin & Gust is seeking highly skilled and productive Patent Attorneys or Patent Agents. As part of our team you will be working with a diverse group of clients ranging from sophisticated mid-sized corporations to Fortune 100 companies.
  • We work in the areas of electrical engineering, telecommunications, medical products, RF products, gaming products, nanotechnologies, and other fields.

Judge Denies Motion for Continuance to Party Who Needs New Firm Because Party Anticipates Litigation with Counsel of Record

Ethics,

Two weeks before a patent trial, the patentee says it expects litigation between it and its counsel.  So, it moves for continuance so it can get new lawyers.  Motion denied.  The case is Alexsam, Inc. v. J.C. Penney Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-5 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2013), and an article about it is here.

This is awkward, to say the least.  On the one hand, the defendants surely have an interest in getting the case tried, and the court has an interest in managing its docket, but a lawyer who expects to be sued by his client (seemingly the case here) can't represent that client unless he reasonably believes he can do so and he gets the client's informed consent after full disclosure.  The odds of that being done right are slim.  So, where this ends up is the client seemingly not being able to prosecute its case, and so the firm incurring any damages caused by the withdrawal (assuming the client had a reasonable basis, etc.).

Wild.

Ocean Tomo versus PatentRatings

Patent, ,

Ocean Tomo, LLC v. Jonathan Barney and PatentRatings LLC, Docket No. 12-cv-8450 (N.D. Ill. 2013)

Jonathan Barney is the founder of PatentRatings, the company that holds the patent on rating patents based upon a variety of objective criteria. See U.S. patent No. 6,556,992, 7,657,476, 7,716,226, 7,949,581, 7,962,511, 8,131,701, 8,504,560. In 2005, Barney joined Ocean Tomo and the company licensed use of his patent ratings information. According to the court documents, that agreement ended on a bad note in 2011:

After Barney began to work at Ocean Tomo, he quickly soured on the company as he discovered that "the environment at Ocean Tomo was rife with conflict, back-biting, and shady business and accounting practices." According to Barney, Ocean Tomo attempted to freeze him out, deprive him of the benefits he had been promised, and destroy him and PatentRatings financially so Ocean Tomo could appropriate the PatentRatings system and the associated intellectual property. Barney alleges that by February of 2011, the working environment at Ocean Tomo was so intolerable that he had no choice but to resign. He also alleges that Ocean Tomo used his resignation as an excuse to redeem a portion of his equity units without paying consideration and to reduce his share of profits and equity based on groundless claims of misconduct. . . . Barney also contends that Ocean Tomo wrongfully disclosed PatentRatings' confidential information to third-party software developers so they could reverse engineer the PatentRatings system and develop knock-off products based on PatentRatings' intellectual property. In addition, Barney asserts that Ocean Tomo wrongfully accessed PatentRatings' computer servers in Irvine, California, copied confidential data on the servers, and transferred that data to its own servers so it could attempt to reverse-engineer PatentRatings' product.

Prior to this lawsuit, the parties had actually arbitrated some of their disputes and a three-member panel found largely for Barney in rejecting Ocean Tomo's request for $2.5 million in damages. However, Ocean Tomo then sued in Illinois state court Barney for violation of his employment agreement, violation of the Illinois Trade Secret Act, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and conversion. Barney removed the case to Federal Court countersued as noted above.

Although the case is still ongoing, the district court has dismissed several of Barney's claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. These include Barney's claims of violation of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; fraud; and the CFAA violation allegation. In particular, under Illionois law there is no independent cause of action for violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but rather that covenant is a part of each contract and thus must instead be alleged as part of a breach of contract claim. Barney's claim that Ocean Tomo committed fraud stemmed from his joining with the firm in 2005 and was thus barred by the Illinois five-year statute of limitations. Finally, the CFAA claim alleges that in September 2012 (long after the break-up) Ocean Tomo accessed PatentRatings' servers without authorization, copied confidential data and thereby caused at least $5,000 in damages. For a CFAA civil action, the damage threshold is a required element of a claim. However, in oral arguments PatentRatings admitted it was in the process of evaluating the damage an/or loss. The court therefore also dismissed the CFAA claim based upon PatentRatings' "tacit concession that its CFAA claim is deficient."

