Tag Archives: Federal Circuit En Banc

Federalism and Patent Law: Courts Split on Scope of Federal Circuit Arising Under Jurisdiction

Patent,

In a trio of decisions, the several members of the Federal Circuit have expressed their disagreement with the court’s expansion of appellate jurisdiction to cover attorney malpractice cases that involve patent law issues.

  • Landmark Screens, LLC v. Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP (Fed. Cir. 2012)(O’Malley, J., concurring);
  • Byrne v. Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP (Fed. Cir. 2012)(O’Malley, J., joined by Wallach, J., dissenting from denial of the petition for en banc rehearing); and
  • USPPS, Ltd. v. Avery Dennison Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2012)(O’Malley, J., joined by Mayer, J., concurring).

Attorney malpractice is a state law claim, but the Federal Circuit has (and thus the Federal Courts have) claimed exclusive jurisdiction over many patent prosecution related malpractice claims if the well-pled complaint requires the determination of a substantial issue of patent law.

In Minton v. Gunn, 355 S.W.3d 634 (Tex.2011), the Texas Supreme Court agreed with the Federal Circuit’s extension of jurisdiction, but made an interesting and important statement that Texas courts “are not bound by the holdings of the Federal Circuit.” This situation sets up the need for Supreme Court review. Minton was a 5-3 decision. The dissenting justices argued that state courts should maintain jurisdiction over the case based on its application of the 2005 US Supreme Court case of Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005). In that case, the US Supreme Court held that federalism principles require a cautious and balanced approach to the removal of traditional state court claims to federal court.

The dissent in Minton wrote:

The Federal Circuit’s focus on this mandate [of uniformity] is understandable, but uniformity in patent law is not the be-all and end-all of jurisprudence. It must give way to the contours of federal question jurisdiction provided by the Supreme Court. See Grable. In turn, this Court has its own mandate, of at least equal importance to that of the Federal Circuit. We owe a duty to the people of this state to exercise the judicial power, see Tex. Const. art. V, §§ 1, 3, and that duty includes vital matters such as ensuring consistency and certainty in the civil law of the state, see Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.001, and regulating the practice of law, id. § 81.011(c). Accordingly, we should not risk the confusion and inconsistency that will result from having two sets of binding precedent in Texas legal malpractice law—one stemming from this Court and the other courts of this state, and another, entirely outside of our control after today’s opinion, developing under the direction of the Federal Circuit, largely uninformed by the deep roots of Texas jurisprudence and the requirements of the Texas Constitution.

This Court should not be quick to follow Federal Circuit case law that fails to follow the test set forth by the Supreme Court. Because this case fails to meet three of the four elements required by the Supreme Court for federal-element “arising under” jurisdiction, the court of appeals was correct when it held that exclusive federal patent jurisdiction does not lie here. I therefore respectfully dissent.

In a parallel 2011 case, an Illinois state appellate court held that Magnetek’s claim against Kirkland & Ellis for deficient representation in a patent litigation lawsuit did not arise under patent law. In that case, the court wrote that the largest patent law issue – whether the patent was enforceable or not – had already been decided by a separate court and therefore was not at issue in the case. Magnetek, Inc. v. Kirkland and Ellis, LLP, 954 N.E.2d 803 (Ill.App. 2011).

A petition to the Supreme Court is likely in at least one of these cases.

Despite Therasense: Federal Circuit Finds Aventis Patent Unenforceable

Patent, , ,

by Dennis Crouch

This is an important case showing that inequitable conduct based upon failure to cite prior art will continue to be viable.

Aventis Pharma v. Hospira (Fed. Cir. 2012)

Aventis holds two patents that cover its branded chemotherapy drug Taxotere. According to the patent, the active drug is mixed with other ingredients to form a perfusion that can be injected intravenously without causing anaphylactic or alcohol intoxication symptoms.

In litigation to prevent Hospira from bringing a generic form to market, the district court ruled the patents unenforceable for inequitable conduct during prosecution of the patents. On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed that holding. This case marks the first time that the appellate court has upheld an inequitable conduct finding since raising the standard of proof in the 2011 Therasense v. BD en banc decision.

Inequitable conduct occurs when a patent applicant intentionally and materially misleads the patent office. Both intent and materiality must be proven. In Therasense, the court additionally held that materiality is normally only satisfied if the misconduct was a “but-for” cause of the given patent being issued. (Caveat for egregious misconduct).

This case involves the most typical inequitable conduct allegation: failing to notify the USPTO of a known reference that impacts patentability.

Lets walk through the steps of materiality and intent:

Materiality: In addition to inequitable conduct, the court also held a few of the patent claims invalid as obvious – relying upon the withheld reference. According to the court, this fact alone proves materiality – since the reference rendered the claim invalid. Two procedural issues add to this conclusion: (1) Claims are (according to the law) more narrowly construed at trial than at the USPTO and therefore references that are material at trial would have definitely been material at the USPTO. (2) Invalidation requires clear and convincing evidence but proof of materiality for inequitable conduct only requires a preponderance of the evidence. As such, information that works to prove the higher standard would certainly work to prove the lower standard.

Intent: To win, the defendant must show that the defendant had specific intent deceive. This can be proven by inference, but only if that conclusion is the “single most reasonable inference able to be drawn from the evidence.” Here, the inventor testified that he saw the references as explaining failed experiments and therefore need not be disclosed to the PTO. However, the judge found that the inventor lacked credibility and that some evidence suggested the inventor had learned valuable information from the reference.

On appeal, the court confirmed that these elements were met and that the patents were therefore obtained through inequitable conduct.

Unenforceable Patents

Patent,
By Jason Rantanen
Although the en banc Federal Circuit raised the bar for establishing inequitable conduct in Therasense v. Becton Dickinson, findings of inequitable conduct are still possible as illustrated by the district court's decision on remand in that case last week.  Given that the harsh consequence of a finding of inequitable conduct remain unchanged by Therasense, it remains a very real risk for patent holders asserting their patents in litigation.  What, then, are the characteristics of patents that historically have been the subject of an inequitable conduct finding? 

In a recently released draft paper, Lee Petherbridge, Polk Wagner, and I discuss the results of a study in which we empirically examined patents that were determined to be unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and compared them to litigated patents.  We report evidence that unenforceable patents are different from litigated patents.  Unenforceable patents have significantly longer pendency, more parent applications, and contain more claims.  Unenforceable patents also cite fewer U.S. patent references.  Surprisingly, we found no evidence that patents with foreign inventors are more likely to be unenforceable and no evidence that the subject matter of a patent associates with an inequitable conduct determination.  Using these observations, we hypothesize about why inequitable conduct happens, how inequitable conduct relates to patent policy, and what – if anything – practitioners who are concerned about an inequitable conduct determination might take as potential warning signs.

We are still grappling with what our results might teach about why inequitable conduct happens. As this is a working draft, we welcome any comments about that or any other aspects of the study.  The paper can be downloaded here: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2031173.

