Tag Archives: First to Invent

Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International

Patent, , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the patent subject matter eligibility case of Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International. Alice Corp.’s patent covers a computerized escrow system and method that CLS Bank allegedly uses in the process of settling trillions of dollars in transactions each week.

Question presented

Whether claims to computer-implemented inventions-including claims to systems and machines, processes, and items of manufacture-are directed to patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101 as interpreted by this Court?

As petitioner, the patentee (Alice Corp) will argue first. Respondent’s time will be split between CLS Bank and the US Government who has filed an amicus brief highlighting a misguided argument that “the abstract idea exception is patent law’s sole mechanism for excluding claims directed to manipulation of non-technological concepts and relationships.”

A transcript should be available in the afternoon.

See: Dennis Crouch, Software Patent Eligibility: Alice Corp v. CLS Bank on the Briefs (March 13, 2014).

= = = = =

The Supreme Court is working through a number of patent related decisions this term:

  • Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International (subject matter eligibility of computer implemented inventions and software). Oral arguments March 31, 2014 with decision expected June 2014.
  • Teva v. Sandoz (whether a district court’s finding of fact in support of claim construction should be reviewed de novo as required by the Federal Circuit). Petition granted March 31, 2014.
  • Lexmark Int’l v. Static Control (allegations of patent infringement against non-competitor can create Lanham Act claim). Decided March 25, 2014.
  • Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness (proper standard for determining an “exceptional case” in the attorney fee shifting context of 35 U.S.C. §285). Oral arguments held February 26, 2014 with decision expected by June 2014.
  • Highmark v. Allcare Health Mgmt. (standard of appellate review for fee shifting decisions). Oral arguments held February 26, 2014 with decision expected by June 2014.
  • Nautilus v. Biosig (standard for determining when a patent claim is invalid as indefinite). Oral arguments scheduled for April 28, 2014 with decision expected in June 2014.
  • Limelight v. Akamai (determining whether inducement should be severely narrowed by the no-joint-infringement doctrine). Oral arguments scheduled for April 30, 2014 with decision expected in June 2014.
  • Medtronic v. Mirowski (holding that patentee has the burden of proving infringement even in declaratory judgment actions by a licensee in good standing). Decided January 22, 2014.
  • Petrella v. MGM (considering the laches doctrine in the copyright context). Argued January 21, 2014, awaiting decision.
  • ABC, Inc., v. Aereo, Inc (when does an internet transmission count as a “public performance” under the copyright laws?). Argument scheduled for April 22, 2014.
  • POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola (who has standing to challenge a food or beverage label as misleading or false under the Lanham Act). Argument scheduled for April 21, 2014.

“Inventive Concept” and the Hot-Blast Cases

Patent, , , ,

Guest post by Jeffrey A. Lefstin, Professor of Law, University of California, Hastings College of Law

As the Supreme Court prepares to take up Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, a major question the Court may confront is to what extent an “inventive concept” is necessary for patent eligibility under § 101. In Mayo v. Prometheus, the Court suggested that “conventional and obvious” activity cannot transform a law of nature or abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The Court seemingly revived Parker v. Flook, which held that only “inventive applications” of abstract ideas are patent-eligible. But when the Federal Circuit heard CLS Bank, divided as the court was, both Judge Rader and Judge Lourie emphatically rejected the idea that Mayo demands “inventiveness” for patent-eligibility.

In both Flook and Mayo, the Supreme Court anchored the requirement for inventive application in Neilson v. Harford, the famous English case on James Neilson’s hot-blast smelting process. The Court in Flook and Mayo focused on this passage appearing in Baron Parke’s opinion for the Court of Exchequer:

We think the case must be considered as if the principle being well known, the plaintiff had first invented a mode of applying it by a mechanical apparatus to furnaces; and his invention then consists in this—by interposing a receptacle for heated air between the blowing apparatus and the furnace.

Flook took this language to mean that an underlying idea or discovery should be treated as part of the prior art; Mayo took it to mean that a claim is patent-eligible only if the application of a discovery or idea is inventive or unconventional.

However, a reading of the Exchequer’s full opinion tells the opposite story. Neilson’s patent was sustained because his application was entirely conventional and obvious. The defendant’s challenge in Neilson was primarily a scope of enablement argument: Neilson had disclosed that the blast should be heated before introducing it into the furnace, but disclosed next to nothing about the heating means. In refuting the defendant’s challenge, both the patentee and the judges of the Exchequer emphasized that the mode and apparatus for heating air were old and well known in the field, and represented no invention by Neilson.

So why did Baron Parke write that Neilson’s discovery – his ‘principle’ – should be regarded as “well known”? The court was wrestling with the question of whether Neilson had claimed a patentable manufacture, or the abstract principle that hot air was superior to cold. And if a manufacture, was Neilson entitled to reach the accused blast furnace, which employed a different heating apparatus? The Exchequer had faced the same questions seven years earlier in Minter v. Wells, involving a patent to an adjustable chair. The defendant in Minter had argued that the patentee was trying to claim a well-known principle of mechanics: the self-adjusting lever. Alternatively, if the claim was to the chair rather than the principle, the patent should be restricted to the inventor’s particular embodiment. Baron Parke concluded instead that the patentee had claimed the application of the self-adjusting leverage to an adjustable chair. Therefore, the patent was not drawn to an abstract principle, and might extend to other chairs embodying the same application but with a different arrangement.

Minter thereby established that a patent might claim the application of a well-known principle to new ends, and might extend beyond the exact machinery employed by the patentee. In the famous passage from Neilson, Parke was applying the same doctrine to Neilson’s patent – except that Neilson’s ‘principle’ was new rather than well-known. Neilson was a more difficult case because, given Neilson’s minimal disclosure, the scope of enablement was more dubious than in Minter. But a special jury verdict on that point ultimately carried the day for Neilson.

Neilson was only one of some twenty cases asserted by Neilson in England and Scotland. Other decisions following and interpreting Neilson leave no doubt that the case stood not for inventive application, but for the distinction between principles in the abstract and patentable applications. For example, in a case litigated the next year, Househill v. Neilson, the Court of Sessions stated:

The main merit, the most important part of the invention, may consist in the conception of the original idea—in the discovery of the principle in science, or of the law of nature, stated in the patent, and little or no pains may have been taken in working out the best manner and mode of the application of the principle to the purpose set forth in the patent.

Neilson was understood the same way in the Supreme Court’s landmark 19th-century opinions that discussed Neilson extensively, such as Le Roy, Morse, and Tilghman. Further, in late 19th-century and early 20th-century American cases and treatises, it was black-letter law that while abstract principles and discoveries could not be patented, a practical application was patent-eligible without the need for inventive application – subject to certain exclusions such as the ‘mental steps’ rule.

As I wrote about last year, the actual origin of the inventive application test was Justice Douglas’s opinion in Funk Brothers, in 1948. The dubious history of the inventive application test in the wake of Funk suggests we would have been better served by following Justice Frankfurter instead of Justice Douglas. For it was Frankfurter’s concurrence that embraced the spirit of Neilson and the historical tradition: the claims to bacterial compositions in Funk were unpatentable not because they added or changed little relative to a law of nature or natural phenomenon, but because the patentee was claiming the idea of compatible strains instead of his practical application.

I write about the hot-blast cases, and the history of the inventive application test, in an article available here.

ALL the Facts: PAEs are Suing Many More Companies

Patent, , ,

Guest Post by James Bessen

Last summer, the President’s Council of Economic Advisers issued a report arguing that Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs) are responsible for a major harmful increase in patent litigation. That report was based, among other things, on roughly twenty academic studies.

But recently, David Kappos, former Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office, declared that, to the contrary, “the building is not on fire,” in an article titled “Facts Show Patent Trolls Not Behind Rise In Suits.” Kappos dismissed the academic studies as “unhelpful” and “badly distorted” because they did not make all of their underlying data publicly available. Instead he relied only on “facts” from a recent paper by three academics, Christopher Cotropia, Jay Kesan and David Schwartz (CKS) as well as a strained interpretation of one finding in a GAO report (which also did not make its underlying data publicly available).

The CKS paper does, indeed, identify a minor error in the President’s report affecting the period from 2010 to 2012. But the paper does not challenge the data showing that PAEs are responsible for a very large increase in the number of companies sued for patent litigation over the last decade. Nor does the paper’s “granular and transparent” data appear to make any significant difference despite the assertion that it calls prior research into “serious question”: CKS find more or less the same numbers of lawsuits as other studies using comparable definitions of PAEs, despite their claims to the contrary. The CKS paper makes a contribution and it is great that the authors are able to make their data public, but it is dangerous for policy makers to base judgments on highly selective “cherry picked” data that cover only two unrepresentative years or to dismiss a large number of careful studies just because they have not disclosed all of their data.

The CKS paper targets the claim in the President’s report that “Suits brought by PAEs have tripled in just the last two years, rising from 29 percent of all infringement suits to 62 percent of all infringement suits.” While this statement is factually correct, given the definition of PAE used, it could be easily misinterpreted. That is because that two year period from 2010 to 2012 also saw a significant change in the law: the America Invents Act, passed in 2011, has a joinder provision that prevents patent holders from suing multiple, unrelated defendants in a single infringement lawsuit. This is important because prior to this change, PAEs tended to sue more unrelated defendants in each lawsuit. In other words, the 29 percent figure for 2010 represented more than 29 percent of the distinct defendants, while the 2012 figure more or less does represent 62 percent of the distinct defendants. The 29 percent figure is too small for an apples-to-apples comparison.

Ideally, one would want to compare the number of unrelated defendants in different years in order to eliminate the bias introduced by the change in the joinder provision. To make a comparison of that sort, CKS collected patent lawsuit data for 2010 and 2012, categorizing each suit by the nature of the patent holder. A patent holder could be: (1) a University; (2) an Individual Inventor/Family Trust (e.g, GeoTag); (3) a large Patent Aggregator (e.g., Acacia); (4) a Failed Operating Company or Failed Start-up; (5) a Patent Holding Company that appears unaffiliated with the original inventor or owner; (6) an Operating Company; (7) an IP Holding Company affiliated with an operating company; or (8) a Technology Development Company (e.g., Walker Digital).

Although CKS are not the first researchers to categorize different types of NPEs, they seem to think no one else has done it correctly. Specifically, they claim that “Our most basic descriptive findings are inconsistent with and call into serious question the summary data provided by RPX, Patent Freedom, and other academics.” Kappos goes slightly further, completely dismissing all previous research studies, calling them “unhelpful at best, and more likely hurtful by representing as ‘data-driven’ a picture that is actually badly distorted.” However, these charges are simply not true.

