Tag Archives: First to Invent

Apple v. Samsung: Adding Elements to Avoid Infringement

Patent, , ,

By Dennis Crouch

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., — F.3d —, 2012 WL 4820601, App. No. 2012-1507 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (N.D.Ill. 12-CV-0630) (APPLE II)

This is my second post on the appellate decision that I term Apple II. [Read the First Apple II Post.] In Apple II, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated N.D. California District Court Judge Koh’s preliminary injunction order that would have forced Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus smartphone off the market pending conclusion of the infringement lawsuit. The appellate court provided two independent reasons for vacating the preliminary injunction order: (1) that Apple had failed to provide proof of irreparable harm due to Samsung’s continued use of the particular invention covered by the patent; and (2) that a finding of infringement is unlikely based upon the claim construction as corrected by the Federal Circuit. This post focuses on the claim construction issue.

The patent at issue in this case is U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604. That patent issued in December 2011 but stems from upon an application originally filed in January 2000 and appears to be largely directed to aspects of Apple’s Siri application (although the original invention is not tied to a mobile device). After construing claim 6 of the patent, the district court found that Samsung’s product likely infringes. On appeal, the Federal Circuit has reversed that claim construction in a way that substantially narrows claim scope and thus negates any likelihood that Samsung infringes. Although the claim-at-issue uses open-ended “comprising” language, the appellate panel held that an apparatus that includes additional similar (but non-infringing) elements would not be covered by the patent.

Claim 6 is directed to an “apparatus for locating information in a network” comprising various software elements. The basic idea is that the system has a set of heuristic modules corresponding to different search areas. We all use heuristics for searching. For example, if you want to find prior art relating to a chemical compound, you might hire an expert chemistry searcher. On the other hand, if your search area is airplane seat design, you might hire someone else. Under the language of the patent, these search strategies could be defined as two different heuristic modules each corresponding to their respective search area. In the lawsuit itself, Apple identified the three heuristic modules as (1) a Google Search Module; (2) a Module that allows for Search of Internet Browsing History; and (3) a Search of a user’s Contacts List. One difficulty with considering this case is that this invention appears in hindsight to be ridiculously obvious. However, obviousness is not the topic of the appeal.

The patent claim requires “a plurality of heuristic modules … wherein: each heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm corresponding to said respective area.” Samsung’s product allegedly uses a plurality of heuristic modules corresponding to different search areas. However, the accused product does not use “different, predetermined heuristic algorithm” for each and every different search area. I have modeled this below with a diagram of the Galaxy Nexus Search System associated with five different Search Areas (A,B,C,D,E) but only three different Heuristic Modules (X,Y,Z). Although some of the Heuristic Modules are re-used by the system, Apple argues that the system still infringes under standard patent law that would find the addition of non-infringing elements to an infringing core does not negate infringement. See CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (infringing device may include additional, unrecited elements).

Writing for the unanimous panel, Judge Prost (joined by Judge Moore and Reyna) rejected Apple’s argument and instead agreed with Samsung that the claim “requires that [each and] every heuristic module within the accused device use a unique heuristic algorithm.”

[D]espite the use of “comprising,” claim 6 is not amenable to the addition of other modules that do not use different heuristic algorithms because such addition would impermissibly wipe out the express limitation that requires every module to have a unique heuristic algorithm.

It appears from the court’s remarks that a simple claim amendment might have saved Apple’s case:

  • Original: “a plurality of heuristic modules … wherein: each heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm …”
  • Proposed: “a plurality of heuristic modules … wherein: each of the plurality of heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm …”

However, Apple might not have been able to obtain patent protection if it had clarified that the system might use the same heuristic algorithm for a variety of search areas. In particular, during prosecution Apple used the limitation in question to avoid prior art. The company argued “Andreoli does not describe … that each of the local and remote search operations employs a different heuristic algorithm.” Although the appellate panel based its decision on what I see as odd linguistics, this prosecution history argument is probably the most damning evidence.

Apple has at least one continuation application pending and thus has the opportunity to further shape its claims in a way that captures the market while avoiding prior art. See U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2012-0166477. The USPTO is also in the early stages of conducting an inter partes reexamination that was filed in August 2012 by Motorola Mobility (Google). See Inter Partes Reexamination No. 95/000,685.

Federal Circuit Rejects Galaxy Nexus Preliminary Injunction Finding No Irreparable Harm Despite a Market Shift in Samsung’s Favor.

Patent,

By Dennis Crouch

Apple v. Samsung, — F.3d —, App. No. 2012-1507 (Fed.Cir. 2012) (N.D.Ill. 12-CV-0630) (APPLE II)

This case is important because it further reduces the chances that the owner of a component patent will obtain injunctive relief.

Patent litigation is fairly slow and often takes years for a case to proceed through trial and appeal. One shortcut to action is a motion for preliminary injunction. Such a motion asks a court to exert its equitable power to immediately stop the harm of ongoing infringement – even before ultimately concluding that the patent is valid, enforceable and infringed. Following an extension of eBay v. MercExchange, courts require a patentee to satisfy a four-factor test before granting injunctive relief.

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”

Generally, these preliminary injunction factors can be thought of as being identical to the eBay permanent injunction factors with the addition of having to prove the likelihood of success on the merits. (In a permanent injunction scenario, the merits have already been decided.) An important aspect of preliminary injunctions in patent cases is that they are immediately appealable as a matter of right. This right of immediate appeal is different from almost every other district court decision except for the ultimate dismissal of the case.

In this case, Judge Koh issued a preliminary injunction ordering Samsung to stop sales of its Galaxy Nexus smartphone based upon the likelihood of its infringement of Apple’s Patent No. 8,086,604. I should pause for a moment to note that this case is different from the parallel Apple v. Samsung case that resulted in a $1b jury verdict for Apple that is currently being challenged by Samsung. The patent in the case-at-hand is related to Google’s Siri system that uses a set of heuristic modules for searching various types of information.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit has vacated Judge Koh’s decision – finding that the district court “abused its discretion” in issuing the injunctive order favoring Apple. The court found two basic problems: (1) that Apple had failed to prove irreparable particularly linked to Samsung’s use of this particular invention; (2) that the district court had construed the asserted claims too broadly with the result being that Apple probably cannot prove infringement. Either of these issues would be sufficient to reject the preliminary injunction.

In discussions of injunctive relief, this opinion will likely be termed Apple II in order to distinguish it from the federal circuit Apple v. Samsung decision issued earlier this year in Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 678 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (hereinafter Apple I). Both decisions build on the nexus analysis that links the patented invention to the alleged irreparable harm – “that a sufficiently strong causal nexus relates the alleged harm to the alleged infringement.”

This nexus analysis for irreparable harm is parallel to that employed in other areas of patent law such as consideration of secondary factors of non-obviousness and in proving lost profits. This development obviously makes it much more difficult to obtain injunctive relief in the typical high-tech scenario where a retail product includes thousands of small innovations that each contribute incrementally to the ultimate value of a product.

In Apple I, the court described the law as follows:

To show irreparable harm, it is necessary to show that the infringement caused harm in the first place. Sales lost to an infringing product cannot irreparably harm a patentee if consumers buy that product for reasons other than the patented feature. If the patented feature does not drive the demand for the product, sales would be lost even if the offending feature were absent from the accused product. Thus, a likelihood of irreparable harm cannot be shown if sales would be lost regardless of the infringing conduct.

In Apple II the court continues:

In other words, it may very well be that the accused product would sell almost as well without incorporating the patented feature. And in that case, even if the competitive injury that results from selling the accused device is substantial, the harm that flows from the alleged infringement (the only harm that should count) is not. Thus, the causal nexus inquiry is indeed part of the irreparable harm calculus: it informs whether the patentee’s allegations of irreparable harm are pertinent to the injunctive relief analysis, or whether the patentee seeks to leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant.

It only follows that the causal nexus analysis is not a true or false inquiry. The relevant question is not whether there is some causal relationship between the asserted injury and the infringing conduct, but to what extent the harm resulting from selling the accused product can be ascribed to the infringement. It is not enough for the patentee to establish some insubstantial connection between the alleged harm and the infringement and check the causal nexus requirement off the list. The patentee must rather show that the infringing feature drives consumer demand for the accused product. Only viewed through the prism of the causal nexus analysis will the irreparable harm allegations reflect a realistic sense of what the patentee has at stake.

Here, Apple proved that its Siri application (also covered by the patent) is popular and also that demand for the Galaxy Nexus had come at the expense of iPhone purchases. However, the court found that Apple failed to show that the customer demand for Galaxy Nexus was driven by its allegedly infringing feature. Without proving that link, the court could not find that the (alleged) infringement caused irreparable harm.

Apple I was decided by Judges Bryson and Prost with a partial dissent by Judge O’Malley (concurring on this issue). This case, Apple II was decided by Judges Prost, Moore, and Reyna acting unanimously.

Taken as a pair, Apple I and Apple II are important because they further reduce the chances that the owner of a component patent will obtain injunctive relief. Before eBay, irreparably harm was hardly a consideration. Since eBay, the irreparable harm factor has largely focused on whether the patentee has a product or potential product being harmed by ongoing infringement. Now, the question will move to the next level of granularity in a way that will be difficult for patentees to prove.

Did the AIA Eliminate Secret Prior Art?

Patent, , , ,

In many ways, prior art is the core of the US patent system. Patentability requires that any invention-to-be-patented be “new” as defined by 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103. Prior art serves as the underlying evidence to prove that the invention is not new. As implied by its name, prior art has a temporal aspect in that the “prior art date” must come before (i.e., be prior-in-time to) the critical patentability date of the invention in question. Sometimes, the identical invention is found within a single prior art reference. In that case, the newness doctrine of “novelty” as defined by 35 U.S.C. § 102 will do the invalidating work. However, more often than not, a prior art reference will only teach a portion of the purported invention. In that case, the prior art may still serve a useful roll when applying the obviousness doctrine defined by 35 U.S.C. § 103.

We’ve talked about two key features of prior art: (1) being earlier in time and (2) teaching some aspect of the invention being claimed. Those two elements are never sufficient to satisfy the evidentiary requirements of prior art. Rather, the law always requires one additional element to take this information from being merely prior private knowledge to being prior art. As part of the America Invents Act move to a first-to-file regime, this additional step will always involve (3) transferring knowledge.

One argument favoring a first-to-file regime is its focus on publicly available information rather than privately held knowledge. And, in most cases, the step of transferring of knowledge highlighted above is a public act. Thus, prior art may be created through publication, patenting, or public use. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (post-AIA). The AIA retains one form of temporally-secret prior art in that the prior filing of a patent application by “another inventor” will be deemed prior art as of its filing date. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) (post-AIA; formerly defined by § 102(e)). This is secret prior art because patent applications are typically kept secret by the USPTO for 18-months after they are filed. However, I term § 102(a)(2) prior-art-as-of-filing-date as only temporally (or temporarily) secret because such a reference cannot be used as prior art unless and until the prior-filed application is made public through either publication or patenting. Perhaps because of the unfairness of associated with its secrecy, most other countries besides the US only allow this type of prior art for novelty arguments and not for questioning obviousness (inventive step).

The AIA did eliminate several types of secret of prior art, including prior secret invention by another inventor under pre-AIA § 102(g) and prior knowledge transferred from another to the patent applicant under pre-AIA § 102(f). The individualized secrecy of these prior art references created two main problems: (1) that patentability could not be fully evaluated with going through the arduous process of obtaining additional information from interested parties and (2) that the secrecy gave interested parties more of an opportunity to fraudulently create (or destroy) documents after-the-fact. Making patentability based upon publicly available information can hypothetically lead to some unjust outcomes, but it has the enormous benefit of providing clear(er) notice to anyone who cares to look.