District Court Concludes Therasense Patent Unenforceable On Remand

Patent,

By Jason Rantanen

Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company (N.D. Cal. 2012) Download 2012-03-28 Therasense v Becton Dickinson

Following the Federal Circuit's remand in Therasense v. Becton Dickinson, the district court has concluded that Patent No. 5,820,551 is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct under the higher standards for intent and materiality articulated by the en banc court.  Specifically, the judge found that the withheld briefs were material under the "but for" test for materaliality, that the Abbot attorney and scientist knew of that but-for materiality, and that they possessed specific intent to deceive the patent office. 

While all of the district judge's intepretations of Therasense are worth discussing, I find the characterization of Therasense as a whole to be the most interesting:

"Under the new standard, therefore, an applicant or attorney may knowingly and deliberately withhold from the PTO any reference known to be inconsistent with a position takeny by him or her before the PTO so long as the withholder does not know that the reference itself would lead to a rejection.  It would not be enough to prove that the applicant or attorney expected that the concealment would help win an allowance or expected that, if revealed to the examiner, the reference would cause the examiner to merely question patentability.  Rather, the applicant or attorney must know – and it must be later proven that he or she knew, that the item, if revealed, would lead to a rejection."

Slip Op. at 3. 

 

Supreme Court: Solving Claim Construction?

Patent, , , ,

032312_0335_ClaimConstr1
by Dennis Crouch

Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. (on petition for certiorari 2012)

As its company name suggests, Retractable Technologies makes safety syringes that retract after completing a drug injection. Retractable sued BD for patent infringement and won $5 million in damages and permanent injunctive relief. This was the second time that Retractable had filed a lawsuit to enforce its patent. In both cases, the district court interpreted the claim term syringe "body" as encompassing a body "composed of one or multiple pieces." (In the first case, the accused infringer agreed to stop making its product and to pay a $1 million settlement).

On appeal here, BD was able to convince a two-member majority of its Federal Circuit panel to modify the claim construction in a way that limits the "body" element to a "one-piece body." (Majority opinion by Judges Lourie and Plager). The appellate panel narrowly construed the term based upon its reading of the patent specification and the notion that the claims should be limited to what "the inventor actually invented." In dissent, Chief Judge Rader argued that the majority had improperly confined claim scope to the specific embodiments of the invention." Chief Judge Rader also argued in favor of giving more weight to the doctrine of claim differentiation. Here, some of the non-asserted claims in the patent included an explicit "one-piece body" limitation – suggesting that the asserted claim without the "one-piece" limitation must be broader.

After losing the appeal, Retractable filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The petition was denied, but Judges Moore and O'Malley each filed dissents.

Supreme Court Petition: Retractable has now filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. The petition raises two questions:

1. Whether a court may depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of a term in a patent claim based on language in the patent specification, where the patentee has neither expressly disavowed the plain meaning of the claim term nor expressly defined the term in a way that differs from its plain meaning.

2. Whether claim construction, including underlying factual issues that are integral to claim construction, is a purely legal question subject to de novo review on appeal.

First Question Goes Nowhere: In my view, the first question presented is not well stated. Of course a court can use context to provide meaning to claim language. A formalistic and restrictive view of patent doctrine was rejected by the Supreme Court in virtually every recent decision, including Mayo, Bilski, KSR, eBay, and MedImmune. Further, many members of the Supreme Court have identified a problem with vague and over-broad claim limitations, and the majority opinion here provides a simple tool for limiting scope: interpret the claims within the context of what was demonstrably understood by the inventor and the examiner and by what would have been known by a reasonably skilled artisan.

Use Specification to Narrow (or Broaden): There are times when the context of the specification is used to broaden the scope of a claim term beyond its ordinary meaning. However, the Federal Circuit judges appear to believe that greater reliance on the specification will usually result in a narrowing of claim scope. Thus, the debate on the role of the specification in claim construction is at least partially a proxy for the debate on whether patents should be given a broad scope or narrow scope. I would again criticize the petition – this time for wholly agreeing that reliance on the specification results in a narrowed scope. Retractable frames the debate on trying to understand "the circumstances in which the language of the specification should narrow the plain meaning of a claim term."

The Second Question is more well framed, although I would have tweaked it slightly to ask: "Whether claim construction, including underlying factual issues that are integral to claim construction, is a purely legal question [that is therefore] subject to de novo review on appeal." The tweak here is important because Retractable is not challenging the Supreme Court's Markman decision but rather challenging the Federal Circuit's Cybor decision. In Markman, the Supreme Court recognized the reality that claim construction includes a number of factual determinations – calling the process a "mongrel" of fact and law. However, the court ruled that claim construction should be treated as an issue of law to be decided by a judge. In Cybor, the Federal Circuit applied its usual formalistic if-then approach to rule that appellate review must be de novo because claim construction is an issue of law. From the petition:

In Markman, this Court held that, for purposes of the Seventh Amendment, the task of construing patent claims falls to trial judges rather than juries. Markman did not decide the standard of review that an appellate court should apply to a district court's claim construction. The Court noted, however, that the process of construing a claim is a "mongrel practice," that "falls somewhere between a pristine legal standard and a simple historical fact." In holding that trial judges are "better suited" for this task than juries, the Court recognized that claim construction requires trial judges to exercise a "trained ability to evaluate the testimony in relation to the overall structure of the patent." Accordingly, the Court held that "there is sufficient reason to treat construction of terms of art like many other responsibilities that we cede to a judge in the normal course of trial, notwithstanding its evidentiary underpinnings." Thus, Markman recognized that claim construction involves underlying factual questions, and said nothing to indicate that the Federal Circuit should displace the district court's resolution of those questions.

There are lots of doctrines that receive de novo review that do not have a reversal rate anywhere near that of claim construction. I think that everyone agrees that claim construction is inherently difficult. Claim construction rulings do not provide a yes-no answer like you might find in an obviousness judgment. Rather, a judge is required to identify the best interpretation of all possible interpretations of each contested claim term. And, unlike statutory interpretation, we do not have the benefit of the scope being developed over time through a series of cases. Rather, in most instances, a court's construction is in the first instance. In addition to the inherent difficulty, claim construction is made more difficult because of the open panel dependence of claim construction decisions. For many years the Federal Circuit refused to admit any panel dependence in its decision making, that has changed.

Where to Focus Assurances?: District court judges complain about claim construction because of the high likelihood that their decisions will be reversed on appeal. Giving deference to district court judgments would likely mean fewer reversals. This approach gives us certainty earlier in the process, but only once the district court issues a final claim construction. That date still seems very late. The scope of patent claims is of critical importance to almost all patent monetization transactions. However, very few of those transactions take place in conjunction with a district court claim construction decision. We need a process for substantially understanding claim scope at a much earlier stage and without relying on a federal court.

One answer for an early understanding of claim scope: Define terms during prosecution. If applicants fail to define terms, examiners should provide their own definitions as part of the office action. In the short-term, the focus should be on terms that are (1) frequently debated in court (such as "server" or "coupled to"; (2) used in the specification in a way that is in tension with the ordinary meaning of a term; or (3) inherently imprecise (such as "about").