= = = = =

Based upon an ongoing license, In Ocean Tomo continues to use the PatentRatings algorithms to report on patent quality through its Ocean Tomo Ratings.

= = = = =

District Court Decision: Download Gov.uscourts.ilnd.275661.52.0

Supreme Court Action Today

Patent, , , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

Supreme Court Action on 10/7/2013

Extraterritorial Application of US Patent Law: The Supreme Court has issued an invitation to the Solicitor General to file the Views of the Obama Administration (CVSG) in Maersk Drilling USA, Inc. v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., Sct. No. 13-43 (2013). The focus of the case is location – and, what is meant by an “offer to sell . . . within the United States” under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). The Federal Circuit held that the actual location of the offer is immaterial so long as the offer contemplated performance within the United States.

Subject Matter Eligibility: The Supreme Court has denied certiorari in the § 101 case challenging PerkinElmer’s patented “method for determining whether a pregnant woman is at an increased risk of having a fetus with Down’s syndrome.” Intema Ltd. v. PerkinElmer, Inc., Supreme Court No. 12-1372. The case with a much greater shot is Alice v. CLS Bank and perhaps its companion WildTangent v. Ultramcercial. Briefing of the petition continues in those cases.

False Marking: The Supreme Court has denied certiorari in PubPat’s False Marking case. PubPat had challenged the AIA’s retroactive rejection of non-competitor qui tam suits for false marking. Public Patent Foundation, Inc. v. McNeil-PPC, Inc., Sct. No. 13-161.

Prior Art Presumed Enabling: The Supreme Court has denied certiorari in the Finjan’s challenge to the PTO’s presumption that prior art is enabling. Finjan, Inc. v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Sct. No. 12-1245.

= = = = =

Patent Cases Where Petition for Certiorari has been Filed:

Limelight v. Akamai, Sct. No. 12-786, is still pending at the Supreme Court and awaiting comments from the US Solicitor General (CVSG) before the court decides whether to grant the petition for writ of certiorari. The question presented in that case is whether indirect infringement (inducement) requires underlying direct infringement by a single actor. The Federal Circuit says “no.”

Hyundai Motor America, Inc. v. Clear with Computers, LLC, Sct. No. 13-296. This pending case is a follow-up to the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Microsoft v. i4i where the court held that invalidity defenses must be proven with clear and convincing evidence. That decision included a concurrence by Justice Breyer indicating that questions of law (such as obviousness) need not be proven with clear and convincing evidence. “The question presented is whether, following i4i, a district court may … instruct a jury to apply the heightened ‘clear and convincing’ standard not only to disputed factual aspects of an invalidity claim, but also to the legal aspects of such a claim – including the ultimate question of a patent’s invalidity?”

The petition for writ of certiorari in Sony v. 1st Media, Sct. No. 12-1086, is fully briefed but has not yet been decided. That case involves the extent of district court discretion in evaluating the equitable doctrine of patent unenforceability. The case largely challenges the strict requirements of Therasense.

In Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., Sct. No. 12-1378, the asserted patent was found invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2) since the subject matter of the patent had previously been invented. The statute only works if the prior inventor did not abandon, suppress, or conceal the prior invention and here the prior inventor concealed how to make the invention, did not commercialize it, and did not apply for a patent. However, the prior inventor did disclose the fact of the invention and publicly offered some non-enabling clues to the invention. Although briefing is now complete, the Supreme Court took no action in this case yet.

Nautilus v. Biosig is pending at the Supreme Court and awaiting a response from Biosig. The case questions whether the “Insolubly Ambiguous” standard for indefiniteness is overly strict.

Another pending petition is Nokia v. v. International Trade Commission, Sct. No. 12-1352. The case focuses on patent enforcement entities and the “domestic industry” requirement for USITC jurisdiction.

Organic Seed Growers and Trade Ass’n v. Monsanto Co, Sct. No. 13-303, is also pending as a petition for writ of certiorari. The case argues that organic farmers have jurisdiction to challenge Monsanto’s GMO seed patents.

Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson, Sct. No. 13-405. In this case, the patentee essentially asks the Supreme Court to decide the issue before the en banc Federal Circuit in Lighting Ballast Control. I.e., “Whether the Federal Circuit should have given deference to the district court’s factual findings in construing the patent claims.” This petition is something of a place-holder to give the patentee time to see the outcome of Lighting Ballast.

