Tag Archives: PGR

Hricik: Why Section 101 is Neither a “Condition of Patentability” nor an Invalidity Defense

Patent, , ,

By Dennis Crouch

On his side of the blog, Professor David Hricik again raises the question of whether Section 101 can serve as the basis for a defense to patentability.

[https://patentlyo.com/hricik/2013/09/why-section-101-is-neither-a-condition-of-patentability-nor-an-invalidity-defense.html]

The basic notion is that the defenses to charges of patent infringement are listed in 35 U.S.C. § 282 and there is no statutory pathway for recognizing § 101 as such a defense. Hricik also discusses some amount of legislative history in drafting of the 1952 Patent Act that bolsters his conclusion. The Supreme Court approach makes sense then only by ignoring the statutory language and legislative history.

Other Posts:

There are a few potential legal challenges on this question that are rising through the process, including the Versata case (Inter partes (CBM) review on eligibility grounds). In Sinclair-Allison v. Fifth Ave. Physician (2013-1177), the accused infringer is counter-intuitively agreeing with Hricik that subject matter eligibility is not a validity defense but instead is an off-book “eligibility defense.” The point of the line of argument is that the presumption of validity shouldn’t apply to eligibility challenges.

Surprise! The Law of Subject Matter Eligibility Remains Unsettled

Patent, , , ,

By Jason Rantanen

Accenture Global Services, GMBH v. Guidewire Software, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013) Download Accenture v. Guidewire
Panel: Rader (dissenting), Lourie (author), Reyna

It is difficult to think of an issue that has more deeply divided the Federal Circuit over the past few years than subject matter eligibility.  Accenture is the latest barrage and counter-barrage in this seemingly endless war.  Unlike Ultramercial v. Hulu, though, in which Judge Rader wrote the majority opinion and Judge Lourie concurred in the result, the forces arguing against subject matter eligibility of computer programs won today's battle. 

At issue in the case were claims 1-7 and 8-22 of Patent No. 7,013,284.  Claim 1 read:

A system for generating tasks to be performed in an insurance organization, the system comprising:

an insurance transaction database for storing information related to an insurance transaction, the insurance transaction database comprising a claim folder containing the information related to the insurance transaction decomposed into a plurality of levels from the group comprising a policy level, a claim level, a participant level and a line level, wherein the plurality of levels reflects a policy, the information related to the insurance transaction, claimants and an insured person in a structured
format;

a task library database for storing rules for determining tasks to be completed upon an occurrence of an event;

a client component in communication with the insurance transaction database configured for providing information relating to the insurance transaction, said client component enabling access by an assigned claim handler to a plurality of tasks that achieve an insurance related goal upon completion; and

a server component in communication with the client component, the transaction database and the task library database, the server component including an event processor, a task engine and a task assistant;

wherein the event processor is triggered by application events associated with a change in the information, and sends an event trigger to the task engine; wherein in response to the event trigger, the task engine identifies rules in the task library database associated with the event and applies the information to the identified rules to determine the tasks to be completed, and populates on a task assistant the determined tasks to be completed, wherein the task assistant transmits the determined tasks to the client component.

The district court (Judge Robinson, one of the ) held claims 1-7 (system claims) and claims 8-22 (method claims) invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Accenture appealed only claims 1-7. 

System Claims Ineligible Subject Matter: In an opinion authored by Judge Lourie, the majority agreed with the district court that the claims were patent ineligible subject matter.  The majority provided two bases for its conclusion.  First, "because the system claims offer no meaningful limitations beyond the method claims that have been held patent-ineligible" and second, "because, when considered on their own, under Mayo and our plurality opinion in CLS Bank, they fail to pass muster." Slip Op. at 10.

The majority first compared the system claims to the method claims that were conclusively invalid because Accenture failed to appeal them.  Relying on the plurality opinion in CLS Bank v. Alice, the majority concluded that the proper approach is to "compare the substantive limitations of the method claim and the system claim to see if the system claim offers a “meaningful limitation” to the abstract method claim, which has already been adjudicated to be patent-ineligible."  Id. Because the court found no additional "meaningful limitation" in the system claims, they were as patent ineligible as the method claims. 

The majority also concluded that the method claims were invalid under Section 101 even standing on their own.  Applying a preemption analysis to the abstract idea at the heart of the system claims, the majority concluded that the additional imitations did not "narrow, confine, or otherwise tie down the claim so that, in practical terms, it does not cover the full abstract idea itself."  Slip Op. at 15.  Furthermore, "simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limtiations to that concept, does not transform a patent ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one."  Id.

Judge Rader's Dissent: Unsurprisingly, Judge Rader disagreed with the majority.  Central to his disagreement was the belief that the plurality framework relied upon by the majority in this case lacks precedential value.  "[N]o part of CLS Bank, including the plurality opinion, carries the weight of precedent.  The court's focus should be on Supreme Court precedent and precedent from this court."  Slip Op. at 20.  He also disagreed with the basic idea of the comparing the system claims to the invalid method claims, characterizing it as estoppel that will have the effect of "requiring litigants to appeal the invalidity of every claim or else risk the potential for estoppel or waiver of other claims."  Id. And Judge Rader would have concluded that, even on the merits, the claimed systems present patent-eligible subject matter.  "The claims offer “significantly more”  than the purported abstract idea, …, and meaningfully limit the claims’ scope."  Id. at 4, quoting Mayo v. Prometheus, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012).

Judge Rader also once again proclaims his view that the courts' approach to patent law's subject matter eligibility requirement is pure folly:

In conclusion, I note that prior to granting en banc review in CLS Bank, this court commented: “no one understands what makes an idea abstract.” CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp., 685 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012), opinion vacated, 484 F. App’x 559 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotations marks omitted). After CLS Bank, nothing has changed. “Our opinions spend page after page revisiting our cases and those of the Supreme Court, and still we continue to disagree vigorously over what is or is not patentable subject matter.” MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corp., 672 F.3d 1250, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see generally CLS Bank. Indeed, deciding what makes an idea “abstract” is “reminiscent of the oenologists trying to describe a new wine.” MySpace, 672 F.3d at 1259.

I take this opportunity to reiterate my view that “the remedy is the same: consult the statute!” CLS Bank, 717 F.3d at 1335 (additional reflections of Rader, C.J.). The statute offers broad categories of patent-eligible subject matter. The “ineligible” subject matter in these system claims is a further testament to the perversity of a standard without rules—the result of abandoning the statute.

Slip Op. at 23.  That said, Judge Rader's thoughts about indeterminacy should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt: his opinions indicate, after all, that he has very strong views that one side of the subject matter eligibility battle is right and the other wrong.

One other thing of note about this case: Mark Lemley – who has written a great deal about patenting of computer-implemented inventions, including a recent post on PatentlyO – was the lead attorney for the defendant.

Hiring an IP Law Professor at the University of Missouri

Patent,

I wanted to post this hiring announcement for – We are looking to hire a tenure-track or (tenured) professor to teach and research in the field of intellectual property. My Dean Gary Myers and the faculty are looking to expand our intellectual property focus at the law school in several different ways, including through hiring additional faculty.

Job Posting

= = = = =

Job Description

The University of Missouri School of Law seeks entry-level or lateral candidates for a full-time tenure track position in the area of Intellectual Property. The School of Law is looking for individuals with a strong commitment to scholarship, teaching, and public service. Candidates must have an excellent academic record and either legal practice experience or advanced academic training.

The University of Missouri-Columbia is the flagship campus of the University of Missouri system and is one of only 34 public universities in the country belonging to the American Association of Universities, a group of elite research universities. As both a research and land grant university, we have opportunities for interdisciplinary interaction that are unmatched at all but a handful of other universities. In addition, Columbia is regularly ranked as one of the most livable cities in the country.

Application Procedure

Review of applications will begin immediately and will continue until all available positions are filled. The School of Law will review the Faculty Appointments Registration applications as they are distributed by the AALS. (If you are participating in the Faculty Appointments Register you do not need to mail or email your materials.) Applicants who are not participating in the Faculty Appointments Register must apply by submitting a cover letter and resume at http://hrs.missouri.edu/find-a-job/academic/.

The University of Missouri is an equal opportunity/ADA institution and is particularly interested in applications from women and minorities. Additional information about the School of Law is available at www.law.missouri.edu. To request ADA accommodations, please contact Associate Dean Rigel Oliveri at 573-882-5068.    

Benefit Eligibility

This position is eligible for University benefits. The University offers a comprehensive benefits package, including medical, dental and vision plans, retirement, and educational fee discounts. For additional information on University benefits, please visit the Faculty & Staff Benefits website at http://www.umsystem.edu/totalrewards/benefits

Equal Employment Opportunity

The University of Missouri is an equal access, equal opportunity, affirmative action employer that is fully committed to achieving a diverse faculty and staff. For more information, call the Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resource Services/Affirmative Action officer at 573-882-4256.