Notes: 

Federal Circuit Limits Intervening Rights to Cases involving Textual Claim Amendments

Patent, ,

By Dennis Crouch

Marine Polymer Tech. v. Hemcon (Fed. Cir. 2012) (en banc)

In a fractured en banc decision, the Federal Circuit has held that statutory the intervening rights defense only arises when the text of claims are amended or new claims added during a post grant proceeding. In this case, the claim scope had been arguably changed under Phillips v. AWH based upon arguments made during a reexamination, but the text of the claims had not been amended. Following this decision, the accused infringers cannot claim intervening rights in this situation.

[T]he plain directive of the governing statute before us does not permit HemCon to invoke intervening rights against claims that the PTO confirmed on reexamination to be patentable as originally issued. To be sure, patent applicants’ actions and arguments during prosecution, including prosecution in a reexamination proceeding, can affect the proper interpretation and effective scope of their claims. But in rejecting HemCon’s request for intervening rights, we are not here interpreting claims. Rather, we are interpreting a statute that provides for intervening rights following reexamination only as to “amended or new” claims. The asserted claims of the ‘245 patent are neither.

As part of its ruling, the court noted its perspective that the PTO on reexamination is unlikely to consider a patent claim to be narrowed simply based arguments made by the patentee:

If, in reexamination, an examiner determines that particular claims are invalid and need amendment to be allowable, one would expect an examiner to require amendment rather than accept argument alone.

The doctrine of intervening rights is derived from the Patent Act, which indicates that, following a reexamination, a patentee cannot claim damages for pre-reexamination infringement if the resulting claims were in “amended form” and not “substantially identical” to the original claims. 35 U.S.C. §§ 252 and 307(b).

The dissent argued that any change to the scope of a claim during prosecution should be interpreted as an amendment and that, therefore, arguments and statements by the patentee that would result in a modified claim construction

Split Decision: Only ten of the Federal Circuit judges participated in the decision. Thus, a majority needed at least six votes. As it turns out, only a portion of the majority opinion received six votes. The entire majority opinion was written by Judge Lourie and joined by four other judges: Chief Judge Rader and Judges Newman, Bryson, and Prost. The first half of the majority opinion discussed claim construction issues and the second part discussed the intervening rights defense. Judge Linn brought the final vote for the majority, but Judge Linn only agreed to the portion of the opinion focusing on intervening rights. Judge Dyk wrote in dissent and the entire opinion was joined by Judges Gajarsa, Reyna, and Wallach. In parallel fashion, the dissent first discussed claim construction and then discussed intervening rights. Judge Linn joined the claim construction portion of the dissent but not the intervening rights portion. Thus, in the final tally, claim construction was split 5-5 and intervening rights issues was divided 6-4.

Notes:

Guest Post: Checking the “Staats” – in Broadening Reissue Practice, We Are Stuck in the “Doll”-drums

Patent, , , ,

By David M. Longo, Ph.D. of Finnegan LLP1

This post addresses the Federal Circuit’s March 5, 2012, precedential opinion In re Staats, Appeal No. 2010-1443, in which Judge Dyk writes for the majority. In short, the Federal Circuit holds that it is bound by In re Doll, 419 F.2d 925 (CCPA 1970), and that both 35 U.S.C. § 251 and Doll permit the filing of a continuing reissue application to broaden patented claims beyond the statutory two-year period—even when the continuation claims are broadened—in a manner unrelated to any broadening aspect identified within the two-year period. For a more in-depth discussion of 140 years of reissue case law, legislative history, and statutory shaping pertaining to broadening reissue practice, including an analysis of the facts and oral arguments in Staats leading up to the opinion, please see the author’s publication Checking the Staats: How Long is Too Long to Give Adequate Public Notice in Broadening Reissue Patent Applications?, 2011 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 009 available at http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2011dltr009.

One of the most straightforward ways patent owners can expand the limited monopoly of a patent is by seeking increased claim scope by one or more broadening reissue patent applications. While patent owners may narrow the scope of patent claims at any time during the life of the patent, they may only broaden claim scope for a limited period of time after issuance of the patent. See MPEP § 1412.03, discussing implementation of 35 U.S.C. § 251. Despite this relatively clear statutory provision in § 251, however, an expansive body of case law has construed the provision, dating back well over a century.

The Staats opinion had the potential to become the most definitive statement in broadening reissue practice in almost twenty years. Passing on such a wonderful opportunity, the CAFC instead blandly upheld Doll and bluntly invited the USPTO to seek en banc review. In fact, Judge Dyk’s majority opinion states, “If the PTO believes we should overrule Doll, that is a matter that must be presented to the en banc court.” Slip Op. at 11. Judge O’Malley’s concurring opinion, which concurs in the opinion’s judgment but not its reasoning, states, “To the extent the majority opinion is no more than a begrudging nod to Doll‘s precedential effect with an invitation to reconsider that decision, the majority opinion is wrong.” Slip Op. at 12 (concurrence at 1).

The Staats case presents a collision between two robust statutory interpretations and two equally weighty sets of policy considerations. On the one hand, the public-notice function cited by both the USPTO and the Board—and regarded as a hallmark of the protections in § 251—is crucial. The public has the right to know what is claimed and disclaimed in a patent, and one could argue that patentees should not be permitted to reshape their inventions throughout the life of the patent simply by lodging a “placeholder” broadening reissue application within two years of patent issuance, from which any number of potentially disparate continuing reissue applications could be filed. Allowing such activity without adequate safeguards could result in a scenario in which a competitor could potentially spend an obscene amount of money based on the perceived bounds of the limited monopoly granted by a particular patent, only to face an infringement action years later after the boundaries of the limited monopoly have shifted. Likewise, such activity may make it difficult for a competitor to assess whether it has freedom to operate in a particular technology—again because of shifting boundaries of the limited monopoly. Consistent with this perspective, the USPTO’s position in Staats held firm against effectively giving an applicant a license to unforeseeably shift from one invention to another through reissue well beyond the two-year statutory period. See Ex parte Staats, No. 2009-007162, 2010 WL 1725728, at *9 (BPAI Apr. 26, 2010).

On the other hand, as argued by Apple in the Staats appeal to the Board, the CCPA in Doll held that the intervening rights provided by 35 U.S.C. § 252 are potentially sufficient to counterbalance damage to public notice done by broadening reissues. Having initial public notice within two years of patent issuance should adequately balance the needs of patentees and the public. See Brief of Appellant-Petitioner, In re Staats, No. 2010-1443 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2010), 2010 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1111, at *9–11. That is, there is a clear quid pro quo—in exchange for a reissued patent, the patentee must “surrender” the original patent. Furthermore, given the recent transparency in publication and prosecution practice for pending applications and reissue applications at the USPTO, applicants already surrender a great deal of secrecy before issuance of a patent or reissue patent. Any broadening reissue patent claims would, of course, require support by the patent specification or other claims, which could have effectively been part of public knowledge for years before the broadening. Therefore, one can argue that nothing would serve to hamper a competitor from developing a competing and noninfringing product with improvements in the years it would undoubtedly take for the USPTO to wade through applications, reissues, and continuations of those reissues.