Artesyn Technologies, Inc. v. SynQor, Inc., Sct No. 13-375. In this pending case, the losing defendant has asked that the Supreme Court tell the Federal Circuit to “Follow KSR” and also “Follow Global-Tech” rather than recreating the formal TSM test and allowing recklessness serve as proof of knowledge for induced infringement. In the similar pending petition of Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Sct. No. 13-290, the petitioner asks for a further definition of “willful blindness” for inducement.

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., Sct. No. 13-269. This damages case focuses on when lost-sales outside of the US can be captured under US law. Here, the patentee argues that those sales should be accounted-for when they are “direct and foreseeable result of patent infringement inside the United States.” Briefing is ongoing at the petitions stage.

= = = = =

Patent cases where the Supreme Court has granted certiorari and will be hearing the case this term:

Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., Sct. No. 12-1128 (Does a Declaratory Judgment plaintiff who is also an ongoing licensee of the patent have the burden of proving non-infringement?).

Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Sct. No. 12-1163 (When must deference be given to a lower court judgment regarding an exceptional case finding under §285?).

Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., Sct. No. 12-1184 (What is the proper definition of an “exceptional case”?).

= = = = =

Hal Wegner follows these developments closely and his Top-Ten lists are available through the LAIPLA website: http://www.laipla.net/hal-wegners-top-ten-patent-cases/

Judge: Abolish Exclusive Jurisdiction of CAFC Over Patent Appeals

Ethics, , ,

Chief Judge Woods of the Seventh Circuit spoke recently and said that the CAFC was "uniformly bad."  An article with link to the text of her remarks, is here.  The link to the text is here.

Wow.

I started doing patent cases in September, 1989.  At that time, I could argue anticipation from multiple unrelated references.  Claim construction?  Maybe leave it for the jury, maybe the judge, maybe never decide it.  DOE was the wild west.  The court has done a lot of good.

Nowadays the disputes to me are narrower, but important.  Section 101 is an obvious (ha, ha) area where the make-up of the panel could be outcome determinative.  But that would probably be the case no matter who was trying to understand what the Supreme Court believes the law ought to be.  

Those key splits I mentioned up front were, in contrast, fundamental questions that had never been resolved among the circuits despite 30 years of work with the patent act.   Patent law is a lot better than it was — better — and it is a lot more efficient than it was — I know who is going to tell me what the claim means, and a lot of (albeit indeterminate) rules to help me figure that out.  DOE is nowhere like it was.  Damages — you would not recognize the damaegs theories we used to be able to assert.

Could it be better?  I have no doubt about that it can: it is a human institution.  The role of prior panel decisions sometimes is not given enough weight (a pet peave I'll write about under Section 285, shortly).

Would replacing it with the "old" system make it better?  I have no doubt whatsoever that it would not.  I have no doubt it would make things worse.  

What is an Exceptional Case such that Court Should Award Attorney Fees?

Attorney Fees, Fee Shifting, Patent, , ,

By Dennis Crouch

Earlier this week, I commented on the two attorney-fees cases pending before the US Supreme Court:

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

Both cases stem from the same perspective that the “exceptional case” requirement for attorney fees is too narrowly construed by the courts and especially by the Federal Circuit. See 35 U.S.C. § 285.

I noted in the prior post that the predecessor of Section 285 was first enacted in a 1946 Patent bill. The 1946 law was substantially similar to the current law (enacted in 1952) with the major difference that the 1946 act expressly gave the court “discretion” to award attorney fees to the prevailing party while the 1952 act removed that “discretion” term and instead indicated that the fee may be awarded “in exceptional cases.”

The Senate Report associated with the 1946 statute indicates that the statute is not intended to make fee awards an “ordinary thing in patent suits” but instead to reserve such awards for “gross injustice.”

It is not contemplated that the recovery of attorney’s fees will become an ordinary thing in patent suits, but the discretion given the court in this respect, in addition to the present discretion to award triple damages, will discourage infringement of a patent by anyone thinking that all he would be required to pay if he loses the suit would be a royalty. The provision is also made general so as to enable the court to prevent a gross injustice to an alleged infringer.