Two important secret prior art questions remain — namely whether either (1) secret commercial uses (by the patentee) or (2) secret on-sale activity (by anyone) create prior art that can invalidate a patent on novelty grounds and contribute to invalidation on obviousness grounds. The Patent Act never expressly authorized the first type of prior art and has arguably now rejected the second. Advocates for a transparent prior art system argue that the AIA should be interpreted as eliminating both.

Secret Sales: One type of prior art that is traditionally thought of as potentially secret is created by what is known as the on-sale bar. An invention that is on sale before the critical patenting date will result in prior art that renders any patent invalid. There are a few ways that a sale or offer-to-sell could be secret: for example, (1) it might be an offer between two individuals that is subject to a (formal or informal) confidentiality agreement or (2) it might be an offer that does not fully disclose the scope of the invention.

The AIA retains the identical language of its predecessor statute regarding on sale activity that occurs prior to the defined critical date. Compare 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (post-AIA) with 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA). Although the “on sale” term itself is identical, the context of the new statute is arguably different. In particular, the new statute has added a catchall phrase “otherwise available to the public” that suggests that the on-sale activity must also be available to the public. The new statute reads as follows:

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless — 1. the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or …

The open question is whether the language here creates a legally cognizable implication that the “on sale” activity must be available to the public as well.

Secret Commercialization by the Patentee: In his 1946 decision in Metallizing Engineering, Judge Learned Hand explained that a patentee’s commercial use of its process (even if done secretly behind factory walls) counted as a “public use” sufficient to invalidate the later-filed patent application. The court wrote “That it is a condition upon an inventor’s right to a patent that he shall not exploit his discovery competitively after it is ready for patenting; he must content himself with either secrecy, or [a patent].” Under the rule, secret commercial uses of an invention by a third party does not count as a public use. This distinction is found nowhere in the patent statute, but has been judicially recognized for many years. While the new statute retains the “public use” language, many suggest that a strong congressional intent that the new statute eliminate the Metallizing rule.

USPTO Proposed Interpretation: In a set of proposed examination guidelines, the USPTO indicated its interpretations that the statute has altered these provisions in favor limiting the application of secret prior art. In particular, the USPTO’s position is that, while the statute is not entirely clear on these points, the legislative history indicates that that prefiling secret sales and commercial uses do not qualify as prior art under the revised Section 102. The PTO writes: “The legislative history of the AIA indicates that the inclusion of this clause in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) should be viewed as indicating that AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) does not cover non-public uses or nonpublic offers for sale.

For the most part, patent attorneys appear to agree with the USPTO’s proposals. The American Bar Association’s IP Law Section writes:

ABA IPL respectfully submits that the passage “otherwise available to the public” reflects the touchstone of what constitutes prior art under the AIA under section 102(a)(1). This section requires availability to the public or public accessibility is an overarching requirement. Such accessibility is critical to provide a simpler, more predictable and fully transparent patent system. As such, for a “public use,” for a determination that an invention is “on sale,” as well as to assess whether an offer for sale has been made, the statutory requirements under the AIA require a public disclosure. Thus, non-public offers for sale (and non-public uses) would not qualify as prior art under the AIA.

The AIPLA agrees, writing:

AIPLA believes that an offer for sale needs to be public to qualify as “on sale” prior art under §102(a)(1). . . . AIA §102(a)(1), unlike pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b), contains the residual clause “or otherwise available to the public.” This is a major policy change achieved by the new legislation, which would further the goal of increasing objectivity in the identification of prior art. . . .

[T]he legislative history of the AIA indicates that the inclusion of this clause in §102(a)(1) should be viewed as indicating that §102(a)(1) does not cover non-public uses or non-public offers for sale. AIPLA believes that such an interpretation reflects the clear intent of Congress. It is also consistent with the broad goal of global harmonization under a first-inventor-to-file system.

The IPO agrees as well – arguing in its comments to the USPTO that the AIA “overrules Metallizing Engineering by excluding ‘secret’ commercial activity from the ‘on sale’ provision” and that the only on sale activity relevant to patentability under the AIA is when an invention is “publicly on sale.” LES is also on board with this interpretation.

Several individuals disagreed, including Lawrence Pope who wrote:

Certainly, any change in patent law which abandoned a long established policy and allowed inventors to engage in secret commercial exploitation of their inventions for as long as they liked without forfeiting their right to obtain valid patent protection on the same, would require quite explicit statutory language. In addition, it would be expected that any such major change would be reflected in a more extensive legislative history than the mere comments of two members. One would at least expect to see it reflected in the Committee Report reporting on the legislation to the House of Representatives.

Mark Lemley also argued that the PTO’s interpretation is quite problematic:

[T}he proposed Guidelines take the position that the AIA has reversed an unbroken line of precedent of both the Federal Circuit and the regional circuits tracing back to Judge Learned Hand’s decision in the Metallizing case. Those cases hold — for impeccable policy reasons — that the term “public use” in old section 102(b) should be interpreted to prevent an applicant from making a secret commercial use for more than a year while delaying the filing of a patent application. A contrary conclusion, as the PTO now proposes, will enable inventors to keep their process inventions secret for years or even decades, and then surface and file a patent application. That is directly contrary to the goals of first-inventor-to-file in the AIA, which encourage early filing of patent applications.

Concluding that Metallizing and the cases that follow it were abrogated will have another, even more pernicious effect. Metallizing, Gore v. Garlock, and other cases interpret the term “public use” in the old statute. One might reasonably conclude that those cases stretch the meaning of that term, but what the courts said they were doing was interpreting “public use.” The term “public use” appears unchanged in new section 102 under the AIA. For the PTO to conclude that the new law opens the door to reinterpretation of the settled meaning of terms present in both the old and new statutes opens a dangerous door. Parties and courts might be expected to try to revisit the meaning of “on sale,” “patented,” “printed publication,” and many other settled statutory provisions, creating enormous uncertainty. To take just one example, the inherency doctrine, like the Metallizing rule, is not articulated expressly in either the old or new statute. If the reenactment of the term “public use” opens the door to revisiting Metallizing, it also opens the door to revisiting inherency, the “ready for patenting” rule in on sale bar, and a host of other settled cases. The PTO, patent applicants, and litigants would be much better served by leaving existing precedent interpreting unchanged statutory terms in place.

Read more comments here: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/comments/. (Note, the equally major issue is the USPTO’s interpretation of the disclosure grace period that is also part of the commentary).

What’s the Big Deal?: The USPTO does not have substantive authority to shape the interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 102. In the end, this issue will be resolved by the courts or else clarified by Congress in a technical amendment. In many ways, the arguments above are simply a preview for a Federal Circuit and Supreme Court ruling on the issue. One problem with the USPTO’s narrow view of the prior art is that it delays the eventual resolution of this issue since it gives patent applicants nothing to challenge. In any event, this is a debate that will continue for at least the next decade and likely beyond.

Bits and Bytes

Patent, ,

by Dennis Crouch

  • Human-Attorney Interaction: I’ve been enjoying the forum at ASKPatents.  My favorite question so far: How to torpedo a bad patent my former large employer is filing in my name? 
  • Patent Infringement as a Civil Liberty: The ACLU has filed its petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Myriad gene patent case.  Many of us believe that the Supreme Court is likely to take the case. Dr. Kevin Noonan (who is pessimistic on the case) has more on Patent Docs. Dr. Noonan has also written an interesting post on In re Droge and its place in the obviousness doctrinal framework.
  • More Patent Harmonization: The Senate has passed S.3486 –  the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012.  The House has not yet voted on its version of the Bill and is unlikely to take any action until after the November 6 elections. The Act would implement both the Hague Agreement (common design application) and the Patent Law Treaty (common filing issues for utility patents). [BNA] 
  • Is China Serious about Intellectual Property?: IPKat writes: “Xiao Zhenjiang, the leader of a counterfeiting gang was sentenced to life in prison and all of his belongings and property was ordered confiscated for counterfeiting almost GB £9,900,000 of luxury goods, specifically HERMÈS handbags/purses.”
  • Kodak Rounding Error: As another example of American schools failing to teach mathematics, it appears Kodak accidentally added a decimal when predicting a $2.6 billion sale of its patent portfolio.  Market estimates are now about 10% of that figure. Neil Wilkof writes more.
  • Next USPTO Director?: Managing Intellectual Property is queuing recently “retired” but indefatigable Robert Armitage as next USPTO Director.  Armitage should rightfully be seen as the driving force behind passage of the America Invents Act (AIA).  Armitage says that Kappos continues to be the right person for the job.  
  • No Standing to Defend Constitution: The USPTO has responded to Mark Stadnyk’s constitutional challenge to the AIA.  Their stance — that Stadnyk has no standing to defend the constitution because he cannot show any real or immediate injury due to the law’s implementation.  

America Invents Act: One Year Later (pt. 2)

Patent, , ,

By Jason Rantanen

Liveblogging the America Invents Act: One Year Later conference at the Indiana University Mauer School of Law. Warning: Quality may vary.

Session 2: First to File/Supplemental Examination

I spoke during this panel, so wasn't able to take down any notes during Q&A

John Schaibley – Panel is going to discuss two changes under AIA: First to invent to First to File and Supplemental Examination.  Summarized the two changes.

Jay Thomas (Georgetown) – thanks Bob for his hard work on the AIA; but he won't necessarily agree with everything Bob said. 

When we teach 102, it's "the long march" – a lot of it is now gone.  Still going to be some complexity due to the prior user defense.  Also, what does "or otherwise available to the public."  What's the role of secret uses and sales prior to the date of filing. 

Remember two cases: Egbert v. Lipman(sp?): you can have a public of one; Metallizing Engineering: a trade secret use is patent defeating.  New section 102(a) still has the term "public use" in it.  Early legislative history indicated a continuity of meaning.  But things changed.  "or otherwise available to the public" was added.  Some legislative history that says that this has to be true for all prior art. Note that "public" is still pretty broad.  Just because it's technically publicly accessible doesn't mean that it's necessarily easy to find.

Also, keep in mind that these two cases were instances where the patent holder effectively tried to extend the date of filing.  Is it sound industrial policy to allow secret uses to not defeat patentability? 

International harmonization: tried to move in that direction, but didn't completely succeed.  Example: safe harbor under new 102 is different as between US and Europe and Japan. 

Short term issues: lots of filing before March 16, 2013.  Abolition of the Hilmer doctrine; lose ability to swear behind prior art references.  Storm surge is coming.  There's going to be a sharp distinction between old and new cases.  What to train the new examiners in?  Old and new or just new?  Constitutional challenges – probably dubious.  Employment assignment agreements – these will be important to look at.  And what about the technical corrections bill?  Likely to involve some huge changes of its own – dissatisfied parties are going to push for these. 

Dana Colarulli (USPTO) – Probably agrees with Bob on most of the things he said.  But legislation only gets us a good portion of the way there.  There's more to do.  Specifically, implementing the provisions in the appropriate way through rules. The PTO is really trying to get the implementation right. Very much looking for comments and feedback on the proposed rules.

International harmonization – huge step forward in restarting international harmonization discussions.  But doesn't go all the way there.  More work to be done. 

Impact of the law overall – this is the most significant change since 1836.  A lot of these changes have been percolating for far longer than the five years up to the AIA.  First to file really goes back to 1966 with a report from Lyndon Johnson, then a 1992 report that made the same suggestion.  2004 National Academies of Science recommended as well.  First to file is both international harmonization and a best practice. 

PTO's goals in drafting the rules.  Make the guidance clear and transparent.  Address examination issues raised by AIA up front. 

On grace period – this is a critical issue.  It's a unique feature of US law, but it's not the same grace period as we had before.  There are going to be questions about how narrowly the grace period is going to be read.  USPTO has interpreted the the grace period to be very narrow.  There are many views about this issue. 