Thus, a classic property-rights question looms large in the field of patent law: where do the rights of inventors end and the rights of the public begin? The rights of inventors to modify the scope of their claimed inventions, even after the patent issues, can directly conflict with the concepts of public notice and the public domain. The Patent Act currently permits broadening of claims so long as a reissue application showing intent to broaden is filed within two years of the original patent issue. Over the years, however, this relatively straightforward statutory provision has sparked a spate of disputes over its meaning and application.

Despite these disputes, the CAFC reaffirmed Doll, and Judge O’Malley’s concurrence expanded on its reasoning:

The MPEP and PTO Rule 175 are, moreover, consistent with all relevant case law interpreting § 251. As the majority notes, Doll concluded that § 251’s time limits are applicable only to the first broadening reissue application and do not, accordingly, bar further broadening changes thereafter. [In re Doll] 419 F.2d. at 928. This court has twice reaffirmed that reading of § 251, moreover. See In re Graff, 111 F.3d 874, 877 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The court in Doll simply held that the reissue applicant, in the course of prosecution of the reissue application, was not barred from making further broadening changes in the claims.”); In re Fotland, 779 F.2d 31, 34 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“In Doll the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals held that when a broadening reissue application was on file within the two year period, the claims could be further broadened after the two year period.”). As the majority opinion makes clear, the PTO’s efforts to distinguish those cases so as to avoid the need to comply with their holdings stretch credulity. (Slip. Op. at 15, concurrence at 4.)

Even with the benefit of the last forty years of reissue case law—including Doll, In re Fotland (779 F.2d 31 (Fed. Cir. 1985)), Buell v. Beckestrom (22 USPQ2d 1128 (BPAI 1992)), In re Graff (111 F.3d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), and now Staats—broadening reissue practice will likely remain a headache for patent attorneys. For the time being, though, we have a pill for that headache. Without any changes from a possible en banc review, broadening reissue patent practice permits a scenario where, as Apple argued, the possible or eventual scope of the initial broadening need not be fully laid out in the first reissue application filed within the two-year statutory window, as long as the initial intent to broaden appears within that window. See Ex parte Staats, No. 2009-007162, 2010 WL 1725728, at *2 (BPAI Apr. 26, 2010). Tipping the scales slightly away from robust public notice, Staats (vis-à-vis Doll) essentially tells us that “any intent” to broaden within two years of patent issuance permits any broadening in a later—and properly filed—continuation or divisional reissue application. Whether this is the best remedy for a fairly persistent headache remains to be seen.

1 This post represents the thoughts and opinions of the author alone and not those of Finnegan LLP. It is intended to convey general information only and should not be construed as a legal opinion or as legal advice.

Patently-O in the Courts: Tropp v. Conair Corporation

Patent

By Dennis Crouch

Tropp v. Conair Corporation (E.D.N.Y. February 28, 2012) Download TroppConair

A federal court in the Eastern District of New York recently justified its holding in a patent case based at least partially on a 2010 Patently-O posting. David Tropp's patent claim against Conair and others was denied based upon the joint patent infringement doctrines outlined in BMC Inc. v. Paymentech, 498 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir 2007) and Muniauction, Inc. v. Thompson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Conair then asked that the case be ruled "exceptional" to justify an award of attorney fees. In rejecting that claim, the court cited Patently-O for the proposition that the line of cases on joint infringement left some amount of wiggle room for courts to find joint infringement absent facts sufficient to support traditional vicarious liability. Based upon potential ambiguity in the law, the court found that the plaintiff's theory of the case had not been improperly pursued, even if ultimately unsuccessful.

Muniauction did not indisputably hold that vicarious liability is the only way to satisfy the control or direction standard. It only made clear that (I) mere "arms-length cooperation" is not sufficient; and (2) vicarious liability, if established, is sufficient. Muniauction, 532 F.3d at 1329-30. At the least, such a reading of BMC and Muniauction is not objectively baseless. See Global Patent Holdings, LLC v. Panthers BRHC LLC, 586 F. Supp.2d 133 I, I 334-35 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (finding it "appears that" vicarious liability is required to satisfy the direction or control test, while also acknowledging that the "Federal Circuit did not explain with any specificity what it meant by 'direction or control'"); Dennis Crouch, MUNIAUCTION: Joint Infringement Requires Mastermind, Patently-O (July 15, 2008) https://patentlyo.com/patent/2008/07 /muniauction-joi.html (opining that Muniauction "left some wiggle room," open space to be further developed by ligation, such that a "later case could still hold that it is not necessary to show facts sufficient to support traditional vicarious liability"). Accordingly, this argument in particular, and defendants' motion in general, depends on an exaggerated view of the certainty and static determinism of the law of divided infringement.

I communicated with Tropp's attorney (and fellow blogger and Princeton alum) Ron Coleman who noted that an appeal on the merits of the case has already been filed.

Of course, the joint infringement (aka divided infringement) issue is being discussed in the halls of Madison Place in the pending en banc case of Akamai Tech v Limelight Networks.

Deference to BPAI: Federal Circuit Affirms Ruling that Monsanto’s Late-Filed Claims Win Priority over Pioneer’s Issued Patent

Patent, , ,

By Dennis Crouch

Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. ("Pioneer") v. Monsanto Technology LLC ("Monsanto") (Fed. Cir. 2012)

Both Pioneer and Monsanto claim to have invented the genetically modified variety of Zea Mays corn. In 1988, Pioneer filed its patent application and received U.S. Patent No. 6,258,999 in 2001 with a simple broad claim:

1. A fertile transgenic Zea mays plant comprised of stably incorporated foreign DNA, wherein said foreign DNA consists of DNA that is not from a corn plant and that is not comprised of a T-DNA border.

Monsanto filed its related GM Zea mays patent application in 2005 but asserted priority back to a 1990 filing date. The Board declared an interference in 2009 and assigned Pioneer as the senior party based upon its earlier filing date.

Both parties filed motions to the Board asking that the respective priority claims be denied. The board sided with Monsanto – finding that Monsanto's patent claim drafted in 2005 properly claimed priority to the 1990 filing document but that Pioneer's patented claim was not sufficiently disclosed in its 1988 application. That ruling made Monsanto the new senior party. On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed.

Interference Claim Filing Date: On appeal, Pioneer argued that Monsanto's late-filed patent claim was time-barred by 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(1). Under the statute, an interference can only be declared if the junior party makes a claim "prior to one year from the date on which the [senior party's] patent was granted." Here, the Federal Circuit affirmed the BPAI's ruling that Monsanto's patent claim submitted in 2005 was not time-barred even though it was filed four years after Pioneer's patent. That odd conclusion is based upon the [factual] conclusion that the 2005 was "sufficiently congruent" to patent claims filed by Monsanto before the critical date, even though no prior claim included all of the limitations found in the 2005 claim.