S. Rep. No. 1503, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946), reprinted in 1946 U.S. Code Cong. Serv. 1386, 1387.

When the 1952 act was passed, the House Committee Report briefly mentioned the “exceptional case” amendment to the statute – indicating that the phrase “‘in exceptional cases’ has been added as expressing the intention of the present statute as shown by its legislative history and as interpreted by the courts.”

In several cases, the Federal Circuit has considered the standard and, after some debate, decided in Eltech Systems Corp. v. PPG Industries, Inc., 903 F.2d 805 (Fed. Cir. 1990), that the exceptional case standard should be the same for both prevailing plaintiffs and for prevailing defendants – writing: “we now reach the question and determine that there is and should be no difference in the standards applicable to patentees and infringers who engage in bad faith litigation.” The Eltech Systems case was then cited positively by the Supreme Court in Fogerty v. Fantasy, 510 U.S. 517 (1994) as justification for a party-neutral approach to fee shifting in copyright cases.

We note that the federal fee-shifting statutes in the patent and trademark fields, which are more closely related to that of copyright, support a party-neutral approach. Those statutes contain language similar to that of [17 U.S.C.] § 505, with the added proviso that fees are only to be awarded in “exceptional cases.” 35 U.S.C. § 285 (patent) (“The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party”); 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (trademark) (same). Consistent with the party-neutral language, courts have generally awarded attorney’s fees in an evenhanded manner based on the same criteria. For patent, see, e.g., Eltech Systems Corp. v. PPG Industries, Inc., 903 F.2d 805, 811 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[T]here is and should be no difference in the standards applicable to patentees and infringers who engage in bad faith litigation”). For trademark, see, e.g., Motown Productions, Inc. v. Cacomm, Inc., 849 F.2d 781, 786 (2nd Cir. 1988) (exceptional circumstances include cases in which losing party prosecuted or defended action in bad faith); but see Scotch Whisky Assn. v. Majestic Distilling Co., 958 F.2d 594 (4th Cir.) (finding in the legislative history that prevailing defendants are to be treated more favorably than prevailing plaintiffs), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 862 (1992).

Fogerty at note 12.

Of course, the problem with a party-neutral approach is that it can only be applied at a certain high level of granularity or abstractness. Since patentees and accused infringers make systematically different argument and have systematically different strategies, the particular causes of exceptional case findings tends to be different. Thus, losing infringers most often pay fees based upon ongoing willful and reckless infringement while losing patentees most often pay fees for suing on patent obtained through inequitable conduct or for bringing baseless lawsuits. At that low level of granularity, the differences are such that it is difficult to compare whether a party-neutral approach is being applied.

Notes:

Thanks to John Pinkerton at Thompson & Knight for providing me with this legislative history from the 1946 Act.

Supreme Court’s New Patent Cases

Patent, , , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

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

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

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

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

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

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

= = =

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

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

Icon rephrased as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

The petition asks:

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

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

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

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

Petrella presents the question as follows:

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

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

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

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

It should be an interesting year in patent law.

Patent Law Federalism

Patent, ,

Activision TV v. Pinnacle Bancorp (D.Neb 2013)

The Supreme Court has held that state governments are preempted from legislating substantial patent law issues and from deciding patent law cases. Rather, in those contexts, patent law is the exclusive purview of the US national government. Of course, the Supreme Court also recently held (again) that there are many patent law issues that are not “substantial” and that a state can still exert power over those lesser issues. See Minton v. Gunn.

Activision owns a number of patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,330,613 and 7,369,058. And the company has sued a host of defendants alleging infringement based upon the use of a digital menu board – as shown here at Western Sizzlin.

After five local companies received cease-and-desist letters from Activision TV, the Nebraska Attorney General’s office began an inquiry and then filed a cease and desist letter against the Texas based law firm of Farney Daniels ordering that the firm to stop sending these letters. The Attorney General letter raised a variety of potential violations involving unfair and deceptive actions and offered the following concluding paragraph:

The possible violations specified in this letter are serious and require your immediate and unconditional cooperation. Given the significant ramifications posed to Nebraska consumers and businesses by your potentially unlawful conduct, I hereby demand that you immediately cease and desist the initiation of any and all new patent infringement enforcement efforts within the State of Nebraska pending the outcome of this office’s investigation.

