Tag Archives: First to Invent

CAFC Judge Linn Expresses Disappointment over Failures by the BPAI and Patent Bar

Patent, ,

In re Reuning (Fed. Cir. 2008)

The Reuning application claims to have invented a new method of targeting advertisements. In appealing a BPAI obviousness rejection, the inventors argued to the appellate panel that the claims should be allowable because they contain the limitations of “searching the internet”, “identifying web pages”, and identifying “web pages containing profile data.” During the appellate briefing, the applicant had admitted that each of those elements were already “known in the art” at the time of the invention. The CAFC applied the applicant’s admission to estop any argument that elements were not in the cited references:

“Having acknowledged that certain claimed elements are taught by the prior art, Reuning cannot now defeat an obviousness rejection by asserting that the cited references fail to teach or suggest these elements.”

This conclusion misses the somewhat subtle difference between elements being found in the art generally and those found in the cited references.

In a Concurring Opinion, Judge Linn wrote to “express . . . disappointment over the delays experienced in this case and . . . concern that the circumstances that led up to this appeal may be more symptomatic of certain failures of the patent system than merely reflective of the peculiar facts of this case.”

Here, Reuning filed the patent application in 2001, received a final rejection in 2003, and received the two-page BPAI decision in 2006. During the CAFC appeal, the PTO Director requested a remand so that the BPAI could reconsider all of the facts of the case:

After twice denying Reuning a substantive review of claims 3-66—and taking over three years in the process—the Board, via the Director, now requests that we remand so that the Board can do what it should have done in the first place; namely, substantively review the examiner’s rejection of claims 3-66. By taking nearly three years to decline to adjudicate the merits of claims 3-66 on a procedural technicality, and by forcing Reuning to appeal before recognizing the superficial nature of its actions, the Board squandered judicial resources and needlessly frustrated Reuning’s interests. This is not a reflection of the Board’s finest work. . . .

This wasteful course of proceedings does not promote the fair and efficient administration of justice and is inconsistent with the PTO’s mission “to ensure that the intellectual property system contributes to a strong global economy, encourages investment in innovation, and fosters entrepreneurial spirit.” . . . I have the utmost respect for the members of the Board, the leadership of the PTO, and the members of the patent bar, and while I would like to believe that this case represents an aberration from the standards of practice I have long admired and have come to expect, I am concerned that it does not.

 

Ex Parte Bilski: On the Briefs:

CAFC, En Banc, Patent, Software, , , ,

In Ex Parte Bilski, an en banc Federal Circuit plans to reconsider the scope of patentable subject matter as it relates to business methods and so called mental methods. Perhaps more importantly to the patent system as a whole, the court is considering the proper procedures going forward for determining whether a particular invention falls within the scope of 35 USC 101.

In its en banc decision, the CAFC invited non-party amici briefs, which were due April 7. (Scroll down to find the briefs).  In reading through the briefs, the first aspect that caught my attention was a common theme that institutional strengths and weaknesses of the PTO and Courts should help dictate the ultimate subject matter rule.  

  • Prof Morris: Through its examiners, the PTO has expertise in determining the technical questions of novelty, nonobviousness, and indefiniteness. On the other hand, examiners do not have the expertise to decide “philosophical and abstract” issues of statutory subject matter.
  • Prof Lemley*: Arbitrary subject matter boundaries have generally been difficult to enforce and usually result in patent attorneys using “magic words” to avoid the limits. (*NOTE: I signed Prof Lemley’s brief along with 21 other law professors.)
  • Prof Collins: A test that excludes “human cognition” elements is administrable.
  • EFF: Proposed three-step process provides a more “efficient and meaningful” way to administer the Section 101 threshold.
  • AIPLA: Section 112 should guard claim scope rather than Section 101.

Narrow or Expansive: The main thrust of the Bilski arguments, however, focus on whether patentable subject matter should be narrow or expansive. I have categorized the briefs on this axis:

Expansive Subject Matter:

  • Prof Lemley: We cannot predict the next area of innovation, and arbitrary limits on patent scope reduces incentives in those potential areas. “Bad patents” should be dealt with using the true tools of the Patent Act: Sections 102, 103, and 112. “Mental methods” should be allowed if they fall within the other requirements of patentability.
  • Regulatory Data Corp (Prof Duffy): Even under a narrow definition, applied economics is now part of the “useful arts.”  Statutory subject matter should only limit claims directed to abstract ideas, physical phenomena, or principles of nature.
  • AIPLA: We should continue to follow Diehr, State Street, & AT&T.
  • RMC: Business methods should be patentable.
  • American Express: Patenting of business and information management processes encourages the development of those useful societal tools.
  • Accenture: Business methods should be patentable regardless of any physicality limitations. Congress has deemed that business methods should be patentable via 35 USC 273.
  • Greg Aharonian: The Supreme Court’s 1876 Cochraine test does not exclusively define “process.” Rather, a patent eligible process should be broadly defined to include any process or method that yields a “useful concrete and tangible result.”
  • Koninklijke Philips: The court should be wary of relying upon precedent that focused on traditional manufacturing methods. Rather, the court should look at the broad definition of process required by Congress in 35 U.S.C. 100(b).