To request ADA accommodations, please call Human Resource Services at 573-882-7976. TTY users, please call through Relay Missouri, 1-800-RELAY (735-2966) or en Español at 1-800-520-7309.

Working out the Kinks in Post-Issuance Reviews: Versata v. SAP

Patent, , , , , , , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

The Versata saga provides an important case history showing the power of the new post-grant review procedures before the USPTO and the Office’s seeming new power to operate without fear of judicial review. However, over the next year the Federal Circuit will have its opportunity to review the PTAB’s controversial decisions.

= = = = =

Versata’s hierarchical pricing engine software had strong sales in the mid 1990’s, that ended when SAP and others added the component to their product line – an extra add-on was no longer needed. SAP indicated that its software replaced the need for Versata’s add-on and actively discouraged customers from using Versata.

Versata’s In-Court Victories: Versata eventually sued SAP in 2007 and won a first jury verdict and then a second jury verdict (finding that SAP’s “patch” did not cure the infringement) with a $300 million + damage award. That final decision was later affirmed on appeal.

Petition for Post-Grant Review of Covered Business Method: Meanwhile, following the district court’s second finding of infringement (but prior conclusion of the aforementioned appeal), SAP filed a petition for Post Grant Review available to “Covered Business Methods” as part of the America Invents Act. SAP had clearly been anxious to use this approach and filed the PGR petition at its first opportunity on September 16, 2012 (the first day such petitions were allowed). CBM2012-0001.

If you remember, post-grant review (including CBM review) allows for challenge on “any ground that could be raised under paragraph (2) or (3) of section 282 (b) (relating to invalidity of the patent or any claim).” This has been interpreted by the PTO to include validity challenges raised under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 102, 103, or 112. But see Can a Third Party Challenge Section 101 Subject Matter Eligibility in the USPTO’s new Post-Grant Review Procedure?

SAP’s petition challenged the patent claims as (1) directed toward unpatentable subject matter under §101; (2) lacking written description; (3) indefinite; and anticipated.

USPTO Grants Petition for Post Grant Review: In a January 2013 order, the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) granted the petition after finding that the challenged claims are “more likely than not unpatentable.” In particular, the PTAB allowed the challenge to move forward on the Section 101 and 102 grounds.

The PTAB made two additional important rulings:

What is a Covered Business Method?: First, the Board ruled that the ‘350 patent claims qualified as covered-business-methods because the claims are directed to a method for the “management of a financial product or service” and are not “technological inventions.” The PTO’s working definition of “technological” is rather unhelpful in that it simply asks whether the claim recites a new “technological feature” or “solves a technical problem using a technical solution.” Relevant claims of the patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350) are shown below (claims 17 and 26). And, you will note that the method claim 17 does not recite any steps that could not be done with pencil and paper.

Issue Preclusion / Collateral Estoppel Does Not Apply: The ordinary rule in federal courts is that preclusion applies following final judgment by a district court. The fact that an appeal is pending does not impact the finality of the district court judgment unless & until the appellate court takes some action. In Pharmacia, the Federal Circuit wrote that the “vast weight of case law” supports the notion that a judgment should be given its full preclusive effect even when an appeal is pending. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm., 170 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, Versata argued that the PTO should follow that general rule and since SAP already had a full and fair opportunity to challenge the patent validity and had lost its federal lawsuit resulting in final judgment. The PTAB rejected Versata’s argument finding instead that it would would not respect any final judgment subject to a pending appeal to the Federal Circuit.

As the final judgment in the related Versata v. SAP litigation is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit, we hold that the district court’s judgment is not sufficiently firm to be accorded conclusive effect for purposes of 37 C.F.R. 42.302 as it is still subject to reversal or amendment.

On this issue, it is interesting to note that the appeal brief filed by SAP did not challenge district court’s validity finding. Thus, although the district court decision in general could have been rejected on appeal (it wasn’t), there was simple no chance even in January 2013 that the appellate panel was going to opine on patent validity issues.

At this point, in January 2013, the PTAB was beginning its review of the ‘350 patent’s validity and, in parallel the Federal Circuit was considering SAP’s appeal that focused on noninfringement and remedy arguments.

No Challenge to PTO Decision to Grant Post-Issuance Review Petition: Versata also opened a third-front – filing suit in Virginia district court to overturn the PTO’s decision to grant the post-issuance review petition. In a recent decision, the Virginia court rejected that request in Versata Development v. Rea (as Director of USPTO) and SAP AG, 2013 WL 4014649 (E.D. Va. 2013) (no subject matter jurisdiction). The AIA indicates that the PTO’s determination of whether or not to institute post-grant proceedings are “final and nonappealable.” 35 U.S.C. 324. Versata argued that “nonappealable” in the statute should be seen as merely limiting direct appeals to the Federal Circuit and that its request for review was akin to a “civil action” under 35 U.S.C. 145 and not an “appeal.” Bolstering that argument is the language of 35 U.S.C. 329 and 141 that define appeal in post-issuance proceedings as appeals to the Federal Circuit. However, the district court rejected Versata’s argument and held that the court lacked jurisdiction under the statute and that, in any case, the decision to grant the review was only an interlocutory decision. It is unclear, but Versata may appeal this decision soon. [As an aside, the language of the district court opinion suggests that petition is denied

Federal Circuit Decision (Largely) Affirms Lower Court: The next event in this long saga came in May 2013 when the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination of infringement and the damages award. The only modification of the judgment was to ask the lower court to be more particular in injoining infringement without injoining sales of SAP products in general.

PTAB Final Judgment: The following month in June 2013, the PTAB came out with its final ruling holding that the patent claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101 as unpatentably abstract. This decision obviously temporally follows both the district court decision and that of the Federal Circuit. Yet, the PTAB found itself to differ on both claim construction and validity.

In particular, the PTAB determined that it would apply the “broadest reasonable interpretation” (BRI) standard to claim construction during post-issuance proceedings even though the terms had already been construed by the district court in a final judgment. The PTO’s rational is that (1) it is not bound by the district court judgment since “appeals from this proceeding are exclusively the Federal Circuit rather than to district courts” and that (2) the patentee’s ability to amend claims during review suggests that BRI should apply.

In the 101 analysis, the panel found that the claimed method of determining a price using product group hierarchies was a “disembodied concept” capable of being performed mentally, on paper, or on a general purpose computer. The PTO final judgment did not substantially revisit the issues of preclusion or whether the PTO has standing to challenge the patent under Section 101.

At the PTAB, the current status is that the Board is considering a rehearing request by Versata with the primary new focus being on the Federal Circuit’s Ultramercial decision. Versata again raised the contention that §101 is not a permissible ground for post grant review. Versata writes “Because § 101 is not a condition for patentability, much less specified as such as required by 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(2), it is not reviewable in a post-grant review (or CBM review).”

All these issues are likely to come to a head as the case is appealed to the Federal Circuit over the next year.

= = = = =

Claims at Issue:

17. A method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization comprising: arranging a hierarchy of organizational groups comprising a plurality of branches such that an organizational group below a higher organizational group in each of the branches is a subset of the higher organizational group; arranging a hierarchy of product groups comprising a plurality of branches such that a product group below a higher product group in each of the branches in a subset of the higher product group; storing pricing information in a data source, wherein the pricing information is associated, with (i) a pricing type, (ii) the organizational groups, and (iii) the product groups; retrieving applicable pricing information corresponding to the product, the purchasing organization, each product group above the product group in each branch of the hierarchy of product groups in which the product is a member, and each organizational group above the purchasing organization in each branch of the hierarchy of organizational groups in which the purchasing organization is a member; sorting the pricing information according to the pricing types, the product, the purchasing organization, the hierarchy of product groups, and the hierarchy of organizational groups; eliminating any of the pricing information that is less restrictive; and determining the product price using the sorted pricing information.

26. A computer readable storage media comprising: computer instructions to implement the method of claim 17.

Failing to Use Post-Grant Review as a Bully Club

Patent, , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,582,051 (Heart Failure Technologies,LLC v. CardioKinetix, Inc.) (P.T.A.B. IPR 2013-00183)

In early 2013, Akin Gump attorney Sanford Warren sent an interesting letter to the medical device start-up company CardioKinetix on behalf of Akin Gump's clients Heart Failure Technologies. Heart Failure is a non-practicing entity looking to license its U.S. Patent No. 7,485,088. Oddly, Heart Failure did not threaten to sue CardioKinetix but rather threatened to file an inter partes review against one or more of the company's unrelated patents. Warren wrote: "If we have not received a substantive response by [1:00pm Central Time on December 21, 2012], we will file an inter partes review petition against one or more of CardioKinetix's patents on [December 21]." File Attachment: AkinGumpThreatLetter.pdf (1481 KB). Heart Failure eventually did file the IPR against CardioKinetix's U.S. Patent 7,582,051 – alleging that two of the claims were invalid as obvious based upon a combination of three prior art references.