Although Kappos claims that previous studies lack a “transparent and appropriately scoped definition of ‘patent troll,'” almost all the previous research papers have extensive discussions of how they identify PAEs. Moreover, using these definitions, it turns out that summary statistics from these sources are rather close to the corresponding estimates from CKS. For example, Patent Freedom counts “non-practicing entities” (NPEs) using a definition that corresponds roughly to CKS categories 2 through 5. RPX uses a definition that includes the first five CKS categories plus category 7 plus operating companies that sue outside of their industry (not counted in CKS). Feldman et al. count patent monetizers corresponding to CKS categories 2 through 5, and 7. We can compare the number of NPE lawsuits reported by these different sources to the roughly corresponding category totals reported in the CKS paper:

Estimates of Lawsuits Filed by NPEs

 

Estimate from Other Research

Estimate Using CKS Data For Corresponding Categories

Difference

2010

      

Patent Freedom

595

689

16%

RPX

765

733

-4%

2012

      

Patent Freedom

2,652

2,687

1%

Feldman et al.

2,956

2,710

-8%

RPX

3,054

2,745

-10%

 

Do these differences show that previous research is so inconsistent with the CKS estimates as to call that research into “serious question”? Hardly. First, there is no evidence of any consistent bias in the comparisons. Indeed, while some of the estimates are greater than the CKS estimates, the Patent Freedom data generate smaller estimates than the CKS data.

Second, the differences are small, especially considering that these different researchers use somewhat different concepts of what they mean by “patent troll.” Although reasonable people might disagree about which actors to include in their studies, the studies still provide helpful guidance about trends and the extent of patent litigation. But the crudeness of these measures means that 10 or 20 percent differences are not significant. Such differences are certainly no excuse to dismiss most of the prior literature on this subject.

More important, such differences are not economically important. For example, as we shall see, PAE litigation has increased by an order of magnitude over the last decade. A 10 or 20 percent difference does not change this conclusion. Nor does such a difference fundamentally alter estimates of the economic impact of PAEs. For example, one of my studies with Mike Meurer found that PAEs cost defendants $29 billion in 2011. If the true cost were $26 billion or even $23 billion, this would not change the conclusion that PAEs impose substantial costs on defendants. These findings cannot be dismissed, as Kappos does, just because he doesn’t have access to the underlying data.

CKS have not shown any actual evidence that their data are significantly inconsistent with other studies. Nor have they shown anything that calls other research into “serious question” despite the gravity of that charge. Nor have they shown any evidence of actual bias in the previous research. Kappos and CKS dismiss a large body of prior research without showing any substantive reason to do so. While much of the prior research is based on private data, researchers have checked these data against other sources. What matters in science is not the access to the data, but the replicability of the results. Without actual evidence of a bias or major inconsistencies across different data sets, there is no reason to dismiss these studies.

CKS’s findings do show that the figures cited in the President’s report are misleading, but, as we shall see, that evidence exists in other sources as well. Recall that we need to compare the number of unrelated defendants sued in different years. To address this, CKS count the number of parties to the lawsuit excluding the patentee, the “other parties” to the lawsuit. They find that between 2010 and 2012 the number of these other parties in lawsuits filed by non-operating companies changed little. For example, in categories 2 through 5 the number of “other parties” in PAE suits went from 5,515 to 5,554.

However, the number of “other parties” listed in lawsuit filings is not an accurate measure of the unique unrelated defendants. For example, a parent company will often be listed as a defendant along with one or more subsidiaries. Fortunately, Patent Freedom has done the hard work of tracking down unique operating company defendants (and, yes, our researchers checked their work) as have several of the other researchers.

Figure (Above): Number of operating company defendants in PAE suits.
Source: Patent Freedom

The Patent Freedom counts of unique NPE defendants are shown in the figure along with a trend line. The counts of defendants are much smaller than CKS’s “other parties.”

Several findings are apparent. First, there appears to be a surge in multi-party PAE lawsuits prior to passage of the America Invents Act in September 2011. Apparently, some PAEs wanted to get their suits in prior to the new joinder rules that made it more expensive to sue multiple parties.

Because of this surge, any comparison between 2010 and 2012 is bound to be highly misleading. In the Patent Freedom data, the number of unique defendants actually declined during this interval. But it is equally clear that 2010 and 2011 are exceptions to an otherwise steady, increasing trend from 2001 through last year. Claiming that patent trolls have not contributed to the rise in patent defendants by looking only at 2010 and 2012 is a serious misrepresentation.

Moreover, this finding of a large shift is supported by a large number of studies, including research by one of the CKS authors. Jay Kesan (with co-author Gwendolyn Ball) previously estimated that only 4 percent of patent lawsuits were filed by “patent licensing firms” at the beginning of the decade. To compare, the CKS data find that 21 percent of lawsuits were filed by patent licensing firms in 2010 (categories 3-5 and 7). That is a fivefold increase over the decade. The share of lawsuits grew to 45 percent of lawsuits in 2012, after the change in the joinder rule; if we add individuals & family trusts, such as the notorious GeoTag, then the share rises to 52 percent, over half of all patent lawsuits. So these data show not only a dramatic rise in the share of lawsuits filed by patent licensing firms, but also a large share of the lawsuits come from these parties in 2010 and even more in 2012. Given the earlier paper, does Professor Kesan really believe that this latest paper calls into “serious question” the findings of many other researchers that patent trolls have contributed substantially to the rise in patent litigation?

Nor does the GAO report contradict the basic trend seen here. Kappos asserts that the GAO found no “statistically relevant” change in the percent of lawsuits filed by trolls. Those words are very carefully chosen “lawyer words.” In fact, the GAO found a 40 percent increase in the PAE share of lawsuits from 2007 to 2011. However, that difference was not statistically significant given the small size of the GAO sample. The GAO also reported that the number of PAE defendants tripled during these years and PAEs accounted for half of the large increase in patent defendants during these years. The GAO report is entirely consistent with the other evidence that the share of PAE lawsuits and defendants have been rising.

Finally, the figure shows that the PAE litigation has continued to increase after the America Invents Act, more or less right on the trend line established since 2001. The Act has been touted as the solution to the problems of the patent system; the data from 2013 suggest otherwise.

The bottom line is this: based on the overwhelming weight of the evidence, including that in CKS itself, PAEs are filing dramatically more lawsuits against very many more defendants than they did at the beginning of the last decade. This is true despite the decline in defendants between 2010 and 2012; the GAO report further supports this finding. The conclusion based on all the evidence is that the building is indeed burning. Policymakers are right to take action.

= = = = = =

References

  • Allison, John R., Mark A. Lemley & Joshua Walker Extreme Value or Trolls on Top? The Characteristics of the Most Litigated Patents, 158 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1 (2009)
  • Ball, Gwendolyn G. Ball & Jay P. Kesan, Transaction Costs and Trolls: Individual Inventors, Small Firms and Entrepreneurs in Patent Litigation, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1337166
  • Bessen, James and Michael J. Meurer (2014), “The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes,” Cornell Law Review, v. 99(2), 387-424.
  • Bessen, James and Michael J. Meurer (2014 forthcoming), “The Patent Litigation Explosion,” Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, v. 45, 102-145.
  • Bessen, James and Michael J. Meurer (2013), “The Private Costs of Patent Litigation,” Journal of Law, Economics and Policy, 9, p. 59.
  • Bessen, James (2012), “A Generation of Software Patents,” Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law, 18(2), pp. 241-61.
  • Bessen, James, Jennifer Ford, and Michael J. Meurer (2011), “The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls,” Regulation 34(4), pp. 26-35.
  • Chien, Colleen, Of Trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and Kings: Narratives and Evidence in the Litigation of High – Tech Patents, 87 N.C. L. Rev. 1571, 1572 (2009).
  • Chien, Colleen, From Arms Race to Marketplace: The New Complex Patent Ecosystem and Its Implications for the Patent System, 62 HASTINGS L.J. 297, 328 (2010)
  • Chien, Colleen (2013) Patent Trolls by the Numbers Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-13 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2233041
  • Chien, Colleen, 2009. “Of Trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and Kings: Narratives and Evidence in the Litigation of High – Tech Patents,” North Carolina Law Review, 87, pp. 1571-1615
  • Chien, Colleen (2012) Patent Assertion Entities, Presentation to the DOJ/FTC hearing on PAEs. Washington, DC, December 10, 2012. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2187314 .
  • Chien, Colleen (2012) . “Startups and Patent Trolls.” Santa Clara University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-12 Working Paper Series, 2012.
  • Federal Trade Commission (FTC). “The Evolving IP Marketplace: Aligning Patent Notice and Remedies with Competition.” March 2011.
  • Feldman, Robin, Thomas Ewing and Sara Jeruss. “The AIA 500 Expanded: Effects of Patent Monetization Entities” April 9, 2013. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2247195
  • Feldman, Robin (2013) Patent Demands & Startup Companies: The View from the Venture Capital Community, UC Hastings Research Paper No. 75 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2346338
  • Jeruss, Sara, Robin Feldman and Joshua Walker. “The America Invents Act 500: Effects of Patent Monetization Entities on US Litigation.” 11 Duke Law and Technology Review pp. 357-389 (2012).
  • Lemley, Mark A. “Are Universities Patent Trolls?” Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal 63, no. 1 (2008): 611-631.
  • Lemley, Mark A. “Software Patents and the Return of Functional Claiming.” Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 2117302 Working Paper Series, 2012.
  • Lemley, Mark A. and Douglas Melamed. “Missing the Forest for the Trolls” Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 443, 2013.
  • Patent Freedom, Litigations Over Time, https://www.patentfreedom.com/about-npes/litigations/
  • Risch, Michael, 2012. “Patent Troll Myths,” Seton Hall Law Review, 42.
  • Shrestha, Sannu K. 2011. “Trolls or Market-makers? An empirical analysis of nonpracticing entities,” Columbia Law Review, 110, pp. 114-60.

Federal Circuit: Claim Construction Should be Avoided Unless Associated with a Recognized Meaningful Case Outcome

Patent,

by Dennis Crouch

Superior Industries v. Masaba (Fed. Cir. 2014)

Superior Indus. is an interesting short non-precedential opinion from the Federal Circuit. Judge Clevenger wrote the opinion whose holding is simply a remand for clarification. However, the case raises important constitutional questions of justiciability and advisory opinions.

At the lower court, the parties argued over construction of the terms "channel beam," "C-shaped channel beam," and "elongate opening." After district court Judge Donovan Frank construed those terms, the patentee (Superior) admitted that it could not prove infringement. Judge Frank then awarded summary judgment of non-infringement without substantive opinion other than noting Superior's admission of liability.

On appeal, Superior challenged the claim construction of those disputed terms, but the Federal Circuit has refused to hear the case because it the record was unclear as to whether a modified claim construction would change the outcome.

It is impossible for us to determine from this opinion which of the thirteen contested claim constructions would "actually affect" the infringement analysis. This poses a risk that our review of at least some of the constructions would amount to an advisory opinion.

The implicit logic here begins with the reality that the dispute is over infringement and validity and the only reason to construe claim terms is when the asked-for construction impacts those dispute end-points. Claim construction decisions that do not impact the final outcome are then advisory opinions barred by both judicial practice and the US Constitution. Often courts must be their own counsel on justiciability questions such as these because they are not waivable even when agreed-to by both parties.