Narrow Subject Matter:

  • Prof Sarnoff: The court should return to the precedent of Flook. The inventive concept of a patent cannot be an abstract idea (such as hedging risk). Likewise, an information processing method must include significant post-solution activity. State Street is unconstitutionally over-broad.
  • End Software patents: Software should not be patentable even when loaded on a computer. Rather, to be patentable, there must be significant additional (non-information processing) physical activity.
  • American Civil Liberties Union: Patents mental processes would violate the first amendment.
  • EFF: There must be a technological component of a patentable invention.
  • Computer & Communications Industry Association: The CAFC should shed its “patentee-centric approach” and insted try to meet the needs of the modern world. In particular, the court should consider the systemic policy implications of its decisions. The policy implications of broader patent coverage is more litigation & rent seeking.
  • IBM: There is no sound policy for allowing business method patents.
  • American Institute of CPAs: Tax methods should not be patentable because they preempt free use of the tax laws. (Of course, the same could be said of CPAs charging corporations for their service).
  • SAP: A process should both (1) have a concrete, useful, and tangible result and (2) be “sufficiently machine-like” in order to avoid preempting work-arounds. However, software processes should be patentable.
  • Prof Collins: The court should add a “human cognition” exception to Section 101. Steps involving human cognition should receive no consideration in judging patentability.
  • Red Hat: Software patents put a huge kink in the open source software movement.
  • Financial Services Industry: State Street and its progeny are unduly broad. A token inclusion of a ‘machine’ in a claim would not render that claim patentable subject matter.
  • Dell & Microsoft: A patentable invention must operate on “something physical.” To be patentable, software should be tied to a computer and cause some physical transformation (such as movement of electrons). And, following Comiskey, a patent should not be granted under 103 if the inventor merely combined well known computer hardware with inventive but otherwise unpatentable software.

Other?

  • Yahoo! and Prof Merges: A strict “technology” requirement is too inflexible. State Street taught us that such a strict requirement does not fit well with “onrushing technology.” The Yahoo!/Merges test: a patent eligible process must itself be “stable, predictable, and reproducible” and its result must be “useful, concrete, and tangible.”  Bilski’s claims would not be eligible because they do not define a “stable” process.
  • Intellectual Property Owners Association: A process that is either implemented by a machine or that transforms matter into another state is patentable subject matter.  IPO favorably cites the Flook limitations on on information processing.
  • Business Software Alliance: Courts should err on the side of patentable subject matter because Sections 102, 103, and 112 make-up any slack. Software should be patentable. However, Bilski’s invention is not patentable because it is an abstract idea.
  • Washington State IP Law Assn: The CAFC should re-write State Street to be consistent with Supreme Court precedent.
  • Prof Morris: Subject matter questions should be avoided. Rather the PTO and courts should look to the substantive rules of 102, 103, and 112 to decide the issue. Section 101 jurisprudence has been both haphazard and unfair.

The elephant in the room is the recent Comiskey decision. There, it appeared that the court refused to give any patentable weight to the portion of the invention directed to non-statutory subject matter. In its brief, the Boston Patent Law Assn asks the court to clarify the following statement from Comiskey:

“The routine addition of modern electronics to an otherwise unpatentable invention typically creates a prima facie case of obviousness. Moreover, there is no pertinent evidence of secondary considerations because the only evidence offered is of long-felt need for the unpatentable mental process itself, not long-felt need for the combination of the mental process and a modern communication device or computer.”

Notes:

  • I signed Professor Lemley’s brief along with twenty-one other law professors. The theory behind the brief follows the IPO brief that I helped draft in the Metabolite case.

Amici Briefs:

 

 

 

 

CAFC Overturns Jury Verdict of Non-Obviousness Because Combination Yields Predictable Results

Patent, ,

Woodstream-aAgrizap v. Woodstream Corp (Fed. Cir. 2008)

Agrizap holds a patent covering a method of electrocuting rats and gophers. The product is sold under the trade name “Rat Zapper.”  Woodstream (maker of the Victor rat trap) first licensed the product then began manufacturing its own version.
 
The jury found the patent nonobvious and held Woodstream liable for both infringement (and for fraud based on its actions during the license.) In a post-verdict decision, the district court granted JMOL of non-infringement.

On appeal, the CAFC (Judge Moore) zeroed-in on the question of obviousness:

“[A]s the ultimate conclusion of obviousness is a question of law, it remains our duty as the appellate court to ensure that the law has been correctly applied to the facts. . . . In other words, we review de novo the conclusion on obviousness . . . [keeping in mind] that ‘[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.’” (Quoting KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007)).

Here, the CAFC found, as a matter of law, that Agrizap’s own commercial product (the “Gopher Zapper”) rendered the claimed invention obvious. The only difference between the two was the type of trigger mechanism, and the Rat Zapper’s claimed electrical switch was already well known in the cattle-prod art.

Secondary Considerations: When faced with a mere combination of familiar elements, even strong secondary evidence of nonobvious will not save the application. Here, Judge Moore took as true “the commercial success of the Rat Zapper, copying by Woodstream, and a long felt need in the market for electronic rat traps.” However, that evidence is “insufficient to overcome the overwhelming strength of Woodstream’s prima facie case of obviousness.”

Notes:

  • Judges Bryson, Moore, and Wolle (S.D.Iowa).
  • This case should be contrasted with Ortho-Mcneil v. Mylan , also decided this week. (Judges Michel, Rader, and Linn).
  • Perhaps a strategic misstep by Agrizap?: During prosecution, the PTO made the identical argument as that made by Judge Moore. The only difference was that the PTO examiner rejected the Rat Zapper patent application based on the “Gopher Zapper” patent instead of the commercial product.  Instead of arguing around the asserted reference, Agrizap amended inventorship and filed a terminal disclaimer.  This left the Examiner’s rejection glaringly un rebutted when it turned out that the commercial embodiment (102(b) prior art) could not be swept away so easily. [See Patently-O discussion of whether to file a 131 declaration or argue over a reference.]

Absolute Novelty, First-to-File, and Foreign Bias

Patent, ,

Patent.Law068The comments to my recent post on the First-to-File legislation raised several important issues that need some unpacking. 

Separating First-to-File from Absolute Novelty: There is a tendency to conflate a first-to-file system with a system requiring absolute novelty.  At the surface, these two systems may appear linked — Both rules shift the legal inquiry from the date of invention to the date of application filing.  This natural linkage has been reflected in the various patent laws: first-to-file countries generally also require absolute novelty, while the US (the first-to-invent country) allows a grace period. 