Burden of Proving/Disproving Priority: The second point on appeal focused on whether Pioneer's patent could properly claimed priority to its 1998 filing. Pioneer argued that the BPAI had improperly shifted the burden onto Pioneer for justifying an early priority date rather than forcing Monsanto to prove that Pioneer's patent claim was not entitled to the early filing-date priority. On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed that Monsanto had the burden of showing why Pioneer should be deprived of its interference priority. However, the court agreed with the Board that Monsanto had met that burden by demonstrating that Pioneer's original application lacked any express reference to an embodiment in which the foreign DNA did not comprise a T-DNA border.

Deference: The case is perhaps most interesting for the clear deference that the appellate panel gives to the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences – repeatedly focusing on whether the board committed reversible error rather than jumping to the underlying question of whether the Board made the correct decision. The Supreme Court's decision in Dickinson v. Zurko requires substantial deference be given for BPAI factual findings, although questions of law are still reviewed de novo.

Notes:

  • How this Relates to Marine Polymer: For this statute, the court provides a broad interpretation of the word "claim" that is not bound to the actual and literal text of the claim that is the subject of the interference. It is a parallel approach that led Judge Dyk to his conclusion in Marine Polymer that arguments made during prosecution change the scope of the claim and therefore should count as "amendments" under 35 U.S.C. 252. The issue of claim amendments under is important for reexaminations and reissue patents because those post-grant amendments (when "substantial") lead to absolute intervening rights for anyone using the invention prior to the amendments. The Federal Circuit has agreed to rehear the Marine Polymer case en banc later this year.
  • My Friend Dr. Zuhn has more at PatentDocs
  • Factual: In the text is bracket the word "factual" because it is not clear to me whether the conclusion of sufficiently congruent claims is a factual question regarding the scope of invention or a question of law based upon claim construction.

The Path Forward for Intervening Rights: Presaging the En Banc Decision in Marine Polymer v. Hemcon

Patent, , ,

Guest Post by Scott McKeown, Greg Gardella, and Lisa M. Mandrusiak all of OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.[1]

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is currently considering en banc the panel decision in Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc. The panel decision can be interpreted as suggesting that intervening rights can arise from an argument made during a post grant patent proceeding, such as a patent reexamination proceeding,[2] even if the patent owner is merely urging a claim interpretation that is consistent with the manner in which the term would have been understood at the time the underlying patent application was filed. In cases where the post grant record simply clarifies the way in which a skilled artisan would have understood a claim term at the time of filing, or reiterates the positions of the previous intrinsic record, the scope of the claims cannot properly be said to have been altered during the subsequent proceeding.

Post grant PTO patent proceedings often focus on the meaning of different aspects of originally issued claim language than were considered during the earlier application prosecution. Therefore, much of the argument made by the patent owner during the subsequent PTO proceeding is directed to new issues not previously considered by the PTO. It is to be expected that re-opening the intrinsic record via post grant file histories will often include substantively new discussion of various claim terms.

For example, during post grant proceedings patent claims are accorded the broadest reasonable interpretation ("BRI"). Determining the BRI requires a different analysis than carried out in a district court during claim construction, and notably, there is no requirement that the PTO consider the earlier prosecution record in ascertaining the BRI and meaning of an originally issued patent claim. This often places patent owners in the position of having to re-argue distinctions which were implicitly or explicitly accepted by the previous patent examiner. When the PTO requires amendment of a claim in post grant proceedings the amendment may in fact be a simple restatement of previously agreed upon claim scope, which should not give rise to intervening rights.

The rule adopted by the Court should be flexible so as to accommodate the foregoing situations and permit intervening rights only in the appropriate circumstances. The application of argument-based intervening rights should be limited to situations in which the patent owner clearly and unambiguously revises the issued claim scope by urging that a limitation has a meaning that is plainly at odds with the interpretation a court would have given the originally issued claim language.

(more…)

En Banc Federal Circuit To Reconsider Scope of Intervening Rights Defense

Patent,

By Dennis Crouch

Marine Polymer Tech. v. HemCon, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011)

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has announced that it will hold an en banc rehearing of the Marine Polymer Tech case. Straying from its recent practice, the Court has not suggested any particular questions that it will address nor did the Court offer to receive friend-of-the-court briefs filed without leave. Thus, under the Federal Circuit rules of practice, any amicus curiae may file a brief only with either (1) leave of court or (2) leave of all parties to the appeal. (Fed. Cir. R. 29).

The initial appellate decision focused on the potential for intervening rights created by patentee arguments made during reexamination. Here, the court held that that a narrowing claim construction argument made by the patentee in a reexamination gives rise to absolute intervening rights for an accused infringer’s products made or sold prior to the reexamination request. An important quirk of the case is that the narrow construction that the patentee suggested to the PTO was the same construction that had been ordered by a district court in this case. Thus, at the time, the argued-for construction was seen as the true construction rather than a narrowing construction. However, the argued-for construction became narrowing after-the-fact once the Federal Circuit rejected the lower court’s construction as unduly narrow.

The majority opinion was written by Judge Dyk and Joined by Senior Judge Gajarsa. Judge Lourie filed a dissent that looked to the patent statute for guidance on the legal scope of intervening rights. He argued that the statute does not create intervening rights based upon arguments but rather only apply to “amended or new claims.” See 35 U.S.C. §§ 307(b), 316(b), and 252.

The question suggested by the plaintiff-appellate Marine Polymer follows Judge Lourie’s dissent:

Whether arguments made regarding a patent claim during reexamination of a patent give rise to intervening rights under 35 U.S.C, §§ 307(b) and 252, where the patent claim in question is neither “amended” nor “new” in the reexamination.

Intellectual Ventures filed a brief supporting the en banc rehearing – noting its “concern[] with the panel’s redefining of the term ‘amended claim’ to include original claims that have not been textually altered.”

In response, HemCon argued that Marine Polymer’s formalistic argument does not make sense. In particular, HemCom noted that it would be odd “to adopt a rule under which intervening rights would apply when claims are substantively changed during reexamination by altering the actual language of the claims, [but] would not apply when claims are substantively changed through arguments made to the USPTO.”

There is some tension between this decision and that of Bettcher Industries v. Bunzl USA (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Bettcher Industries, the court held that the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) only apply once all appeal rights have been exhausted. In addition, the case is directly in tension with Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir 1998). In that decision (penned by Judge Lourie), the court followed a two step process to determine whether intervening rights applied. First, the court looked to determine whether the text of the patent claim had changed. Since the text had changed in that case, the court then looked to see whether the change was “substantial.”

My expectation is that this decision will be reversed by a strong majority on rehearing.

Federal Circuit Ducks Question of Federal Mediation Privilege

Patent,

By Dennis Crouch

Kimberly-Clark Worldwide v. First-Quality Baby Products (Fed. Cir. 2011)

Diapers have been the subject of numerous patents and patent infringement lawsuits. In this case, K-C is suing its competitor, First Quality, for infringing more than a dozen diaper related patents.

The issue on appeal, however, focuses on a procedural matter: Whether K-C can be compelled to disclose information relating to prior alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceedings between K-C and a different competitor, Proctor & Gamble. K-C argues that those ADR proceedings are privileged and therefore not discoverable.