At the outset, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) must determine whether to grant or deny a petition for inter partes review. Here, the PTAB denied the petition – finding that "the record … does not demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. We consequently deny the petition and decline to institute an inter partes review of the '051 patent." File Attachment: PTABDecision.pdf (438 KB).

The decision is somewhat interesting – the basic failure of the petition was that the petitioner gave no reason why someone of skill in the art would combine the elements taught by the various references (other than the fact that they all relate to heart treatments).

The fact that [the three prior art references] all concern human heart repair is not in itself sufficient rationale for making the combination. Many heart repair devices exist. That fact alone would not make it obvious to combine their features. Petitioner must show some reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have thought to combine particular available elements of knowledge, as evidenced by the prior art, to reach the claimed invention. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). This, the Petitioner has not done. That the references relied upon all relate to human heart repair does not amount to "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." See id. (internal quotations omitted).

At this point, Heart Failure can ask the Board to review its decision. However, under 35 U.S.C. §314, the decision is "nonappealable."

I corresponded with CardioKinetix outside counsel Rick Shoop (ShayGlen) who indicated that the defense was fairly inexpensive (compared with patent litigation) at roughly three times more costly than filing an ex parte appeal to the PTAB.  

* Note –  A reader asked if I meant to use “bully club” or instead the more common “billy club.”  My intent here was to focus on the potential for bullying and so I thought the term fit.  

Expanding Post-Grant Business Method Reviews: S. 866

Patent, , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

Senator Chuck Schumer has proposed a short bill entitled the “Patent Quality Improvement Act of 2013.” S. 866. The purpose of the bill is to expand the scope of the transitional covered business method review. First, the S. 866 would eliminate the sunset provision of the bill making it permanent rather than transitional in nature. Second, the bill would expand the scope of covered business methods by eliminating the “financial product or service” limitation. This expansion should be seen as the next step toward expanding post-grant review to cover all patents throughout their lifespan.

Background: The American Invents Act created several new mechanisms for challenging patents through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). One of the most powerful of these is the new post-grant review (PGR) proceeding that allows patent challenges on any validity ground, including issues arising from 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 or 112.. However PGR is only available for first-to-file patents (i.e., patents relating to applications filed since March 16, 2013) and a PGR request must be filed within nine-months of the patent issuance. In addition to PGR, the AIA provides a special provision to allow expanded challenges of certain business method patents covered by the statutory definition. As with PGR, the covered business method review allows challenges for any validity ground. Although covered business method reviews are not limited by the timing requirement the statute does provide a set of important limitations.

Under the AIA:

  • Covered business methods are limited to those used in delivering “a financial product or service” and not be for a “technological invention.” The PTO rules provide that a “technological invention” is one that “recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and solves a technical problem using a technical solution.”
  • The Petitioner must either have been sued by the patentee or have Article III declaratory judgment standing in order to file the petition.
  • The transitional provisions are set to sunset after eight years.

The Patent Quality Improvement Act would expand the scope of Covered Business Methods in two manners: (1) by eliminating the sunset provision and (2) by eliminating limitation that covered business methods be directed toward a “financial product or service.” The new definition would read as follows:

IN GENERAL- For purposes of this section, the term ‘covered business method patent’ means a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or an enterprise, product, or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.

If bill passes, the PTO would then have the opportunity to provide its definitions for the terms used here. At its broadest, the provision would make-available business-method reviews for new any patent that includes at least one claim that itself does not include a “technological invention.” If that is the purpose, we should wholly rewrite the provision to make it clear and straightforward: “IN GENERAL – For purposes of this section, the term ‘covered business method patent’ means a patent that includes a claim that is not directed to a technical invention.”

The Current USPTO Fees for filing a covered business method review is $30,000. However, since these claims are all associated with actual disputes that fee does not likely represent the most significant barrier to filing. In the nine-months since CBM reviews became available, petitions have filed a total of 25 reviews against a total of 18 patents.

Guest Post: The Patent Failure of Novartis with Gleevec

Patent, , ,

Guest Post by Srividhya Ragavan (Professor of Law, University of Oklahoma College of Law)

The Indian Supreme Court’s verdict on the Novartis patent application has garnered a lot of attention as having set a stringent standard of nonobviousness for patents. In India, this litigation is pitched as a battle between big pharma and health aid groups.

This recent saga at the Supreme Court relates to a patent application that was originally filed in 1998 for a cancer drug named Gleevec (or Glivec, in Europe). Gleevec is the beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate, which is the salt form of the free base and is used to treat chronic myeloid leukemia, a form of cancer. This application in India claimed priority from an earlier application filed in July 1997 in Switzerland. The application was opposed in India on the basis that imatinib mesylate was anticipated by the earlier Novartis US patent No. 5521184. As a side note, Novartis’s US application for the free base of Imatinib -which was the crystalline form —issued as a patent in the United States in 1996 owing to a 1993 filing date. When after losing the mail-box dispute, India opened its doors to a transitional mail-box application facility, Novartis filed a patent application in India in 1996. Overall, Novartis had over 35 patents over this polymorphic form of Gleevec in different countries. The application was reviewed in India in 2006 once India fully transitioned into a patent regime as required under the TRIPS agreement. Notably, even before the application was taken up by the patent office there were 5 pre-grant oppositions filed against the application!

In gist, the argument against Gleevec in India was that this application related to new form of a known substance. In pharmaceutical chemistry, a different crystalline form of the same chemical substance is called a polymorph, the patenting of which is specifically prohibited under § 3(d) in India unless it also results in enhanced efficacy. Now, § 3(d) of the Indian patent statute, the operative section reads as follows:

3. What are not inventions. – The following are not inventions within the meaning of this Act,

…

(d). the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size, isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy;

In gist, India does not allow the patenting of new forms of known substances unless it also results in enhanced efficacy. The assertion in India was that the salt form for which the patent application was filed inherently existed in the original crystalline form. Considering the US patent as a prior art, the Patent Controller concluded that the application was obvious for covering a new form of a known substance under § 3(d) of the Patents (Amendment) Act of 2005.

Soon Novartis pursued an appeal to the High Court of Chennai on the grounds that § 3(d) was unconstitutional and in violation of India’s obligations under TRIPS. The Chennai High Court established that § 3(d) was indeed Constitutional and within the scope of the TRIPS agreement based on the fact that the section deals with all technologies and does not limit itself to pharmaceutical innovations. The explanation to the section becomes applicable to pharmacology inventions and works to strengthen the understanding of the overarching test. The test, the court explained cast a duty on the patent applicant to prove that the discovery had resulted “enhancement of a known efficacy of that substance.” The court added that the explanation creates a “deeming fiction that all derivatives of a known substance would be deemed to be the same substance unless it differs significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.” Thus, was born the higher standard of nonobviousness that India has embraced with such vigor. In its opinion, the Chennai High Court agreed with the patent office that Gleevec was an obvious improvement and that the applicant should prove enhanced efficacy by showing enhanced therapeutic efficacy in order to get a patent. Interestingly, Novartis filed another patent application for the alpha version of the same compound; that application was also denied.

It was during this time that the government of India issued a notification constituting the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which is a tribunal with judicial powers under which all patent appeals were transferred. It is important though to understand that, despite being a tribunal, the IPAB’s judicial pronouncements have gained in reputation and stature over the years. Eventually, the Novartis patent application, like the other patent appeals, landed in the hands of the newly constituted IPAB on transfer from the High Court. The IPAB alluded to the original 1993 Zimmerman Patent facilitated the formation of imatinib mesylate salt by reaction with “aliphatic sulfonic acids, such as methane -,ethane – or – 2-hydroxy ethane -sulfonic acid.” Interestingly, the IPAB clarified when nonobviousness is evaluated for a pharmaceutically active substance, in particular, the application material would finally have to be evaluated to determine whether the compositions fall within the category of “not an invention under § 3(d) of the Act.” This evaluation determined whether the new form/derivative of a known substance displayed significant enhancement in properties with regard to efficacy. Thus, the IPAB gave the impression that the § 3(d) analysis is tied to nonobviousness and not patent eligibility. In considering Gleevec, the IPAB held that the increased bioavailability of the salt of imatinib (application material) and the increased solubility did not result in increased efficacy.