Despite their usual link, the two policies are separable. We could implement a first-to-file system that conclusively determines competing priority claims by looking only to effective filing dates but, at the same time, allow a one-year grace period when judging novelty and nonobviousness.  From my experience, the concerns of most patent applicants are more focused on the problem of novelty rather than rare interference issues.

As Mark Lemley has noted the current legislation already does this in two ways: (1) granting a grace period for inventor-originated disclosures; and (2) providing that the first-to-file system will only be implemented after the rest of the world adopts the grace period (in House bill only).

Patent.Law067When you try to help, you actually harm: One of our European readers commented that the American grace period is essentially a subsidy to the rest of the world.  According to the story, the grace period lulls American inventors into disclosing prior to filing for protection.  Those inventors can still pursue US patent applications, but will be unable to obtain patents elsewhere. The quote: “Thank goodness USA perseveres with the grace period. Otherwise ROW really would be dominated by US IPR.”

Rule 131 Declarations: How weak does your patent become after filing a Rule 131 declaration? If you received an office action rejection and had solid arguments of both (1) your prior invention and (2) nonobviousness.  Would you rather (1) file a Rule 131 declaration and avoid characterizing the reference and your invention; (2) explain why the claimed invention is not obvious even in light of the asserted art; or (3) both.

Tags: , , , ,

Do Patents Stimulate R&D Investment and Promote Growth?

Academic Studies, Patent,

James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer have authored a new book presenting a careful empirical analysis of whether patent rights encourage innovation. Their conclusion: for the most part, today’s patent system does not achieve its stated goal. I asked them to provide Patently-O readers with a cut from their analysis. The following post is the first in a series of four by the authors. The book is titled: Patent Failure and published by Princeton [Web Link]. The analysis done in this book put Bessen and Meurer at the forefront of leaders in economic analysis of patent laws. I suspect that their results will become the talking points of the next round of patent reform discussions. A live symposium will be held at UGA Law School on March 29 focusing on the book and its results. [LINK]

==========

by James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer

As background material, this post reviews the sizable body of empirical research analyzing the impact of patents on R&D investment and economic growth. Three future posts will present new empirical research featured in our book Patent Failure. The theme across all four posts is that patents often fail to perform effectively as property rights. [DDC: To work well as property, the right should be predictably valid; have discernible boundaries; and not have an overly fragmented ownership scheme.]

Economists cherish property rights that provide strong incentives for investment and trade, and that thereby contribute to economic growth. Potentially, patent rights could accomplish these three goals, and surely they sometimes do. Apparently though, it is hard to set up and maintain a patent system that works as property.

The rise of new market economies and strengthening of property rights around the globe in the last two decades provides economists with “natural experiments” that help us evaluate whether and how much property rights contribute to investment and growth. The empirical results are impressive. Countries that expanded the role of markets and strengthened property rights have prospered from these choices. Economic historians find the same results hold going back to the Industrial Revolution.

Comparable studies of patent systems are discouraging. The evidence certainly is consistent with the notion that patents encourage American pharmaceutical R&D. But otherwise, it is hard to find evidence suggesting patents are a major factor spurring R&D investment, that patents contribute to economic growth, or even that the patent system is a source of great wealth to important inventors and innovators (outside of a few industries like pharmaceuticals).

(more…)

Bilski: Full CAFC to Reexamine the Scope of Subject Matter Patentability

Patent, , , , ,

In re Bilski (Fed. Cir. 2008 – en Banc)

Taking sua sponte action, the Federal Circuit has ordered an en banc rehearing of the In re Bilski case – asking the following five questions:

  1. Whether claim 1 of the 08/833,892 patent application claims patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101?
  2. What standard should govern in determining whether a process is patent-eligible subject matter under section 101?
  3. Whether the claimed subject matter is not patent-eligible because it constitutes an abstract idea or mental process; when does a claim that contains both mental and physical steps create patent-eligible subject matter?
  4. Whether a method or process must result in a physical transformation of an article or be tied to a machine to be patent-eligible subject matter under section 101? 
  5. Whether it is appropriate to reconsider State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999), in this case and, if so, whether those cases should be overruled in any respect?

The Patent Application and Patent Applicants: Bilski involves claims to a method of managing the risk of bad weather through commodities trading. The claims are not tied to any particular form of technology — thus, they do not require a computer or particular storage media. In some quarters, this process lacking a technological tie-in is termed a “mental method.” 

Bernie Bilski apparently was the CEO and owner of a small company called WeatherWise. At least some WeatherWise patents were purchased in 2007 by the “Pittsburgh Technology Licensing Corp”  According to court documents, PTL is a wholly owned subsidiary of WeatherWise holdings. (See WeatherWise v. WeatherBill).

Although we don’t have the text of the application yet, this case looks problematic because of serious obviousness problems and lack of specificity in the claims.  Thus, the court will have no sympathy for Bilski — making this the perfect test case for someone wanting to strink Section 101 coverage and eliminate business method patents.  Representative Claim 1 reads as follows:

1.  A method for managing the consumption risk costs of a commodity sold by a commodity provider at a fixed price comprising the steps of:< ?xml:namespace prefix ="" o />

(a) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity provider and consumers of said commodity wherein said consumers purchase said commodity at a fixed rate based upon historical averages, said fixed rate corresponding to a risk position of said consumer;

(b) identifying market participants for said commodity having a counter-risk position to said consumers; and

(c) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity provider and said market participants at a second fixed rate such that said series of market participant transactions balances the risk position of said series of consumer transactions.

Procedure: This cases arises out of a rejection from the Patent Board of Appeals (BPAI). In its opinion, the Board asked for assistance from the CAFC in addressing Subject Matter Patentability of non-technological method claims: “The Federal Circuit cannot address rejections that it does not see. . . . It would be helpful if the Federal Circuit would address this question directly.” BPAI Decision. Bilski then apealed directly from the BPAI to the CAFC and oral arguments were held in October 2007.  Rather than issuing an opinion, the court convened and voted to rehear the case en banc.