Sales issue (ed. do they have to be public?) – legislative history conflicts.  Is Metalizing Engineering overturned or not? 

Visit the USPTO's AIA implementation page – lots of good material there. 

Nathan Kelley (USPTO) – How supplemental examination is supposed to work.  Purpose of supplemental examination is to immunize patentees against claims of inequitable conduct based on information that was not disclosed, inadequately disclosed, or incorrect information. 

Supplemental examination lets just about all issues of patentability to be raised.  Talked about the mechanics of supplemental examination.  If, for example, the issue raised by the supplemental examination is a written description issue, that's what will go into reexam. 

Could apply to patents that have expired because the statute of limitations on a patent (enforceability period) is six years. 

Improper requests will not get into the PAIR system until they are granted. 

Items of information are anything, as long as they're written.  Videos/oral testimony must include a transcript.   Can't give more than twelve items of information in any one request.  But you can make more than one request.

Fees – about $5k for the request, plus upfront $16,000 for reexam that will be refunded if no ex parte reexam. 

(I spoke about inequitable conduct post-Therasense and the effect on supplemental examination)

During Q&A, question came up about PTO fraud enforcement.  PTO views supplemental examination as exactly that, not an inquiry into the intent of the parties.

Does the Entire Market Value Rule Make Sense when Applied to Apportionment Analyses?

Patent,

By Dennis Crouch

I struggle to understand the mathematical logic in the debate over the recent expansion of the entire market value rule (contemporary EMVR) for calculating damages in patent cases. The entire market value rule is a tool that – in most cases – prevents a patent holder from using entire market value of a product as the starting point (i.e., the “base”) when calculating patent damages. In its newest incarnation, the court has rejected use of the entire market value of an infringing product as the starting point for damage apportionment. In his Patent-Damages blog, Fish & Richardson Partner Justin Barnes provides his bottom line:

[I]f a product is not separable into constituent parts, the plaintiff is not necessarily entitled to a royalty base on that product (e.g., Outlook in the Lucent case), but that if a product is separable into constituent parts, the plaintiff almost certainly is not entitled to a royalty base on the overall product (e.g., [LaserDynamics and] Cornell).

The entire market value rule makes sense when it is being used to stop a patentee from unduly claiming the bulk of the infringer’s profits. However, the absolute rule doesn’t make sense when the entire-product royalty base provides a fine starting point for calculating the value of the incremental benefit provided by the invention in suit.

Patent damages are most often calculated as a percentage royalty rate multiplied by some “base price” of the infringing product and then multiplied again by the total quantity of infringing products. This approach is suggested by the Patent Act requirement that “the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs.” 35 U.S.C. § 284.

The contemporary entire market value rule debate focuses on what base price to use in a situation involving a patent whose innovation is directed toward a component of a larger product. In particular, the inquiry is whether the base price should be the price of the entire multi-component product or instead some price associated with the component itself. The name for the rule comes into play because the price of the entire product is also known as the “entire market value.” Unfortunately, the name for the rule masks an important element in the royalty calculus – that the percentage royalty rate is shifted downward anytime the base price is shifted from the component price to the price of the larger multi-component product. A patented innovation may have a large impact on the value of a particular component (and thus receive a high royalty rate). Of course, that component will fit within a larger product having many other valuable components. Because so many other factors contribute to the value of the multi-component product, the percentage of value that the patented innovation adds to the multi-component product will be considerably lower. So, as the base price moves toward capturing the entire market value, the percentage royalty rate drops.

In a model with a few assumptions about rational behavior and spillover benefit allocation, the arithmetic works-out so that a small percentage royalty of the entire market value of a multi-component product is equivalent to the appropriate corresponding larger percentage royalty of the component of that product. In one scenario the patentee receives a small percentage of a large sales base and in the other case receives a larger percentage of a smaller sales base. As we drill-down to smaller component pieces, the two variables in question – percent royalty and price-per-unit – vary inversely such that the product of the two stays constant. Since the damage award is based upon the product of those two factors, the choice of whether or not to use the entire market value as a base should not impact the actual damage award. I.e., there is no mathematical sense behind a rule that favors one approach over the other. With a reasonable royalty, we are usually looking to find the infringed invention’s marginal contribution to the infringer’s activities. That marginal contribution will not vary regardless of whether base is the value of the entire product or the relevant component.

Despite this simple analysis above, the courts have begun to severely limit the use of the entire market value in calculating reasonable royalties damages. The entire market value rule stops patentees from calculating damages based upon the entire market value of an infringing product to cases where the patented feature is the basis for customer demand. This is a shift in the law that may have begun with Lucent (2009) and Uniloc (2011). In the most recent case of LaserDynamics v. Quanta Computer, Inc., the Federal Circuit added-on to the rule by confirming that the royalty base used to calculate a reasonable royalty should be the “smallest saleable patent-practicing unit.” Further, the entire market value of a product can only be used when the patented feature is provide to be the “motivating factor” for the customer purchase of the product. Merely being a but-for or “important” cause of the purchase was insufficient. The Laser Dynamics decision is likely the first major patent decision written by Judge Reyna. For his conclusion, Judge Reyna relies heavily on 2009 decision by Judge Rader where he sat by designation as a district court judge in Cornell Univ. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 609 F. Supp. 2d 279 (N.D.N.Y. 2009). In that case, Judge Rader wrote that “counsel would have wisely abandoned a royalty base claim encompassing a product with significant non-infringing components. The logical and readily available alternative was the smallest salable infringing unit with close relation to the claimed invention—namely the processor itself.”).

Limits on using the entire market value for calculation have been traced back to the 1884 Supreme Court case of Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120, 121 (1884). In that case, the patentee was awarded only nominal damages because the patentee failed to prove that it had suffered any loss or that the infringer had profited from the patented mop head improvement. In rejecting the appeal, Justice Field wrote:

When a patent is for an improvement, and not for an entirely new machine or contrivance, the patentee must show in what particulars his improvement has added to the usefulness of the machine or contrivance. He must separate its results distinctly from those of the other parts, so that the benefits derived from it may be distinctly seen and appreciated. The rule on this head is aptly stated by Mr. Justice Blatchford in the court below: “The patentee,” he says, “must in every case give evidence tending to separate or apportion the defendant’s profits and the patentee’s damages between the patented feature and the unpatented features, and such evidence must be reliable and tangible, and not conjectural or speculative, or he must show by equally reliable and satisfactory evidence that the profits and damages are to be calculated on the whole machine, for the reason that the entire value of the whole machine, as a marketable article, is properly and legally attributable to the patented feature.”

The plaintiff complied with neither part of this rule. He produced no evidence to apportion the profits or damages between the improvement constituting the patented feature and the other features of the mop. His evidence went only to show the cost of the whole mop and the price at which it was sold. And, of course, it could not be pretended that the entire value of the mop head was attributable to the feature patented. So the whole case ended, the rule was not followed, and the decree is therefore Affirmed.

Garretson. Now, one major difference between now and then is that in 1884 a patentee was still allowed to seek disgorgement of the defendant’s profits – something that is no longer allowed in utility patent law. Setting profits aside, Garretson appears allow use of the entire market value so long as the patentee explains the added value of the particular patented invention and how that added value contributes to the value of the whole product “so that the benefit derived from [the invention] may be distinctly seen and appreciated.” The driving factor in Garretson as in contemporary cases is to prevent overcompensation. However, the contemporary courts have not (and perhaps could not have) explained how the entire market value used as part of an apportionment analysis leads to overcompensation.

We might consider the availability of evidence. In the usual case, the value-added by an invention may be easier to see and understand at the component level because there are fewer issues to consider. On the other hand, base price information tends to be better available when looking at the entire market value of a product because that is what customers purchase – rather than looking at the value (or profit) associated with an integrated component. In situations like these where there are various legal theories available, we usually let the parties decide how to present their case according to what they believe is the best and most convincing evidence. The usual approach to intellectual property valuation is to use a variety of methodologies in the hopes that there will be some convergence on a best estimate and this is one useful methodology. In the larger context of the hypothetical negotiation, it just doesn’t make any sense that neither party would have considered the price of the final product as part of their negotiations.

Cognitive Bias: In many multi-component cases, the correct royalty rate will be <<1% of the market value. Economists would have no problem with that result, but jurors might. In particular, it may be cognitively difficult for a juror to award a royalty rate of <<1% of the base price because that number seems so small. Again, in our adversarial system we normally rely on opposing counsel to help juries through their cognitive difficulties. In the multi-component situation, what’s wrong with allowing the defendant to make the (seemingly easy and intuitive) showing that the accused product is based on thousands of innovations and equally important underlying patents that each deserve (and have received) their share of royalties and that the stacking problem means that royalties for the particular invention in question certainly could not be above say 0.002%. To avoid the small number bias problem, defendants can rescale their calculation to be something like $5 per thousand products sold. This provides a whole number base that we are all comfortable with.

Law Professors Brian Love has a nice pre-2009 article on the entire market value rule and its role in preventing patentee overcompensation. Brian J. Love, Patentee Overcompensation and the Entire Market Value Rule, 60 Stan. L. Rev. 263 (2007). However, the analysis has changed somewhat since then.

To be clear, I’m not arguing that the court should jettison the whole of the entire market value rule – just the post-2009 contemporary conception that applies the rule to prevent use of the entire product value base in an appropriate apportionment analysis.

Notes:

  • Although none of them completely agree with my analysis, Professors Thomas Cotter (UMN), Amy Landers (UFL), and Brian J. Love (SCU) all provided very useful comments on this essay.
  • Although I’m critical here of the damage jurisprudence of the Federal Circuit, at the time it was important for the court to take some steps to control damage calculations. In the background, Congress was a debating patent reform package that included provisions that would have significantly altered patentee’s damages arguments and the FTC had argued forcefully for further restrictions on patent damages. The court’s decisions then relieved the political pressure so that those provisions were eventually removed from the patent reform bill that was passed as the America Invents Act in September 2011.
  • The LaserDynamics case is also important because of its repudiation of settlement data in the damage calculation – especially when the settlement came at a point where the defendant was in a strategically disadvantageous position.

Beyond Question: RMail Challenges the Use of Subject Matter Eligibility as an Invalidity Defense

Patent, , , , , , ,

RMail v. Amazon.com and PayPal (E.D.Tx 2012)

Over the past few weeks we have been having an interesting debate over whether subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 constitutes as valid defense to patent infringement that may be raised in litigation. Section 282 of the Patent Act defines defenses available to an accused infringer and that statute has been interpreted to limit defenses available only to those that fit the statutory list. Thus, because improper revival of an abandoned patent application does not fit on the list, the Federal Circuit ruled that mistake by the patentee and USPTO could not be used to later invalidate the patent during litigation. One problem with Section 282 is that it is not a simple list of references, but is instead really a pointer to other sections of the Patent Act. Thus, an accused infringer can assert an invalidity defense based upon "any ground specified in [Sections 100-188] as a condition for patentability" as well as "any requirement of section 112, except that the failure to disclose the best mode." Now, we normally think of the doctrines of invalidity deriving from Sections 102 (anticipation); 103 (obviousness); 112 (written description; enablement; indefiniteness); and 101 (utility and subject matter eligibility). Now, Section 112 is clearly identified as a defense, and the patent act particularly identifies section 102 and 103 as creating the "conditions for patentability" required under Section 282. The lone outsider then is Section 101 whose status as creating conditions for patentability has not been established. Professor Hricik introduced this argument and began the statutory analysis in a post titled Are the Courts Correct in Their Assumption that a Patent Issued on Non-patentable Subject Matter is Invalid?. I continued the argument by considering its application to the new post grant review program in a post titled Can a Third Party Challenge Section 101 Subject Matter Eligibility in the USPTO's new Post-Grant Review Procedure?. Now, in RMail, lawyers are asking Judge Gilstrap (E.D.Tx.) to decide the issue.

