Tag Archives: Oil States

Punishing Prometheus: Part II – What is a Claim?

Patent, , , , , , , ,

Guest Post by Robert R. Sachs of Fenwick & West LLP; Read Part I

Yes, I said that: the Court does not understand the nature of patent law—more precisely, it does not understand what claims do. Reading the Court’s treatment of Prometheus’ claim, one would think that claims are some type of qualitative instruction manual, a recipe that speaks to “audiences” such as doctors, about which things are “relevant to their decision making.” Claims are no such thing: they are definitions that articulate a specific combination of steps or structures. They are objective in form and design, not subjective or advisory. The notion that the claims here “trust” doctors to “use those laws” is at best silly, and at worst badly misguided. Reducing the claim to this “instruction manual” allows the Court to analogize the claim to Einstein “telling linear accelerator operators about his basic law”—a low point in modern legal reasoning.

In this decision, as well as in Bilski, Benson, and Flook, the Court simply does not “get” what claims are about. The entire preemption analysis, born of a conflation of “algorithms” with “scientific truths” in Benson, is based on this misunderstanding. By definition claims preempt, that is what they are designed to do: to preclude one from making, using, selling, etc., the invention. A broadly drafted claim preempts broadly. And it is this further confusion—between “breadth” or “abstraction” and “abstract ideas”—that is the second damaging mistake the Court made (and continues to make).

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Should the Supreme Court Grant Cert in Rambus?

Patent, , , , , , ,

This post was written by Professor Josh Wright. Wright is a professor at George Mason University Law School, but is visiting this semester at the University of Texas Law School in Austin. This post was originally published on the blog Truth on the Market.

As noted, the FTC has exercised its right under 15 USC 56(a)(3) to petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the D.C. Circuit in its FTC v. Rambus. The FTC press release is here. The petition is here. The questions presented, as framed by the Commission are:

1. Whether deceptive conduct that significantly contributes to a defendant’s acquisition of monopoly power violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

2. Whether deceptive conduct that distorts the competitive process in a market, with the effect of avoiding the imposition of pricing constraints that would otherwise exist because of that process, is anticompetitive under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

I do not believe the FTC has presented a convincing case for granting cert. Further, I don’t think the Supreme Court should grant cert in Rambus for reasons I’ll discuss in the post. For a more detailed exposition on some of the issues touched upon by this post, see my article with Bruce Kobayashi, Federalism, Substantive Preemption and Limits on Antitrust: An Application to Patent Holdup (forthcoming in the Journal of Competition Law and Economics).

The FTC lists what I count as five separate reasons to grant the petition:

(1) the D.C. Circuit applied an overly restrictive “but-for” causation standard that would require the Commission to show that Rambus’s conduct was anticompetitive (”the court of appeals erred in supposing that a Section 2 tribunal must identify a particular anticompetitive effect in order to find liability”);

(2) the court erred in its application of NYNEX v. Discon, Inc. to Rambus to conclude that the loss of an opportunity for the SSO (JEDEC) to obtain a RAND commitment from Rambus was not an anticompetitive effect under the antitrust laws;

(3) the Supreme Court should grant the petition to clarify “the governing standards of causation in Section 2 cases”;

(4) the D.C. Circuit decision is at odds with the Third Circuit’s Broadcom decision which held that the loss of a RAND commitment due to deception is a proper basis for Section 2 liability; and

(5) the set “inconsistent set of rules” creates a conflict that “threatens confusion regarding the conduct of participants in industry-wide standard setting,” “will discourage participation in standard setting proceedings,” and “ultimately harm consumers.”

I want to examine some of those issues more closely, sketching out reasons why I do not believe that they warrant cert, and also highlight some issues the FTC did not but should have addressed in its brief to make the case more compelling. All of that below the fold.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Microsoft v. AT&T: Extraterritorial Enforcement of US Patents

Patent, , , ,

Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U. S. ____ (2007).

In a 7-1 decision, the Supreme Court held that Section 271(f) of the Patent Act does not extend to cover foreign duplication of software.

There is no such thing as a world-wide patent. Rather, patent law is territorial. A US patent covers infringing acts that occur in the US but generally disregards extraterritorial activity. The lone statutory exception is Section 271(f) of the Patent Act, which calls for infringement liability for the unauthorized supply of "components" of a patented invention for "combination" abroad.

Todays business reality has considerably dulled the teeth of 271(f) in the area of manufacturing -- few physical components are shipped abroad from the US.  Through Microsoft and others, the US continues to be a leader in software development and the export of software.  Of course, Microsoft does not export its software by loading millions of CDs on a cargo ship. Rather, it sends only a few copies to foreign OEM distributors who load copies of the software onto PCs for sale.

AT&T is the assignee of a patent covering a computer for encoding and compressing recorded speech. In the US, a computer with Microsoft WIndows installed infringes the patent. The question in this case, is whether the foreign installed software can be considered a "component" supplied from the US under 271(f). 

The question before us: Does Microsoft's liability extend to computers made in another country when loaded with Windows software copied abroad from a master disk or electronic transmission dispatched by Microsoft from the United States? Our answer is "No."

As can be seen from the various amici briefs, reasonable minds can differ regarding two statutory elements: (1) whether software -- without being tied to a physical medium -- can be classified as a "component;" and (2) whether the foreign-made copy was "supplie[d]" from the US. Abiding by its principle against extraterritorial application of laws -- especially patent laws -- the Supreme Court answered both of these questions in a restrictive fashion:

  • Abstract Software: Until it is expressed as a computer-readable "copy," e.g., on a CD-ROM, Windows software indeed any software
    detached from an activating medium remains uncombinable. . . . Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment, and as such, it does not match §271(f)'s categorization: "components" amenable to "combination."     [DDC: Software is never without a physical embodiment?]
  • Supply of Copies: [T]he very components supplied from the United States, and not copies thereof, trigger §271(f) liability when combined abroad to form the patented invention at issue. Here, as we have repeatedly noted,  the copies of Windows actually
    installed on the foreign computers were not themselves supplied from the United States.     [Therefore no liability for foreign-made copies]

Dissent by Justice Stevens: In my view, Justice Stevens - in a solo dissent - has the more sensible view of component.