Timing and Amicus: The parties (Bilski & PTO) have already fully briefed the case. Thus, the CAFC is only allowing one supplimental brief each to be filed simultaneously on March 6, 2008. Amicus briefs discussing the five questions are requested by the court and may be filed without specific permission. Amicus briefs will be due 30 days later and must otherwise comply with FRAP and FCR 29.  (Thanks Joe: Amicus should be due April 5th, but because that falls on a Saturday, they will be due April 7). The hearing is scheduled for May 8 at 2:00 pm.

(more…)

CAFC Allows Lost Profit Damages Based on Defendant’s “Offer to Sell” Infringing Product

Patent,

Patent.Law057American Seating v. USSC (Fed. Cir. 2008)

Under 35 U.S.C. Section 271(a), offering to sell a patented invention is a form of patent infringement. This case examines, inter alia, what damages might ensue from such “on sale” activities even when an infringing product is not actually manufactured or sold.

In a separate part of the case, USSC’s VPRo-I wheelchair tiedowns for mass transit were found to infringe a patent held by American Seating.  At some point, USSC stopped selling the VPRo-I and switched to a non-infringing design (presumably to avoid infringement). For pending VPRo-I orders, USSC simply notified customers that the new design would serve as a substitute.

After finding the patent valid and infringed by the offer to sell, the Michigan jury awarded American Seating lost profit damages based on the USSC’s non-infringing sales “because in those cases USSC first made infringing offers to sell the VPRo I, but ultimately delivered the [non-infringing] VPRo II.”

On appeal, the CAFC affirmed that a damage award for the non-infringing sales was appropriate because USSC had essentially pulled a bait-and-switch on its customers. Although courts have “significant latitude” in types of harms that can lead to an award of lost profits. However, plaintiffs must at least prove that the infringement was a “but for” cause of the lost profits.

The Federal Circuit’s 1999 Grain Processing decision also dealt with cases where the an infringing product was not actually sold. In that case, the court held that lost profit damages should only be available when the the product sold is not a substitute for the infringing product. Thus, lost profits would not be available if the replacement was “acceptable to all purchasers of the infringing product.” American Seating provided evidence that some customers had complained about the new model — thus proving that it was not an adequate.

Thus, the CAFC affirmed the lost profit award — finding that “absent USSC’s offer to sell the [infringing] VPRO-I, the sales would have gone to American Seating.”

Notes:

  • Look for a follow-up post on this case in the coming days discussing other lost profit issues, including damages for “collateral sales”  and a discussion of public use under 102(b).

Design Patents: No longer the Province of Individual Inventors

Patent

Thirty years ago, most design patent applications were filed by individual inventors. The graphs below show how that statistic has changed over the years. Notably, almost eighty percent of today’s issued patents are associated with some assignee by the time of issuance.  Litigation rates are comparable as well. According to my data from 2600 litigated design patents stretching back about a decade, 66% of litigated patents are associated with an assignee at the time of issuance.

ScreenShot007

This change could be partially explained by some new ease of filing assignments or registering a corporate form. However, I see two other major factors driving the split. First, the PTO & FTC crack-down on any attorney associated with an invention promotion company means that the patent attorneys who have historically filed the most design patents on behalf of individual inventors are no longer available. Most importantly, however, is the relatively small set of corporations who have figured out how to successfully use design patents.

Does Size Matter? Counting Words in Patent Specifications

Academic Studies, Articles and Publications, Patent

The following chart does not tell us whether the size of the patent document makes any difference. It only tells us that the average patent has grown considerably over the past twenty years.

ScreenShot002

To create the chart, I obtained a sample of 10,000 patents issued between January 1977 and December 2007 and counted the number of words in the description of the claimed invention. This excludes claims, title, abstract, references, and other identifying information.  To amplify the results, I added two trend-lines. The first trend-line runs from 1977 to 1987 and has essentially no slope — indicating that description size remained steady over those years. The second trend-line runs from 1987 – 2007 and has a clearly positive trend-line indicating that the number of words is increasing over time.

CAFC: Operability of 102(g) prior invention

Patent

z4 Technologies v. Microsoft Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2007)

z4 was one of the first plaintiffs to test the revived notion that an injunction for patent infringement is a form of equitable relief.  After a jury verdict of infringement, the E.D. Texas court awarded over $100M in damages, but refused to enter a permanent injunction to stop infringement of z4’s anti software piracy patent.

Microsoft appealed (z4 did not appeal the denial of injunctive relief).

Prior Invention: Although rarely invoked, 35 USC 102(g) embodies the heart of the American first-to-invent system. 102(g) allows a small category of secret activities to serve as invalidating prior art when another party shows that it was the first to conceive of an invention and then ‘exercised reasonable diligence’ in reducing to practice. 

Microsoft argued on appeal that its “BP 98” software was invented first. According to the appellate panel, Microsoft’s claim fails because the BP 98 software did not actually work. (Or at least that such evidence was sufficient for the jury verdict).

Decision affirmed.

Court Blocks PTO Rules on Eve of Effective Date; All Four Equitable Relief Factors Suggest Injunction

Patent,

Tafas v. Dudas (E.D. Va. October 31, 2007)

After a two-year long notice, comment, and review process, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) published a set of final rules in August 2007 to effectively limit the number of claims filed in each patent application and to limit the number of continuation applications stemming from an original patent application.  (Current rules allow unlimited claims and unlimited continuations).  Tafas, an individual inventor, immediately filed suit — asking the Virginia based Federal Court to block the rules. Later, Glaxo Smithkline (GSK) filed a preliminary injunction to stop the rules before their November 1, 2007 effective date. Other parties, including the AIPLA, Élan, Hexas, the Roskamp Institute,and Tikvah Therapeutics, IBM, SanDisk, & Senator Schumer, then filed briefs or declarations supporting preliminary relief.