RMail's asserted patents are directed to a new way to authenticate service of electronic messages – i.e., to prove that an e-mail was actually sent and received without relying upon key encryption. U.S. Patent Nos. 6,182,219 and 6,571,334. Many of the claims are not limited to any particular "technology" except for various simple data structures. Instead, the claims simply focus on the sending and receiving of the various data elements in ways that could all seemingly be done offline using pencil and paper.

After being sued, PayPal filed a motion for partial summary judgment – asking the court to rule those claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as lacking subject matter eligibility.

In response, RMail has argued that subject matter eligibility is not a proper invalidity defense permitted to be raised under Section 282 (in addition to providing arguments on the merits).

VI. CONGRESS DID NOT PERMIT SECTION 101 TO SUPPLY A LITIGATION DEFENSE

Rmail closes by asking the Court to recognize and apply all appropriate statutory barriers against entertaining Defendants' Section 101 defense. The entire jurisprudential "murky morass" of subject matter eligibility need not arise again in any litigation. Myspace, 672 F.3d at 1260 (using "murky morass" label). Rmail acknowledges that this argument is for the good faith extension or modification of existing caselaw. Courts until now have uniformly overlooked Congressional will on this question.

Namely, while Section 101 analyses are appropriate in Patent Office application proceedings, this Court lacks any statutory basis for analyzing Section 101 issues as a litigation defense. Patent defenses are statutory. Under the Patent Act of 1952, only enumerated patent defenses exist. Aristocrat Tech. v. Int'l Game Tech., 543 F.3d 657, 661-63 (Fed. Cir. 2008). If an issue is not denominated an infringement defense within the Patent Act, then the Court lacks jurisdiction to address it. Id.

. . . .

It does not matter that the statutory misinterpretation has lasted so long, or so pervades conventional thinking. Even a long-term statutory misconstruction will not bar restoring the patent system to its statutory limits. See Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164, 177, 191 (1994). . . . Four recent Supreme Court cases arose in the USPTO administrative context, and are thus consistent with Rmail's argument: Benson, Flook, Diehr, Bilski. A fifth, Prometheus, admittedly arose within an infringement defense context. However, no one seems to have pointed out to the Supreme Court this important threshold issue of statutory construction, and statutory limitations on the powers of the federal courts. Prometheus thus does not bar this Court from issuing a correct ruling in the present adversarial context.

PayPal's response is fairly weak – that the dicta of Aristocrat identifies Section 101 as a condition for patentability. (To be clear, the PayPal briefs are quite good – they just lightly treat this particular issue).

The landmark 1996 Supreme Court case of Graham v. John Deere is interesting and sends somewhat mixed signals in its dicta describing the patent act. In that case, the court wrote that "The [Patent] Act sets out the conditions of patentability in three sections. An analysis of the structure of these three sections indicates that patentability is dependent upon three explicit conditions: novelty and utility as articulated and defined in § 101 and § 102, and nonobviousness, the new statutory formulation, as set out in § 103." The odd element of the Supreme Court statement is that it does not identify subject matter eligibility as a defense created by § 101. In Aristocrat, the Federal Circuit explained away the gap by noting "it is beyond question that section 101's other requirement, that the invention be directed to patentable subject matter, is also a condition for patentability." I guess that question is no longer unaskable.

Docs:


CLS Bank v. Alice Corp: Patenting Software Ideas

Patent, , , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

"Settlement risk" is real in almost every transaction. When a lawyer does legal work, how does she know that she'll get paid. Conversely, if a client pays up-front, how does he know that the work will actually be performed. There is always a possibility of filing a lawsuit to demand fulfillment. However, most businesses would prefer a system that better guarantees a more immediate positive result. A trusted (and bonded) escrow agent can help relieve the problem, but even an escrow agent needs assurances. Further, in the age of electronic funding of transactions, we should be able to take advantage of features of a computer network that might not have been available in an offline world.

The recent Federal Circuit decision in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. focuses on the subject matter eligibility of Alice's claim to a computer system for assisting with closing financial transactions in a way that avoids settlement risk. The system includes two elements: (1) data storage with various "shadow" variables stored therein; and (2) a computer that is programmed to conduct the transaction. Basically, the transaction is initially conducted in the shadow (i.e., mock) system and then, if the shadow system shows that the parties have sufficient funds to conduct the transaction, post the obligation to the real exchange institution.

The claim reads as follows:

1. A data processing system to enable the exchange of an obligation between parties, the system comprising:

a data storage unit having stored therein information about a shadow credit record and shadow debit record for a party, independent from a credit record and debit record maintained by an exchange institution; and

a computer, coupled to said data storage unit, that is configured to (a) receive a transaction; (b) electronically adjust said shadow credit record and/or said shadow debit record in order to effect an exchange obligation arising from said transaction, allowing only those transactions that do not result in a value of said shadow debit record being less than a value of said shadow credit record; and (c) generate an instruction to said exchange institution at the end of a period of time to adjust said credit record and/or said debit record in accordance with the adjustment of said shadow credit record and/or said shadow debit record, wherein said instruction being an irrevocable, time invariant obligation placed on said exchange institution.

The district court initially ruled that the patent claim lacked subject matter eligibility. I wrote about that decision in a 2011 post entitled Bilski Applied to Invalidate Computer System Claims. In 2012, a divided Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revered – holding that that, when considered as a whole, the claim is patent eligible. Judge Linn wrote the majority opinion that was joined by Judge O'Malley. In many ways, Judge Linn's opinion follows the advice that Professor Rob Merges and I gave in our paper titled Operating Efficiently Post-Bilski by Ordering Patent Doctrine Decision-Making. Judge Linn's approach is to only reach Section 101 issues when subject matter ineligibility is "manifestly evident". Judge Prost wrote in dissent and argued that the majority improperly ignored the Supreme Court's most recent statements on the topic found in Prometheus. Professor Jason Rantanen wrote a nice post on the Federal Circuit decision titled CLS Bank v. Alice: The "Nothing More Than" Limitation on Abstract Ideas.

When I consider this claim, a few thoughts arise:

  1. This is a system claim rather than a method claim. However, the structure of the claim is such that the system is designed around the method that it is intended to perform. This makes me think that the teaching of Bilski and Mayo v. Prometheus cannot be ignored here even though those cases were focused on the eligibility of method claims.
  2. The claim requires computer hardware as an integral portion of the invention. However, the particularly claimed computer hardware is entirely conventional and being used in an unsurprisingly conventional manner. Further, if we relax the claim requirements of a computer and "electronic" communications then this same transaction could be fully conducted offline with paper as the data storage unit and contracts creating the time invariant obligation.
  3. Use of the system does not require any physical transformation recognized by the courts (unless you interpret the claim to be limited to only include data storage units that work by physical transformation). The claim does require changes in bank account values and legal obligations, but those have not traditionally been seen as qualifying transformations in the patent eligibility context.
  4. Finally, and most importantly for me, the invention is designed to solve a particular problem in industry and claims a system that operates by performing a series of identified steps to address that particular problem.

Many of you know that, in my view, the Supreme Court precedent on subject matter eligibility has not been internally reconciled. That ongoing precedential conflict coupled with the fuzziness of boundary lines continue to fuel debate on the topic both within and outside of the courthouse. On balance, both sides of this debate have strong arguments based upon patent law history and precedent and I can understand why someone versed in Supreme Court patent eligibility precedent could end up with a conclusion on either side.

Despite the Federal Circuit opinion, this case has not gone away. In recent days, the accused infringer (CLS Bank) has filed a request for rehearing and that request is supported by three amicus briefs. CLS Bank's main point in its brief is that the CLS Bank computer system claim is unpatentable when fully analyzed against Bilski and Prometheus. The brief asks two questions:

  1. Whether the new test for patent-eligibility articulated by the panel majority is inconsistent with Bilski's and Mayo's approach to 35 U.S.C. § 101; and
  2. Whether the method, system, and media claims at issue are patent ineligible because, albeit computer-implemented, they recite no more than an abstract fundamental mechanism of financial intermediation with no inventive concept.

The CLS Bank brief was filed by Mark Perry and his team at Gibson Dunn in DC. This is a change from the Kaye Scholer firm that represented CLS Bank at the district court and in the original appeal.

An amicus brief filed on behalf of a diverse group of five companies including British Airways and LinkedIN (and who all tend to be defendants in patent cases) spelled out how the "course filter" approach used by Judge Linn went against both recent and old Supreme Court precedent. That brief asks two additional questions:

  1. Should courts enforce the patent eligibility requirement evenhandedly without imposing a "manifestly evident" or "coarse filter" hurdle on the patent challenger?
  2. Is patent eligibility a threshold requirement well suited for decision on the pleadings and on early summary judgment?

John Vandenberg of Klarquist Sparkman filed the BA/LinkedIN brief.

Daryl Joseffer of King & Spalding filed a second amicus brief on behalf of Google, HP, Red Hat and Twitter. The brief explains how Mayo identifies four "guideposts" for determining whether an invention lacks subject matter eligibility under the prohibitions of abstract ideas and laws of nature. The four clues all begin with the notion that a patentable invention must be "significantly more than an abstract idea." Thus, if you begin with an abstract idea, "(1) adding steps that are conventional or obvious is insufficient to confer patentable subject matter (Mayo at 1294, 1298, 1299); (2) adding steps that are so general and non-specific that they do not significantly limit the claim's scope is insufficient (id. at 1300, 1302); (3) limiting an idea to a particular technological environment is insufficient (id. at 1294, 1297); and (4) claims that fail the machine-or-transformation test are likewise dubious (id. at 1296, 1303). Explaining the first point, the brief argues that a claim must contain an "inventive concept" apart from the identified law of nature or abstract idea.

The EFF brief filed by Julie Samuel reminds the court of the extensive literature concluding that software patents are bad – especially when in the hands of "patent trolls."

The patentee's responsive brief is due later this month.

*****

*****

At least two additional software patent cases are pending at the Federal Circuit. In Bancorp v. Sun Life, a different panel of Federal Circuit judges considered software patents similar to those in CLS Bank but found the claims ineligible under Section 101. In WildTangent v. Ultramercial, the Federal Circuit initially ruled that patented method of distributing copyrighted media was eligible. However, that case was vacated and remanded by the Supreme Court following its decision in Mayo and with instructions to reconsider the holding based upon the new Supreme Court precedent. WildTangent has also requested an en banc hearing. WildTangent's petition asks: "When does a patent's reference to the use of a general purpose computer or an Internet website transform an otherwise unpatentable abstract concept into a process that satisfies the subject-matter eligibility requirement of 35 U.S. C. § 101?" Arguing from the other side (asking for its patent to be revalidated), Bancorp identifies the conflict with CLS Bank and argues that the "manifestly abstract" standard should be applied to its case.

*****

Judge Linn, author of the CLS Bank decision has announced his move to Senior Status in November 2012. Senior judges ordinarily do not decide whether to hear cases en banc and do not sit en banc. The one significant exception to that rule is that a senior judge will be a part of the en banc panel if that judge was a part of the original panel that heard the case. For this particular contentious issue, Judge Linn's status may well impact the results.

*****

Counting votes is always difficult and may not be worthwhile, but I pulled-up seven recent software patent eligibility decisions and classified the results based upon how the various panel member voted on the eligibility question. If I leave out judges Schall and Plager (Senior judges), the result is that three of the judges sit on the "claims eligible" side (Chief Judge Rader and Judges O'Malley and Newman); five of the judges are on the "claims ineligible" side (Judges Prost, Bryson, Dyk, Moore, and Wallach); two have decisions on both sides (Judges Linn and Lourie); and one is not in my sample (Judge Reyna).