Wither Early Claim Construction?: If we take this logic back to the district court level, the opinion offers important prerequisite to a district court's claim construction – namely that no claim terms should be construed unless & until the district court determines that the construction is meaningful to the outcome of the case at hand. This plays-out with the pending patent reform bills as well that call for early claim construction. To the extent that those bills would force courts to make advisory opinions, they are unconstitutional. See Hayburn's Case, 2 U.S. 408 (1792) "neither the legislative nor the executive branches can constitutionally assign to the judicial branch any duties but such as are properly judicial, to be performed in a judicial manner."

= = = = =

Judge Rader wrote a short concurring opinion tied to Superior's claim in question. Here, Superior's patent claims a dump truck that has a support frame that is "configured to support an end of an earthen ramp." The term is relevant because at least some of Masaba's accused products are not really designed to work on earthen ramps.

Judge Rader writes:

I agree with, and join in, the majority opinion. However, in reviewing the claim constructions articulated by the district court, I observe that it read a great deal into the claims in the process of construing them. Thus, I write separately to articulate a couple claim construction principles that may assist the district court on remand when it revisits its constructions. First, in claim construction, one must not import limitations from the specification that are not part of the claim. Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed.Cir.2012). Indeed, claims generally are not limited to any particular embodiment disclosed in the specification, even where only a single embodiment is disclosed. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1117 (Fed.Cir.2004). Second, and relevant to this case, a system claim generally covers what the system is, not what the system does. Hewlett–Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed.Cir.1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) ("The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not."). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed .Cir.2009).

This framework is an important addition to the ongoing debate over functional claim language.

= = = = =

Acquired Patent Licensing: Guest Post by Prof. Risch

Patent,

By: Michael Risch, Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law

Read the whole draft here, forthcoming in the George Mason L. Rev. It is about half the length of a typical law review article, so I call it an essay.

Back in October, I presented at the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property Conference on The Commercial Function of Patents in Today’s Innovation Economy. I spoke on a panel entitled “Patent Licensing: New Business Models and New Opportunities.” I decided to focus on the commercialization benefits of licensing patents purchased from another – thus, my highly creative title: Licensing Acquired Patents.

This was actually a tall order. On the one side, licensing has been around for 150 or more years, so arguing that licensing acquired patents is a new opportunity took some work. On the other side, economic theory holds that late stage licensing (that is, ex post licensing) offers the least commercialization benefits, so convincing skeptics (read: licensees) that there are commercial benefits to the practice was also no easy task. This is why acquisition is important. Original owners usually have a chance at early stage licensing. Acquirers almost never do.

I begin the essay with a short section on the stages of patent licensing, but I’ll start here with the historic part. There’s no real dispute that there has long been licensing, sale, and other secondary market activity for patents, dating into the early 1800’s. Economic historians have done a great job of tracing this history, and I cite several articles and books in my essay. But a sustained business model of acquiring patents and licensing them was not really common. For the most part, secondary markets involved inventors attempting to sell or license patents to those who would practice the invention, not to those who would – in turn – license others.

Of course, there were exceptions, and I focus on them in the essay. The big ones were railroad, agriculture, and dental patents. In each case, there were a few higher profile non-producer patent buyers who attempted to license others (and sued those that refused). While there is a smattering of other activity, licensors aren’t discussed by name in the press and they did not buy and license more than two or three patents each. In the essay, I discuss what we might learn from the rise and fall of these patent “sharks,” which appeared to thrive only in limited industries at a very particular time in our patent history. Both laws and producer behavior were part of the equation.

Following the history discussion, I turn to commercialization benefits of licensing. I make some key assumptions in the paper about such licensing – most primarily that pricing is negotiated in good faith. In other words, if a patent owner refuses to acknowledge low quality patents and insists on too high prices, then commercial benefits are unlikely. Similarly, if manufacturers refuse to acknowledge high quality patents and insist on too low prices, then commercial benefits are unlikely. And finally, I note that there may be private commercial benefits that are not socially beneficial (that is, they enhance private but not total welfare).

I discuss several commercialization benefits. The first is a signaling benefit. There are a lot of patents, and even if a company attempted to find all of them associated with a complex product (which often doesn’t happen), it likely will not. But owners know what patents they have. Thus, owners are the least cost information producers, and informing manufacturers of relevant patents can have some commercialization benefits. Even if the patents are of low quality, the manufacturer is in a better information position than before; it can buy, license, or challenge the patents.

This signaling leads to a second benefit: some freedom to operate that was unavailable before, assuming a reasonable license is entered. At least one study shows that litigation costs more than simply “litigation costs.” Litigation can also hamper investment in the product itself. This is not surprising, of course: litigation is a drag, literally and figuratively. So avoiding litigation can enhance commercialization of the accused product.  I acknowledge that investment would be really enhanced if nobody enforced their patents, but that’s an unlikely scenario and this is an essay about licensing.

I make a few other suggestions of commercialization benefits, and finally discuss how licensing acquired patents may help drive licensing toward the earlier, more beneficial stages of licensing – where technology licenses predate investments in products, even if it winds up cutting out the acquirers. I give a few examples of how this might happen and how the process has already begun.

There is more in the essay than I can write about here. If you are interested, please take a look at the full version.

Federal Circuit Claims Jurisdiction over Regulatory Decision but Denies Nationwide Injunction for State Law Infraction

Patent, , ,

By Dennis Crouch

For many innovative new products, regulatory approval is a much greater hurdle than patent protection. And, unlike patent rights, regulatory approval is often a necessity. The present case is interesting in that the mascara product straddles the border between a lightly regulated beauty aide and a medical drug treatment.

Allergan, Duke University, and Dr. Murray Johnstone v. Athena Cosmetics (Fed. Cir. 2013) (CaseText)

Duke & Dr. Johnstone each hold several patents that are apparently embodied by Allergan's eyelash growth medicine Latisse and exclusively licensed by Allergan. In 2009, these partners collectively sued Athena Cosmetics for selling RevitaLash mascara in a way that infringes the patents. In addition, Allergan alleged violation of state (California) unfair competition law by selling drugs (i.e., medicated mascara) without regulatory approval.

Following some amount of pretrial litigation (including a claim construction and summary judgment of non-infringement), the district court dismissed all of the patent claims without prejudice (stipulated dismissal). A dismissal without prejudice means that the patentee to can re-file those claims at a later date. The district court then found summary judgment for the plaintiffs — holding that Athena violated California's unfair competition law (UCL) by marketing, distributing and selling the mascara without regulatory approval. The district court then ordered a nationwide injunction against the sales.

Federal Circuit Jurisdiction. On appeal, the Federal Circuit first focused on the question of appellate jurisdiction. Under the law, the Federal Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over "any civil action arising under, or in any civil action in which a party has asserted a compulsory counterclaim arising under, any Act of Congress relating to patents."

Although the original complaint clearly raised substantial issues of patent law, Allergan argued that the stipulated dismissal without prejudice removed the arising under jurisdiction. See Gronholz v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 836 F.2d 515 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (dismissal of patent claims without prejudice operated as an amendment of the complaint and thus eliminated arising under jurisdiction); Rothe Dev. Corp. v. Dep't of Def., 545 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("the basis of a district court's jurisdiction—and thus the path of appeal—may change over time in a case, for example, if certain claims are dismissed without prejudice").

On appeal, the Federal Circuit determined that the non-prejudicial dismissal did not eliminate the court's arising-under appellate jurisdiction. The court agreed that a non-prejudicial dismissal can eliminate its appellate jurisdiction, but distinguished this case because the prior patent rulings in the case indelibly altered the parties legal rights. In particular, the district court's prior claim construction ruling and summary judgment of non-infringement.

In the decision, the Federal Circuit did not discuss either the importance of amendments to the jurisdictional law found in the AIA or the recent Minton v. Gunn decision. By ignoring Minton, the Federal Circuit skipped over the more holistic interests-based approach to arising-under jurisdiction required there in favor of a more bright-line analysis that has been previously rejected by the Supreme Court.

= = = = =

No Nationwide Injunction for Violating California Law: The Federal Circuit agreed that the district court correctly found Athena liable for violating California law, but the Appellate Panel rejected that court's nationwide injunction order as an abuse-of-discretion. The Federal Circuit wrote:

The injunction impermissibly imposes the UCL on entirely extraterritorial conduct regardless of whether the conduct in other states causes harm to California. This injunction is so broad that it would bar Athena from making its product in Idaho, distributing it from a facility in Nevada, and selling it to Connecticut consumers.

Interestingly, because the cause of action here was based on California law, the Federal Circuit looked to see whether California courts would have imposed a nationwide injunction and found that the "[t]he conduct enjoined here is exactly the sort of purely extraterritorial conduct that the California Court of Appeals expressly held could not be regulated by the UCL."

In addition, the Federal Circuit held that such extraterritorial application of California would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution's dormant Commerce Clause.

In short, California may, as it has in this case, conclude that its own unfair competition law has been violated, and it may prohibit any future conduct within its borders that would cause continued violation of its law. California is not permitted, however, to extend its unfair competition law to other states.

The upshot then is that RevitaLash is back on the market, but not in California (as shown in the image above).

= = = = =

Professor Shubha Ghosh has written a number of important and interesting academic works. One is his recent book titled Identity, Invention, and the Culture of Personalized Medicine Patenting (2012 Cambridge Press). That book relates here because Ghosh identifies the '105 patent as a "race specific patent." The patent made Ghosh's book because identifies the race and gender of study subjects: e.g., "[study included] 38 Caucasian, 3 African-American, 1 Asian, 1 Hispanic; 13 male, 30 female." Ghosh argues that race-specific categories should not be allowed to be particularly claimed (they were not in this particular patent).

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

Patent,

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

= = = = =

By Dennis Crouch

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

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

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

The particular prejudicial are as follows:

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

Considering these statements, Judge Everingham wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Updated to delete my harsher remarks]

= = = = =

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

= = = = =

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

A First IPR Decision on the Merits

Patent, , , , ,

Garmin v. Cuozzo Speed Tech, IPR2012-00001 (PTAB 2013)  Download Final decision-59

In its first full merits decision in an inter partes review case, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has sided fully with the petitioner Garmin and ordered the three challenged claims cancelled. As you may discern from the docket number, this case was also the first IPR case filed on September 16, 2012 (the first day that such filings were allowed). The patent at issue is No. 6,778,074 and a parallel infringement lawsuit between Garmin & Cuozzo is pending in New Jersey District Court. Although the district court did not stay that case, Magistrate Judge Dickson has slowed the process to avoid making substantive decisions until the PTAB decision. In particular, the claim construction arguments have been delayed.

The patent itself is directed toward a speed-limit indicator tied to a GPS system that provides a signal to the driver when the care is moving faster than the speed-limit. Couzzo has accused several device makers (such as Garmin) as well as automobile manufacturers (such as Chrysler) of infringing the patent.

Garmin's IPR request actually challenged 17 claims of the '074 patent, but the PTAB only instituted the review for claims 10, 14, and 17 as such, it likely that Cuozzo will continue to pursue the litigation with a focus on the remaining claims. Those three claims were all found obvious by the PTAB. Based upon my quick read of the claims, independent claim 10 was the broadest in the patent and its elimination may give Garmin the opportunity to avoid infringement by pushing for a narrow construction of the remaining claims.