Novartis preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court in 2009, the same year that the IPAB upheld the rejection of Gleevec by the Controller. The Supreme Court considered whether an invention that clears all of the requirements for an invention can be denied on the ground that § 3(d) puts it out of the category of “invention”? The manner of phrasing the question in itself suggests that § 3 is not a threshold question in India. That is, one gets the feeling that whether an application material falls within the category excluded under § 3 is determined only for inventions that cross the § 2 requirements of utility, novelty and nonobviousness. This view is further bolstered by the statement elsewhere by the Supreme Court that “in case of chemicals and especially pharmaceuticals … [of] a new form of a known substance with known efficacy, [] the subject product must pass, in addition to clauses (j) and (ja) of section 2(1), the test of enhanced efficacy as provided in section 3(d) read with its explanation.” That said, elsewhere the court, in denying that § 3 is not a provision ex majore cautela, adds that the vital distinction is between the concepts of invention and patentability. So, the conclusion perhaps is that § 3 is akin to patentability question although in practice in India, it is tagged with the nonobviousness question.

As for the specific constituents of the § 3(d) requirements, the Supreme Court clarified that the term efficacy relates to “therapeutic efficacy.” The court then went on to discuss the test or parameters for providing such efficacy noting that such proof shall be weighed on strict and narrow standards. In the case of pharmaceutical compounds, the Court noted external and internal factors should clearly demonstrate therapeutic efficacy and it should be specifically claimed and established by research data. Thus, “the mere change of form with properties inherent to that form would not qualify as “enhancement of efficacy” of a known substance.”

As for the patent itself, the court adopted a stance similar to the Controller of patents and the IPAB to hold that imatinib mesylate is represented entirely by the Zimmermann patent. It added that after the Zimmermann patent issued, Novartis applied for, and obtained patents on different forms of the substance. But, no application was made on imatinib mesylate on the non-crystalline form. The court concluded that it is because imatinib mesylate is fully a part of the Zimmermann patent and does not call for a separate patent and thus, denied the patent.

Notably, the interest and role of non-governmental organizations in India in access issues as far as intellectual property is concerned is remarkable and distinguished. Further, the country’s interest in hearing and dispensing intellectual property issues has also become notable. The Novartis litigation has showcased India’s interest and ability as far as pharmaceutical patents are concerned. This case reinforces the suspicions for the need of a higher bar to get a patent issued in India. It also proves that the power of lobby groups notwithstanding, businesses needs a dose of local reality especially in countries in India. It must take exceptionally bad market assessment to sell a drug for approximately $ 2400 for a month’s supply (against a cost of $ 160 for the same from a generic manufacturer) in a country where the per capita income is estimated at a low $ 1 to $ 10 per month for a vast majority of the population. To give a perspective, an Indian employee who earns $ 2400 per month would consider himself very well-employed. In fact, in the lower middle class (forming about 300 to 400 million people), one would be considered agreeably employed if they earned $ 2400 in a year. And, big pharma cannot hope to erase away this ground reality with its lobby power.

En Banc Review in Checkpoint v. All-Tag?

Patent, ,

By Jason Rantanen

In December, the Federal Circuit denied a request for rehearing en banc in Highmark v. Allcare Health Management Systems.  The request focused on the de novo standard of review that the panel in Highmark applied in reviewing the objectively baseless element of the district court's exceptional case determination.  The denial was narrow, however, with five of the eleven judges dissenting from the decision to deny en banc review.  I previously wrote about the denial here.

Since the Federal Circuit denied rehearing en banc in Highmark, however, its composition has changed significantly.  Two of the six panel members who did not vote in favor of en banc review have since assumed senior status and Judge Taranto has joined the court.  Consequently, there are five judges who have expressed a view that the de novo standard applied in Highmark was erroneous (Chief Judge Rader and Judges Moore, O'Malley, Reyna and Wallach) and four judges who either definitely or likely believe that the de novo standard is correct (Judges Newman, Lourie, Dyk and Prost).  As a result, the court's decision whether to grant en banc review on this issue probably depends on the views of the newest member of the court, Judge Taranto.  If Judge Taranto joins with the dissenters in Highmark, there would be a 6-4 majority in favor of en banc review; if he joins with the decision not to grant en banc review, there would be a 5-5 tie, which would be insufficient to trigger en banc review. 

This is significant because the Checkpoint decision that I wrote about earlier this week provides an opportunity for the court to review this issue en banc.  Notably, the three judges on the panel in Checkpoint were not among the dissent in the denial to rehear Highmark en banc.  As several of the comments to Thursday's post pointed out, however, it doesn't seem likely this case would have come out differently even under a more deferential standard of review. 

Discovery Process in Post-Grant Proceedings

Patent, , ,

by Dennis Crouch

Abbott Labs v. Cordis Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2013)

In 2009 Cordis sued Abbot for infringing two of its drug-eluting stent patents. US Patent Nos 6,746,773 and 7,591,844. Abbott then petitioned the USPTO for inter partes reexamination of the two patents (pre AIA). As part of the reexamination both parties submitted expert affidavits. Then, in October 2011, Cordis petitioned the Virginia federal court – requesting two subpoenas duces tecum asking that court to compel discovery to further the reexamination process. The district court refused and, using one of my favorite words, quashed the subpoena. The Federal Circuit has now affirmed.

35 U.S.C.§ 24 requires federal courts to support the discovery process for "any contested case in the Patent and Trademark Office." Under the statute:

The clerk of any United States court for the district wherein testimony is to be taken for use in any contested case in the Patent and Trademark Office, shall, upon the application of any party thereto, issue a subpoena for any witness residing or being within such district, commanding him to appear and testify before an officer in such district authorized to take depositions and affidavits, at the time and place stated in the subpoena. The provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to the attendance of witnesses and to the production of documents and things shall apply to contested cases in the Patent and Trademark Office.

Every witness subpoenaed and in attendance shall be allowed the fees and traveling expenses allowed to witnesses attending the United States district courts.

The issue on appeal is whether an inter partes reexamination counts as a "contested case." In any ordinary sense of the phrase, the inter partes reexamination is contested. However, both the district court and the Federal Circuit hold that the statutory meaning of the phrase does not include these reexaminations. The court writes that a "contested case" under the statute only includes those cases "in which the PTO has provided for the taking of depositions for use in that proceeding." With a substantial dose of circular reasoning, court deduces the following: (1) since the PTO has not provided for depositions in inter partes reexaminations; it follows that (2) inter partes reexaminations cannot be "contested cases"; and thus (3) no depositions can be taken in an inter partes reexamination.

The proper interpretation of section 24 is a question of first impression in this court. We construe the term "contested case," as used in section 24, as referring to a proceeding in which the PTO has provided for the taking of depositions for use in that proceeding.

The court's basic logic is that 35 U.S.C. §23 gives the PTO power to decide when discovery should be allowed and that the congressional deference should carry-over into Section 24. The USPTO argued that reexamination is "examinational" as evidenced by legislative history associated with the AIA. Of course, that retrospective consideration should does not supplant the actual meaning of a statute.

Looking Forward for Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Review: Of course, inter partes reexaminations are a thing-of-the-past and have been replaced with inter partes reviews and post grant reviews. Because the new statute does provide for discovery and testimony in these review proceedings then they should be treated as contested cases. The new rules for these procedures provide avenues for discovery from the parties. Section 24 could be invoked to pursue discovery of a non-party. However, the PTO has instituted regulations that would bar the filing of a subpoena with a federal court without authorization of the PTAB. 37 C.F.R. § 42.52.

The statute generally states that additional discovery should be allowed when "otherwise necessary in the interest of justice." In a recent decision, the PTAB outlined a five factor analysis that it will use to determine whether to allow additional discovery. Garman v. Cuozzo, IPR2012-00001 (26) (PTAB 2013).

  1. More Than A Possibility And Mere Allegation — The mere possibility of finding something useful, and mere allegation that something useful will be found, are insufficient to demonstrate that the requested discovery is necessary in the interest of justice. The party requesting discovery should already be in possession of evidence tending to show beyond speculation that in fact something useful will be uncovered.
  2. Litigation Positions And Underlying Basis — Asking for the other party's litigation positions and the underlying basis for those positions is not necessary in the interest of justice. The Board has established rules for the presentation of arguments and evidence. There is a proper time and place for each party to make its presentation. A party may not attempt to alter the Board's trial procedures under the pretext of discovery.
  3. Ability To Generate Equivalent Information By Other Means – Information a party can reasonably figure out or assemble without a discovery request would not be in the interest of justice to have produced by the other party. In that connection, the Board would want to know the ability of the requesting party to generate the requested information without need of discovery.
  4. Easily Understandable Instructions — The questions should be easily understandable. For example, ten pages of complex instructions for answering questions is prima facie unclear. Such instructions are counter-productive and tend to undermine the responder's ability to answer efficiently, accurately, and confidently.
  5. Requests Not Overly Burdensome To Answer — The requests must not be overly burdensome to answer, given the expedited nature of Inter Partes Review. The burden includes financial burden, burden on human resources, and burden on meeting the time schedule of Inter Partes Review. Requests should be sensible and responsibly tailored according to a genuine need.

Jurisiction of the Court of Appeals: This is another case where the Federal Circuit has refused to consider its appellate jurisdiction in the wake of Gunn v. Minton other than writing that "[w]e have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1)." However, the appeal here is a discovery dispute pending before the Virginia district court and, although it involves interpretation of the patent statute, the appellate court's jurisdiction is not entirely clear.