Case

Claims Eligible

Claims Ineligible

WildTangent

Rader, Lourie, O'Malley

  

CLS Bank

Linn, O'Malley

Prost

Bancorp

  

Lourie, Prost, Wallach

RCT v. Microsoft

Rader, Newman, Plager

  

Cybersource

  

Bryson, Dyk, Prost

Dealtracker*

Plager

Linn, Dyk

Fort Properties

  

Prost, Schall, Moore


 

Continuations-in-Part (CIPs) and Priority Claims

Patent, , ,

By Dennis Crouch

This post considers the meaning of priority in a continuation-in-part application and, in particular, when the claimed priority document can serve as prior art against the child.

Yesterday, I wrote about the majority opinion in Santarus v. Par Pharma (Fed. Cir. 2012). In that case, the patentee was fighting for the validity of its continuation-in-part (CIP) patent. A CIP is a patent filing that claims priority to a previously filed parent patent document but that also adds some amount of new material to the disclosure and/or claims. In CIP applications, priority date is determined on a claim-by-claim basis. Of course the priority date is important because it largely defines the scope of prior art available to potentially invalidate the patent claims.

In its decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that some of the disputed claims were sufficiently disclosed in the parent filing and therefore properly claimed priority to that original filing date. Another set of claims, however, included matter that was added in the CIP. Those claims with new matter were not given priority to the original filing and thus had to rely on the filing date of the CIP application. Thus, for the claims with new matter any patent issued or document published more than one-year before the CIP filing date would count as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). See Paperless Accounting v. Bay Area Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659, 665 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

At this point in the analysis, there is a major point of contention between the judges on one particular alleged prior art reference – whether the original patent filing counts as prior art against the child. The parent patent (really, the great grandparent patent) was filed in 1996 and issued as a patent in 1998. The descendent patent in being litigated in this case was not filed until 2003 but claims priority back to the original 1996 filing through a series of continuations and CIPs. Under normal circumstances, a 1998 patent would clearly serve as prior art against a 2003 filing under Section 102(b) as discussed above. However the system of priority claiming to parent applications is designed to overcome that problem by treating the child applications as if they had been filed on the same day as the original ancestor – so long as the procedures of 35 U.S.C. § 120 are followed. Interesting for the purposes of this discussion, Section 120 discusses priority at the patent level rather than claim-by-claim and asks whether the “application for patent” satisfies the written description and enablement requirements.

35 U.S.C. 120 Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States.

An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States . . . shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application. . .

In Santarus, the invention of only some of the claims were sufficiently disclosed in the original specification. For those claims that lack priority, the big question is whether and to what extent the original patent can be used as 102(b)/103(a) prior art as part of an obviousness rejection.

In a per curiam opinion, the majority (Chief Judge Rader and Judge Moore) held that – since priority is determined on a claim-by-claim basis – that the original patent was prior art against the claims that lacked priority. Writing in dissent, Judge Newman argued that the priority should be given with regard to material disclosed in the priority document. Judge Newman’s approach also breaks the patent apart but divides priority more precisely according to which material was found in the original disclosure. Under Judge Newman’s approach, the original filing cannot be used as a priority document.

Newman writes:

The panel majority forgets that “matter disclosed in the parent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent application.” Waldemar Link, GmbH & Co. v. Osteonics Corp., 32 F.3d 556 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“The earlier filing date of the parent application pertains to material in the C-I-P application also disclosed in the prior application. 35 U.S.C. §120.”). Instead, the panel majority relies upon the common subject matter from the ‘737 [original] patent disclosure to invalidate the ‘885 claims supported by that subject matter. This is incorrect, for the common subject matter in the ‘885 patent is entitled to the ‘737 filing date. That entitlement is not lost by issuance of the ‘737 patent.

Of course, majority did not “forget” as Judge Newman suggested. Rather, the majority found that the patentee had “waived any argument that the ‘737 patent is not prior art to the other claims” by failing to appeal that point.

+ + + + +

Although distinguishable, the most on-point decision relating to this issue may well be In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In that case (and with Judge Newman on the panel), the Federal Circuit ruled that the asserted priority document could be used as prior art because all of the claims included added limitations not found in the priority document. The court wrote:

Chu is entitled to the benefit of the Doyle patent filing date only if the Doyle patent discloses the subject matter now claimed by Chu. This, however, is admitted by Chu not to be the case. In fact, Chu states that “the invention as now claimed[ ] was not described in the [Doyle] patent.” Specifically, Chu concedes that “nothing in Doyle suggests that SCR catalyst be placed inside the bag filter.” Therefore, independent claim 1, which includes this limitation, and dependent claims 2, 4, and 14, are not supported by the Doyle patent disclosure. Accordingly, Chu cannot obtain the benefit of the Doyle patent filing date for these claims and the Doyle patent was properly relied on as prior art.

The obvious difference between the present case and Chu is that some of the claims are supported by the priority document.

Apple v. Samsung: An Expert but Pro-Patent Jury?

Patent,

By Dennis Crouch

The Apple v. Samsung verdict has generated a significant amount of talk about the patent system. One set of comments focuses on the US System of lay juries and what this decision tells us about that approach for patent cases. As it turns out, the jury in the Apple case might be better classified as an expert jury. The reason for this shift is that the jury foreman – Velvin Hogan – is a patentee and current patent applicant. Hogan's granted patent covers a "method and apparatus for recording and storing video information." Now, Hogan is not simply an intelligent silicon-valley engineer who happens to be listed as a patentee. Rather, Hogen owns his patent and went through the six-year process of obtaining patent protection. I would suspect that Hogan understands patents and the patenting process at a level much deeper than 99% of the population – including most federal judges. Hogan was just one person on the nine-member jury, but I also suspect that his voice was the most influential as evidenced by his nomination as jury foreman.

The fact that Hogan is knowledgeable about the patent system does not lead to any conclusion about whether he has any natural pro or anti patent bias. Someone knowledgeable about the system will know that the USPTO often conducts low quality prior art searches and incorrectly issues many patents that it should not. This knowledgeable person will also know that, despite their mistakes, the USPTO does conduct a substantial review of every patent claim before issuing a patent. This knowledgeable person will also understand that the precise language of patent claims mean that many similar products will not actually infringe. My friend, Sir Robin Jacob is exceedingly knowledgeable about the patent system, but sees a patent as little more than a license that is required before suing someone for infringement. In his view, validity and infringement are then to be proven in court. Here in the US, we tend to give more credence to issued patents, but that credence is limited.

It turns out that Hogan is more than knowledgeable. He also has a vested interest in valuable patent rights and his patent experience (as far as I know) has focused primarily on using the patent system to protect his own inventions. This setup is one that could easily lead to some amount of pro-patentee feels. Although I'm very much still working on analyzing the data, my recent survey of about 900 self-designated patent law professionals give some credence to this idea. The survey asked readers to speculate on the percent of patents that the USPTO issues despite them having invalid claims. The survey also asked respondents to indicate whether they tend to spend more time thinking about their own (and their clients') inventions/patents or instead spend more time thinking about patents held by others. Results: Respondents who focus on patents held by their own clients were much more positive about PTO issued patents than their counterparts who focus on patents owned by others. In particular, when asked to speculate, the first group indicated that the percent of wrongly issued patents was significantly lower than did the second group. This result also correlates with the behavioral economics literature as an "ownership bias." Lots and lots of studies show that we tend to place more value on items that we own and less value on items that we don't own.

Back to the Apple case: Despite the suggestion of potential bias, I don't think we can say that there was any bias in this case. In particular, since both Apple and Samsung were asserting patent right a truly pro-patentee ruling would have enforced the patents of both parties. What is interesting is that Mr. Hogan appears ready to talk about his experiences – that means that this case will be an excellent case study for trial lawyers going forward.

Amkor v. ITC

Patent, , , ,

By Jason Rantanen

Amkor Technology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir. 2012) Download 10-1550
Panel: Newman, Plager, and Linn (author)

Although soon to be eliminated as prior art for new patents, 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) will continue to be a potentially important category of prior art for the near future as pre-AIA patents will remain the prevailing type of patent in infringement suits for at least the next decade.  In Amkor, the Federal Circuit answered an important question about 102(g): whether an oral disclosure of an invention to the United States is sufficient to constitute prior art.  It answered in the affirmative, with a key caveat.

The version of 102(g) involved in this appeal states that:

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless:

…

(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes . . . that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. . . .

35 U.S.C. § 102(g) (2006) (emphasis added). The appeal turned on the interpretation of "made in this country": specifically, whether it encompassed an oral disclosure to a person in the United States of an invention conceived of abroad.

In concluding that an oral communication was sufficient, the CAFC issued several notable holdings.  First, it extended the holding in Scott v. Koyama, 281 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2001), that interpreted a previous version of 102(g) to allow the inventor of an invention of foreign origin to "rely on the date that the invention was disclosed in the United States as a conception date for priority purposes" to apply to the current version of 102(g)(2).

Second, the CAFC held that an oral communication could be a sufficient disclosure for 102(g) purposes.  "While this court’s limited precedent on this issue establishes that writings can satisfy the full domestic disclosure requirement, the cases do not establish any per se requirement that such disclosure must be in writing."  Slip Op. at 12.  However, the "content of the domestic disclosure must be specific enough to encompass the "complete and operative invention…and an inventor's oral testimony to this extent is a question of proof."  Slip Op. at 13 (emphasis in original). Thus, corroboration of the testimony is necessary. 

The CAFC did not reach the issue of corroboration of the specificity of the disclosure, instead rejecting the accused infringer's argument based on the burden of persuasion and evidence necessary to invalidate an issued patent.  The accused infringer could only show a range of dates of possible U.S. disclosure that overlapped with the patent holder's possible conception dates.  "Such a showing, at best, establishes that the ASAT inventor might have conceived of the invention first. Evidence establishing that there might have been a prior conception is not sufficient to meet the clear and convincing burden needed to invalidate a patent."  Slip Op. at 16 (emphasis in original).

Obviousness: The court also affirmed the Commission's claim constructions and rejected anticipation and obviousness arguments based on another prior art reference.  In reaching this conclusion, the court pointed to a lack of any evidence of a motivation to combine or reason to modify the prior art:

Because the fused lead attached to the die pad in JP-456 prevents the lip from extending “fully around the circumference of a die pad” or “fully around the die pad” as required by the claims, Carsem was required to present evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated or found reason to remove the fused lead from the JP-456 reference, or that common sense would have led one of skill in the art to remove the fused lead based on a known problem, design need, or market pressure. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 418-20 (2007).

Slip Op. at 21.  While this language could be interpreted as limiting "common sense" to the three specific scenarios identified in KSR v. Teleflex, a better interpretation in my view is that Carsem simply failed to provide any explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the prior art, including the three specified examples.  Anything more rigid would be inconsistent with the flexible approach to obviousness mandated by KSR.

Constitutional Challenge to the First-to-Invent Rule

Patent, ,

By Dennis Crouch

[Update –  Read the Complaint Here]

MadStad & Mark Stadnyk v. USPTO, 12-cv-1589 (M.D. Florida 2012)

The small motorcycle engineering company MadStad recently filed suit against the US Government asking a federal court to reject the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) as an unconstitutional degradation of inventor rights. Steve Lohr (NYTimes) covers several aspects of the story and includes quotes from both Professor Mark Lemley and Professor Arti Rai that identify the challenge as Quixotic. I agree with Lemley and Rai on this point – especially after the Supreme Court’s Golan decision last year. Of course, I also thought that Myriad case would go nowhere.

Stadnyk’s basic argument is that when the US Constitution speaks of exclusive rights for “inventors” it should be interpreted to mean “first and true inventor.” The AIA fails because it purposefully rewards the first-to-file a patent application rather than the first-to-invent. The complaint argues:

A second ‘inventor’ is an oxymoron; that person merely rediscovers that which was already discovered by the first inventor. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Marshall all shared this understanding. . . . Congress is not authorized to award patents to the winners of races to file to the PTO. . . . Under the AIA, there is no effective statutory requirement that the applicant be an ‘inventor’ for a patent to be valid.