(Bold in original) [AG Letter].

In response, Activision amended its complaint against Pinnacle Bancorp to include allegations against the Attorney General and his chief deputies and requesting a declaratory judgment that Farney Daniels’ enforcement actions do not violate Nebraska State Law and that the Attorney General’s action violates “Activision’s rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution” as well as the Supremacy Clause found in Article IV. Activision also requested a preliminary injunction. For its part, the State Attorney General argued that Activision had no authority to bring the action because the Attorney General letter was sent to the law firm Farney Daniels and not to the patentee. The Attorney General also stood by its guns in alleging that the letters from Farney Daniels were unlawful under Nebraska law.

[T]here are a number of possibly deceptive statements in the Farney Daniels letters on which businesses to detrimentally rely. For example, the letters warn there are “serious consequences for infringement,” and “[i]nfringers who continue to infringe in the face of an objectively high risk of infringement of a valid patent can be forced to pay treble (triple) the actual damages, as well as the patent owner’s litigation costs, including all attorney’s fees.” The letters … that [the recipients] contact Farney Daniels and Plaintiff “within three weeks of the date of this letter … further claiming Plaintiff has “suffered damages due to…past infringement, and will suffer damages and irreparable harm in the future in the absence of injunctive relief.” . . . The MPHJ letters also “encourage” the business to “retain competent patent counsel to assist you in this matter” and warn that “additional steps might be required” if a license is not purchased.

In all respects, these seem like “threats to sue.” . . . These threats to sue are deceptive, the Attorney General believes, because Farney Daniels had no intention of suing all, most, or many of these targeted businesses if they did not agree to licenses, and, of the businesses they actually sued, Farney Daniels had no intention of actually serving summons and/or prosecuting the case to trial. In the debt collection arena, misrepresentations of legal consequences have been held to violate deceptive trade practices laws.

Furthermore, they may be deceptive to the extent Farney Daniels and Plaintiff implied that they have a reasonable basis for identifying the target business as one that actually infringes on the patent. . . . Further facts that may show Farney Daniels’ intent, and/or the amount of letters it sent nationwide or to Nebraska businesses, however, have not yet been developed, as the investigation is still nascent.

With regard to the Supremacy clause and patent law’s preemption of state-law, the Attorney General argued that its consumer protection action does not impact the patent laws.

Federal law does not preempt the state regulation of entrepreneurial letter writing campaigns. The Attorney General’s possible state law deceptive trade practices claims do not involve any legal application to the validity of the patent, to the scope of what is infringing, or to the public domain in any way.

Finally . . . the July 18 letter in no way affects Plaintiff’s rights to bring suit in this or any Court.

In considering these claims, the Federal District court partially granted Activision’s preliminary injunction motion. In particular, the court held that “Farney Daniels can file an appearance in this case or any other federal cases without running the risk of violating the State of Nebraska Attorney General’s cease and desist order. Further, Farney Daniels and its attorneys may proceed to prosecute their cases, including all discovery, as it would in any other lawsuit.”

What’s missing from the court order, however, is any discussion of whether Farney Daniels can continue to pursue any pre-filing activity such as threatening suit against alleged infringers.

Interesting Malpractice Case Based Upon Claiming Work Product Over Pre-Suit Testing

Ethics

When I speak on ethics, I always say that you never know how issues will get raised.  Things that seem like "academic" concerns turn out to be "gotchas".  This is not quite that, but it is a fun twist.

We all know that Rule 11 requires adequate pre-suit investigation, and, usually, the way breach of those rules get raised is through a Rule 11 motion.

Usually.

In a legal malpractice case, a patentee alleges that its lawyers' improper designation of testing that he had done as "work product" caused sanctions to be entered against him that, ultimately, reduced his patent infringement damages award.  Haase v. Abraham, watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend, LLP, 404 S.W.3d 75 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] no pet. hist.).  The defendants won a partial victory on appeal.  The procedural history of the case involves two appeals to the Federal Circuit, among other things!