[I]f a disk with software inscribed on it is a "component," I find it difficult to understand why the most important ingredient of that component is not also a component.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Microsoft v. AT&T: Transnational patent Law

Damages, Patent, Patent Cases 2007, Transnational, ,

Microsoft v. AT&T (Supreme Court 2007).

Section 271(f) of the Patent Act expands the territorial scope of US patent protection by creating liability for exporting one or more “components” of a patented invention so that the whole invention may be practiced abroad. The statute is divided into parts one and two dealing with inducement and contributory activity respectively.

The case at hand involves Microsoft’s infringement of AT&T’s speech coding technology patent. Microsoft has conceded that its software (once installed on a computer) infringes the patent in the US. However, Microsoft has fought against paying patent royalties for sale of the same software abroad.  Microsoft’s argument, spelled out in its brief, is two-fold: (1) Software cannot be a ‘component’ as required by the statute because software code is intangible; and (2) Software copies made abroad cannot be considered ‘supplied’ from the US as required by the statute because no physical particle that Microsoft exported actually became part of the finished product.  I have previously labeled these arguments as the tangibility requirement and the molecular conservation requirement. [Link]

Now, AT&T and its supporters has filed their briefs that explain why 271(f) should encompass foreign copies of software shipped from the US. [Petitioner and Gov’t briefs are discussed here]

AT&T’s Brief on the Merits:

Tangibility: AT&T attacks the tangibility requirement head-on, arguing that there is no such requirement.

[The software] is plainly a component of [the patented] device, just as a unique collection of intangible words is a component of any book bearing the title Moby-Dick, even though those words, too, must be combined with ink and paper before the book can be read.

Of course AT&T is correct — the statute does not spell-out any tangibility requirement, and Microsoft’s statutory argument is, at best implicit. AT&T’s arguments are supported by business practice as well. Software and hardware are developed and sold separately, and each side can easily be though of as providing components of the whole.

Molecular Conservation Requirement: AT&T takes a different view of the statutory requirement that the components be “supplied” from the US. In AT&T’s story, “supplied” means satisfying a need or furnishing.  Using a but-for analysis, AT&T makes clear that without Microsoft’s shipment of the code abroad, it would not have ended-up in the foreign computers.

Here, the Windows object code is present in the foreign made computers only because Microsoft “provided” or “furnished”—in a word, supplied—it from the United States, via golden master disk or electronic transmission.

As it stands, the AT&T brief is well written and convincing on its own — the major problem being that it leads with a petty argument for dismissal.

Philips Corporation also filed a brief in support of AT&T.  Philips makes several arguments, two of which I discuss here:

  1. In today’s market, software and hardware companies do compete head-to-head.  A finding that software export is noninfringing would be at the expense of electronics companies because hardware exports would continue to be considered infringing.  Thus, awarding the win to Microsoft here may free the software industry, but will even further damage the hardware export industry.
  2. In many ways, this case is about the size of damages. Microsoft hopes that copies made abroad will not be seen as infringing because those copies were not literally shipped from the US.  Philips points out under the rules of consequential damage calculations, Microsoft would owe damages for sales of all copies even if 271(f) only covered the initial master disk shipment.

WARF, California, and RCTech filed a joint brief in support of AT&T. These holders of strong bio-related patents see the potential that this case could narrow the scope of their protection. WARF points-out how Microsoft comes to the table with unclean hands:

When it suits its interests, even Microsoft acknowledges that the number of units it supplies is not limited by the number of golden masters it sends abroad. In Microsoft Corp. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, Microsoft argued that it was entitled to tax deductions . . . for all foreign sales of software replicated from Microsoft’s golden master abroad, claiming that such copies were "export property" under the statute. The Ninth Circuit . . . agreed with Microsoft that all copies created from the golden master were export property, thereby providing Microsoft with another $31 million in claimed deductions for 1990 and 1991.

BAYHDOLE25.inc is an educational NGO that supports, as you might guess, the Bayh Dole act (at its 25th anniversary).  In a brief supporting AT&T, BD25 argues for the protection of intangible assets — especially assets that are replicable and intended to be replicated.  These include software code, cell lines, patented seeds, DNA, etc. Replicable assets are important and should be protectable.

Documents:

  • On the Merits
  • In Support of Microsoft
  • In Support of AT&T
  • In Support of Neither Party
  • Reply Brief:
  • On Petition for Certiorari

    • Important recent 271(f) cases:

    • NTP v. Research in Motion, (271(f) “component” would rarely if ever apply to method claims).
    • AT&T v. Microsoft, 414 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (271(f) “component” applies to method claims and software being sold abroad);
    • Union Carbide v. Shell Oil (Fed. Cir. 2005) (271(f) “component” applies to method claims).
    • Eolas v. Microsoft, 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (271(f) “component” applies to method claims and software);
    • Pellegrini v. Analog Devices, 375 F.3d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (271(f) “component” does not cover export of plans/instructions of patented item to be manufactured abroad);
    • Bayer v. Housey Pharms, 340 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (271(g) “component” does not apply to importation of ‘intangible information’).

    Earlier Discussion of this case

    Text of 35 USC 271(f)

    (1) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.

    (2) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States any component of a patented invention that is especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, where such component is uncombined in whole or in part, knowing that such component is so made or adapted and intending that such component will be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.

    To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.