USPTO Fee Change on March 19

Patent, , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

On March 19, the USPTO’s new fee structure becomes effective. Some fees are going down, others are going up. “Micro entities” will likely wait until tomorrow to take action in their cases because of the new micro entity fee that is a 75% reduction of standard fees. Folks filing on post issuance reexamination or review will also wait one day for substantial savings.

  • Filing Application (Filing + Search + Examination Fees): $1,600 up from $1,260.
  • Additional claims: $80 for each additional claim; $420 for each additional independent claim. This is up from $62 and $250 respectively.
  • Issue fee: $1,780 up from $1,770.
  • Maintenance (renewal) fees:
    • Due at 3.5 years: $1,600 up from $1,150.
    • Due at 7.5 years: $3,600 up from $2,900.
    • Due at 11.5 years: $7,400 up from $4,810.
  • Request for Continued Examination:
    • First Request: $1,200 up from $930.
    • Second or Subsequent Request: $1,700 up from $930.
  • Request for Prioritized Examination: $4,000 down from $4,800.
  • Appeals:
    • Notice of Appeal: $800 up from $630.
    • Brief in Support of Appeal: $0 down from $630.
    • Forwarding Appeal to the Board: $2,000 up from $0. (Essentially, the PTO has pushed-back and increased the payment).
    • Requesting Oral Hearing: $1,300 up from $1,260.
  • Extension fees:
    • One Month: 200 up from $150.
    • Two Months: $600 up from $570.
    • Three Months: $1,400 up from $1,290.
    • Four Months: $2,200 up from $2,010.
    • Five Months: $3000 up from $2,730.
  • Post-Grant Proceedings:
    • Request for ex parte reexamination: $12,000 down from $17,750.
    • Supplemental Examination: $16,500 with $12,100 refunded if no reexamination is ordered. This is down from $21,260 with $16,120 refundable.
    • Petition for Inter Partes Review: $23,000 with $14,000 refunded if petition is denied. This is down from $27,200 with no refund.
    • Petition for Post Grant Review: $30,000 with $18,000 refunded if petition is denied. This is down from $35,800 with no refund.
  • Provisional Applications: $260 up from $250.
  • Design Patents:
    • Filing (Filing + Search + Examination Fees): $760 up from $530. (Updated to fix prior typo)
    • Issue: No change at $1,020.

New fee regime: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee031913.htm

Obviously patent applicants are impacted by costs just like any other market participant. And, PTO fees appear to akin normal goods in that an increase in price will result in a decrease in the quantity demanded (and vice-versa). However, I also suggest (without too much proof) that most USPTO fees are still fairly inelastic. What this means for the bottom line is that the increase in fees will result in increased revenue for the PTO and that most patent applicants will need to increase their budgets accordingly.

Doctrinal Precedence Among the Hatch-Waxman Act, the Patent Act, and the Sherman Act

Patent, , , ,

Guest post by Professor Brett M. Frischmann (Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law)

On March 25, 2013, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a case concerning reverse payment settlements of patent litigation.  The court granted cert on the following issue:

Whether reverse-payment agreements are per se lawful unless the underlying patent litigation was a sham or the patent was obtained by fraud (as the court below held), or instead are presumptively anticompetitive and unlawful (as the Third Circuit has held).

In this brief post, I suggest a way to decide the issue in a manner that resolves the apparent tensions between the Hatch-Waxman Act, the Patent Act, and the Sherman Act. To my knowledge, the argument I make does not appear explicitly in the briefs, although Scott Hemphill made a related argument in his 2006 NYU Law Review article, Paying for Delay: Pharmaceutical Patent Settlement as a Regulatory Design Problem.

Hatch-Waxman should be given substantial priority in the analytical framework that courts employ when resolving antitrust claims about reverse payment settlements of patent litigation. Here is why. Both antitrust law and patent law are general-purpose, industry-agnostic legal regimes. Antitrust law regulates competition generally. It aims to sustain competition and constrain anticompetitive practices, and it does so with very general legal prescriptions that courts must apply in a wide range of different contexts. Patent law aims to encourage innovation by giving inventors the right to exclude others from a patented invention. Patent law also consists of very general legal prescriptions that the PTO and courts must apply in a wide range of different contexts. In both antitrust and patent, sector-specific, industry-specific, or even context-specific rules do arise over time in the courts or agencies. But the statutory law enacted by Congress is general-purpose.

Hatch-Waxman is special-purpose and industry-specific, and it also happens to be last-in-time. Congress enacted Hatch-Waxman to accomplish specific ends through specific means. Of course, Hatch-Waxman is a complex regulatory regime, and there are various tradeoffs reflected in the law that may have been necessary to get it passed. But Hatch-Waxman primarily aimed to induce competition in drug markets when such competition is feasible, and one of the central means for accomplishing this end is litigation over patent validity.1 Thus, Hatch-Waxman envisioned two particular types of competition—first, competition in courts between owners of drug patents and generic drug companies, and second, competition in drug markets between brand firms and generics. Reverse payment settlements stifle both types of competition.

What do I mean when I say that Hatch-Waxman should be given substantial priority in the analytical framework that courts employ when resolving antitrust claims about reverse payment settlements of patent litigation? The antitrust-patent interface has been the source of substantial consternation—how do we resolve tensions that might arise among competing legal principles and values? Regardless of how one comes out on how to resolve or understand the interface, it is largely irrelevant to this particular set of issues. Hatch-Waxman replaces general patent law in this context. As a result, it supplies the relevant principles and values, and it significantly narrows the range of relevant arguments that a court should entertain in an antitrust suit. Simply put, broad claims about principles and values derived from patent law should not carry much, if any, weight. For example, claims about the impact of reverse payment settlements, or their prohibition, on patent law's "incentives to innovate" are red herrings. Similarly, arguments about weak vs. strong patents are also red herrings because there is nothing in Hatch-Waxman itself that draws a distinction between weak and strong. (It is worth noting that even for "really strong" patents, litigation over patent validity also provides the public with greater certainty about the validity of those patents.) Finally, claims about the general judicial economy of encouraging settlement are also irrelevant because Hatch-Waxman directly employs litigation as a means to facilitate competition.

Antitrust scrutiny of reverse payment settlements of patent litigation need not get bogged down in discussions of patent law or judicial economy. Congress has spoken clearly and specifically and chosen to use patent litigation as a means to induce competition. Reverse payment settlements of patent litigation are precisely the sort of agreements that antitrust law directly regulates, usually through a rule that says such agreements are per se unlawful. An agreement not to compete in the forum specified by Hatch-Waxman is no different than competitors expressly agreeing not to compete in any other market; it looks like various types of cases where per se illegality is generally accepted as a legitimate rule (e.g., bid rigging, market division).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court could reasonably declare reverse payment settlements of Hatch-Waxman-based patent litigation per se unlawful. Alternatively, the Court could declare the settlements in question presumptively unlawful and then put the burden on the defendants to rebut the presumption.

Reverse payment settlements stifle both types of relevant competition noted above. Competition of the first type (competition in courts between owners of drug patents and generic drug companies) is always stifled. The same might be said about competition of the second type (competition in drug markets between brand firms and generics), although some argue that settlements sometimes may increase competition of the second type where a patent would be found valid (if actually litigated) because the settlement allows the generic company to enter the market earlier than otherwise would be the case. Presumably, the Court should choose between per se illegality and presumptive illegality based on its evaluation of this argument.

If the Court takes this latter route, the types of evidence and arguments relevant to rebutting the presumption should be limited substantially by Hatch-Waxman. As noted above, Hatch-Waxman specifies the types of relevant competition and if given the priority it deserves, it would preclude various generic arguments from being made.

===

FN1: As Scott Hemphill put it, "the Hatch-Waxman Act is a deliberate effort to promote consumer access through litigated challenges." See C. Scott Hemphill, Paying for Delay: Pharmaceutical Patent Settlement as a Regulatory Design Problem, 81 NYU L. Rev. 1553 (2006), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=925919. He goes on: "Since litigation is the instrument by which the regulatory arrangement accomplishes its ends, it is difficult to argue that an end-run on the instrument is consistent with the scheme." Much of the argument I am making derives from ideas in Scott's article and conversations we have had over the years.

Does the Presumption of Validity Apply to Section 101 Subject-Matter-Eligibility Questions?

Patent, ,

By Dennis Crouch

One issue put before the en banc Federal Circuit in CLS Bank v. Alice is whether the presumption of validity applies to subject matter eligibility questions. The statute, 35 U.S.C. § 282 indicates that "A patent shall be presumed valid" and in Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. (2011), the Supreme Court confirmed that presumption can only be overcome with clear and convincing evidence of invalidity. However, in cases like Mayo and Bilski the Supreme Court has not provided even one suggestion supporting the notion that subject matter eligibility challenges are treated with such a presumption.