 

Contract Dispute: When Paying to Settle a Case Counts as Revenue

Patent,

Jang v. Boston Scientific (Third Circuit 2013)

Dr. Jang is an inventor on BSC’s stent patent no. 5,922,021. Jang’s contract requires BSC share 10% of royalty revenue with Jang, including “any recovery of damages” from infringers with a $60 million cap. The question in this case was whether a prior settlement with Cordis involved such a recover of damages.

In that prior 2003 case, Cordis and BSC countersued one another. A jury found that Cordis infringed the Jang patent and that BSC infringed Cordis patents. However, the parties settled before the court calculated or awarded damages. The settlement involved a payment of $1.725 billion from BSC to Cordis. BSC admitted that the settlement agreement represented the net difference between its expected damages and those it owed Cordis. In essence, the fact that Cordis infringed the BSC/Jang patent reduced the amount that BSC owed to Cordis. However, BSC argued that it did not owe Jang anything because BSC did not receive any damages or revenues in the deal. The district court sided with BSC on the pleadings on appeal, however, the Third Circuit reversed – finding that Jang’s case should move forward. In particular, the appellate panel held that (1) the cash-offset qualifies as a “recovery of damages” and (2) that “BSC violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by structuring a settlement to thwart the agreed purpose of [the contract provision].”

A cash offset is the functional equivalent of a cash payment. . . . Courts have long recognized the equivalence of a debt offset and a cash payment through the common-law “right of setoff.” . . . In this case, BSC made money on the Jang patent. It lost money on Cordis’ separate claim. That its gain and loss were consolidated to produce one net payment does not change the fact that the Jang patent produced a monetary gain for BSC.

The real question is whether that gain qualifies as a “recovery.” We see no reason why it should not; it makes no difference to BSC’s bottom line whether it receives a check for the Jang infringement claim or reduces its debt by the same amount.

Writing in dissent, Judge Barry argued that the language of the contract was clear and contemplated damage recovery, not offsetting claims.

Although the case involves patent law it is at heart a contract dispute. Thus, the appeal was heard by the regional circuit court rather than the Federal Circuit. In a prior dispute over the same contract, the Federal Circuit claimed appellate jurisdiction apparently based upon the fact that a quasi-infringement analysis was required to settle the dispute. Under Gunn v. Minton, that case (if heard today) would not likely be heard by the Federal Circuit.

= = = = =

A large number of patent assignment deals similarly involve substantial “upside.”  If one of the parties to the deal is a litigation expert then the the other party may well assume that full enforcement of the deal will also require litigation.

Soverain’s ‘314 Patent is Now Truly Invalid

Patent, ,

Soverain Software v. Newegg (Fed. Cir. 2013) (on rehearing)

In a rare grant of rehearing, the Federal Circuit has amended its original decision in this case. In the original opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s finding of non-obviousness and replaced that with a holding that the asserted claims are obvious as a matter of law. [Link]

According to the request for rehearing – “The panel’s decision analyzed the wrong claim of the ‘314 patent. The asserted claims at trial were claims 35 and 51–not claims 34 and 51.” I reviewed the original briefs and those briefs suggest that claim 34 should be the focus. However, the Federal Circuit allowed the patentee another shot on appeal.

Claim 34 – the one already found obvious by the court – is directed to a “network-based sales system” that links a buyer’s computer with a “shopping cart computer” and that facilitates certain purchasing functionality, including using a “payment message” that initiates the transaction once activated. Claim 35 adds one further limitation to the mix – that “shopping cart computer is programmed to cause said payment message to be created before said buyer computer causes said payment message to be activated.”

After reviewing the small amount of evidence presented, the court held that claim 35 is also invalid as obvious.

On this rehearing, Soverain has not provided any new information concerning the specific limitation of claim 35. The inclusion of an additional known element from a similar system, as set forth in claim 35, is subject to review on established principles, as summarized in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (an unobvious combination must be “more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions”). The supplemental briefing reinforces the absence of dispute that that the element in claim 35 is in the CompuServe Mall prior art.

On consideration of the additional briefing and arguments, we confirm that claim 34 is representative of the “shopping cart” claims, including claim 35, and conclude that dependent claim 35 is invalid on the ground of obviousness. The court’s judgment is amended accordingly.

Now Soverain’s patent is really invalid.