In granting the requested preliminary injunction, the district court walked through the four relevant factors: (1) likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits of the case; (2) irreparable harm without an injunction; (3) a balance of hardships weighing in favor of an injunction; and (4) the public interest supporting an injunction.  Although the four factors are considered as a whole, the first to factors are clearly the most important and must always be proven.

Likelihood of Success: In its brief analysis of the issues, the court found a “genuine possibility” that the PTO will lose. In particular, the Court noted two particular GSK arguments as likely winners: (1) the facial illegality of limiting the number of continuation applications under 35 USC 120; and (2) problems created by the retroactive effect on settled rights. A third argument – vagueness of the ESD requirements – also has some value according to the Court.

Continuation Applications: 35 USC 120 can be read various ways, but the Court found that Federal Circuit law “suggests that a decision by the PTO to limit the number of continuing applications would run contrary to the mandate of Section 120.”  See Symbol. This conclusion is made easier because the PTO would deserve no rulemaking deference for any rules that extends into substantive grounds. GSK’s position on the illegality of claim limitations is not as strong because there is no statutory provision to the contrary. Thus, the court found that “neither party can claim a strong likelihood of success on this issue.”

Retroactive Effect: The doctrine of retroactive effect is interesting here. Unless expressly granted by Congress, an agency’s rulemaking cannot be retroactive. The court found vested rights in the ability to file continuations and claims under the old rules. Those rights vested at the time when the patentee chose to file for patent protection and give up trade secret protection.

While “an individual [that] discloses his trade secret to others who are under no obligation to protect the confidentiality of the information, or otherwise publicly discloses the secret,” loses that property right, Rucklehaus, 467 U.S. 1002, the Final Rules retroactively alter the bargain on which inventors like GSK rely in making their decision to surrender their rights. The Final Rules thus impair GSK’s right to this bargain.

ESD Requirements: The after publishing the final rules, the PTO published a series of clarification papers and guidelines for how to properly prepare an examination support document (ESD) under the new rules. The Court turned that guidance on its head — suggesting an admission of vagueness and noting that the additional guidance cannot be used to help vague rules overcome due process violations.

An alternative way to block the rules is to show that they are “arbitrary and capricious.” The Court found the PTO’s reasoning coherent enough to give the agency a pass.

Thus, the PTO’s rationale appears to be sufficient to satisfy arbitrary and capricious review, and the Court will find that GSK has not shown a real likelihood of success on this issue.

Irreparable Harm: The Court agreed that the “uncertainty” created by the new regulations was sufficient to cause irreparable harm because they would change investment and patent filing incentives. Without an injunction, GSK would be unable to recover from its lost protection if the rules are ultimately determined to be invalid.

Balance of Hardships: For the preliminary injunction, the balance of hardships weigh in GSK’s favor because GSK’s woes are instant once the new rules are effective. On the other hand, the PTO will simply experience a gradual continued increase in pendency.

Public Interest: The public interest is in a stable patent system. Thus, a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo is appropriate.

Notes:

35 USC 120

Patent

Is the legality of the PTO’s new rules to limit the number of claims foreclosed by Section 120 of the Patent Act?

Section 120 declares that a newly filed patent application “shall have the same effect” as a parent application so long as it is “filed before the patenting or abandonment …[of] the first application.”  The statute includes two specific limitations: First, the newly claimed invention must have been properly disclosed in the original application by overlapping inventors. Second, the new application must specifically reference the parent.

Courts have primarily used Section 120 in determining whether to grant an early ‘priority date’ to a later filed application. The following quote from a recent CAFC case is typical:

“A patent application for an invention disclosed in a previously-filed application in a manner that satisfies all the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date.”

Go Med, 471 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The practice of filing continuations is old — and was sanctioned by the US Supreme Court in the 1863 case of Godfrey v. Eames.

DC Court Rejects PTO’s Novel Theory of Double Patenting

Patent,

Takeda v. Dudas (D.D.C. 2007)

Takeda’s priority date stretches back to 1974 when the company filed a Japanese patent application disclosing a set of anti-microbial agents known as cephem compounds. The first US patent did not issue until 1988 (‘606 patent). In 1996, Takeda’s ‘216 patent issued – also reaching back to the 1974 priority date. The ‘216 patent claims a process of compounds claimed in the earlier ‘606 patent — those process claims were not, however, added until 15 years after the priority date.

During a reexamination, the PTO Board of Patent Appeals rejected the ‘216 patent after applying the non-statutory double-patenting doctrine. Under the Board’s decision, the Takeda was guilty of attempted double patenting despite the fact that the two sets of claims were not obvioius variations. Instead, the Board found that the second patent was invalid becaues it “unjustly extends the patent rights of the first patent.”

In particular, the Board held that a process patent with an extended patent term will be invalid for double-patenting “where (1) the claimed method for making the [compound] is described in the [original] patent and (2) there is no credible alternative method for making the [compound] which does not involve an infringement of the method patent?” The Board also faulted Takeda for its 15 year delay in presenting the new claims.

Takeda appealed the BPAI rejection to the DC District court. That court granted summary judgment — ordering the PTO to issue a reexamination certificate.

Only way to make a previously patented product: Takeda submitted an unrebutted declaration that convinced the court that there were multiple ways to create the cephem compounds. Thus, the PTO’s conclusions regarding the lack of alternative methods were factually incorrect.  In its decision, the court rejected the PTO’s argument that the alternative methods must have existed as of 1974. Rather, the court held that those methods may be shown in subsequent technological advances.