MadStat has also requested a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the first-to-file provisions of the Act.

In his recent law review article, Senate Counsel Joe Matal played down the merits of the Constitutional question. Joe Matal, A Guide to the Legislative History of the America Invents Act: Part I of II, 21 Fed. Circuit B.J. 435 (2011). In his article, Matal points to the 1850 case of Gayler v. Wilder. Gayler is interesting because the Supreme Court created a subjective test for the requirement of inventorship – asking whether the patentee believed himself to be the original inventor. In that case, the actual first inventor had failed to pursue patent rights and the Supreme Court agreed that the second inventor (who originally believed himself to be the first inventor) was then properly awarded rights.

Are the Courts Correct in Their Assumption that a Patent Issued on Non-patentable Subject Matter is Invalid?

Patent, , , ,

By David Hricik, Mercer University School of Law. (Note – this is an update of the essay posted last week on the Patent Ethics site.)

I forget when I first thought about this, but it’s been a while. With all the discussion of Prometheus (sadly, the case, not the film, which was great), I figured this was a good time to raise it. At minimum, there’s a litigable question here, and assumptions that a patent issued on non-patentable subject matter is invalid need examination. I’d love to be wrong about this, but I don’t think I am.

Some History.

I have not scorched the earth, but from what I can tell no court has squarely addressed the question of whether the Patent Act allows a court to deny enforcement (on any ground) of a patent granted on subject matter that is not within Section 101. Instead, what the cases showed me was that law developed in the context of challenges to the USPTO’s denial of a patent have been used to invalidate issued patents – without analyzing the statutory authority to do so.

Let’s take a look at what most people assume is the law and see if we can get there: does the Patent Act allow a court to invalidate a patent that does not claim patentable subject matter?

Section 282

The starting point is 35 USC 282. It provides in pertinent part:

The following shall be defenses in any action involving the validity or infringement of a patent and shall be pleaded:

(1) Noninfringement, absence of liability for infringement, or unenforceability,

(2) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit on any ground specified in part II of this title as a condition for patentability,

(3) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with any requirement of sections 112 or 251 of this title,

(4) Any other fact or act made a defense by this title.

Federico’s commentary, often relied on to indicate Congressional intent, doesn’t help at all, but here it is:

The defenses which may be raised in an action involving the validity or infringement of a patent are specified in general terms, by the second paragraph of section 282, in five numbered items. Item 1 specifies “Noninfringement, absence of liability for infringement, or unenforceability” (the last word was added by amendment in the Senate for greater clarity); this would include the defenses such as that the patented invention has not been made, used or sold by the defendant; license; and equitable defenses such as laches, estoppel and unclean hands. The second item specifies “Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit on any ground specified in Part II of this title as a condition for patentability”; this would include most of the usual defenses such as lack of novelty, prior publication, prior public use, lack of invention. The third item specifies “Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with any requirement of section 112 or 251 of this title”; the first section mentioned would include the defense of insufficient disclosure, and the second sentence mentioned would include reissue defenses. The fourth item merely specifies “Any other fact or act made a defense by this title.” All the defenses usually listed in textbooks on patent law may be placed in one or another of the enumerated categories, except a few which are no longer applicable in view of changes in the new statute.

Section 101.

Section 101 is relied upon as the basis for invalidating patents. It states: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”

While clearly granting power to the USPTO to issue patents on “new and useful” processes, it obviously also limits the USPTO’s power to do so.

The question here is not patentability, but validity. Simply, suppose the USPTO makes a mistake, and issues a patent on non-patentable subject matter. Is this a defense to infringement?

In my view, the answer is “no.”

Analysis.

Let’s start with the two specific subsections, because they make us focus on the text and show some very deliberate choices by Congress that easily could have gone the other way had Congress intended 101 to be a defense.

The second subsection of 282 is probably the most important: “Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit on any ground specified in part II of this title as a condition for patentability.”

Section 102 and 103 are “conditions of patentability.” They say so in their titles, and they are substantive legal conditions (technically, I’d call them “conditions of unpatentability” given the burdens of proof, but this works). The fact that 101 is not a condition of patentability is to me is very important: Congress chose in 282(2) to specify that only those things denominated as “conditions of patentability” are bases for invalidity. It then chose to label 102 and 103 as conditions, but not 101. Those are deliberate choices. In my view, a patent issued on non-patentable subject matter is not “invalid” under the second provision.

Subsection 3 of Section 282 is easy to apply to this question, but it is important because it also adds to the evidence that 101 is not a defense. Patentable subject matter is in 101, not 251 or 112. So that part’s easy: 282(3) doesn’t list 101.

But the important point, again, is that Congress deliberately thought about what should be invalidity defenses, and what should not, and left out 101 not just as a “condition of patentability,” but also in this specific paragraph, where it “caught” some strays. It left out 101. That says a lot.

Two down, two to go.

Now we’re left with arguing that, although it thought about what should be invalidity defenses in two different places, nonetheless we should imply that Congress meant to include it in some amorphous language in the other two subsections. We’re fighting uphill.

Let’s go to the first catch-all type subsection: “Noninfringement, absence of liability for infringement, or unenforceability.” Logically, I can’t make patentable subject matter fit, at all. Before explaining why, let’s be clear on the consequences of saying that Section 101 is within this section: it would be that the patent is valid but there would be no infringement.

“Unenforceability” is the easy one. The cases and legislative history I’ve read show this was designed to capture equitable doctrines like patent misuse and, arguably, inequitable conduct (long diversionary story there). We’d be straining to put 101 there.

Federico’s statements that the defendant hadn’t made the product, or had a license to do so, show that “infringement” means what we think it means. A licensed patent is valid, but “not infringed.” A patent that the defendant never violated is valid, but not infringed. So, I can’t make “noninfringement” logically work or work without giving words a very unnatural meaning.

Now the only arguable catch-all, subsection 4: “Any other fact or act made a defense by this title.” Here we are, trying to read it into the catch-all that, even Federico says, “merely” specifies things in the statute that are made defenses. But, section 101 is not made a defense by this title. Instead, it specifically points to other requirements and conditions. Again, if this were easy and clear, Congress would have put in 101 “it shall be a defense to patent infringement that…” or put 101 in Section 282.

So, tell me why I am wrong.

Let me get rid of some easy ones: no court I’ve found has ever addressed this issue. I think it’s pretty simple, but there you go. Second, don’t conflate patentability with infringement defenses. There are lots of things that can affect patentability that aren’t in 282. Third, 282 is exclusive: if you want so suggest that it’s not, you (a) have to say “Congress enacted a specific statute laying out defenses, but it’s just a guide” which is not in my view defensible; and (b) it says “shall be defenses,” not “may include” or some-such. Third, this is a relatively new “defense.” I can’t say I’ve scorched the earth, but in looking at CAFC cases it has only been raised a few times.

A new highest patent court for Europe? Not as long as the Court of Justice of the EU is here

Patent,

This guest post is by Angelos Dimopoulos, Assistant Professor at Tilburg Law School and Petroula Vantsiouri, Doctoral Candidate at the University of Cambridge, Faculty of Law. I invited the pair to write this post to help explain how the new pan-European patent court might fit within the current EU structure (that already includes the EU Court of Justice. – DC

+ + + + +

Any practitioner who has been involved in patent litigation in the European Union (EU) is well aware of the inconsistencies in the Member States patent law and the differences among national litigation systems. Disturbingly often the same case is litigated in several jurisdictions, under different procedural and evidentiary rules with uncertain timing of outcomes. In that respect, it comes as no surprise that the recent initiatives regarding the creation of a European patent with unitary effect (EPUE) and a ‘Unified Patent Court‘ (UPC) are currently the hottest IP topics in Europe. In short, the EU intends to introduce a EU-law based patent right that will be valid throughout the territory of 25 of the 27 EU Member States (Italy and Spain remaining outside) and a single patent court at the European level with exclusive jurisdiction as regards infringement and revocation proceedings, covering the same territory.

The UK government and a number of patent holders are lobbying for limiting the role that the Court of Justice (CJEU), the highest court in the EU in matters of EU law, will play in patent litigation in Europe. In our view this is simply wrong. In our recent paper called “Of TRIPS and traps: The interpretative jurisdiction of Court of Justice of the EU over patent law“, we provide two main arguments in support of this claim. First, we argue that regardless of the final wording or the adoption of the proposed EU legislation, the Court of Justice can acquire a stronger role in the application of patent law by using its interpretative jurisdiction over the patent provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. Secondly, we argue that this role is a significant tool in the process of establishing a complete and uniform framework for patent protection in the EU.

So far the CJEU has been hesitant to apply and interpret the TRIPS patent provisions. In a series of cases concerning the TRIPS Agreement, as they were crystallised in Merck Genericos, the CJEU clarified that the interpretation of the substantive patent provisions of the TRIPS Agreement lie outside its jurisdiction. This means that up to now Member States can decide according to their national laws how to interpret the TRIPS provisions on patents. However, after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (which amended the constitutional charter of the EU in 2009) Merck Genericos is no longer good law. Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) vests the EU with exclusive competence over commercial aspects of IP and brings the TRIPS agreement within the scope of EU law. In that respect, the CJEU has now acquired significant powers to determine whether national (and in the future Union) patent rules are interpreted consistently with the TRIPS agreement.

This has significant implications for the development of patent rules in the EU. Currently, patent law in the EU is characterized by a lack of harmonization, although there are some uniform rules. All 27 Member States have acceded to the European Patent Convention (EPC), which established the European Patent Organisation (EPO) and a system of law for granting patents for inventions. Thus, national laws of EU Member States are de facto harmonized in the field of patentability and validity but only as regards the grant of patents. Issues of validity and infringement after the patent grant are matters for national law and national courts. But even in the fields covered by the EPC, uniformity is not always present. In many instances the EPO and national authorities interpret the EPC in diverging ways. Many national authorities do not take each other’s case law into consideration, and even if they do, differences in legal traditions, policy choices or practicalities can lead to different outcomes.

The proposed EU patent with unitary effect and the proposed Unified Patent Court cannot change all that. The proposed legislation does not guarantee the establishment of truly uniform rules. As the proposals now stand, substantive issues (prior user rights, assignments, voluntary and compulsory licensees and government use) are left outside the scope of the proposed Unitary Patent Protection. Moreover, if adopted, the proposals will lead to four different types of patents within the EU. Finally, with Spain and Italy not participating in these projects, the EU will be partitioned in three territories.    

So, how can the Court of Justice fix that?

First, although the TRIPS agreement is very broad as regards the subject matter of patent protection, it contains specific rules on prior users’ rights and exceptions, including in particular compulsory licenses, which are subject matters left outside the scope of the proposed regulation. Article 1 TRIPS requires that WTO members “give effect” to its provisions, which signifies that a WTO member should take all reasonable measures to ensure consistency between domestic law and the agreement. So, the CJEU can use its interpretative jurisdiction to establish common minimum rules with regard to the subject matters that could be left outside the scope of harmonization.

Secondly, the Court’s interpretative jurisdiction can result in the establishment of minimum, uniform standards of protection for the different types of patents. In its previous caselaw (Hermes and Dior) the Court held that “where a provision can apply both to situations falling within the scope of national law and to situations falling within the scope of [Union] law, it is clearly in the [Union] interest that, in order to forestall future differences of interpretation, that provision should be interpreted uniformly, whatever the circumstances in which it is to apply.” Considering that the regulation on European Patents with Unitary Effect will be part of Union law, the Court of Justice can employ the TRIPS agreement in order to determine the standards of protection under national and EPO-granted patents by reference to the standards of protection of European Patents with Unitary Effect, so as to ensure uniform implementation of the TRIPS agreement in the EU.