In its motion for rehearing en banc, Soverain cited my prior Patently-O essay for the notion that the original opinion was big news in the way that the court fully reversed the lower court’s finding of nonobviousness. The en banc rehearing request focuses on the distinction between questions of fact and law and argues that Federal Circuit improperly delved into a fact-finding expedition. The fact-law divide is difficult for questions of obviousness since the ultimate question of obviousness is an issue-at-law based upon the factual determinations found in the Graham analysis. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit states that it is only deciding the ultimate legal question while the en banc request argues that the court delved into the factual underpinnings without providing appropriate deference. That en banc request has been denied.

I suspect that Soverain will push for a petition for writ of certiorari. In the en banc rehearing request, the company added Seth Waxman to the list of counsel and the company has at least 15 live infringement cases involving the ‘314 patent. (U.S. Patent No. 5,715,314). The damages overturned by the court here amounted to $2.5 million plus costs and an ongoing royalty of $0.15 per infringing transaction until the patent expires in 2015 (denying injunctive relief).

Now, before you feel too sorry for Soverain, you should note that the company has a set of additional patents in the family that it can still assert. See, e.g., 5,909,492, 5,708,780, 6,449,599, and 7,272,639.

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

Patent, , , , , , , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

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

= = = = =

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

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

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

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

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

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

The PTAB made two additional important rulings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

= = = = =

Claims at Issue:

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

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

Is it Time to End the USITC’s Jurisdiction over Patent Cases?

Patent

Presidential review of USITC exclusion orders is designed to directly inject politics into the ultimate legal determination between the parties. In his recent letter of disapproval, US Trade Representative Michael Froman recognized that the review is based upon a number of policy goals, including considerations of how the decision impacts the US economy, US consumers, US competitive manufacture, and US-Foreign relations. Although Froman’s letter of disapproval focused on FRAND issues, an undercurrent of the decision is that the American company (Apple) is avoiding its penalty after being judged as an infringer of a patent held by a foreign company (Samsung). Supporting the undercurrent of US-company favoritism is the fact that the USITC is designed as to protect US industry.

In an email, Hal Wegner draws a parallel analogy:

Imagine an American movie studio, book publisher, high tech electronics manufacturer or other intellectual property rights holder going to a Shanghai Court and successfully winning an infringement suit. Then, imagine that President Xi Jinping blocks enforcement “[a]fter extensive consultations with … interested … persons … based on … review of … considerations … as they relate to … the effect on [domestic] consumers.

The question then is how can the US expect for China, India, South Korea and Brazil to strongly enforce foreign-owned intellectual property rights when the US is unwilling to do so itself.

Of course, as I wrote earlier, Samsung is still able to enforce its patent rights in Federal Court and, in that process will be able to seek both injunctive relief (to block imports of the iPhone) and monetary damages for past and ongoing infringement.

In addition to the US/Foreign divide, the USTR involvement brings politics into the dispute at a level orders-of-magnitude beyond what is seen in Federal Courts. Apple is able to get the ear of the US Administration and other influential politicians, and that influence almost certainly impacted the outcome. If adjudged infringer had been a smaller company or perhaps Koch Ind., the outcome may well have been different. The best outcome here is probably to take-away the USITC’s jurisdiction over patent cases and simply allow those cases to be heard in Federal Courts.

= = = = =     

A different perspective on the administrative disapproval here is that it is designed as a signal to the USITC to stop issuing injunctive relief without full consideration of the public interest at stake. If the USITC takes that message to heart then we may observe some interesting development of the law and theory of public-interest in enforcing patent rights. Public interest is also one of the four factors used by Federal Courts when determining whether to issue injunctive relief in patent cases under eBay. In the eBay line of cases, the public interest is typically the least-explored factor. However, it is the only factor available for consideration by the USITC under the Tariff-Act. As the USITC develops its law of public-interest, the next step in the law’s evolution will be for the Federal Courts to begin picking-up that analysis and applying it under eBay.

Obama Administration Rejects USITC Decision Blocking Apple Imports

Patent,

Patentees tend to fare well in proceedings before the US International Trade Commission (USITC). Under Section 337 of the 1930 Tariff Act (as amended), patentees can file a complaint with the agency that alleges importation of infringing products. Unlike ordinary courts, the USITC is not authorized to award monetary damages. However, the agency can (and regularly does) issue injunctive relief in the form of exclusion orders enforced by US Customs and Border Control agents. A second hitch with USITC proceedings is that the US President is given the opportunity to reject any exclusion order issued by the USITC.