Double Patenting Based on Delay: The court went on to find that a patentees delay in pursuing claims could never, on its on, be grounds for a double patenting rejection. Rather, the grounds for double patenting always primarily rest on the lack of patentable differences between the two inventions.

WegnerRejection Reversed

Notes:

  • Hal Wegner along with Ed Polk, Leon Radomsky & Steve Maebious handled the appeal for Takeda
  • BPAI Decision

CAFC Denies Joint Infringement Claim and Maps Out Infringement Avoidance Schemes

Contributory Infringement, Patent, Patent Cases 2007, Transnational

BMC v. Paymentech (Fed. Cir. 2007)

BMC’s patents cover a method for processing a debit transaction without using a PIN. The payment industry is divided so that there is no single party that infringes an entire claim. However, when combined, the effort of a payee’s agent, an ATM network, and a financial institution

The usual rule is that direct infringement occurs only when a single actor performs “each and every element” of an asserted claim. Likewise, inducement requires proof of underlying single-actor direct infringement.  Under a doctrine akin to agency, all actions ‘controlled’ by the single actor are considered to be performed by the single actor.  Thus, courts have long held that you cannot avoid liability by simply “having someone else carry out one or more of the steps” on your behalf. 

Here, BMC acts for an extension of the law in cases where parties are cooperating in a manner that infringes the patent – even though no single party controls the others. The CAFC, however, refused to extend the law — even while admitting that its decision paves a clear pathway for would-be infringers to avoid liability:

“This court acknowledges that the standard requiring control or direction for a finding of joint infringement may in some circumstances allow parties to enter into arms-length agreements to avoid infringement.”

The CAFC’s concern, of course is that allowing this type of joint infringement would greatly increase potential liability of many many companies. For instance, here, BMC would like to hold ATM networks liable even though their actions do not involve any novel part of BMC’s invention. Without any controlling party, BMC’s claim of infringement fails.

As part of its justification, the court cited Mark Lemley’s divided infringement article. In that article, Lemley argues that patent drafters can avoid most potential joint infringement problems by drafting claims that focus on one party at a time.

Notes:

  • The doctrine of control is certainly not as strict as typical agency doctrine.  And, in this opinion the court gives some positive language to capture bad behavior. For instance, the court noted approvingly that district courts have held parties liable for who ‘mastermind’ a scheme of contracting-out steps of a patented process.  As a strict liability claim, the CAFC is correct to avoid undue expansion of the class of potential defendants. However, the hole created by the CAFC is potentially quite large — I have proposed a new cause of action for conspiratorial infringement that would not require a single controlling entity, but would require a mens rea requirement similar to that of inducement.  
  • Related Material:
  • Fromson v. Advance Offset Plate, Inc., 720 F.2d 1565, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (finding no direct infringement by manufacturer who performed the first step of a process claim even where its customer performed the other step of the claim)
  • Cross Medical Products, 424 F.3d at 1311 (rejecting patentees’ efforts to combine the acts of surgeons with those of a medical device manufacturer to find direct infringement of an apparatus claim).
  • An expanded joint infringement notion is supported by the CAFC’s recent On Demand decision where the court noted that “[i]t is not necessary for the acts that constitute infringement to be performed by one person or entity.”
  • In PharmaStem, the CAFC did not decide the issue, but noted that the “viability and scope of [the theory of joint infringement] liability is a subject of considerable debate.”
  • Applied Interact, LLC v. Vermont Teddy Bear Co., Inc.  2005 WL 2133416 (S.D.N.Y.,2005), the district court noted that infringement by separate entities requires “some connection” between the entities.
  • Free Standing Stuffer, Inc. v. Holly Dev. Co., 187 U.S.P.Q. 323 (N.D. Ill. 1974), requires a “sufficient connection to, or control over” third party entities performing some of the elements.
  • Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 194 F. Supp. 2d 323 (D. Del. 2002) (requiring close relationship between defendant and the doctors performing part of the patented process).
  • Shields v. Halliburton Co., 493 F.Supp. 1376 (W.D. La. 1980) (finding defendants liable for infringement based on the combined actions of two entities).
  • Wegner well thought viewpoint from 2001
  • Sriranga Veeraraghavan, Joint Infringement of Patent Claims: Advice for Patentees, 23 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech L.J. 211 (2006).

 

Design Patents: Corporate Parts Buyer as Ordinary Observer

Design Patent, Patent, Patent Cases 2007,

PatentLawPic036Arminak v. Saint-Gobain Calmer (Fed. Cir. 2007).

In yet another serious blow to design patent protection the Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court ruling that Arminak’s spray nozzle design is not infringed by Calmer.

Design patent infringement is defined both in 35 U.S.C. 271 and 289.  According to Section 289, a design patent is infringed by unauthorized commercial manufacture, use, or sale of the design or a “colorable imitation.”

Whoever during the term of a patent for a design, without license of the owner, (1) applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2) sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit, but not less than $250, recoverable in any United States district court having jurisdiction of the parties. 35 U.S.C. 289.

Infringement: Overshadowing the statutory guidelines is the CAFC’s judicially created infringement jurisprudence. According to the CAFC, infringement requires satisfaction of two distinct tests: First, in the eyes of an “ordinary observer,” the accused design as a whole must be deceivingly similar to the patented design. Second, the accused design must appropriate one or more points-of-novelty that distinguish the design from the prior art.

Ordinary Observer: Like the PHOSITA in utility patent cases, the ordinary observer is a mythical being. However, instead of being ‘skilled in the art,’ the ordinary observer is aware of the patented design, but is not an expert in the art.

Arminak manufactures and sells spray nozzles. However, Arminak does not sell on a retail level.  Rather, the nozzles are purchased by other manufacturers who join them with bottles full of product.

The corporate nozzle buyers can distinguish between Arminak & Calmer nozzles without much trouble. Once assembled, retail customers have difficulty in distinguishing between the nozzles once assembled.  The case then turns on whether the ordinary observer is defined as the corporate buyer of the nozzle or a retail customer of the fully assembled product.