Four Reference Rejection: Patent attorneys regularly see obviousness rejections that hinge on the combination of four references.  However, the conventional wisdom is that those complex factual arguments are much less likely to fly in disctrict court litigation.  Here, the PTAB took on the challenge and found the patent obvious based upon four prior art references.  The take-away here is that the PTAB is ready and willing to handle complex invalidity arguments that might not work at the district court level. 

 

Claim Construction: One interesting aspect of the case is the way that the pending parallel litigation is clearly in the forefront of each decision by the parties. One limitation found in each claim of the patent is that a speedometer be "integrally attached" to a speeding-indicator. Couzzo that the proper construction of that term would require that the speedometer and speeding-indicator both be part of the same single component (i.e., shown on the same screen). On that point, the Board sided with Garmin – finding instead that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim scope required two separate components. In addition to making the claim more subject to prior art, the seeming result is also that a single Garmin device GPS cannot infringe unless somehow integrated with and integrally attached to a separate vehicle speedometer. Moving forward it will be interesting to see what level of respect the district court gives the PTO decision. I suspect that it will be given a great deal of respect.

Unable to Prove Early Conception  or Diligence: Two of the important prior art references used by the board presumptively qualify as 102(e) prior art in that the references are published US patent applications that were filed prior to Couzzo's application. Under the old first-to-invent rules, the law allows Couzzo prove a prior invention date. Here, Couzzo's proof failed because (1) his conception evidence was based solely on inventor testimony which is never sufficient without corroboration; and (2) his evidence of submission to the "Invention Submission Corporation" was insufficient because the date of submission was not corroborated by any testimony. Thus, the PTAB found that the earliest provable date of conception was December 2000 when the ISC patent attorney sent a letter to Couzzo referencing Couzzo's invention disclosure. Because Couzzo had not yet reduced his invention to practice as of that December 2000 date, the law also requires that he act with "reasonable diligence." Here, Couzzo received a search report from the patent attorney in January 2001; did not respond until March 2001; and did not explain why it took two months to provide comments or his daily progress on the matter. Then, later in March 2001 he received a new favorable patentability report from the patent attorney who stated he would begin work once Couzzo paid a $3,500 fee. However, he did not pay that fee until August 2001. Couzzo stated that he did not have the money at the time, but did not provide any daily progress reports showing what he was doing to get the money. The PTAB found that each of these gaps showed failure of diligence. As such, his attempt to antedate the references was rejected. The unfortunate problem here is that it looks like it was the complexity and tricks of the system that failed Couzzo and that, had he been blessed with more cash-on-hand and more sophisticated patent counsel then he would have avoided these key prior art references either by filing the patent application earlier or by ensuring documentation of conception and diligence. Soon after Couzzo's case was filed, the USPTO went after the Invention Submission Corporation as a scam. My understanding is that InventHelp is the successor-in-interest to ISC.

 

Exhausting Method Claims

Patent,

By Dennis Crouch

LifeScan v. Shasta Tech (Fed. Cir. 2013)

The doctrine of patent exhaustion is something of a mess following the Supreme Court case of Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008). Here, the Federal Circuit relies on Quanta to find that a patented method of using a blood-glucose meter and test strips was exhausted (and therefore unenforceable) when the meters being used were received as gifts from the patentee. The case is an interesting and important read for patent strategists. Although the patentee lost here, the case implies several strategies that future patentees can use to avoid a similar outcome.

LifeScan’s business model is interesting. It essentially gives-away its OneTouch blood-glucose meters but then makes money by selling the disposable test strips required to perform the test. The company’s patent covers the combined use of the meter and the strips to measure glucose levels. U.S. Patent No. 7,250,105. Shasta sells knock-off versions of the lifeScan strips designed to be used in LifeScan OneTouch meters. LifeScan tried, but it was unable to obtain a patent on the strips themselves because of extensive prior art in the area.

Although Shasta does not actually perform the patented method, it does sell a product particularly designed to perform that method and also encourages its customers to perform the method. Thus, in 2011, LifeScan sued Shasta for inducing infringement and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c). LifeScan also requested a preliminary injunction that was granted by N.D. California District Court Judge Edward Davila. The law of appellate procedure allows for immediate appeal of preliminary injunction decisions, leading to the present decision.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction – finding that Shasta’s use of the patented method was excused under the principles of patent exhaustion.

A patent offers exclusive rights to control the sale of goods covered by the patent. However, long ago, courts determined that a patent right should not confer power to control the entire downstream marketplace for goods. The non-statutory patent exhaustion doctrine achieves this goal by finding patent rights are exhausted or used-up vis-à-vis a particular patented good once the patentee authorizes its original sale or release into the marketplace. This concept is codified in copyright law under 17 U.S.C. § 109 that states “the owner of a particular copy … lawfully made under this title … is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy.”

Exhausting a patented method: In at least two different cases, the Supreme Court has applied the exhaustion doctrine to method-of-use claims. United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241 (1942) and Quanta. Method claims are an odd-fit to the doctrine since the underlying product being sold will not necessarily be used to perform the method and may have been purchased for some other purpose. In Univis, the court wrote that the sale of an article that “embodies essential features” of a patented invention exhausted the patent-holder’s rights in that particular article. Then, in Quanta, the court particularly stated that “method patents [are] exhausted by the sale of an item that embodied the method” and confirmed the “embodies essential features” test from Univis. In particular, the Quanta court noted an important factor for determining “substantial embodiment” of the patent is whether additional “inventive” steps are required and the scope of reasonable noninfringing uses. In Quanta, additional physical hardware was required to make Intel’s chipsets into a workable system, but the court held that the chipsets exhausted LG’s patent covering a method of using the system since the “additional step necessary to practice the patent[s was] the application of common processes or the addition of standard parts.”

Here, the appellate panel found that LifeScan’s meter substantially embodies the essential features of the method-of-use patent. It turns out that this is seemingly a quite easy case because there are no “reasonable and intended” non-infringing uses of the meter. Using a clever argument, LifeScan proposed that the method-of-use claim included inventive features separate and apart from the meter’s function. However, the appellate panel rejected that argument based upon its reading of the patent and prior art – finding that the inventive “key” to the patent was the meter’s inherent comparing function. Here, the majority appeared comfortable following Supreme Court principles in this area that suggest deconstructing the patented claim into its points of novelty or inventiveness.

From a policy perspective, the court wrote that this is also the right decision:

Rejecting a claim of exhaustion in this case would be particularly problematic because LifeScan would be permitted to eliminate competition in the sale of the strips even though the strips do not embody the claimed invention and are themselves not patentable.

Killing a business model: LifeScan finally argued that exhaustion should not apply because it gives-away its meters for free and thus receives no “reward” for its patent. As a matter of first-impression for the Federal Circuit, the court held that “in the case of an authorized and unconditional transfer of title, the absence of consideration is no barrier to the application of patent exhaustion principles.” For this result, the court looked back to 17th century English Common Law principles regarding restraints on the alienation of chattels as part of a whole-interest transfer– finding that such restraints were (and are) typically barred regardless of whether the transfer was by gift or by sale. See also UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Augusto, 628 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2011)(copyright).

The majority was penned by Judge Dyk who was joined by Judge Prost.

Writing in Dissent, Judge Reyna argued that essential features of the patented method were embodied by the test strips and that, as a result, sale of the meter cannot exhaust the patented method.

= = = = =

Linking Exhaustion and Inducement: A commonly stated patent law linking principle is “That which infringes if later, anticipates if earlier.” Peters v. Active Manufacturing Co., 129 U.S. 530 (1889). Emerging from this case and Quanta appears to be another parallel – this time linking infringement and exhaustion. The principle could generally be stated that a patentees transfer actions exhaust a patent if those same actions, when done by another, would constitute infringement. Emerging from Quanta and LifeScan is the recognition that the principle applies even when the underlying claim is inducement and contributory infringement.

AIA Patents

Patent

The first-to-invent rules of the America Invents Act came into force on March 16, 2013. Patents with an effective-filing-date of March 16 or later are judged under the new rules of prior art and priority found in 35 U.S.C. § 102. Because the patent-prosecution process is slow, it appears that only two such utility patents have issued thus far: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,557,916 and 8,534,240. Both patents through an accelerated examination program and both issued without substantive rejection from the patent examiners. We expect to see only a trickle of these cases coming through over the next year with a larger bolus following.

Challenging the PTO’s NonAppealable Decisions to Grant or Deny Petitions for Inter Partes Review

Patent, , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

In re MCM Portfolios LLC (Fed. Cir. 2013) (pending on petition for writ of mandamus)

In a recent post, I wrote briefly about statutory bar against appealing PTO decisions to grant or deny a request for inter partes review. In particular, 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) reads as follows: No Appeal.— The determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable. MCM has now filed a somewhat direct challenge to the substance of that provision with a writ of mandamus to the Federal Circuit. Of course, a petition for writ of mandamus is not an appeal but instead a request for a particular order. By filing a writ (rather than an "appeal"), MCM avoids the statutory bar against appeals and also avoids the parallel problem arising from the lack of statutory support for a direct appeal. As I explain below, MCM would also argue that the statutory bar on appeals would not apply in its context because its petition challenges a PTO decision under § 315(b), not § 314.

MCM's Patent No. 7,162,549 covers a mechanism for controlling Flash storage devices that uses firmware error correction. According to the patentee, many Digital Picture Frames make use of the invention in their mode-of-operation. On September 21, 2011, MCM served PanDigital with a complaint for infringing the patent. Later, on March 28, 2012, MCM also sued HP for infringement. Now, the two lawsuits are largely the same because HP picture frames are actually made by PanDigital. MCM has provided expert testimony that HP DPFs are actually the PanDigital frames that have simply been re-branded with HPs name (with PanDigital's permission). Furthering the connection, HP publicly identifies PanDigital as its supplier; directs its customers to PanDigital for customer support; and sells its HP products on Amazon with an indication that they are also PanDigital products. Later, on March 28, 2013 HP filed its request for inter partes review. The date is important because it is just shy of one year after the March 28, 2012 date when HP was sued for infringement. It is, however, well over a year after PanDigital was sued.

35 U.S.C. § 315(b) creates a one-year statute of limitations for filing a request for inter partes review. The deadline is triggered when "the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent." Here, HP is the petitioners and filed within one-year of being served a complaint. However, as foreshadowed above, MCM argues that, for this action, PanDigital should also be considered a "privy of the petitioner."

In its decision, the PTAB sided with HP – writing that "[MCM] provides no persuasive evidence that HP could have exercised control over Pandigital's participation in the Texas Action. Thus, § 315(b) does not bar institution of inter partes review based on HP's Petition."

In the mandamus action, MCM argues that statute-of-limitations here is essentially a time-delayed res judicata action and, as such, it makes sense to interpret "privy" in the same manner as is done by the Supreme Court in those preclusion cases. In particular, MCM relies heavily on Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 890 (2008) to argue that the grounds for binding related parties is much broader than the "control" grounds suggested by the USPTO. The PTO's approach consequently "systematically misconstrue[es] Taylor to allow late IPRs." Of note here, the PTO seemingly agrees that Taylor controls, but reads Taylor differently than MCM.