Thirdly, the interpretative jurisdiction of the Court can mitigate the danger that arises from the existence of parallel adjudication regimes for patent protection. By allowing the CJEU to determine whether national courts abide by the TRIPS when they adjudicate patent infringement cases, the CJEU can act as the single, ultimate judicial authority in the EU, ensuring coherence and consistency in the interpretation of the different regimes of patent infringement rules.

In short, although it cannot contribute to the reduction of litigation costs, at least initially, the CJEU’s interpretative jurisdiction over TRIPS provisions can promote legal certainty, and the establishment of uniform and comprehensive patent protection in the EU that would be attractive to the industry and conducive to technological progress. Nevertheless, the power to interpret the TRIPS is not a panacea. It does not result in the establishment of uniform substantive rules, as the TRIPS is a minimum standards agreement, while its success depends on the number and subject matter of the actual cases that will reach its jurisdiction under the preliminary reference procedure.

AIA Practice Tips: Using New Inventor Declaration Forms

Patent, ,

The following is a guest post from Carl Oppedahl. Oppedahl is the founder of his self-named, Colorado-based patent law firm. www.oppedahl.com

+++++

On August 14, 2012, USPTO published its new Rules relating to the Oath and Declaration of the inventor. These Rules take effect on Sunday, September 16, 2012 and it is not much of an exaggeration to say that they change everything about the Oath and Declaration of the inventor. USPTO has also posted several new forms on its web site, forms which will be usable starting on September 16, 2012. In this guest post I will talk about two particular forms and the ways that they will make a big difference in your daily patent practice.

We are all familiar with Form PTO/SB/01 and Form PTO/SB/01A, which I call the "long form" declaration and the "short form" declaration. These two forms are to be used for any patent application filed before September 16, 2012. They contain the "magic words" that are required for a declaration that is used in an application filed before September 16, 2012. I call these "old" declarations. When I say an "old" application I mean an application filed before September 16, 2012.

The long form declaration contains all of the bibliographic data, for example the foreign priority information, the mailing address of the inventors, and lots of other things. The short form declaration contains the bare minimum of information and "magic words" permitted by the Statute and the Rules for an "old" application.

This leads us to one of the very big changes in the new Rules. For a new patent application filed on or after September 16, 2012 (which I call a "new" application), the "magic words" and the information content for a declaration are different than before. The new form is PTO/AIA/01. I call this the "new" declaration.

Here is one of the important things to know. If your application is a "new" application, then the declaration has to be a "new" declaration. If your application is an "old" application, then the declaration has to be an "old" declaration.

We all know that under 35 USC § 363, a PCT application designating the United States is a US patent application. This means that if your application is a US national phase of a PCT application, then the way you know whether it is "new" or "old" is by looking at the international filing date.

If you are getting ready to send a blank declaration to an inventor for signature, you need to send the correct one ("old" or "new") depending on the filing date of the application. If you already have a signed declaration in hand and you are thinking about sending it to the USPTO, you need to look at it to see if it is "old" or "new" If it is the wrong kind, then you need to prepare one of the correct kind and get it signed.

Go to the web site of the USPTO and print out the "old" and "new" declarations. What you will see is summarized in this table:

Filing date of application

Before September 16, 2012

On or after September 16, 2012

How many inventor documents are filed?

One declaration with N signatures lines, one signature line for each inventor

One form for each inventor, each with one signature line and one signature

Does the declaration take a position on who the other inventors are?

Yes

No

How many "magic words"?

203

90

Form

PTO/SB/01A

PTO/AIA/01

Citizenship stated in form?

Yes

No

When an inventor cannot be found or refuses to sign?

Rule 47 practice

Form PTO/AIA/02 ("Substitute Statement")

One of the first things you will see is that the new declaration has no place to list any inventors other than the particular inventor who is signing the declaration. Instead, it turns out that the way the USPTO learns who the inventors are in a particular case is by means of an Application Data Sheet.

For an old application, there will be a single declaration form, with places for as many signatures as there are inventors. Each inventor is taking a position as to who the other inventors are. In contrast, for a new application, there are as many declaration forms (Form PTO/AIA/01) as there are inventors, each having only a single signature line for that inventor.

Another thing you will see is that the "magic words" count is far smaller for a new declaration compared with an old one. The magic word count is 90 compared with 203.

The new declaration does not aver that the signer has reviewed and understood the application including the claims. And it does not acknowledge the duty of disclosure. But the new Rules state that anyone signing a declaration must have reviewed and understood the application including the claims. And the new Rules state that the signer must be aware of the duty of disclosure. So you will need to do whatever it takes to ensure that these requirements are satisfied for anyone signing a new declaration.

What happens if an inventor cannot be found or refuses to sign the declaration?

For an old application, the answer is of course the well-known Rule 47 procedure. You assemble one or more statements signed by various persons having knowledge of the pertinent facts, you prepare a Petition, you pay a fee, and then you wait to find out what the USPTO thinks about your papers. Maybe the USPTO grants the Petition, maybe the USPTO asks for more statements or more detailed statements. I've heard stories from practitioners who had to go around as many as three times with the USPTO before the USPTO would grant the Petition.

For a new application, it's all different. You simply fill out Form PTO/AIA/02 and send it in. No fee, no statements, no petition. This form all by itself replaces the inventor's declaration. So for example if you have seven inventors, and two of them refuse to sign and another cannot be found, then you will hand in three Forms PTO/AIA/02, and four signed Forms PTO/AIA/01, and an Application Data Sheet, and Bob's your uncle.

So for some categories of inventor signature problem, the legacy Rule 47 procedure is a thing of the past. Anyone who has suffered through a difficult Rule 47 Petition in the past will be delighted at this change.

Which gets us to the Application Data Sheet (ADS). The ADS with which many of us are familiar is Form PTO/SB/14 ( /media/docs/2012/08/sb0014.pdf ). It is a Best Practice to use this form (which is computer-readable) because it can auto-load its bibliographic data directly into EFS-Web and from there into Palm. This eliminates several possible sources of error when compared with an approach in which USPTO personnel hand-key such information into Palm.

Under the new Rules, the use of a ADS is mandatory except under a small handful of rare fact situations. So you might as well get used to preparing and filing ADSs.

Within the next week or two, USPTO will post the "new" application data sheet for use with "new" patent applications. When this ADS becomes available, it will likewise be a Best Practice to use it, and to e-file it so that it too may auto-load into Palm. The key is to include the computer-readable ADS in the first e-filing submission for a particular patent application. Only then will it auto-load into Palm.

After you have carried out the e-filing submission that contains the ADS (the first e-filing submission for a particular patent application), be sure to open the application in Private PAIR and click on the Publication Review page. You can proofread this page and you can check all of the bibliographic data for accuracy. In the event of some error or omission, you can get started right away on getting it fixed even before the Filing Receipt gets mailed.

Well, there we are. I've told you about one-twentieth of the things that are completely different as a result of USPTO's new rules relating to the oath and declaration. For the rest, you can read the new Rules (/media/docs/2012/08/fr_inventor_oath.pdf ).

+++++

Carl Oppedahl will present a webinar (brochure) about the new Rules on Oath and Declaration on August 30, 2012. Carl has made this posting available as an Epub file which you could load into a Nook or any other Epub reader.

© OPLF 2012

AIA Shifts USPTO Focus from Inventors to Patent Owners

Patent,

by Dennis Crouch

The new rules on inventor oaths make practical business sense, but they leave me somewhat pessimistic.  Metaphysically, the rules serve to crystallize the the US patent system's shift in focus away from inventors and toward corporate owners (and other non-human juristic entities).  Up to now, corporations were never considered patent applicants.  Rather, inventors were the applicants.  Even when the ultimate rights were owned by a corporate entity, the USPTO still focused on the inventors as the patent applicants.  Under the new rules being implemented on September 16, 2012, the status of “patent applicant” will no longer be keyed to inventorship but instead ownership.  Thus, any juristic entity who can show a proprietary interest will be permitted to file and prosecute a patent application as the patent applicant.  Of course, this change makes a fool of the first-inventor-to-file label given to the new US priority system during the political debates. Rather, the system truly is the first-owner-to-file. However, the change does fit within the same mental construct as the shift to a first-to-file system that largely turns a blind eye to inventive activities and instead focuses on paperwork (the essence of a corporate entity).  In recent years, we have seen a steady decrease in the percentage of inventor-owned patents.  For better or worse, there is no reason to believe that trend will change any time soon.

On a practical level, the change to the oath requirement itself is fairly narrow and will not ordinarily arise.  Under the new rules, the inventor will still ordinarily submit an oath or declaration of inventorship unless the inventors are unavailable or refuse. However, there are two major important changes: (1) a right-holding entity may file the patent application and wait to file the inventor's oath until the time that the application is otherwise in condition for allowance; and (2) defects in the listing of inventors can now (apparently) be corrected even if the original filing was done with deceptive intent.  These changes relieve some headache for corporate patent attorneys. However, I believe that this streamlined process does increase the likelihood that unscrupulous entities will overreach.

One “cure” for this potential problem is that the Office will now require all juristic entities (non-people) prosecuting applications to do so via a registered patent practitioner.  “Thus, all papers submitted on behalf of a juristic entity must be signed by a patent practitioner…”  Obviously, this is a boon for US patent attorneys and patent agents.  It will create some struggle for very small corporate entities that continue to file applications pro se. However, my understanding of the rules is that the requirement to use a patent attorney/agent only exists if the juristic entity files as the applicant.  To avoid the requirement, the application could still be filed in the name of the actual inventors who retain the option of prosecuting the application pro se.

Director Kappos: Some Thoughts on Patentability

Patent, , , , ,

The following is a reprint from USPTO Director Kappos’ recent statement on patentable subject matter:

+ + + + +

The recent Federal Circuit decision CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation raises some important points that offer insight on advancing prosecution of patent applications. In CLS Bank, the claims to a computer-implemented invention were found to fall within an eligible category of invention and not to mere abstract ideas. In answering the question of eligibility under § 101, I found it interesting that the court looked at the different roles of the various statutory provisions, § 101, 102, 103, and 112. Sections 102, 103 and 112 do the substantive work of disqualifying those patent eligible inventions that are “not worthy of a patent”, while § 101 is a general statement of the type of subject matter eligible for patenting. The court notes that, while § 101 has been characterized as a threshold test and certainly can be addressed before other matters touching on patent validity, it need not always be addressed first, particularly when other sections might be discerned by a trial judge as having the promise to resolve a dispute more expeditiously or with more clarity or predictability. The court in CLS Bank also recognized that the exceptions to eligibility—laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas—should arise infrequently.

Based on my experience, I appreciate the wisdom of the court’s discussion relating to resolving disputed claims by focusing initially on patentability requirements of § 102, 103, and 112, rather than § 101. I have found that when claims are refined to distinguish over the prior art, recite definite boundaries, and be fully enabled based on a complete written description, they do not usually encounter issues of eligibility based on reciting mere abstract ideas or broad fundamental concepts. Put another way, every business looks for opportunities to sequence workflow so that the first issues addressed are the ones that can simplify or completely resolve other issues. This is good basic management for businesses, and for patent offices.

While courts can resolve patent disputes in the most expeditious manner given the facts of the case, the Office has the unique duty of ensuring that all patentability requirements are met before issuing a patent. Applications that are presented in the best possible condition for examination with clear and definite claims that are believed to distinguish over the prior art and are supported by a robust disclosure will most likely not encounter rejections based on eligibility. Avoiding issues under § 101 can have a very positive effect on pendency and help examiners focus on finding the closest prior art, leading to strong patent protection. Hopefully, the guidance supplied by the Federal Circuit in CLS Bank can help us as we continue to work on reducing pendency and enhancing quality of issued patents.