The prior-ADR agreement between K-C and P&G were termed the ADR process a “non-binding arbitration.” In that process, both parties presented evidence to an agreed-upon neutral arbitrator who made a determination on the case. The loser of the arbitration was required to pay for cost of the arbitration. However, either party could reject the arbitrator’s decision and, if desired, file a district court lawsuit to resolve the dispute de novo. The agreement also included a provision that, if infringement was found, the losing party could avoid any damages at all by stopping the problematic activity within six months.

The Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly protect ADR proceedings except that Rule 408 prohibits a party from using certain compromises or “statements made in compromise negotiations” for the purposes of proving liability, invalidity of a claim, damages, or for impeachment of a witness. FRE 408. In addition, Rule 501 permits courts to apply “principles of the common law . . . in the light of reason and experience” in determining what additional information may be considered privileged.

Federal Mediation Privilege: Under the permission of Rule 501, the Pennsylvania District Court in this case followed other federal courts in adopting a “federal mediation privilege” that would privilege information and conduct associated with a mediated settlement process. Up to now, no federal court of appeals have recognized the privilege and, on appeal, the Federal Circuit refused to decide this issue. The appellate court wrote “we decline to determine if, in light of reason and experience, we should recognize a mediation privilege.”

What is a Mediation?: After agreeing that there is indeed a federal mediation privilege, the district court determined that the out-of-court resolution proceeding here did not count as a mediation but was rather an arbitration. As an arbitration, the prior proceedings did not qualify for the privilege. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed – finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the non-binding arbitration is not a mediation.

Privileging settlement discussions and mediations has two primary goals: (1) to encourage parties to settle disputes outside of court; and (2) to encourage a frank and candid discussion of the case in the settlement process. If statements from the mediation could later be used in court, parties would be likely to either refuse to participate or merely use the process to puff-up their position. In this case the neutral was charged with making a decision on the merits – i.e., the arbitration setup did not encourage a frank and candid discussion of the case. It is this difference that leads courts away from extending the mediation privilege to the arbitration context.

Affirmed

Notes:

  • I thought that the oral arguments by Connie Trela (Sidley) and Michael Underhill (Boies Schiller) were particularly good. It may have been because oral arguments were held while the court was in Oregon sitting before a packed-house of IP attorneys.
  • Although information regarding the prior arbitration is now discoverable, it will likely be disclosed only under seal – keeping it from the public purview.
  • In a separate case between these same parties, Kimberly-Clark has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court asking the court to review the Federal Circuit’s “patent specific standard” for determining whether to grant preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit recently denied en banc rehearing of the issue over dissents from judges Newman, O’Malley and Reyna. [En Banc Denial][Supreme Court Petition]

Claim Construction in the Abstract

Claim Construction, Conference or CLE, Dissent, Patent, Patent Cases 2011, , ,

By Dennis Crouch

Typhoon Touch Tech. v. Dell, Lenovo, Toshiba, Fujitsu, Sand Dune Ventures, Panasonic, Apple, HTC, and Palm (Fed. Cir. 2011)

Touch screen technology has taken-off as an important element of consumer electronics. Typhoon’s US Patent Nos. 5,379,057 and 5,675,362 cover various embodiments of a “portable keyboardless computer system” with a “touch-sensitive screen.”

Typhoon appealed an E.D. Texas ruling that its patents were invalid and not infringed. The appeal focused on the claim construction that served as the basis for both invalidity and non-infringement. The appellate decision is notable for the detached process that the court used to consider claims elements at issue. The opinion never discussed the crux of the invention or its contribution to the art and instead simply looked to the disputed claim terms and the relation of those terms in the specification (as required by Phillips v. AWH).

This week, I participated in a roundtable discussion at Yale Law School sponsored by the Kauffman foundation and by Yale’s Information Society Project (ISP). A substantial amount of the discussion focused on problems stemming from our current claim construction process and our ongoing focus on claim language as opposed to invention or its contribution to the art.

For patent attorneys prosecuting patents, the claims are often seen as equivalent to the invention. The new patent act supports that definition by shifting focus away from the invention and instead onto the “claimed invention.” Thus, the new § 102(a)(1) asks whether “the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” The new statute’s sole focus on invention as claimed is largely just a codification of fairly well accepted Federal Circuit precedent without much thought of the consequences. Of course, broad subject matter eligibility described in State Street Bank and the TSM test for obviousness were, until quite recently, well accepted Federal Circuit precedents as well. In the past few years, the Supreme Court rolled-back the clock on those issues – returning focus to pre-1982 case law. For “invention” however, the new statute appears to lock-in the claimed-invention as the ongoing focus of patent law.

Judge Kimberly Moore highlighted this issue in her recent dissent from the court’s denial of en banc rehearing of Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company (Fed. Cir. 2011). In that opinion, Judge Moore noted that the approach of the panel decision in Retractable is evident of a major divide amongst Federal Circuit judges as to whether the inventor’s contribution to the art – “what the inventor actually invented” – should be considered in the claim construction process.

This week, my patent law students each argued a mock-Markman hearing – revisiting the facts of Nystrom v. Trex and arguing over whether Ron Nystrom’s claimed decking “board” should be limited to cover only to wood cut from a log. That litigation was interesting because it involved five different court decisions on the proper construction of the term. The final appellate decision narrowed the term’s meaning in a way that allowed Trex’s composite planking to avoid infringement.

Claim construction has become a fundamental aspect of every patent case – even to the extent that Section 101 patentable subject matter decisions turn on the meaning bestowed upon particular claim terms. For patent attorneys, all of this focus on claim meaning puts more pressure on the drafting of the claims and the specification. The sad thing about Nystrom’s patent is that he would have easily won the case if the patent attorney who drafted the application had thrown-in language indicating that a “board” could be made of various materials, not just wood cut from a log. This counterfactual conclusion is sad for Nystrom as the inventor, but it is also sad that such a major weight is placed on non-inventive boilerplate language. In my mind, the importance of claim construction should push the USPTO to do a better job of ensuring that the terms of issued patents are well defined.

###

The Typhoon decision is also notable in the way that the court narrowly interpreted functional claim limitations. As background, Typhoon’s claim was directed to a “computer” that included various elements including a “memory for storing [a] data collection application.” Typhoon argued its claimed invention only required that the memory be capable of storing the data collection application. However, the District Court Judge Davis and Federal Circuit agreed that the proper construction required that memory actually be used for storing the data collection application. In so holding, the courts looked to the specification and found that the described embodiments all had memories that actually included the application rather than just the capability.

###

Finally, the court looked at Typhoon’s “Means for cross-referencing” limitation. The district court held that limitation invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because the specification did not include an algorithm adequate to provide sufficient structure for the means-plus-function limitation, citing Aristocrat Technologies Australia PTY Ltd. v. International Game Technology, 521 F.3d 1328, 1334 (Fed Cir. 2008). On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected that conclusion – finding that the specification did disclose a cross-referencing algorithm in plain language in the text of the specification. The court went on to write that “computer code is not required to be included in the patent specification.” Rather, what is required is disclosure so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the structure as linked to the claimed function.