Because Mandamus is an extraordinary writ, the petitioner must do more than simply indicate that the Board was wrong in its decision. Rather, the petitioner must also convince that this is a case that needs to be heard immediately. MCM offers three key reasons:

  • The Board's interpretation of §315(b) privity is incorrect as a matter of law.
  • The systematic denial of Taylor's second ground for establishing privity justifies this Court's exercising its supervisory role to resolve important issues of first impression that involve alleged usurpation of power. Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964).
  • The order of institution of an IPR cannot be remedied by a reversal on appeal.

Edward P. Heller is representing MCM in this appeal.

Download InreMCMPortfolioLLCWrit

Bits & Bytes from Jonathan Hummel

Patent,

RECENTLY

#1. Twitter’s Puny Patent Portfolio May Prove A Positive

Leading up Twitter’s IPO, market analysts are pointing to the relatively small number of patents held by the company as weakness. Jeff John Roberts, writing for GigaOM explains why Twitter’s slim patent portfolio might not be a weakness, but instead a sign of strength.

            -read Bloomberg’s countervailing story here.

 #2. Apple Touchscreen Patent Upheld in Reexamination

Steven Musil, writing for C|Net, reports that “after invalidating US Patent No. 7,479,949 last December, the USPTO issued a re-examination certificate (see article & examination certificate here) reaffirming all 20 claims included in the patent, according to a filing last month spotted by Foss Patents.”

#3. Jorge Contreras on Patent Pledges Outside Standards-Setting Organizations

Dan O'Connor, writing at Patent Progress, interviewed Jorge Contreras to discuss his new paper, “Patent Pledges,” covering FRAND commitments and a call for a new paradigm in standards-setting. Mr. Contreras is a professor at the Washington College of Law at American University and a contributor at Patent Progress. His research focuses primarily on the effects of intellectual property structures on the dissemination and production of technological innovation, with a focus on basic scientific research and technical standards development.

#4. Goodlatte’s Innovation Act

Both Dennis Crouch here at Patently-O, and our friend Andrew Williams  at PatentDocs, wrote about legislation proposed by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va), namely the “Innovation Act.” The bill is squarely aimed at Patent Trolls and allows for parties to discover who the ultimate owner of the patent or exclusive right actually is, rather than a shell corporation.

            -Read Dennis’ article here.

            -Read Andrew’s article here.

PENDING

#1. Samsung Files Patent on Competitor to Google Glass

Alex Colon, writing at GigaOM, reports that Samsung has filed a design patent in Korea that looks suspiciously similar to Google Glass. Apparently, the Samsung patent focuses more on the “sportiness” of the spectacles. “The patent shows that the glasses could come with built-in earphones, which would allow you to listen to music and answer calls while you’re wearing it.”

 

COOL TECH

#1. Unbreakable Chemical Locks

Lisa Zyga’s story at Phys.org explains how research performed by Professor Abraham Shanzer and his group at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel could lead to the first chemical lock that responds to multiple “passwords.”

            -read the article here.

 

UPCOMING

Whittier Law School IP Symposium

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

 

WIPO Events

 

JOBS

#1. Patent Associate – Law Firm – Rockford, Ill.

            –Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c., is a full-service business-oriented law firm with offices in Chicago, Rockford, Denver, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Madison, and Waukesha with a national and international client base.

 

#2. Patent Attorney – Law Firm – Washington, D.C.

            –Morris & Kamlay LLP, an IP specialty firm in DC with a relaxed and flexible work environment, is looking for an experienced patent prosecutor.

 

#3. Patent Attorney – Law Firm – Melbourne, Australia

            –Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick is seeking a Patent Attorney to work in its Melbourne, Australia, offices.

Related articles
The Baby Boom of Patent Practitioners
AIA Shifts USPTO Focus from Inventors to Patent Owners
New Patent Legislation: Innovation Act of 2013
Samsung Proposes a Patent Pledge to Settle EC FRAND Investigation
Anti-'Patent Troll' Bill Introduced In Congress
Bits & Bytes from Jonathan Hummel
Patent Practitioners

Federal Circuit Unanimously Affirms Inequitable Conduct, Teaching that Curing False Statements Needs to be Done Clearly

Ethics, ,

In Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp., the court affirmed the district court's conclusion of inequitable conduct.  Boiled down, the applicant filed a Rule 131 affidavit stating that it had actually reduced the invention to practice when, in fact, it had not.  In a later affidavit, references to "actual reduction to practice" were removed, but the affidavit still contained references to a prototype–that had never been made, among other things.  The court held that the affidavits were material, relying upon Therasense's statement that false affidavits were so by their nature.  It held there was intent to deceive based upon the first affidavit alone, confirmed by the filing of the second without clearing matters up coupled with similar misconduct in other related cases.

The case does not appear to break new ground, but it does reinforce the fact that inequitable conduct is not a dead letter.

Fascinating Split Decision on Impact of a Rule 36 Affirmance that May have Significant Consequences

Ethics, , ,

Wow, this one — Tecsec, Inc. v. IBM (Fed. Cir. 2013) — may have huge repercussions for appellate strategy, and also for the legal impact of hundreds of existing judgments. It deserves a read in full.  Judge Reyna's dissent captures what happened:

The majority concludes that the district court misconstrued various claim terms from three TecSec, Inc. patents. It reaches this conclusion notwithstanding that the same claim terms, same constructions, same arguments, and same summary judgment order were previously before this court and reviewed on January 9, 2012. See TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp. (“TecSec I”), 466 Fed. App’x 882 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In TecSec I, this court summarily affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement pursuant to Rule 36. Id. After TecSec lost its case against IBM, and without offering any additional evidence against the other defendants now before us, TecSec stipulated to noninfringement and has once again appealed the same district court’s claim constructions to this court. I respectfully dissent because I believe that entertaining this appeal gives TecSec a second bite at the apple and undermines the utility of Rule 36. 

The key paragraph to the majority's basis for reaching a different result is this:

The Rule 36 judgment in the IBM appeal summarily affirmed the district court’s judgment that IBM did not directly or indirectly infringe TecSec’s patents. The district court’s judgment was based on two independent grounds. The district court first ruled as a matter of law that TecSec’s direct and indirect infringement claims failed for failure of proof that IBM itself or any of its customers performed every claimed step or made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported any system containing all of the limitations of the asserted claims. As the dis- trict court stated in its opinion, without questioning TecSec’s construction of the terms now at issue, “TecSec has utterly failed to come forward with any evidence that IBM itself performed any of the steps of the method claims,” and “even if some user-implemented system were to meet all of the asserted claim limitations—which, as explained below it cannot . . . —TecSec has provided no evidence that IBM ever made, used, sold, offered to sell, or imported that entire claimed system . . . .” Summary Judgment Order, 769 F. Supp. 2d at 1010, 1012 (first emphasis added). The district court drew a similar conclusion regarding indirect infringement, as to which it found, as well, insufficient proof of the required intent. Given the absence of evidence that any steps were per- formed by IBM or that an entire claimed hard- ware/software system was ever made, used, sold, offered to sell, or imported by IBM or its customers, the district court was compelled to find no direct or indirect infringe- ment. Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 949–50 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (en banc) (“Every Supreme Court decision which has addressed the issue of infringe- ment of a patent claim, beginning with Prouty v. Draper, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 335, 10 L.Ed. 985 (1842)—and the prece- dent is voluminous—has held that where a part of the claimed invention, that is, a limitation of the claim, is lacking in the accused device exactly or equivalently, there is no infringement.”) The district court, in finding a complete failure of proof regarding any act of infringe- ment by IBM or its customers, did not rely on any rejec- tion of TecSec’s constructions of the terms at issue here. Indeed, IBM represented to the court that we could affirm the district court’s judgment solely based on TecSec’s “complete failure of proof” and did not “need to get to claim construction.” TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 2011-1303, Oral Arg. at 19:30–24:55, available at http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=20 11-1303.mp3. While the district court also ruled in the alternative that TecSec failed to show that IBM’s software met various claim limitations, as construed, our Rule 36 decision does not articulate a basis for affirmance, let alone an explication on claim construction. On this record, it cannot be concluded simply on the basis of this court’s summary affirmance that we expressly or by necessary implication decided the claim construction issues in the IBM appeal .

The majority later reasoned:  "Had claim construction been the only issue in the IBM appeal, and had that claim construction been essential to sustaining the judgment of noninfringement, the preclu- sive effect of our Rule 36 judgment would have been undeniable. But that was not the case."

I have a lot of questions.  If infringement can be found, or not, only after claim construction (I think that's right, absent marginal odd-ball cases), then claim construction was necessary to the judgment.  I also wonder how this fits in with the general rules about the impact of an affirmance of a judgment on alternate grounds, which the court does not discuss (perhaps the defendants did not appreciate these obscure doctrines; I don't know).  

If the panel decision is correct, doesn't it mean that a lot of appealable judgments that were "affirmed" on appeal have no impact, even on the parties to that appeal?  Suppose the district court clearly construes the claims, and based on that finds the patent both invalid and non-infringed. The case is Rule 36'd.  Is nothing decided except claim construction?  Isn't the patent, once again, "valid" because there is no binding judgment of invalidity?  I may be missing something… 

I bet there are an enormous number of fact patterns that might be implicated by this.  I am trying to get my head around how a district court's order, which is binding on the parties, becomes non-binding when affirmed on appeal?

I know that this may have huge impact on Rule 36; if a panel's decision does not resolve claim construction, unless it is somehow more "necessary" than it was here, then perhaps a panel should not use Rule 36 very often?  Interesting case with lots of systemic ripples, perhaps.

 

 

Amending the America Invents Act 2013

Patent, , , , , , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

One aspect of the Goodlatte discussion draft legislation is a series of “Improvements and Technical Corrections to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.” The AIA was passed in September 2011 and is gradually being fully implemented across the US patent system. The further changes here are fairly substantial, although buried within the proposed bill itself. The following post offers some explanation of the provisions with only a few comments on the policy implications.

1. REPEAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO OBTAIN A PATENT

For several years, the PTO has been pushing to weaken or eliminate the “civil action” option that is currently available to patent applicants who are refused a patent. The current system allows a patent applicant to file a federal lawsuit that asks a district court to order the PTO to issue a patent covering the claimed invention. The civil action approach allows for extensive presentation of evidence, live witness testimony, and an ultimate decision by a district court judge. And, since the civil action is not an “appeal” per se, substantial deference is not given to prior factual findings by the PTO (as long as the applicant presents its own evidence on point). The civil action approach is not widely used because of the expense of pursuing a district court claim. However, it has been a very successful approach for a number of patent applicants. Under the new provision, the only avenue for challenge an adverse PTO decision on the merits of an application would be through appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

2. POST GRANT REVIEW ESTOPPEL SUBSTANTIALLY NARROWED

The current estoppel rules of post-grant review indicate that a petitioner will be estopped from latter asserting in-court that the challenged patent “invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that post-grant review.” The amendment would substantially narrow the estoppel to cover only grounds that the petitioner actually raised.