Administrative Rules for Implementing a First-to-File System

Patent

On Monday, the USPTO is expected to publish a set of proposed administrative rules for implementing the new first-to-file regime codified by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). A pre-publication copy is attached. Changes to Implement the First Inventor to File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Once finalized, the rules should become effective by March 16, 2013. Comments on the rules are due by October 5, 2012.

The rules identify four primary areas of legal changes: (1) conversion of the United States patent system from a "first to invent" system to a "first inventor to file" system; (2) treating U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications as prior art as of their earliest effective filing date, regardless of whether the earliest effective filing date is based upon an application filed in the U.S. or in another country; (3) eliminating the requirement that a prior public use or sale be "in this country" to be a prior art activity; and (4) treating commonly owned or joint research agreement patents and patent application publications as being by the same inventive entity for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102, as well as 35 U.S.C. 103.

Download Pre-Pub-FedReg

CLS Bank v. Alice: The “Nothing More Than” Limitation on Abstract Ideas

Patent, , ,

By Jason Rantanen

CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2012) Download 11-1301
Panel: Linn (author), O'Malley, Prost (dissenting)

Despite two recent opinions by the Supreme Court, the issue of patent eligible subject matter continues to sharply divide the Federal Circuit.  CLS Bank v. Alice Corporation illustrates this point neatly, even going a step further.   Unlike other recent opinions involving questions of patent eligible subject matter that have approached the issue in a relatively narrow, case-specific manner, here the majority implements a sweeping rule with significant implications for future cases – a rule that the dissenting judge criticizes as being irreconcilable with Supreme Court's precedent.

Background: Alice sued CLS for infringement of four patents covering, in the majority's words, "a computerized trading platform for exchanging obligations in which a trusted third party settles obligations between a first and second party so as to eliminate 'settlement risk'.  Settlement risk is the risk that only one party's obligation will be paid, leaving the other party without its principal."  Slip Op. at 2.  The patents included method, system, and computer program product claims. Claim 1 of Patent No. 7,149,720 is representative of the system claims:

1. A data processing system to enable the exchange of an obligation between parties, the system comprising:
a data storage unit having stored therein information about a shadow credit record and shadow debit record for a party, independent from a credit record and debit record maintained by an exchange institution; and

a computer, coupled to said data storage unit, that is configured to (a) receive a transaction; (b) electronically adjust said shadow credit record and/or said shadow debit record in order to effect an exchange obligation arising from said transaction, allowing only those transactions that do not result in a value of said shadow debit record being less than a value of said shadow credit record; and (c) generate an instruction to said exchange institution at the end of a period of time to adjust said credit record and/or said debit record in accordance with the adjustment of said shadow credit record and/or said shadow debit record, wherein said instruction being an irrevocable, time invariant obligation placed on said exchange institution.

The district court granted summary judgment of invalidity based on a failure to claim patent eligible subject matter.  Alice appealed.

The majority's "nothing more than" limitation: In reversing the district court, the majority focused on the "abstract ideas" exception to patent eligible subject matter.  Examing the concept of "abstract ideas," the majority concluded that despite substantial precedent and commentary, its meaning remains unclear and its boundary elusive.  There is, of course, some guidance in the precedent, notably the machine or transformation test and concerns about preempting an entire field of innovation.  There are also computer-specific opinions, which the majority distilled down into the rule that "a claim that is drawn to a specific way of doing something with a computer is likely to be patent eligible whereas a claim to nothing more than the idea of doing that thing on a computer may not."  Slip Op. at 18 (emphasis in original). But even this rule allows for "great uncertainty" as to the meaning of "abstract ideas."

Against this backdrop, the majority did not attempt to define the concept of "abstract ideas."  Instead, it implemented a new rule that minimizes the need to make such a determination and strongly favors a conclusion of patentable subject matter when claims involve anything that might be characterized as an abstract idea.  The majority's rule:

"this court holds that when—after taking all of the claim recitations into consideration—it is not manifestly evident that a claim is directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea, that claim must not be deemed for that reason to be inadequate under § 101…Unless the single most reasonable understanding is that a claim is directed to nothing more than a fundamental truth or disembodied concept, with no limitations in the claim attaching that idea to a specific application, it is inappropriate to hold that the claim is directed to a patent ineligible “abstract idea” under 35 U.S.C. § 101."

Slip Op. at 20-21 (emphasis added).  Applying this rule, the majority concluded that Alice's claims were directed to patent eligible subject matter.  In reaching this conclusion, it emphasized the need to look at the claim as a whole rather than to generalize the invention as the district court did.  Applying this approach, the majority concluded that the computer limitations "play a significant part in the performance of the invention" and that the claims are "limited to a very specific application of the concept of using an intermediary to help consummate exchanges between parties." Id. at 26. 

The majority also emphasized a theme previously discussed on PatentlyO: that district courts have the discretion to determine the order in which to assess questions of validity, and may execise that discretion in the interests of judicial efficiency: "Although § 101 has been characterized as a “threshold test,” Bilski II, 130 S. Ct. at 3225, and certainly can be addressed before other matters touching the validity of patents, it need not always be addressed first, particularly when other sections might be discerned by the trial judge as having the promise to resolve a dispute more expeditiously or with more clarity and predictability."  Slip Op. at 13 (emphasis added).

Judge Prost's Dissent: Writing in dissent, Judge Prost sharply criticized the majority for "responding to a unanimous Supreme Court decision against patentability with even a stricter subject matter standard."  Dissent at 8.    "The majority resists the Supreme Court’s unanimous directive to apply the patentable subject matter test with more vigor. Worse yet, it creates an entirely new framework that in effect allows courts to avoid evaluating patent eligibility under § 101 whenever they so desire."  Id. at 1.  Judge Prost was equally critical of the majority's departure from the Supreme Court's case-specific approach to questions of patent eligible subject matter.  "The majority has failed to follow the Supreme Court’s instructions—not just in its holding, but more importantly in its approach."  Id. at 3.

Central to Judge Prost's dissent is the view that the Supreme Court in Prometheus required that to be patent eligible the subject matter must contain an "inventive concept."  "Now there is no doubt that to be patent eligible under § 101, the claims must include an “inventive concept.”  Dissent at 3. Finding nothing inventive in the claims – they consist of the abstract and ancient idea together with its implementation via a computer – the dissent concludes that they cannot constitute patent eligible subject matter.

The Heart of the Dispute: One interpretation of the divide between majority and dissent is that it flows from fundamentally different approaches to the question of what the "invention" is for purposes of § 101.  The majority sees the "invention" as rigidly defined by the claims: "ignoring claim limitations in order to abstract a process down to a fundamental truth is legally impermissible," and accuses the dissent of doing just that.  Slip Op. at 23.  In contrast, the dissent, while recognizing the importance of the claims, strips them of jargon in order to ask "So where is the invention"?  Dissent at 5.  The majority's approach resembles the standard patent law approach to dealing with the concept of the invention; the dissent's is much more similar to how the Supreme Court analyzes questions of patentable subject matter. 

In any event, given the fundamental disagreement between the majority and dissent, this will be a case to keep a close eye on.

Correction to original post: Judge Lourie was joined by Judge O'Malley, not Judge Moore.

Enhanced Damages: The Seagate Objectively Reckless Standard is Now a Question of Law to be Decided by a Judge and Reviewed De Novo on Appeal

Patent, , ,

By Dennis Crouch

Bard Peripheral v. W.L.Gore (Fed. Cir. 2012) (on rehearing)

In an important decision, the Federal Circuit has ruled that the “objective prong” of the test for willful patent infringement is a separate question of law. Moving forward, it will be the trial court’s duty to determine whether the defendant’s actions were objectively reckless. Further, the objective prong will now be subject to de novo review on appeal.

This new system somewhat parallels the judge-determined claim construction that must occur before a jury can determine infringement. As with claim construction, this new judge-focused sub-test will likely drive results in most cases. Because it will be prior-in-time, the judicial decision on objective recklessness will filter-out many willfulness allegations before they reach the jury. And the jury, once it is told that the judge has determined the behavior objectively reckless, is likely to find any infringed patent to be willfully infringed.

Right to Jury: The right to a jury decision on the issue of willfulness already stood on shaky foundation because, by statute, the judge decides the monetary award. The changes in the law brought about here in Bard coupled with those outlined in Seagate suggest that right may now be fully eroded. Further, the decision suggests that it may be proper to treat the entire issue of willfulness as a question of law.

+ + + + +

Treble Damages: The text of the Patent Act appears to provide courts with broad power to treble any damages awarded. The statute reads that “the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” Although the text offers no limitation on that power, the Federal Circuit has limited the use of enhanced damages to only apply when the adjudged infringement is found to be willful. In Seagate, the Federal Circuit defined a two-prong test for willfulness that requires clear and convincing evidence (1) “that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent” and (2) that the infringer had knowledge (or should have known) of this risk.

Willfulness is a question of fact that has been traditionally decided by a jury. However, as the statute suggests, it is the judge who determines the extent of any enhanced damages (with the limit of three-times the compensatory damage award). Here, the infringer argued that a court (rather than a jury) should first decide the sub-question of whether there existed (at the time of the infringement) an objectively high-likelihood that the infringer’s action’s constituted infringement. The appellate court agreed:

After reviewing the Supreme Court’s precedent in similar contexts, as well as our own, we conclude that simply stating that willfulness is a question of fact over-simplifies the issue. While the ultimate question of willfulness based on an assessment of the second prong of Seagate may be a question of fact, Seagate also requires a threshold determination of objective recklessness. That determination entails an objective assessment of potential defenses based on the risk presented by the patent. Those defenses may include questions of infringement but also can be expected in almost every case to entail questions of validity that are not necessarily dependent on the factual circumstances of the particular party accused of infringement.

In considering the standard applicable to the objective prong of Seagate, it can be appreciated that “the decision to label an issue a ‘question of law,’ a ‘question of fact,’ or a ‘mixed question of law and fact’ is sometimes as much a matter of allocation as it is of analysis.” Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 113-14 (1985). When an “issue falls some-where between a pristine legal standard and a simple historical fact, the fact/law distinction at times has turned on a determination that, as a matter of sound administration of justice, one judicial actor is better positioned than another to decide the issue in question.” Id. at 114; see also Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 388 (1996) (applying this test to determine that claim construction is best left to the judge). We believe that the court is in the best position for making the determination of reasonableness. This court therefore holds that the objective determination of recklessness, even though predicated on underlying mixed questions of law and fact, is best decided by the judge as a question of law subject to de novo review.

On remand, the district court will be required to specifically consider the question of objective recklessness.

+ + + + +

Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard for a Question of Law?: Seagate requires that objective recklessness be proven with clear and convincing evidence. As the en banc court wrote in 2007 “to establish willful infringement, a patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.” Normally, clear-and-convincing evidence is a standard for proving facts. Here in Bard, however, the court now holds that the objective recklessness prong is a question of law. Since the panel here has no power to modify Seagate, the odd joining of these decisions is that the issue of law must still be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In a concurring opinion to the i4i decision, Supreme Court Justice Breyer wrote on this topic – noting that the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof “applies to questions of fact and not to questions of law.” The panel opinion here in Bard either did not recognize this problem or chose to ignore it. The tension here between Seagate and Bard is genuine.

+ + + + +

The majority opinion was written Judge Gajarsa (Senior Judge) and joined by Judge Linn. Judge Newman wrote in dissent and argued that there was no need for a remand because the jury willfulness determination was clearly wrong.

+ + + + +

This case has been brewing for 38 years! Initially it was an inventorship dispute that took 28 years to settle at the PTO, followed by a litigation battle for the past 8 years. The patent covers a prosthetic vascular graft used in bypass surgeries and was originally filed as an application in 1974. U.S. Patent No. 6,436,135.