There are a few reasons to think that the strong presumption of validity does not apply to subject matter eligibility questions.

Subject matter eligibility is a question of law and is normally based on very few factual determinations. It is that setup that allowed the district court to rule on CLS Bank's Section 101 so early in the present case. As Justice Breyer wrote in his i4i concurring opinion, "evidentiary standards of proof apply to questions of fact and not to questions of law." Under Justice Breyer's construct, any facts that serve as a basis for an eligibility challenge would need to be justified with clear and convincing evidence, but with questions of law we demand that the judge apply the correct legal standard and do away with any other evidentiary burden. The particular facts in this case further weigh against the a strong presumption of validity in this case because the patent prosecution history file show that the PTO applied a less rigorous patent eligibility test than that required by Bilski and Mayo.

In its reply brief, CLS Bank picks up on Professor Hricik's 2012 essay where he questioned whether courts are correct in their assumption that a patent issued on non-patentable subject matter is invalid and my follow-on essay questioning whether a third party can challenge subject matter eligibility in the new Post-Grant Review procedure. Both essays looked at the defenses identified by 35 U.S.C. § 282 and argued that Section 101 may well fall outside the scope of those statutory defenses. At first blush, our arguments appear to favor the patentee by saying that an issued patent cannot be challenged on Section 101 grounds. However, CLS Bank provides an interesting twist that begins with the understanding that we know from Mayo that issued patents can definitely be challenged under Section 101. In its brief, CLS Bank reconciles these competing factors with the suggestion that the 101 challenge is an eligibility challenge rather than a validity challenge.

CLS Bank writes:

More generally, the presumption of validity does not apply to patent eligibility challenges. The Supreme Court did not even mention the presumption in Mayo, Bilski, Diehr, Flook, or Benson. That makes sense because what Congress named the "[p]resumption of validity" applies only to the statutory bases for invalidating a patent. As the Supreme Court has explained, Section 101 is a "threshold test." Bilski. It defines subject-matter eligibility for patenting and is judicially enforceable before any bases for invalidity are ever reached. Mayo.

The Supreme Court's consistent practice finds support in the text of the Patent Act. The Act applies the presumption explicitly to Section 102, 103, 112, and 251, and "[a]ny other fact or act made a defense by [the Act]." 35 U.S.C. § 282. Section 101 is conspicuously missing. Nor is Section 101 a "fact or act made a defense by [the Act]," because its drafting reflects that it is an eligibility "threshold." See Bilski.

This second argument is perhaps too clever by half – especially when you read the penultimate sentence of Mayo where the court writes that "[t]he claims are consequently invalid." In this most recent pronouncement, the Supreme Court appears to believe that the eligibility question is indeed a validity question. Assuming Mayo forecloses the eligibility-not-validity argument, CLS Bank is left in the uncomfortable position of simply arguing that eligibility questions do not qualify as a proper defense.

USPTO New Fee Schedule

Patent, ,

By Dennis Crouch

Today the USPTO published its final fee-setting rules under what is being termed the USPTO’s “Section 10 authority” based upon Section 10 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act that provides the USPTO with broad authority to set fees with the major caveat being that the fees as a whole be set to recover the aggregate costs of the Patent Office. The new fees are scheduled to become effective on March 19, 2013. (A few days after the March 16, 2013 critical date for the First-to-File Changes.)

The major changes include:

  • Micro entity 75% reduction for most fees (universities qualify and may want to file provisional applications now and wait to file their non-provisional applications).
  • Total Filing Fees – Up: $1,260 to $1,600.
  • Issue Fees – Down: $1,770 to $960 and $300 publication fee eliminated. (These will not be implemented until January 2014).
  • Maintenance Fees: Up
    • First Fee at 3 ½ years: $1,150 to $1,600.
    • Second Fee at 7 ½ years: $2,900 to $3,600.
    • Third Fee at 11 ½ years: $4,810 to $7,400.
  • Extension-of-time fees up about 10%
  • Claim Fees: Up
    • More than 3 independent claims: $250 to $420 per claim.
    • More than 20 total claims: $62 to $80 per claim.
  • RCE Fees: UP: $930 to $1,200 and new surcharge of $500 for filing a second RCE.
  • Appeals: Slightly Cheaper file an appeal, but a new surcharge of $2,000 for actually forwarding the brief to the PTAB rather than settling the case with the examiner.
  • Ex Parte Reexamination: Down from $17,750 to $12,000, small and micro entity privileges apply.
  • Inter Partes Reviews will cost $23,000 ($14,000 refund if IPR petition is rejected).
  • Post Grant Reviews will cost $30,000 ($18,000 refund if PGR petition is rejected).
  • Derivation Petition remains $400.
  • Assignments: Free if submitted electronically this is down from $40.

More here: https://t.co/GCbHlXN1

Design patent fees are also changing:

  • Total Filing Fees – $530 to $760
  • Issue Fee – Down: $1010 to $560

What can Patent Applicants do to Improve Patent Quality?

Patent, , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

Patent “quality” has many different meanings. The primary focus of the PTO under Director Dave Kappos is on the timely issuance of “right sized,” valid patents. I would add an additional important focus of ensuring that the scope and coverage of each patent is relatively easy to determine. These measures of patent quality fit within broader goals of the patent system — incentivizing innovation and disclosure of those innovations within a competitive marketplace. The patent rules are intended work as something of a feedback system at varying levels of granularity, guiding innovators and applicants in ways that hopefully push us toward those ultimate goals.

I tend to model the patenting process is something of a negotiation between the PTO an the patent applicant. The PTO possesses the authority to grant or deny patent applications, but every word found in the patent is written or approved by the patent applicant. Obviously, the patent applicant’s role in this process is deep and substantial. A patent’s conception begins with words drafted by the patent applicant, not the examiner; amendments are made by the patent applicant, not the examiner, and, after approval by the patent examiner, is the patent applicant must approve the final issuance of a patent (with the payment of a fee).

For many years, I have argued that meaningful change in the state of patent law and patent quality could be implemented in incentives that push applicants toward filing quality patent applications – claiming valid subject matter and drafting claims with well-defined scope. The USPTO agrees and has now published a notice on its project to “focus[] on potential practices that applicants can employ at the drafting stage of a patent application in order to facilitate examination and bring more certainty to the scope of issued patents.” Email comments to QualityApplications_Comments@uspto.gov by March 15, 2013.

The PTO’s current ideas on this front focus on ways to clarify the meaning of terms used in the claims and the resulting scope of the claims. Some of the initial ideas presented are traditional define-your-terms notions while others suggest that new mechanisms of information connectivity may offer solutions.

On these fronts, the PTO lists the following ideas and requests comments:

  1. Clarifying the Scope of the Claims
    1. Presenting claims in a multi-part format by way of a standardized template that places each claim component in separate, clearly marked, and designated fields. For instance, a template may facilitate drafting and review of claims by separately delineating each claim component into separate fields for the preamble, transitional phrase, and each particular claim limitation.
    2. Identifying corresponding support in the specification for each of the claim limitations utilizing, for example, a claim chart or the standardized template described above. This practice could be particularly beneficial where claims are amended or where a continuing application (continuation, divisional, continuation-in-part) is filed.
    3. Indicating whether examples in the specification are intended to be limiting or merely illustrative.
    4. Identifying whether the claim preamble is intended to be a limitation on claim scope.
    5. Expressly identifying clauses within particular claim limitations for which the inventor intends to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and pointing out where in the specification corresponding structures, materials, or acts are disclosed that are linked to the identified 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitations.
    6. Using textual and graphical notation systems known in the art to disclose algorithms in support of computer-implemented claim limitations, such as C-like pseudo-code or XML-like schemas for textual notation and Unified Modeling Language (UML) for graphical notation.
  2. Clarifying the Meaning of Claim Terms in the Specification
    1. Indicating whether terms of degree—such as substantially, approximately, about, essentially—have a lay or technical meaning and explaining the scope of such terms.
    2. Including in the specification a glossary of potentially ambiguous, distinctive, and specialized terms used in the specification and/or claims, particularly for inventions related to certain technologies, such as software.
    3. Designating, at the time of filing the application, a default dictionary or dictionaries (e.g., a technical dictionary and a non-technical dictionary) to be used in ascertaining the meaning of the claim terms.

As we all move forward with this process (over the years…), I am confident that we will begin to think of patents less and less like “documents” that printed and read, but more like digital information maps that provides a network of information about inventions. Part of this potential comes from linking claim terms to descriptions found elsewhere and direct mark-up that ties original text to post application changes and notations.

None of these changes would make patent quality easy – but they would likely help move us in the right direction.