Sitting by designation, Judge Holderman determined that the ordinary observer should be defined by the patentee’s corporate structure. Because Arminak’s products pass through a middle-man for further processing, it cannot count the downstream retail purchasers as ordinary observers who “buy and use” the sprayer. Rather, the ordinary observer is the corporate nozzle buyer.  (Thus, eventual customer confusion regarding the final product makes no difference).

It was undisputed that a corporate buyer would not be deceived by overall similarities between the accused and patented designs — thus no infringement.

Point of Novelty: The panel also found that the accused design did not appropriate any “points of novelty” of the patented invention. In doing so, the court found that a side-by-side detailed comparison between the accused product and the patent design drawings was appropriate.

To establish infringement in a design patent case, the district court is required to compare the patented design with the accused design. Without comparing the patented design with the accused design, there was no way for the district court to determine whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design deceptively similar and whether the accused design appropriated points of novelty.

For utility patent experts, this type of analysis is second nature. However, for over 100 years prior to founding the CAFC, the rule has been that design patent infringement jurisprudence does not allow for such “side by side” examination. See Gorham Manufacturing Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871) (rejecting a side-by-side comparison as leading to an ‘expert’ result rather than that of an ‘ordinary observer’).

Continuation Rules to Issue August 21

Patent, , ,

After some persistence, the PTO revealed the substance of the new continuation rules to Dow Jones reporter Stuart Weinberg:

Applicants will have the right to file two so-called continuations and one request for continued examination. Applicants seeking additional continuations will need to explain why the request is necessary. Current practice allows applicants to file an unlimited number of continuations. . . . [The PTO also] plans to limit the number of claims an applicant may include in an initial application to 25. Applicants that include more than 25 claims will be required to include a prior-art search, a detailed report that explains how their invention differs from what’s already in the public domain. The new rules, which will be published on the PTO’s Web site Tuesday [August 21], are scheduled to go into effect Nov. 1.

…The number of continuation requests has been rising in recent years. In 2006, almost 30% of applications were devoted to continuation requests, up from 27% in 2005 and 25% in 2004, Peterlin said. . . . Peterlin alluded to misuse of continuations when discussing the pending rule changes. “What we have found is, sometimes, people engage in a little
post-filing research,” she said, adding that, while this may make good business sense, it doesn’t make for an effective patent system.

Although we have not seen the final rules, it appears that applicants will not be losing rights at the time the final rules are published. Rather, the new rules will become effective on November 1, 2007. Do expect the rules to be retroactive in that they will apply to pending applications.

Pre-view of rules via Venable Law Firm

(more…)

CAFC: Proving Utility Is Not Inventive

Patent, ,

PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2007)

PharmaStem sued six defendants for infringement of its broadly written patents covering cryopreserved umbilical cord stem cells useful for hematopoietic reconstitution. The defendants offer cryopreservation of umbilical cord blood to serve the donor later in life. A jury found infringement and validity, but the district court set aside the verdict — holding that the patents were not infringed.

Defendant’s Ads Not Specific Enough: The defendants advertised that their product would aid in hematopoietic reconstitution. However, the district court found (and the CAFC agreed) that the ads were insufficient to serve as an admission that the stem cells were “in an amount sufficient to effect hematopoietic reconstitution of a human adult” as required by the claims. This decision stands to reinforce the principle that a patentee must prove infringement of every limitation of every element of any asserted claim.

Infringe the Whole Claim: PharmaStem’s method claims include collecting, preserving, and using the stem cells .  The defendants, however, are only responsible for collecting and preserving the cells. Transplant physicians do the rest.

PharmaStem argued contributory infringement under 271(c) — alleging that the defendants sold or offered to sell a component of a patented method especially adapted for infringement. Of course, the defendants do not sell stem cell blood — rather they are “merely bailees”. Because 271(c) requires sale of a product, there is no infringement here.

Invention is Obvious: When asserting obviousness based on a combination of prior art references, the patent challenger must show that a PHOSITA “[1] would have had reason to attempt to … carry out the claimed process, and [2] would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”

Reason to attempt:

In view of the prior art references, the first part of that test is plainly satisfied here. The idea of using cryopreserved cord blood to effect hematopoietic reconstitution was not new at the time [of filing]. Two of the prior art references…suggest using cord blood for that purpose. Two others…suggest cryopreservation and storage of the cord blood until needed. Accordingly, this is not a case in which there is any serious question whether there was a suggestion or motivation to devise the patented composition or process.

Expectation of Success: The inventors appear to have conclusively proven that umbilical cord blood is capable of hematopoietic reconstitution.  Unfortunately for them, completing a proof is not necessarily inventive. Rather, prior scientists strong suspicion of the capability creates an expectation of success so strong that “no reasonable jury” could find the patent valid.

While the inventors may have proved conclusively what was strongly suspected before—that umbilical cord blood is capable of hematopoietic reconstitution—and while their work may have significantly advanced the state of the science of hematopoietic transplantations by eliminating any doubt as to the presence of stem cells in cord blood, the mouse experiments and the conclusions drawn from them were not inventive in nature. Instead, the inventors merely used routine research methods to prove what was already believed to be the case. Scientific confirmation of what was already believed to be true may be a valuable contribution, but it does not give rise to a patentable invention.

Holding: Patent is invalid and not infringed.

[More to come on this case]

A Dangerous Prosecution Trap

Claim Drafting Tips, Patent, Patent Prosecution, , , ,

ForkBy Paul F. Morgan

I recently retired from a position in which I was also providing legal advice to patent application prosecution attorneys and others.  I had noted the following relatively frequent source of legal confusion in current law for some patent examiners, with the result that some patent prosecutors were being dangerously misled by incomplete examiner rejections. Hence, this warning note.   