As part of the mobile patent wars, Samsung filed a Section 337 complaint against Apple alleging patent infringement. Although Apple is a US company, it still imports its products from China and is thus susceptible to USITC action. And, although the USITC’s stated mission is to protect US domestic industry, foreign-based companies (such as Samsung) are still permitted to file complaints with the agency to protect their US intellectual property rights.

After a full process, the USITC determined that Apple’s iPhone 4 infringes Samsung’s US Patent No. 7,706,348 (claims 75, 76, 82, 83, 84). The USITC consequently issued an exclusion order. Now, however, the US Trade Representative (as official representative of the Obama Administration) has issued a letter of disapproval based upon the conclusion that Samsung’s commitment to FRAND licensing of its patents. http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/08032013%20Letter_1.PDF. The denial effectively ends Samsung’s case at the USITC. However, Samsung has also asserted the patent in a parallel lawsuit in Federal Court (Delaware). That Delaware case has been stayed (with consent of both parties) pending outcome of the USITC case.

Myriad Seeks to Enforce its BRCA1/BRCA2 Gene Patents

Patent

By Dennis Crouch

Myriad Genetics v. Ambry Genetics (D. Utah 2013)

In AMP v. Myriad, the Supreme Court ruled that the process of isolating naturally occurring DNA is insufficient to transform the natural phenomenon into a patentable invention. At the same time, the court ruled that a manmade cDNA version of naturally occurring human DNA is patent eligible.

Within hours of that Supreme Court ruling, Ambry Genetics issued a press release indicating that the company would begin offering genetic testing for the BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations at a significantly reduced rate.

Now, Myriad Genetics has filed suit against Ambry alleging infringement of ten different patents including the patents challenged in the original lawsuit. These include U.S. Patent Nos. 5,709,999; 5,747,282; 5,753,441; 5,837,492; 6,033,857; 5,654,155; 5,750,400; 6,051,379; 6,951,721; and 7,250,497. In the complaint, Myriad was careful to only assert claims that were left valid by the Supreme Court decision. Myriad writes:

As of the morning of June 13, 2013, Plaintiffs collectively had 24 patents containing 520 claims concerning two genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2), and methods of use and synthetic compositions of matter related thereto. On June 13, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that five patent claims covering isolated naturally occurring DNA were not patent-eligible, thereby reducing the overall patent estate to 24 patents and 515 patent claims. This case involves none of those five rejected claims.

The lawsuit requests injunctive relief, damages for willful infringement and lost profits. In addition, Myriad filed a motion for preliminary injunction arguing that Ambry’s low prices create irreparable harm:

Ambry is able to offer testing at [a] discounted price by unfairly and improperly “free-riding” off of the hundreds of millions of dollars invested by Myriad Genetics in developing the science and market for clinical diagnostic testing for hereditary cancers. …

At a minimum, [the harm caused by ongoing infringement] consists of: (1) price erosion and the loss of the benefit of Myriad’s established pricing strategy; (2) the loss of market share; (3) reputational injury; and (4) loss of the benefit of the remaining limited term of patent exclusivity and Myriad’s business plans for that period, as well as the inability to fully obtain its reliance interest obtained by disclosing its discovery and investing hundreds of millions of dollars to commercialize that discovery in exchange for a limited exclusive right. The Federal Circuit has recognized each of these forms of damage as irreparable harm that warrant the imposition of injunctive relief.

It appears that Myriad has a very strong case here. One question will be whether the district court will entertain arguments that the public’s need for access to multiple sources of cancer diagnostic tools weigh heavily against injunctive relief.

The case has been assigned to one of the newest district court judges – Judge Robert Shelby. Judge Shelby is an Obama nominee who received his commission on September 25, 2012. Shelby’s court has become something of a dumping ground for IP cases. About half of the 83 open intellectual property cases in Utah in his docket.

File Attachment: myriadcomplaint.pdf (70 KB)

File Attachment: myriadmotionforpreliminaryrelief.pdf (608 KB)