###

  • Judge Newman wrote the court opinion and was joined by Chief Judge Rader and Judge Prost;
  • The Appellant-Patentee is represented on appeal by Charles Wolfe (Blank Rome);
  • Ed Reines (Weil Gotshal) and Joe Re (Knobbe) were co-lead-counsel for all the appellee-defendants. Briefs were also signed by attorneys at K&L Gates, Baker Botts, Amster Rothstein, Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling, and Malloy & Malloy, as well as Eric Albritton from the Albritton firm.

Federal Circuit Again Declines to Revisit Cybor

Claim Construction, Dissent, En Banc, Patent, Patent Cases 2011,

By Jason Rantanen

Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company (Fed. Cir. 2011) (CAFC en banc denial) Download 2010-1402 en banc order
Before Rader (dissenting), Newman, Plager, Lourie, Bryson, Linn, Dyk, Prost, Moore (dissenting), O'Malley (dissenting), and Reyna.

As in the past, the Federal Circuit has again expressly declined an invitation to revisit its 1998 en banc holding in Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 that claim construction is reviewed de novo.  Once again, however, that decision was not without dissent.  Both Judge Moore, joined by Chief Judge Rader, and Judge O'Malley wrote to express their view that Cybor should be revisited. Professor Tun-Jeng Chiang expresses his views on this issue below.

In addition to recommending that the court reconsider the issue of deference, Judge Moore's dissent emphasizes the problematic nature of claim construction review by the Federal Circuit itself: on the one hand, "[c]laim construction is the single most important event in the course of a patent litigation"; on the other, "our rules are still ill-defined and inconsistently applied, even by us."  Moore dissent at 1.  This problem is especially acute in Retractable Technologies: "Retractable simply cannot be reconciled with our en banc decision in Phillips."  Id. at 4.  Here, Judge Moore asserts, the majority applied its own approach to claim construction, not that of Phillips, "[c]hanging the plain meaning of a claim term to tailor its scope to what the panel believes was the actual invention."  Id. at 6.  This is not an isolated instance, Judge Moore points out, but is a common practice that points to a fundamental split on the court about the nature of claim construction: a disagreement over whether claim scope should be limited to "what the inventor actually invented" or instead construed according to the plain meaning to one of skill in the art, a meaning that may be informed – but is not dictated – by the specification.

Note: In  support of her view that the Federal Circuit's own claim construction is ill-defined and inconsistently applied, Judge Moore cited the views of several commentators who "have observed that claim construction appeals often lead to frustrating and unpredictable results for both the litigants and trial courts," including Dennis's post on the panel decision and Hal Wegner's post on Arlington Industries v. Bridgeport Fittings on IP Frontline. 

Guest Post by Tun-Jen Chiang: Functionalism versus Faux Formalism at the Federal Circuit

Articles and Publications, Claim Construction, En Banc, Guest Post, Patent,

Guest Post by Tun-Jen Chiang, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law

One of the longstanding myths about the Federal Circuit is that it is formalist.  This is usually levied by academics as a criticism, but no one does more than the Federal Circuit itself to spread the myth.  For judges, being labeled as a jurisprudential machine is a badge of honor.  Thus, even where their true motivation is clearly policy-based, judges invariably couch their opinions in legalistic terms.

The recent dissents from en banc rehearing in Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. provide perfect examples.  The issue in Retractable is an old one: should the Federal Circuit give deference to district judges on claim construction?  Judge Moore (joined by CJ Rader) and Judge O’Malley both argued the court should.  Their dissents each begin with the assertion that the Supreme Court in Markman held that claim construction is a “mongrel practice” with both legal and factual components, and this counsels for deference to trial judges.

Let me start by debunking this legalistic argument.  The Supreme Court in Markman did not hold that claim construction is a “mongrel practice.”  It started off by observing that claim construction is intrinsically a mongrel practice, and then held that the Court would adopt a legal fiction that claim construction was a pure question of law.

Why do I say this?  If it is correct that Markman held that claim construction has a factual component, then the result under traditional common law principles is not that trial judges get to decide the factual component.  Trial judges do not decide facts; juries do.  Some well-known exceptions are for suits in equity, for jurisdictional facts, and for procedural facts.  But nobody contends that these exceptions apply.  The claim-construction-is-factual line of reasoning is a legalistic and logical dead end.

Rather, the case for deference to district judges on claim construction must succeed, if at all, entirely based on policy-based concerns.  Trial judges have better access to evidence than appellate judges, and yet they are more experienced at dealing with legal documents like patents than juries.  This is a perfectly plausible policy-based argument, and is almost certainly the true reason for Judges Moore and O’Malley to seek deference for trial judges.  Too bad they feel the need to couch the argument in formalist terms.

Ongoing Battles over Patentable Subject Matter

Patent, Patent Cases 2011, Patentable Subject Matter, Software, , ,

By Dennis Crouch

In Ultramercial v. Hulu, the Federal Circuit held that Ultramercial's asserted Patent No. 7,346,545 fit within the subject matter eligibility guidelines of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and was not merely an unpatentable abstract idea. The patent claims a method of distributing copyrighted products (such as a movie) over the internet. The novel idea is that the copyrighted product be both (1) offered for sale and (2) delivered for free if the consumer agrees to view an advertisement. The district court held the patent invalid under section 101. On appeal, however, the Federal Circuit reversed – holding that the patent claims a "practical application" of the idea that "advertising can serve as a currency." An important element of the decision was the finding that "[v]iewing the subject matter as a whole, the invention involves an extensive computer interface."

Now, WildTangent (one of the accused infringers) has petitioned for a rehearing en banc. The public interest organization Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has filed a brief in support of the rehearing – arguing that an en banc determination is necessary in light of (1) the court's failure to follow Bilski v. Kappos; (2) inconsistencies in application of the law apparent from the court's recent decisions in Ultramercial, Classen Immunotherapies v. Biogen IDEC, and CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.; and (3) a growing intra-circuit division regarding patentable subject matter jurisprudence. This filing ties-in closely with the pending Supreme Court case of Mayo v. Prometheus, which questions the patentability of a method of personalizing the dosage of a pharmaceutical and the pending case of AMP v. Myriad, which questions the patentability of isolated human DNA. Other pending Section 101 cases include DealerTrack, Inc. v. Huber (App. No. 2010-1544) (Claims 1, 3, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 7,181,427); FuzzySharp Tech., Inc. v. 3DLabs Inc. (App. No. 2010-1160) (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,172,679 and 6,618,047); CLS Bank Int'l. v. Alice Corp (App. No. 2011-1301) (Patent No. 7,725,375); Cognex v. ITC (App. No. 2011-1098) (Patent Nos. 7,016,539 and 7,065,262); and Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC (App. No. 2009-1242) (Patent No. 6,292,788).

Federal Circuit Statistics – FY 2011

Patent, , ,

By Jason Rantanen

The Federal Circuit recently updated its statistics webpage with information for FY 2011 (October 2010-September 2011).  Unfortunately, much of the statistical information that the court previously provided has been removed and is no longer accessible.  Nevertheless, the available data does allow for at least a partial picture of the CAFC's activity.