This change would result in Post-Grant review being much more of a parallel option rather than an alternative option to challenging patent validity.

3. CONSTRUING CLAIMS DURING POST-GRANT and INTER-PARTES REVIEW

The proposal would require that the claims under review be construed in the same way that they would be construed by a district court rather than using a “broadest reasonable construction.” The statute as written requires that the PTAB construe “each claim of the patent in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” However, that method is somewhat different than what has been ruled as the law by the Federal Circuit.

4. CODIFICATION OF DOUBLE PATENTING DOCTRINE

The statute would create a new statutory provision that is intended to codify the obviousness-type double patenting doctrine. This ensures that the doctrine is carried through into the AIA. I have not parsed through the new provision to see if it does what they say it does:

35 U.S.C. §106 that reads as follows:

A claimed invention of a patent issued under section 151 (referred to as the ‘first patent’) that is not prior art to a claimed invention of another patent (referred to as the ‘second patent’) shall be considered prior art to the claimed invention of the second patent for the purpose of determining the non-obviousness of the claimed invention of the second patent under section 103 if—

(1) the claimed invention of the first patent was effectively filed under section 102(d) on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the second patent;

(2) either—

(A) the first patent and second patent name the same inventor; or

(B) the claimed invention of the first patent would constitute prior art to the claimed invention of the second patent under section 102(a)(2) if an exception under section 102(b)(2) did not apply and, if applicable, if the claimed invention of the first patent had not been effectively filed under section 102(d) on (but was effectively filed before) the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the second patent; and

(3) the patentee of the second patent has not disclaimed the rights to enforce the second patent independently from, and beyond the statutory term of, the first patent.

5. EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF COVERED_BUSINESS_METHOD REVIEWS

The AIA creates an option for third parties to attack patents on non-technological “covered business method” innovations through the use of a new post-grant review proceeding. Through the review program, third parties can raise any ground of invalidity and can use this approach to pre-AIA patents. The amended provision would appear to sweep-in virtually all software-type patent claims.

Under the changes, the 7-year sunset provision would be removed; the expansive definition of business methods found in SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Dev. Group, Inc., CBM2012-00001, 12 Paper 36 (January 9, 2013), would be codified; and the “non-technological” requirement would be clarified/expanded to make clear that a claim’s recitation of technological features does not make the claim technological “if it is readily apparent that the recited [technological] feature is anticipated by or obvious in light of the prior art.”

6. SHRINKING PATENT TERM ADJUSTMENT

The bill proposes a clear rule that no PTA can be awarded for any delays that occur following the filing of a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). This would reduce the patent term for a substantial portion of patents and the bill indicates that the recalculation would be retroactive against any patent application still pending at the time of enactment.

7. OVERTURNING OF GUNN V. MINTON

Although not a statutory change, the bill would make the “clarifying” statement that:

CLARIFICATION OF JURISDICTION.—Congress finds that the Federal interest in preventing inconsistent final judicial determinations as to the legal force or effect of the claims in a patent presents a substantial Federal issue that is important to the Federal system as a whole.

This provision has the potential of bringing patent malpractice claims back under Federal Court jurisprudence. And, to the extent that patent licenses depend upon the scope of a patent claim, licensee disputes would also be heard in Federal Courts.

AIA Changeover: Claiming Subject Matter Not Found in the Provisional Application

Patent,

By Dennis Crouch

New patent applications are now being examined under the first-to-file rules codified in the America Invents Act of 2011. In my patent class, I talk about these as effectively rules of evidence that indicate what does and does-not count as evidence against patentability. Any change in the rule of law always has changeover difficulties where policymakers must figure out where to draw the line between the old and new rules. For the AIA, new patent applications filed on or after March 16, 2013 are examined under the new rules so long as the new application contains (or ever contained) at least one claim whose effective filing date is on or after March 16, 2013.

Under the new rules, the USPTO also requires that patent applicants help the PTO understand whether a new application should be examined under the AIA. In particular, the applicant must tell the PTO whenever it is pursuing a patent application that claims priority to a pre-AIA filing but that includes (or once included) at least one claim that had a post-AIA priority date. In the cut-out above, this statement is shown as a check-box as part of the application data sheet form.

The Risk: Over the next year, this issue will arise in thousands of cases – typically those will involve a pre-AIA provisional application followed by a post-AIA non-provisional application with some amount of new matter added in the claims. Under the rules, if any of the claims in that non-provisional lacked sufficient support in the provisional then the entire application is to be analyzed under the first-to-file regime of the AIA. Of course, the difficulty is that in US law the dividing line between supported and unsupported subject matter is not crisp and the determination is now being placed on patent applicants to make that determination at the risk of an inequitable conduct finding down-the-line.

Overturning the PTOs Approach?: It is possible that the USPTO’s interpretation of the new law is incorrect. The PTO rules require a patent-by-patent analysis of the effective filing date. Under the USPTO’s approach either a patent is an AIA patent or it is not. However, another reading of the AIA suggests that the proper approach is to go claim-by-claim rather than patent-by-patent. In particular, revised Section 102 focuses on the “effective filing date of the claimed invention” not the effective filing date of the patent application as a whole. 35 U.S.C. 102(a). In addition, the definitions Section 100(i) also focuses on individual claims – indicating that the effective filing date of a “claimed invention” is “(B) the filing date of the earliest application for which the patent or application is entitled, as to such invention, to a right of priority [or benefit].” It seems to me that the statutory guidance of Sections 102 and 100(i) collectively instruct us to consider the effective date of a claimed invention rather than for a patent application as a whole, and when thinking about prior provisional/parent/grandparent applications, the focus should be on whether those prior applications disclose the claimed invention in question.

But the PTO’s Approach is Probably Correct: Now, the PTO’s rule makes sense under the AIA, Section 3(n) that provides that the first-to-invent rules apply to

any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains or contained at any time— (A) a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date as defined in [35 U.S.C. §] 100(i) … that is on or after the effective date described in this paragraph; or (B) a specific reference under [35 U.S.C. §§] 120, 121, or 365(c) … to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.

The result here is really that whether-or-not a claim is adjudicated under the first-to-file regime is determined on a patent-by-patent basis but the priority date (i.e., effective filing date) associated with any particular claim may be prior to March 16, 2013, even when the patent is being adjudicated under first-to-file.

Federal Circuit Rejects Supreme Court Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction over State-vs-State Inventorship Disputes

Patent, , , , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

A highlight of this opinion is Footnote 1 of Judge Moore’s dissenting opinion that states “The majority baldly asserts that issues of patent ownership and inventorship are not sufficiently grand for the Supreme Court to resolve in the first instance. That is not our decision to make. It is for the Supreme Court to itself decide.”

= = = = =

University of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Fed. Cir. 2013)

In 2011, University of Utah (UUtah) filed a federal lawsuit under 35 U.S.C. § 256 to correct the inventorship of U.S. Patent No 7,078,196. That patent is directed to Small Interfering RNAs (siRNAs) and methods of creating those molecules that are the current study of intensive genetic therapy research.

According to USPTO records, the patent is owned collectively by the Max-Planck Institute as well as MIT, the Whitehead Institute and the University of Massachusetts. Dr. Brenda Bass – a UUtah professor – alleges that Dr. Thomas Tuschl – a UMass Professor – incorporated her ideas into his patent but then did not name her as an inventor. All of these assignees were named as defendants in the complaint filed in Federal District Court.

The appeal raises interesting issues of civil procedure, federalism, and sovereign immunity. The 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution generally provides sovereign immunity to state governments from any cause of action in Federal Court brought by citizens of another state or country. However, the 11th Amendment does not provide for immunity in state-vs-state actions. Rather, the U.S. Constitution provides that “In all [Federal] Cases . . . in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Art III, §2, cl. 2. Following the constitutional guidance, the jurisdictional statutory code provides that the “Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.”

Rather than fighting the battle in District Court, UMass (a state institution) argued that the case brought by UUtah (another state institution) should be seen as a state-vs-state conflict that should go directly to the Supreme Court in the matter of first instance.

In order to avoid that result (but still reach the same result), UUtah dropped UMass as a defendant and instead list the leaders of UMass (including its president Robert Caret) as the defendants. Based upon that change, District Court Judge Saris held that the case should no longer be seen as a state-vs-state case and that, as a consequence, the Supreme Court did not have exclusive original jurisdiction. Judge Saris also found that correction of inventorship was not a “core sovereign interest sufficient to make this a dispute between States,” but that the case could proceed against the named officials under the Ex parte Young doctrine. Particular to this case is that the remedy demanded was an order directing the USPTO to correct inventorship rather than calling for any monetary or injunctive relief against the state.

Although the district court case is not final, the Federal Circuit took an immediate appeal under the Collateral Order Doctrine.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed – finding that “UMass is not a real party in interest under the Supreme Court’s caselaw.” Although both the Constitution and Statute appear clear, the US Supreme Court has been reluctant to take cases such as this and has thus added requirements that the case be “serious,” “dignified,” and raising “important” federalism concerns. In addition, the Supreme Court has considered whether there are other avenues for relief. And, both of the competing states must be indispensable parties to the lawsuit.

On this notion, UMass argues that UUtah is seeking the property of UMass (i.e., its patent) and that is sufficient to make UMass a real party that cannot be “plead around.”

Agreeing with UMass, the Federal Circuit instead held that the case is about “inventorship” and the identity of the individual inventor of a patent is not a “core sovereign interest” that need be raised directly to the Supreme Court. In addition, the Federal Circuit agreed that the formal shift from suing the University to suing the University President in his Official Capacity was sufficient to evade the state-vs-state setup. Finally, the appellate panel found that UMass (a patent owner) is not an indispensable party to the case since its interests are being adequately protected by the other co-owners and its named officials.

In reality, UUtah UMass [Updated] likely does not want the Supreme Court to directly hear the case. Rather, the strategy here is that the University is largely betting on the likelihood that the Supreme Court would decline to exercise jurisdiction – effectively ending the case.

= = = = =

Writing in Dissent, Judge Moore vigorously disagreed with the majority’s holding.

The majority erroneously holds that a patent-ownership dispute between two state universities is not a “controversy between two or more States.” It then compounds this error and holds that a patent owner is not an indispensable party to an action that seeks to reassign title to the patents-in-suit. I respectfully dissent.

I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The district court lacks jurisdiction over UUtah’s claims against the UMass Officials because those claims raise a dispute between two States, Utah and Massachusetts. Article III of the U.S. Constitution vests the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction over cases in which a State is a party. As § 1251(a) expressly states: “The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.” There is no dispute that UUtah and UMass are instruments of Utah and Massachusetts, respectively, and that a suit between those institutions could only be brought in the Supreme Court. The majority, however, concludes that § 1251(a) does not apply here because UUtah elected to sue the UMass Officials rather than UMass. That conclusion is incorrect.

To determine if a suit implicates the Supreme Court’s exclusive original jurisdiction, we look “behind and beyond the legal form” of the claim and determine “whether the State is indeed the real party in interest.” Arkansas v. Texas, 346 U.S. at 371. The majority agrees with this general proposition but holds that the UMass Officials, not UMass, are the real parties in interest. I disagree.