A prior U.S. PTO published patent application can qualify as prior art under multiple portions of 35 U.S.C. §102 – resulting in varying effective dates, and requiring different attorney or agent responses. Often, the multiple effective dates are not reflected in examiner rejections.  However, getting a patent application allowed incorrectly can be fatal to the patent’s validity or even lead to inequitable conduct accusations.  Legal misunderstandings of the patent examiner during ex parte prosecution do not create a valid legal excuse for prosecuting attorney legal errors.

A published US patent application has a §102(e) prior art date as of that application’s filing date, and also a §102(a) or §102(b) prior art date as of its publication date. The office action rejection should discuss both dates if the publication date was prior to the rejected application.  But, even if the examiner’s rejection was legally incomplete, the applicant’s attorney must still overcome both, correctly.

If the published application was commonly owned at the time of its invention, a §102(e)/103 rejection can be overcome by asserting common ownership under §103(c).    The protections of §103(c) do not apply to 102(a) or 102(b) prior publications.  Rather, that section only applies to 102(e),(f) and/or (g)!  Furthermore, §103(c) only applies to obviousness issues, not anticipation. Nor does §103(c) eliminate what should have been an alternative rejection for double patenting.  

Obviously, a §102(b)/103 reference from an application publication date more than a year before the subject application date cannot be eliminated, only argued over.   While a §102(a)/103 rejection might be overcome by presenting evidence of an earlier invention date, that avenue is considerably more difficult and dangerous.  In particular, patents obtained via 37 CFR 1.131 declarations of alleged prior invention have a poor litigation record. Where appropriate, 102(a) prior art may be overcome by perfecting a valid priority claim to an earlier application. 

One final related danger that arises from the fact that most U.S. applications are now  published within 18 months of their first filing date.  Even self-publications qualify as 102(b) prior art.  That means that patent applications on improvement inventions from the same client, especially with different or partially different inventors, need to be filed ASAP to avoid prior-filed basic applications from becoming prior art under §102(a) or (b) against the improvement applications [which cannot be avoided by §103(c).]

The above, of course, is oversimplified, and other commentators may wish to “chip-in.” with practical advice.

Notes:

  • Paul Morgan recently retired, as the Assistant General Patent Counsel
    for a major U.S. Corporation, after 44 total years of patent practice.

Biaxin Litigation: Sandoz’ Motion for Stay Pending Appeal Denied by District Court

Patent, ,

Abbott Labs v. Sandoz (N.D. Ill. 2007) (05 C 5373).

Abbott and Sandoz are in a tussle over Abbott’s patented clarithromycin antibiotic (BIAXIN). Abbott sued Sandoz and was granted a preliminary injunction in April 2007. Sandoz immediately requested a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal to the Federal Circuit. 

Under FRCP 62(c), a district court “in its discretion” may suspend or modify a preliminary injunction pending resolution of an interlocutory appeal.  In Hilton v. Braunskill (non-patent), the Supreme Court discussed the four-factors used to determine whether to stay pending appeal:

  1. Movant’s strong showing of potential success on appeal;
  2. Movant’s potential irreparable injury if stay is denied;
  3. Potential injury to patentee if stay is granted; and
  4. The public interest.

Here, potential success on appeal must refer to success in appealing the preliminary injunction — a much easier showing than success on the merits of the case as a whole. And the party’s “strong showing” of potential success does not need to reach even a 50% chance of winning on appeal — If the movant’s chances on appeal were greater than 50% then no PI should have issued in the first place.

Based on KSR, Sandoz argued a strong likelihood that the patent would be found obvious.  The district court, however, disagreed, finding that none of the prior art disclosed a claim limitation relating to PK levels.

There was no indication that either prior art disclosed the specific PK limitations of claim 1 and 4, and thus, there was no indication that the prior art would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine their teachings to arrive at the ‘718 patented invention. After reading the Supreme Court’s KSR opinion, this Court is left with the understanding that the need to demonstrate the presence of all claim limitations in the prior art (when the legal theory is based upon obviousness due to the combination of prior art teachings) has not been obviated.

Motion to stay denied. The PI will thus stay in force unless released by the CAFC on appeal.

  • The CAFC has already adjudged two PI cases regarding the patents-in-suit — affirming a PI against ANDRX and vacating a PI against Teva.
  • Cases Discussing Stay Pending Appeal:
  • Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987);
  • Hinrichs v. Bosma, 440 F.3d 393 (7th Cir. 2006).

BPAI May Not Substitute its Engineering Expertise for Hard Evidence (In an Interference)

Patent, ,

Brand v. Miller (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Both Capital Machine and Miller Veneers claim rights in a new method of cutting veneer from logs using a “tapered filch.”  Brand, the inventor on Capital’s application now works for Miller, and the two companies had a close-relationship at the time of the applications. Capital filed its patent first, but Miller argued that Capital’s invention had been entirely derived from a documents and information provided by Miller.

Derivation: In an interference, impermissible derivation requires a showing of prior conception by the junior party and communication of concepts to the senior party that would enable construction and operation of the invention.  These elements are questions of fact.

In an interference, the BPAI awarded priority to Miller, finding that Miller’s communications to Capital were sufficiently enabling. In its appeal to the CAFC, Capital argued that the BPAI had improperly relied upon its own experience instead of evidence in holding that the Miller communication was enabling.

Substantial Evidence of Factual Findings: Appeals from the BPAI interference decision are governed by Section 706 of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The CAFC’s interpretation of that section requires that “findings of fact by the Board must in all cases be supported by substantial evidence in the [four corners of the closed] record.” Thus, it is impermissible for the BPAI to base factual findings on its own experience as opposed to evidence on record.

 Here, the court found that the board had-indeed “substituted its own expertise for record evidence” of how the information communicated by Miller would be arranged to perform the claimed method. “Under such circumstances the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record.”