In terms of overall caseload, one of the court's graphs indicates that it appears to be on the upswing after falling over the past few years:

CAFC overall caseload 1983-2011
Source: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/statistics.html 

This rise appears to largely be the result of a modest uptick in appeals of both district court and PTO rulings, as well as challenges to CAVC and MSPB determinations, as shown in another CAFC graph:

CAFC Caseload by Major Origin FY 2011

Source: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/statistics.html

Median time to disposition is holding fairly steady, although there is a slight upswing for appeals arising from the PTO:

 Federal Circuit Median Time to Disposition
Based on data obtained from http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/statistics.html

While this information is unquestionably useful and well appreciated, statistical information that the CAFC previously provided is unfortunately no longer available.  This includes: data about merit and non-merit dispositions in patent suits (see also), affirmance and reversal rates for district court patent infringement appeals (Download 2001-2010 data), charts showing the number of appeals adjudicated by merits panels broken down by category type (IP, admin, and claims), data about merit and non-merit dispositions in all suits, the percentage of appeals terminated in 90 days or less, data showing the number of petitions for rehearing filed and granted (Download 2001-2010 data), and data showing the number of petitions for writ of certiorari filed and granted by the Supreme Court.  Some of this information may be derivable from the court's output, but much of it is difficult to obtain.

I gave the court clerk's office a call, and was told that this information had been removed and would not be updated.  The information that is currently on the website is the statistical information that will continue to be updated.  I have provided some of the court's past statistical data above; if any readers happen to have other old CAFC data in your possession (particularly information that is not available via review of the court's opinions themselves), please send me an email.

Update: The first two graphs will now open into larger views.

Kimberly-Clark v. First Quality Baby Products: No CAFC en banc resolution of standard for preliminary injunctions

Injunctions, Patent, Patent Cases 2011

By Jason Rantanen

Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC (precedential order denying rehearing en banc) Download 10-1382 order
Newman, O'Malley and Reyna dissenting

During the last few years a significant intra-circuit split has developed at the Federal Circuit over the appropriate standard to apply to likelihood of success determinations made in the context of requests for a preliminary injunction.  Last week the Federal Circuit declined to take the issue en banc in a move that prolongs the uncertainty but perhaps paves the way for Supreme Court review.

As in other areas of the law, the determination of whether to grant a preliminary injunction requires the applicant to establish four factors: a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in the applicant's favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.  The judges of the Federal Circuit disagree, however, about the standard for demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, as well as whether such a showing is a necessary prerequisite for entry of a preliminary injunction.

On this issue, several of the judges (including Judges Dyk and Prost, who participated on the panel in this case) apply the standard that an applicant fails to establish a liklihood of success on the merits if the accused party raises a defense that "does not lack substantial merit," and that such a failure precludes entry of a preliminary injunction.  This was the standard applied in the Kimberly-Clark opinion itself, in which the panel vacated a district court's entry of a preliminary injunction with respect to three patents (although it did affirm an injunction based on a fourth patent, concluding that the accused infringer "failed to raise a substantial issue of patentability"). Download 10-1382

Other judges, most vocally Judge Newman, take the view that a defense that does not "lack substantial merit" does not equate with a failure to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, and in any event should not automatically preclude entry of a preliminary injunction.  In her dissent in the denial of rehearing en banc in Kimberly-Clark, for example, Judge Newman – joined by Judges O'Malley and Reyna – criticizes the alternate rule as an absurdity.  "This standard essentially negates the possibility of grant of a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo during patent litigation, for in today’s complex patent law it is hard to imagine a case in which a defense that is “not substantially meritless” cannot be devised at the preliminary stage."  Dissent at 5-6.  In support of her view, Judge Newman points to the disconnect between "lacks substantial merit" and the standard applied by everyone besides the Federal Circuit.  "The panel's approach is in conflict with not only the Supreme Court, but with every other circuit."  Id. at 6. Nor should a defense that lacks substantial merit automatically preclude entry of a preliminary injunction if the balancing of the four factors necessitates otherwise. See id. at 10-12. Judge O'Malley, writing separately, expressed her strong agreement with the points raised by Judge Newman, as well as concerns about the difficulties faced by district courts in resolving the court's precedent in this area.

Regardless who is correct on the appropriate standard for a preliminary injunction, it is apparent that a sharp split exists within the Federal Circuit that it will be unable to resolve on its own in the near future.  The denial of the en banc request suggests two possible outcomes: (1) that success of a preliminary injunction appeal to the Federal Circuit will continue to be heavily panel-dependant for foreseeable future, or (2) that the Supreme Court will intervene in this case or another to resolve the split and restore some predictability to the area of preliminary injunctions.

The Federal Circuit’s Rare Opportunity to Protect the Public from Agency Misconduct

BPAI, Guest Post, Patent, , , ,

Guest Post by Richard B. Belzer, Ph.D.

The Federal Circuit has before it an unusual petition for rehearing en banc. It involves an issue that, to my knowledge, has never before been heard by this court, and it's one that hardly anyone who practices patent law even knows about. Indeed, the reason that this issue is arising now is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has made an extraordinary (and heretofore successful) effort to prevent inventors and the patent bar from understanding it.

For this reason, my nonprofit organization has filed an amicus brief asking the Court to uphold statutory rights that, until recently, possibly no patent lawyer knew how to defend. If the Court acts favorably, it can undo decades of rogue agency practice at the PTO.

In In re Lovin, the key issue is whether an examiner's failure to state a prima facie case of obviousness, as required by MPEP Chapter 2100, is sufficient ground for the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to vacate or reverse a rejection. Lovin's brief alleges that the Board abandoned its longstanding practice of vacating rejections when the examiner had not made this case, and instead required the appellant to make a substantive showing of patentability in their appeal brief—that is, to prove a negative. The amicus brief of CFPH, LLC, a business unit of Cantor Fitzgerald, offered a complementary explanation of why the Board's interpretation of PTO Rule 41.37 was incorrect.

Regulatory Checkbook, the nonprofit I manage, seeks leave to intervene because the PTO lacked any legal authority to compel Lovin to provide this information. In fact, until December 22, 2009, the PTO had no legal authority to require any appellant to comply with any of the material information collections contained in 37 C.F.R. Part 41.

How could that be? To understand why, let's take a short trip to the Office of Management and Budget, which occupies the tall red brick building across Lafayette Park from the tall red brick building housing the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

(more…)

Dissents: Judges Newman and Dyk

Patent

After considering the merits of a case, Judges Pauline Newman and Timothy Dyk often arrive at opposite conclusions. As just a sample, I thumbed through all of the precedential patent decisions that involved both judges since January 2010. Of those 25 decisions, the pair disagreed on the outcome or application of the law in 19. I.e., the two judges disagreed in more than 75% of the cases.

Dissents are now fairly common. During the past two years about 25% of precedential decisions included a dissenting opinion. Of course, in 2/3 of those cases either Judge Newman or Judge Dyk was involved in the dissent.

A note on these figures – they include en banc decisions where multiple opinions are much more likely. When restricted to three-member panels, the Newman-Dyk disagreement rate dropped to just under 60% (7/12) in precedential decisions.