This case involves a dispute between UMass and UUtah over who owns the rights to the Tuschl II patents. UMass is the assignee of the Tuschl II patents and UUtah “wants to own the patents.” UUtah is pursuing that interest through a correction of inventorship claim under 35 U.S.C. § 256 and a corresponding request for an order that UUtah owns the patents. … UUtah also alleges in its complaint that it “should be the sole owner or an owner” of the Tuschl II patents. It specifically requests that the court “order assignment of all right title and interest” in the patents to UUtah. Indeed, the majority recognizes (1) that UUtah specifically requested that the court assign it all rights to the Tuschl II patents and (2) that UUtah will obtain the rights to the patents if it prevails on its correction of inventorship claims. This is a dispute about ownership, plain and simple.

UUtah cannot recast the nature of this dispute by suing the UMass Officials as stand-ins for UMass. Indeed, the majority never holds that the UMass Officials have any interest in this proceeding. Nowhere does the majority suggest that the UMass Officials are “parties concerned” that may be subject to a correction of inventorship action under § 256(b). . . .

Section 1251(a) contains “uncompromising language”: the Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over “all controversies between two or more States.” Mississippi v. Louisiana, 506 U.S. 73, 77, 113 S.Ct. 549, 121 L.Ed.2d 466 (1992). The majority errs when it concludes that § 1251(a) does not apply to this dispute because the “State has no core sovereign interest” in inventorship or patent ownership. Maj. Op. at 13–15. The majority’s “core sovereign interests” test is at odds with the plain language of the statute, which contemplates “all controversies” between states fall within 1251, not just those involving core sovereign interests. There is simply no basis to limit the statute in such a way.

Moreover, requiring a core sovereign interest to implicate the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction erodes the Court’s discretion to decide which controversies it will hear. The existence of the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction and its discretion to exercise that jurisdiction are separate concepts. The Court’s exclusive original jurisdiction extends to “all controversies between two or more States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a). The Court, however, is not required to exercise its jurisdiction over every controversy. The Court tends to exercise its jurisdiction sparingly, depending upon the nature of the interest of the complaining State, the seriousness and dignity of the claim, and the availability of another original forum to resolve the dispute. Mississippi v. Louisiana, 506 U.S. at 76–77. The concept of a “core sovereign interest” has roots in opinions that address whether the Supreme Court will decide to exercise its jurisdiction over a dispute, not whether the Court’s exclusive original jurisdiction over the controversy exists. See id. at 77; Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554, 570, 571 n. 18, 103 S.Ct. 2558, 77 L.Ed.2d 1 (1983); Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. Cahill, 217 F.3d 93, 109 (2d Cir.2000) (collecting cases). The majority’s conflation of those two concepts strips the Supreme Court of its discretion to decide if a case is sufficiently serious to exercise jurisdiction over it. It reallocates that power to the lower courts—who will decide which subset of cases—those implicating core sovereign interest—will be presented to the Supreme Court. FN1

The majority finds support for its decision in the Second Circuit’s split decision in Cahill. With all due respect, even if we adopt the flawed logic of the majority in Cahill, this case would still fall within the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction in § 1251. The majority correctly recognizes that, generally, a State is the real party in interest if ” the effect of the judgment would be to restrain the Government from acting, or compel it to act.” Maj. Op. at 14 (quoting Cahill, 217 F.3d at 106). But the majority nevertheless concludes that UMass is not the real party in interest because a judgment to correct inventorship “will not require or restrain UMass from acting.” Id. at 13. This is not correct.

A judgment in UUtah’s favor will restrain UMass’s ability to act. If successful, UUtah will be declared sole owner of the Tuschl II patents and UMass will have no interest in them. UMass will not be able to license or assign the patents. And UUtah will be able to exclude UMass from practicing the inventions claimed in the patents. Patent rights are the quintessential right to restrain. The effect of this judgment will be to prevent UMass from exploiting the Tuschl II patents or the technologies they cover. This certainly “restrain[s] the Government from acting.”

UUtah alternatively requests that Dr. Bass be found to be a co-inventor. A finding that Dr. Bass is a co-inventor of the Tuschl II patents will result in UUtah co-owning those patents. The effect of the judgment would be that UUtah could practice or license the patents without UMass’s consent and without having to account to UMass. See 35 U.S.C. § 262. The judgment would thus restrain UMass from asserting its rights in the Tuschl II patents against UUtah or any of UUtah’s licensees. Again, this restrains UMass from acting.

The majority ignores these effects on UMass. Without explanation, the majority asserts that UMass will only be “more or less affected by the decision” and that transfer of the Tuschl II patents to UUtah will “not deplete the state treasury.” Maj. Op. at 15. This is incorrect. A correction of inventorship by the PTO will give UUtah an ownership interest in the Tuschl II patents by operation of law and dilute or revoke UMass’s property interest. Indeed, as the majority also recognizes, UUtah expressly asks the court to order the reassignment of the patents to UUtah. The central effect of a judgment in UUtah’s favor will be to deplete the assets of the current owners of the Tuschl II patents, one of whom is UMass. UMass is thus the real party in interest in this case.

This is a dispute between two state universities over who owns a valuable patent portfolio—a dispute over property ownership. As undesirable as it may be, we are bound to follow the plain language of § 1251(a): “The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.” It is up to the Supreme Court to decide if it wants to exercise its exclusive jurisdiction over this controversy. We should not contort the statute to avoid a perceived injustice FN2 that would result if the Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over UUtah’s claims.

UUtah initiated an action that seeks to obtain UMass’s interest in the Tuschl II patents. That is a controversy between two States and can only be brought in the Supreme Court. Accordingly, we should reverse the district court’s decision that it had jurisdiction over UUtah’s claims against the UMass Officials.

II. Indispensable Party

The majority’s holding that UMass is not an indispensable party to this action is incorrect. We have held that when a plaintiff brings a declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate a patent or hold it not infringed, the patentee is both a necessary and indispensable defendant in that action. A123 Sys., Inc. v. Hydro–Quebec, 626 F.3d 1213, 1217–19, 1220–22 (Fed.Cir.2010); Enzo APA & Son, Inc. v. Geapag A.G., 134 F.3d 1090, 1094 (Fed.Cir.1998). It would be nonsensical to suggest that all patent owners must be joined in a suit seeking to invalidate the patent, but they need not be joined in a suit over patent ownership. Indeed, § 256(b) requires a court, before it orders a correction of inventorship, to provide “notice and hearing of all parties concerned,” i.e., those with an “economic stake” in the patent. Chou, 254 F.3d at 1359–60. We should apply our general rule that all co-owners must be joined in an action that affects their patent. See Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1467 (Fed.Cir.1998).

The majority instead holds that UMass is not an indispensable party because UUtah joined “all of the Tuschl Patent owners except UMass,” each of whom are “jointly represented by legal counsel.” Maj. Op. at 21. It is not enough that UMass and the named defendants “share the same overarching goal” of defeating UUtah’s inventorship and ownership claims. A123 Sys., 626 F.3d at 1221 (holding that absent patentee was an indispensable party when the named party had “overlapping” but not “identical” interests).

The majority deviates from our longstanding requirement that all patent owners be joined, citing an exception created in Dainippon Screen Manufacturing Co. v. CFMT, Inc., 142 F.3d 1266 (Fed.Cir.1998). It is true that, like Dainippon Screen, the named defendants here are represented by common counsel. But the majority omits the “highly relevant” facts from Dainippon Screen—the absent party was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the named party and was created by the named party to enforce the patents-in-suit. 142 F.3d at 1267–68, 1272–73. We allowed the suit to go forward because “the parties’ interests in the asserted patents were not just common, but identical.” A123 Sys., 626 F.3d at 1221 (discussing Dainippoin Screen ).

There is no party in this suit which represents UMass’s interest in the Tuschl II patents. Other defendants also have an interest in the patents, but they do not represent UMass’s interest. Indeed, their interests may well diverge. For example, the non-UMass defendants may choose to settle with UUtah in a way that diminishes UMass’s rights, such as stipulating that Dr. Bass is the sole inventor of the Tuschl II patents in exchange for ownership interests in the patents. That risks extinguishing UMass’s rights to the patents without UMass participating in the lawsuit.

The majority further claims that defendant Alnylam can represent UMass’s interest because UMass “handed sole and exclusive control of this suit over to Alnylam.” Maj. Op. at 21. That right, however, is conditional. If there is a conflict of interest, Alnylam loses its right to control UMass’s defense. Id. The agreement thus contemplates that Alnylam and UMass may not have identical interests. Because UMass does not have identical interests with any of the named defendants, it is an indispensable party in this case. I dissent from the majority’s contrary holding.

Federal Circuit gets Technical with PTAB Failures

Patent, , , , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

In re Guiffrida (Fed. Cir. 2013) (non-precedential)

Great Lakes NeuroTechnologies is a spin-off of Cleveland Medical Devices (CMDI) and focuses on therapy systems for movement disorders. The new company took control of a handful of CMDI patents when it was formed back in 2011. However, the patent application in question would be their first post-formation patent issuance, and the company’s first patent issued listing its president (Joe Guiffrida) as an inventor.

The preamble of Guiffrida’s first claim is directed toward a “portable therapy system,” although the claims body does not provide any further portability related limitation. In its decision, the PTAB had rejected the claim as anticipated over a single prior art reference (Shields). Shields does not make any remarks regarding portability, but the PTAB found the limitation disclosed because Shields does “not appear to contain any structure confining it to a particular location.” On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected that analysis – finding that the prior art’s failure to disclose non-portability is not the equivalent of disclosing portability.

An anticipating reference must disclose every claim limitation, either expressly or inherently [and i]nherent disclosure requires that the prior-art reference necessarily include the unstated limitation. . . .

The Board found that Shields inherently discloses a portable system because Shields does “not appear to contain any structure confining it to a particular location.” But that observation does not indicate that Shields “necessarily” includes a portability limitation, or even that Shields must necessarily be free from “confin[ement] to a particular location.” On the contrary, a finding that Shields does not say that its system is not portable—which is all that the Board’s statement implies—is just a restatement of the fact that Shields does not expressly disclose a portability limitation. It does not suggest anything about what Shields inherently discloses that would suffice to shift the burden to Giuffrida to disprove inherency.

A confusing aspect of patent claims is that a claim preamble is often seen as non-limiting. Here, any confusion was eliminated because the PTO and the applicant agreed that the portability limitation is limiting. In the appeal, the Federal Circuit accepted that interpretation without comment.

Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Requires Consideration of Specification: The parties did not wholly agree on the meaning of portability. For its part, the PTO applied its wrong-headed “broadest reasonable interpretation” to suggest that a portable device is one that “can be carried.” Although irrelevant for this case, the Federal Circuit took the PTO to task for applying that “dictionary definition” of the claim term rather than construing the term “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” Quoting Phillips v. AWH. According to the appellate panel, the specification provides that a portable system is one that is “capable of being transported relatively easily.” In fact, the specification states that “By portable it is meant among other things that the device is capable of being transported relatively easily.” The Federal Circuit seems to have skipped over the wiggle-words “among other things” that were certainly inserted in order to open the term to a much wider variety of definitions.