AIA Technical Amendment Becomes Law

Patent, , , , ,

H.R. 6621, officially titled An Act To correct and improve certain provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and title 35, United States Code was signed into law by President Obama on January 14, 2013 and, for the most part, the provisions of the law are now effective.

Here is the official summary:

  • Amends the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) to make technical changes regarding the transitional program for covered business method patents and joinder of parties.
  • Applies, to any civil action commenced on or after enactment of this Act, the AIA's bar on using an accused infringer's failure to obtain the advice of counsel to prove that any infringement was willful or induced. (Currently, the bar would not take effect until one year after the AIA's enactment.)
  • Prohibits a nine-month waiting period for inter partes review from applying to issuances of first-to-invent patents ineligible for post-grant review. (Currently, the remaining first-to-invent patents to be issued prior to the effective date of the new first-to-file patent system have no avenue for review during the first nine months because they must wait nine months for inter parties review and are ineligible for post-grant review.)
  • Revises the filing deadline for inter partes review to be after the later of either: (1) nine months after the grant of a patent (currently, nine months after such grant or the issuance of a reissue patent), or (2) the termination date of any post-grant review.
  • Extends the time period for an applicant to file an inventor's oath or declaration, substitute statement, or recorded assignment until the date on which the issue fee for the patent is paid. (Current law permits a notice of allowance of a patent application only after such a filing.)
  • Makes provisions concerning travel expenses for employees of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the payment of administrative judges effective as of September 16, 2011.
  • Modifies requirements and time periods for activities relating to patent term adjustments. Revises the patent extension period for certain international applications. Specifies that a civil action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia is the exclusive remedy for challenging a USPTO decision on a request for reconsideration of a patent term adjustment determination.
  • Repeals a provision prohibiting the USPTO from accepting certain international applications designating the United States from anyone not qualified under specified application requirements.
  • Revises USPTO funding requirements to make all federal patent law fees available for expenses relating to patent processing and to permit patent and trademark fees to be used interchangeably to cover proportionate shares of the USPTO's administrative costs. (Currently, patent fees are used to cover administrative costs relating to patents while trademark fees are used to cover administrative costs relating to trademarks.)
  • Modifies requirements for applicants filing petitions to institute derivation proceedings and delineates the criteria applied to deem an application as an earlier application with respect to an invention relative to another application.
  • Sets forth authority for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to conduct, and for courts to review appeals from, interference proceedings declared after enactment but before the effective date of certain AIA amendments replacing interference proceedings with derivation proceedings.
  • Modifies the original appointment terms for members of the Patent Public Advisory Committee and the Trademark Public Advisory Committee. Directs the Secretary of Commerce to designate, from among the appointed members, a Chair and Vice Chair of each committee.

Read the text:

  • http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr6621enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr6621enr.pdf

Inter Partes Review: Winning by Losing

Patent, , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

Garmin v. Cuozzo, IPR2012–00026, (P.T.A.B. 2013) Download Notice-15

In what appears to be the first Inter Partes Revew petition decided on the merits, the USPTO Patent Trials and Appeal Board (PTAB) has granted Garmin's petition for inter partes review of only claims 10, 14, and 17 of US Patent 6,778,074 owned by Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC.  [See UPDATE BELOW] This is a mixed opinion because Garmin had requested IPR of claims 1–20. Inter Partes Review is a spawn of the America Invents Act (AIA) and serves as a more robust and rapid version of inter partes reexamination. In order to grant an IPR petition, the USPTO must determine that the petition shows "a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail." Now that the petition has been granted, the PTAB will move forward with the trial to determine whether those three claims are valid. Under the statute, the PTAB's determination as to whether to institute a PGR cannot be appealed. 35 U.S.C. § 314.

Cuozo originally sued Garmin, Tom Tom and several automakers for patent infringement in a New Jersey federal court. That lawsuit is still in the early stages of discovery, but the basic allegation is that Garmin's navigation systems infringe the '074 claims that are directed toward the use of encoded speed limit indicators. 

For Garmin, this may be a case of winning-by-losing.  In its IPR petition, Garmin suggested that the PTO use the broad claim construction suggested by Couzo's infringement allegations for the claim requirement that a "speedometer" and a "colored display" be "integrally attached".

The Patent Owner has taken a very broad view of the meaning of the claims based upon the allegations set forth in its complaint against the products of the real parties in interest here. The "broadest reasonable construction" of the challenged claims must be consistent with the allegations set forth in Patent Owner's civil complaint. Petitioner submits, for the purposes of the IPR only, that the claim terms are presumed to take on their ordinary and customary meaning that the term would have to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Patent Owner's civil complaint and the Specification of the '074 Patent.

The PTO rejected the notion that the patent owner's post-patent-issuance civil complaint has any bearing on the claim construction and also found that the claim scope suggested unduly broad.

Petitioner does not make known its construction of "integrally attached." Instead, Petitioner states that the term has to mean, in this proceeding, what the Patent Owner asserts it means in the infringement suits the Patent owner has filed against various parties including Petitioner. That argument is without merit. The meaning of claim terms is not governed by what the Patent Owner says they mean in filing an infringement suit based on the '074 Patent. There is no reason to assume that the Patent Owner's litigation position is correct. Litigation positions taken subsequent to issuance of the patent are unreliable. . . .

On this record, we construe "integrally attached" as applied to the colored display and the speedometer in the context of the disclosure … as meaning that the two elements are discrete parts physically joined together as a unit without each part losing its own separate identity. In the combined unit, the colored display is still the colored display and the speedometer is still the speedometer; each retains its own separate identity.

The PTAB went on to particularly find that a single display screen showing both the speedometer and colored display would not satisfy the integrally attached limitation as construed above.

The single electronic display screen of Aumayer showing both the image of a speedometer and a colored scale mark indicating the current speed limit does not meet the claim recitation "integrally attached" as applied to a speedometer and a colored display. There, the speedometer and the colored display are not discrete and separately recognizable parts that are "integrally attached" to each other. Rather, the liquid crystal display screen is itself a single component which performs the function of both the speedometer and colored display.

In the context of the inter partes review, the result is that the suggested references do not show the claims unpatentable. Garmin's gambit, however, is that the same narrow claim construction will carry-over to the litigation and result in a finding of non-infringement. Although the district court will not be bound by this construction, it is likely to be instructive and at least cognitively limiting to the New Jersey judge – especially since the PTO's interpretation is the 'broadest reasonable construction.'

UPDATE: It turns out that the PTAB has released at least one earlier petition decision – in IPR2012–00026 involving Microsoft’s challenge of ProxyConn’s Patent No. 6,757,717. In that decision, the PTAB granted the IPR for claims 1, 3, 10, and 22–24, but denied the petition to review claims 11, 12, and 14.

= = = = =

Under 35 U.S.C. § 316, the USPTO has one year from now to make a final determination in the case. The USPTO has scheduled for the trial to be complete in August 2013.

2012 Trends: New Life in the Doctrine of Equivalents

Patent, , ,

Guest post by Donald S. Chisum, Chisum Patent Academy

Looking back at the approximately 125 precedential decisions on patent law of the Federal Circuit in 2012, I asked myself: are there any new trends? One trend smiled back: an increase in the number of decisions on the doctrine of equivalents. There were eight, and, surprisingly, four of them showed judicial favor toward application of the doctrine.

Since 1997, the Federal Circuit, with the encouragement of the Supreme Court, has developed various restrictions and limitations on the doctrine. This has led some commentators to assert that the doctrine of equivalent is “dead.” See Allison & Lemley, The (Unnoticed) Demise of the Doctrine of Equivalents, 59 Stan. L. Rev. 955 (2006-2007). That obituary may have been premature. The Supreme Court created the doctrine in 1850 and twice rejected frontal assaults: in 1950 and 1997. The 2012 Federal Circuit decisions show that well supported assertions of equivalency cannot be dismissed.

In particular, Chief Judge Rader wrote two opinions, expanding beyond what was necessary to decide the cases before him. In one, he emphasized that “the Supreme Court declined to let numerous contentions bury the doctrine.” Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog (Dec. 4, 2012). In Deere, Judge Rader attempted to clarify “misperceptions” about the “vitiation” limitation on the doctrine of equivalents. For a comment on Judge Rader’s discussion of vitiation, see Dennis Crouch, Reviving the Doctrine of Equivalents, Patently-O at https://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/12/rader-reviving-the-doctrine-of-equivalents.html.

In the other case, Judge Rader stressed that the doctrine is particularly appropriate when an accused equivalent is made possible only by technological improvements after a patent’s effective filing date. Energy Transportation Group v. William Demand Holdings (Oct. 12, 2012). Judge Rader has long espoused the view that the doctrine should be available when equivalents are not foreseeable but not when the opposite was true. A competent draftsperson should write claims to cover literally equivalents that were foreseeable at the time the application for the patent was prosecuted.