Cryptic PTAB Decisions: In an earlier essay, I wrote about the Board’s new approach of writing shorter opinions. Here, the Federal Circuit gave some credence to that approach. Noting that cryptic obviousness rejections can be upheld where the analysis can be “reasonably discerned.” Here, the court noted that the board can rely upon the examiner’s brief in its decision.

Board made a number of obviousness rejections and those were affirmed on appeal except for claim 24 that I will discuss below. On remand, the PTO may also replace the reversed anticipation rejections (discussed above) with obviousness rejections – especially since the result of this case is that many of the here-adjudged novel claims have dependent claims that are here-adjudged as obvious.

Claim 24 in the patent application adds a limitation that some of the system components communicate using “a two-way RF link.” I don’t think that anyone (even a Federal Circuit judge) believes that a two-way RF communication limitation would normally transform an unpatentable system into one that is non-obvious (without something more). But, here the Federal Circuit reversed the rejection – finding that the PTO had failed to prove-up its burden.

[The proffered prior art’ uses ultrasound transducers that communicate with a compact unit, which, in turn, communicates with a computer. Those communications are twice referred to as “wireless,” but the document says little else about them. It does not mention a radio frequency (RF) link, a two-way or bidirectional link, the retransmission of data over such a link, or any benefits from such retransmissions. We have been pointed to no substantial evidence that Zheng teaches such features.

Nor has the Director persuasively explained why Zheng [the prior art] renders those limitations from claim 24 obvious. On the contrary, the reasoning within the PTO has been inconsistent and conclusory in this matter. In stating that it “fail[ed] to see how a system that can both receive signals from sensors and deliver them to, for example, FES systems, could operate absent a two-way link,” the Board cited a paragraph in Zheng that mentions a wireless link between units embedded in the body and an “outside control unit.” The Examiner invoked different paragraphs from Zheng to find that a two-way link is “implied” or “required.” Broad-brush statements based on Zheng’s generic references to a “wireless” link are insufficient to support the conclusion that Zheng renders obvious a claim calling for the “wireless[ ] retransmi[ssion] [of sensor signals] over a two-way RF link.” We therefore reverse the rejection of claim 24.

On remand, the PTO should be able to find some prior art that shows wireless RF two-way communication that fits this case.

Federal Circuit Begins its Campaign for Patent Clarity

Patent, , ,

By Dennis Crouch

Wyeth v. Abbot Labs (Fed. Cir. 2013)

In a unanimous opinion, the Federal Circuit has affirmed a summary judgment holding that Wyeth’s patents are invalid as lacking enablement under 35 U.S.C. 112. Wyeth’s patents cover the use of rapamycin antibiotic to treat and prevent restenosis following arterial balloon catheterization. See U.S. Patent Nos. 5,516,781 and 5,563,146. The claimed invention is simple and basically says, administer an “antirestenosis effective amount of rapamycin.” Claim 1 of the ‘781 patent reads as follows:

1. A method of treating restenosis in a mammal resulting from said mammal undergoing a percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty procedure which comprises administering an antirestenosis effective amount of rapamycin to said mammal orally, parenterally, intravascularly, intranasally, intrabronchially, transdermally, rectally, or via a vascular stent impregnated with rapamycin.

One requirement of patent law is that the patent application (at the time of its filing) must sufficiently enable a person skilled in the relevant art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. This “enablement requirement” is codified in Section 112(a) of the Patent Act (Formerly known as Section 112¶1).

Here, it is the “full scope” requirement that kills the patent. In particular, Wyeth requested and received a broad construction of the claim term rapamycin to in a way that includes a large number of molecules that are structurally analogous to one another. However, the specification only discloses a single species along with a number of assays that could be useful to ascertain whether potential compounds exhibit the requisite effect.

In the appeal, the Federal Circuit aligned itself to the rule that broad claim scope requires broad disclosure. Here, the court noted that the rapamycin definition includes “tens of thousands” of candidate molecules and the specification “is silent about how to structurally modify sirolimus.

Undue experimentation: For its part, Wyeth argued that a lab tech with the usual skill and little creativity could systematically work through the various potential candidates to find which ones actually work. Citing to Johns Hopkins Univ. v. CellPro, Inc., 152 F.3d 1342, 1360–61 (Fed. Cir. 1998), Wyeth argued that a large pile of merely routine experimentation does rise to the level of impermissible undue experimentation.

The Federal Circuit disagreed – finding that the trial-and-error process of tens-of-thousands of candidates moves the project well into the range of undue experimentation.

[T]here is no genuine dispute that it would be necessary to first synthesize and then screen each candidate compound using the assays disclosed in the specification to determine whether it has immunosuppressive and antirestenotic effects. There is no evidence in the record that any particular substitutions outside of the macrocyclic ring are preferable. Indeed, a Wyeth scientist confirmed the unpredictability of the art and the ensuing need to assay each candidate by testifying that, “until you test [compounds], you really can’t tell whether they work or not [i.e., have antirestenotic effects].” J.A. 6929. In sum, there is no genuine dispute that practicing the full scope of the claims would require synthesizing and screening each of at least tens of thousands of compounds. . . .

Even putting the challenges of synthesis aside, one of ordinary skill would need to assay each of at least tens of thousands of candidates. Wyeth’s expert conceded that it would take technicians weeks to complete each of these assays. The specification offers no guidance or predictions about particular substitutions that might preserve the immunosuppressive and antirestenotic effects observed in sirolimus. The resulting need to engage in a systematic screening process for each of the many rapamycin candidate compounds is excessive experimentation. We thus hold that there is no genuine dispute that practicing the full scope of the claims, measured at the filing date, required undue experimentation.

The take-away legal points here are (1) broad claims must do more to satisfy the enablement requirement than narrow claims; and (2) when excessive, routine non-creative efforts to recreate the invention can constitute undue experimentation.

The case is also interesting because it comes at a time where policymakers are looking to tighten the requirements of Section 112. As it did during the debate over the AIA, the Federal Circuit appears poised to make its mark on the current debate over patent scope and clarity.

Dey v. Sunovion

Patent

By Jason Rantanen

Dey, L.P. v. Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013) Download 12-1428.Opinion.5-16-2013.1
Panel: Newman (dissenting), Bryson (author), O'Malley

Although decided under the "old" version of 35 U.S.C. 102, Dey v. Sunovion has broad ramifications for both current and future patents.  At issue was whether a clinical study – conducted by the accused infringer in this case – constituted an invalidating "public use."  All three judges agreed that the district court erred in granting summary judgment that the study was a public use. Judge Newman would have gone further and granted summary judgment that the study was not a public use.

A Classic Issue With a Twist: In the 1990s and 2000s, Dey and Sunovion both developed pharmaceutical products containing the compound formoterol for treating pulmonary disease.  Both filed for and obtained patents and both conducted clinical trials. 

In a twist on a classic issue, Sunovion – the accused infringer – asserted that its clinical trials were an invalidating public use against Dey's patents because they involved the accused formulation and took place well before Dey's 102(b) critical date.  During Sunovion's clinical trials, participants were given treatments to take home and self-administer twice daily.  Participants were also given some information about the study (but not the specific formulation) and signed a consent form stating that the medications must only be taken by the person for whom it was intended and that they would have to keep usage logs and return unused medications.  Test administrators signed a confidentiality agreement. The district court granted summary judgment in Sunovion's favor and Dey appealed.

The Law of Public Use: On appeal, the Federal Circuit applied the public use framework articulated in Invitrogen v. Biocrest:  "To decide whether a prior use constitutes an invalidating 'public use,' we ask 'whether the purported use: (1) was accessible to the public; or (2) was commercially exploited.'"  Slip Op. at 6, quoting 424 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).  Here, the case turned on the "accessible to the public" form of public use, a fuzzy determination guided by the policies underlying the pubic use bar and a multi-factor analysis including "the nature of the activity that occurred in public; the public access to and knowledge of the public use; [and] whether there was any confidentiality obligation imposed on persons who observed the use."  Id., quoting Bernhardt v. Collezione Europa USA, 386 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  The court held that this approach applies equally to alleged third party public uses. 

Against this backdrop, the CAFC reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment of invalidity.  First, the majority viewed the issue of whether the use of Batch 3501A by study participants was "indisputably open and free" as opposed to "sufficiently controlled and restricted" as a factual determination.  "The fact that a tiny fraction of the thousands of vials were lost without penalizing the responsible test subject(s), or that the practicalities of the study required self-administration at home rather than physician administration in a closed facility, does not preclude a reasonable jury from concluding that the use of Batch 3501A was sufficiently controlled and restricted, rather than unfettered and public."  Id. at 9.  Similarly, the issue of the confidentiality obligations imposed in the study was open to dispute.  "Because a finder of fact could conclude that the study was conducted with a
reasonable expectation of confidentiality as to the nature of the formulations being tested, summary judgment on the public use issue was inappropriate."  Id. at 11.  

Public Use or Public Knowledge?: One of the main tensions in determining whether there has been an invalidating public use has long been the question of whether it is the use of the invention in public that matters or whether knowledge of the invention by the public is necessary.   In my classes, I use the classic case of Egbert v. Lippman to start the discussion: is it a public use because Samuel gave the corset springs to Frances without restriction or is it a public use because Frances wore the corset springs under her clothes in public?  Here, the court adopted the former view: what mattered in Egbert was the giving of the corset springs without restriction to the public (Frances), not the wearing of the springs in a concealed manner in public. 

In adopting this view, the majority rejected the approach of  New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir.2002), which quoted another classic case, City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson" for the proposition that "the core issue is not public knowledge of the invention, but the public use of it":

The language quoted from New Railhead derives from the seminal “experimental use” case, City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co., 97 U.S. 126, 136 (1877), and it makes good sense in that setting: During experimentation, the public might have knowledge of an invention (because they see it), but may not be using the invention within the meaning of the statute (because the inventor is experimenting).4 As for Egbert, although the invalidating use in that case was not visible to the general public, the case turned on the lack of control the inventor maintained over his invention.

4 In New Railhead, the invalidating public use took place at a public commercial job site, with the knowledge of the patentee inventor. 298 F.3d at 1293, 1298. “Commercial exploitation is a clear indication of public use,” even absent separate consideration of public accessibility,
Invitrogen, 424 F.3d at 1380, and “secret commercialization” by a third party is not public use, even if it might have resulted in forfeiture were the third party the one filing the patent application, W.L. Gore, 721 F.2d at 1550.

Slip Op. at 14-15. 

Consequences for Arguing the Issue of Public Use: One major consequence of this opinion is that is makes the argument against clinical trials being public uses much easier and simpler.   Rather than attempt to deal with the complexity of arguing that a clinical trial falls into the experimental use exception to public use (a challenging task, given Federal Circuit precedent over the last decade), Dey provides an excellent grounding for the argument that many clinical trials are not public uses at all.