Also significant were two opinions by other judges. In one, the court addressed the recurring issues of equivalency applied to numerical and range limitations and to qualifiers such as “substantially.” Pozen Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical (Sept. 28, 2012). The majority, by the recently-appointed Federal Circuit Judge Wallach, held that a claim, which required that a drug tablet layer have “substantially all” of an ingredient, and which was construed to mean “at least 90%,” was properly found infringed by equivalency by an accused tablet that had only 85% of the ingredient in the layer.

In another case, the court, in an opinion by Judge Prost, held that a district court erred in applying the “disclosure-dedication” rule and thus erred in granting summary judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Sandisk Corp. v. Kingston Technology Co., Inc. (Oct. 9, 2012).

In the other four cases, the Federal Circuit concluded, essentially, that asserted equivalents were not sufficiently equivalent or involved completely missing claim limitations or failure to claim literally well-known interchangeable elements. Technology Patents LLC v. T-Mobile Ltd. (Oct. 17, 2012); Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple Inc. (Sept. 4, 2012); General Electric Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n (July 6, 2012); Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC (June 22, 2012).

One may ask: why would there be renewed judicial interest in the doctrine of equivalents? One possibility: developments in other areas of patent law, such as the “abstract idea” restriction on Section 101 patent eligible subject matter, are creating pressures on patent applicants to formulate claims that are specific and narrow in literal scope. Courts may use a more robust doctrine of equivalents to provide a scope of protection that is determined to be appropriate in view of the patent’s disclosure, the prior art, and the development of the pertinent technology after a patent’s effective filing date.

Countdown to March 16, 2013

Patent, ,

by Dennis Crouch

New patent applications filed three months from now will fall under the US new First-to-File regime created by the America Invents Act of 2011.  Those applications will no longer be able to claim invention-date priority, will have much more limited pre-filing grace period, will be subject to prior user rights and broad post-grant review, and can be invalidated by public uses and sales of similar inventions in foreign countries.  On the other hand, absent a derivation problem, secret prior invention or reduction to practice by a third party will no longer be relevant to patentability.

How are you preparing for this March 16, 2013 changeover?

Patenting Software: Obama Administration Argues “Sometimes”

Patent, , , , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp (Fed. Cir. 2012)

The US Government has filed its amicus brief in the pending en banc CLS Bank case that focuses on the patentability of software systems. Download CLS-Bank_v_Alice_USA-amicus-ISO-Neither-Party. The brief generally rejects the idea that software per se represents patentable subject matter but is favorable toward the patenting of computerized applications that either improve computer performance, use technology in a unique technological way, or transform the local environment.

Unlike some recent briefs, this has been filed with the support of both the USPTO and the DOJ. The brief suggests a claim-by-claim subject matter analysis that begins with claim construction and only then asks "whether the challenged claim, properly construed, incorporates enough meaningful limitations to ensure that it amounts to more than a claim for the abstract idea itself." The brief then lists a set of factors that the government sees as important in making that determination:

  • Is the computer only nominally or tangentially related to the performance of the invention?
  • Is the computer generically recited or, instead are specific, unconventional computer equipment or tools required?
  • Is the invention focused primarily on non-technological fields or does the invention improve the ability of a computer to function as a computer?
  • Is the computer used generically for its automation or communication functions or does the computer manipulate particular data in particular, specific, and useful ways?
  • Is the abstract idea merely described within a particular environment or is the abstract idea part of an invention that transforms its environment.
  • Are the computer related elements merely conventional steps described at a high level of generality in a way that would be employed by anyone wanting to apply the abstract idea.

Each of these determinations is riddled with problems as is the potential weighting in an overall abstract-idea analysis. However, the overall approach adds substantially to the the

The brief suggests that all claimed features can contribute to subject matter eligibility, but some caution should be used to not allow "mere 'drafting effort designed to monopolize [an abstract idea] itself'" (quoting Mayo). Regarding the product/process divide, the government writes that the form of the claim should not impact subject matter eligibility because those differences come from the "draftsman's art" rather than the invention itself.

Perhaps attempting to endear itself to the Federal Circuit, the brief implicitly criticizes Supreme Court patent decisions by arguing that "the §101 inquiry should focus on the actual language of each challenged claim, properly construed, not a paraphrase or parody of the claims. Unfortunately, the government does not have any Supreme Court precedent to back-up this argument.

As a final point, the government brief argues that the presumption of validity associated with patent rights lead to a conclusion that a patent can only be invalidated on subject matter eligibility grounds based upon "clear and convincing evidence." Reading between the lines, this seems to mean that any conclusions draw from the factors above must be proven with clear and convincing evidence. While §101 eligibility may be a question of law, the government additionally argues that it is a factual question as to whether "limitations recited in a claim do not, in practice, impose any meaningful limitations on their claim scope." Of course, prior to issuance or during post-grant review there is no presumption of validity.

Related articles
CLS Bank v. Alice: The "Nothing More Than" Limitation on Abstract Ideas
Director Kappos: Some Thoughts on Patentability
Federal Circuit To Announce Whether Software is Patentable?: En Banc Rehearing on Section 101 Issues
Ultramercial v. Hulu: Computer Programs and Patentable Subject Matter
Federal Circuit Continues Split on Patentable Subject Matter
Ongoing Debate: Is Software Patentable?
Patentable Subject Matter: Supreme Court Challenges Chief Judge Rader's Broad Notion of Software Patentability
CLS Bank v. Alice Corp: Patenting Software Ideas
Ongoing Battles over Patentable Subject Matter

AIA Technical Amendment (H.R. 6621) Moving Forward

Patent, , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

Representative Lamar Smith has put forward an amended version of H.R. 6621 (/media/docs/2012/12/BILLS-112hr6621-SUS.pdf). The amended bill removes the provision that would have crippled the value of pending pre-Uruguay Round Agreement Act (URAA). In my estimation about 200 of those applications filed prior to June 8, 1995 are still in prosecution at the USPTO. That change makes the bill less controversial and sets up easy passage in the House leadership has set the bill up for a voice vote this week, perhaps as early as Tuesday, December 18. At this point no opposition to the bill has been raised in Congress. To become law, the Senate would need to pass the bill before its December recess.

Important changes include the following:

Less Patent Term Adjustment: The current language of Section 154(b) suggests an applicant may begin accumulating PTA as of the filing date of an international PCT application that is later followed by a US national stage application. The proposed amendment would eliminate that option by clarifying that the PTA calculations only begin “commencement of the national stage under section 371 in an international application.” The change also provides that the PTO calculate PTA with the issuance rather than at the notice of allowance. This is obviously problematic for some because it blocks patentees from clearing-up PTA issues prior to patent issuance. See 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(3)(C). This also effectively limits the timing for administratively challenging PTA determinations to a two-month period. In my first read through of the Bill, I failed to recognize that the amendment would require an administrative challenge prior to filing a district court challenge. Thus, the two-month-from-issuance deadline becomes a fairly hard deadline for correcting PTA. The statute does not clarify what happens if the USPTO fails to decide the PTA challenge prior to the six-month deadline for filing a district court case. Courtenay Brinkerhoff has a nice post criticizing the provision here: http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/12/11/hr-6621-adds-new-roadblocks-to-patent-term-adjustment-appeals/.

Post-Grant Dead Zone: Once the AIA is fully implemented, an issued patent will be immediately challengeable through a post-grant review. Then, after a nine-month window, challenges will be available through inter partes review. However, the AIA has bit of an implementation issued because (1) post-grant reviews will only be available for patents issued on applications filed on or after March 16, 2013; (2) inter partes reviews are available for all patents, but only those that have been issued for at least 9-months; and (3) the old inter partes reexaminations are no longer available. This creates something of a dead zone in that for the next couple of years patents will not be challengeable through any inter partes system until 9-months after issuance. H.R. 6621 would eliminate that 9-month dead zone by allowing inter partes reviews to be filed at any time for applications with an effective filing date before March 16, 2013.

Delaying Inventor’s Oath: Section 115(f) of the AIA indicates that an either (1) an oath, (2) a substitute statement, or (3) sufficient assignment must be submitted prior to the notice of allowance of a patent application. The amendment would push that deadline back to be “no later than the date on which the issue fee for the patent is paid.”

Sharing Fees Between the Patent and Trademark Side: The AIA requires that, for the most part, fees collected on patents be used to cover “administrative costs of the Office relating to patents” while fees collected on the trademark side be used to cover “administrative costs of the Office relating to trademarks.” H.R. 6621 would eliminate that restriction and thus allow patent fees to pay for trademark operations and vice versa.

Derivation Proceedings: The AIA eliminated the ongoing viability of interference proceedings (although some will be pending for years) but created a new beast known as a derivation proceeding. H.R. 6621 would clean up the language for initiated a derivation proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §135(a). I need to think some about the language to understand the substance. I have created a rough mark-up of this language. (/media/docs/2012/12/CompareNewOldDerivation.docx).