Tag Archives: Written Description

35 U.S.C. 112 SPECIFICATION. (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.

The Requirement that the Written Description be Concise

Patent, , ,

ProlixBy Dennis Crouch

The Patent Act requires that the written description of an invention be “concise.”  35 U.S.C. 112p1. The meaning of that requirement is unclear, but but the language of Section 112 at least suggests that a written description needs to be concise in order to satisfy the enablement requirement. Of course, there is a tension between providing a disclosure that is “concise” and at the same time “full.” In Markman v. Westview, the Supreme Court recognized this tension — noting that the description must be “complete yet concise.”

In a 1967 district court case, the court focused briefly on the requirement — noting that the “descriptions contained in the patent in suit are sufficiently concise and clear to enable one skilled in the art to construct that which is taught by the patent.” San Marino Electronic Corp. v. George J. Meyer Mfg. Co., 155 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 617 (C.D. Cal. 1967).

In my brief search, I found no cases invalidating a patent because its description was not concise. The most on-point case appears to be a pre-1952 Eighth Circuit case where the court came close to invalidating a family of patents based on their wordiness:

We think that the patents are unnecessarily prolix in verbiage and there should have been fewer claims more simply stated. They border on failure to comply with the statutory requirements concerning succinct description and particular pointing out and claiming. But consideration of the file wrappers and the trial court record has persuaded that those skilled in the art have understood them and the courts have had them explained.

National Aluminate Corp. v. Permutit Co., 145 F.2d 175 (8th Cir. 1944). It is interesting that part of the court’s problem with the patents was that they had too many claims. The USPTO does reject individual claims that it deems overly wordy or “prolix.” The idea behind those rejections is that sometimes overly-wordy claims may have the “net result of which is to confuse rather than to clarify.” However, the USPTO prolix rejections are grounded in Paragraph 2 of Section 112 — for failing the requirement of “particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter.”

The probably more accepted use of the “concise” requirement is explained in the decision captioned Application of Knowlton, 481 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973). In that case the precurser to the Federal Circuit relied on the requirement to limit the power of the enablement requirement.

[I]t must be borne in mind that the disclosure need not only be full, clear and exact to satisfy the statute, it must also be concise, and that the disclosure is directed to those skilled in the art. The amount of precision necessary in any given case is always a matter of degree. Absent special circumstances it is not required that every nut, bolt and rivet actually used in mechanical inventions be described, or, in chemical cases, that the electron orbital patterns for a claimed compound be set forth.

In the right case, a defendant may well convince a court to give the concise requirement its full weight and invalidate a patent whose specification is written in confusing and overly-wordy language.

Notes:

  • I searched the BPAI database of decisions (1997–2009) and found only one case reviewing a rejection where the Examiner found claims invalid as prolix “since they contain long recitations or unimportant details which hide or obscure the invention.” Ex parte Nagano, App. No. 1996–4094 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1999). In Nagano, the Board reversed the rejection – finding no support for the Examiner’s generalized assertions that the claims were confusing because of their length or contained unimportant details.

Disclosing “Related Cases” at the Federal Circuit: Eli Lilly’s Written Description “Secret”

Patent,

Guest Post by Ted Sichelman, University of San Diego School of Law

As any diligent reader of Patently-O would know, the Federal Circuit is considering en banc whether to retain the written description requirement—and, if so, in what form—in the pending case, Ariad Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Lilly, which was found liable in the district court, argues in its en banc brief that the Federal Circuit should retain a strong and independent written description requirement. In the event Lilly’s arguments are successful—and Ariad’s patent is invalidated—Lilly stands to save roughly $250 million (in present value) of potential damages and likely settlement payments. (For an explanation of the calculation, click here.)

Yet, in another case pending at the Federal Circuit, Lilly v. Teva, Lilly—as the patentee—is on the other side of the fence on the written description issue. Specifically, Lilly appealed a finding that some of its patents are invalid for lack of written description. If Lilly wins this appeal, assuming infringement holds up, it stands to gain roughly $750 million (in present value) in on-going profits from the sale of its blockbuster osteoporosis drug Evista. (Ironically, Evista is one of the accused infringing drugs in Ariad.)

Thus, in simple dollar terms—focusing on Lilly’s pending patent cases at the Federal Circuit—Lilly has more money to gain by losing the Ariad appeal than winning it. Presumably, Lilly has other financial interests motivating its position in Ariad. For instance, Lilly has been subject to more than several accusations of infringement over the years and its financial wherewithal to engage in intensive R & D may make its patents relatively immune to written description attacks.

But, even so, Lilly might not care as much as the usual appellant if it loses the Ariad case. To be fair to Lilly and its lawyers, I have not seen any evidence showing that they have not vigorously argued their case. Nevertheless, Lilly’s large financial interest in Teva is concerning, especially given that Ariad could be one of the most important Federal Circuit decisions in recent years.

So when I read Lilly’s en banc brief to the Federal Circuit in Ariad, I was surprised that Lilly did not disclose its position in Teva. And it seems very unlikely that Lilly’s lawyers in Ariad were unaware of the issue in Teva, since at least three of them are working on both cases. Moreover, the district court in Teva mentioned the pending Ariad case in its final order, noting that it was bound by existing precedent to apply an independent written description requirement.

The Federal Circuit has a rule that requires litigants to disclose certain information about other pending cases. The applicable rule, Fed. Cir. R. 47.5, reads in relevant part:

Each principal brief must contain a statement of related cases indicating: …. (b) … any case known to counsel to be pending in this or any other court that will directly affect or be directly affected by this court’s decision in the pending appeal. If there are many related cases, they may be described generally, but the title and case number must be given for any case known to be pending in the Supreme Court, this court, or any other circuit court of appeals.

In my view, one could read the rule such that Lilly should have disclosed the Teva case in its Ariad brief. Unfortunately, the scope of this rule is sufficiently ambiguous to be construed otherwise. In particular, it is unclear whether “related cases” in the preamble of Rule 47.5 is, so to speak, a “limitation”—namely, does a case qualifying under Rule 47.5(b) need to be a “related case” in addition to meeting the requirements stated in that sub-section, or does that sub-section fully define the kinds of “related cases” that need to be disclosed? Arguably, the latter is the better reading, but it does not seem compelled by the language of the rule. Moreover, it is unclear exactly what “directly affect or be directly affected by this court’s decision” means. Since the rule contemplates that there may be “many related cases,” arguably this clause should be read broadly, but again, such an interpretation does not seem mandated by the rule.

What does seem clear, though, is that the roughly $750 million Lilly potentially has to gain in Teva from losing the Ariad case is important information that any Federal Circuit judge would want to know when reading Lilly’s briefs and listening to its arguments. As such, the Federal Circuit should clarify the scope of Rule 47.5—like it has done in a few cases (here and here)—or explicitly revise the rule to ensure that parties are clearly required to disclose cases like Lilly v. Teva.

For example, the Federal Circuit could—similar to DC Circuit Local Rule 28(a)(1)(C)—define a “related case” as including “any pending case involving at least one of the same parties and the same or similar issues.” Such a definition would capture cases like Lilly v. Teva, but would not overly burden litigants. With this sort of rule in place, potentially contrary interests of parties in other cases—particularly those worth large sums—would be appropriately unveiled on appeal.

Ted Sichelman is an Assistant Professor at the University of San Diego School of Law, where he teaches patent law and other intellectual property courses. He has neither represented nor has any financial interest (other than from market index funds) in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, or Teva.

Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 304

Patent, , , ,
  • Next Monday (December 7, 2009) at 2:00 P.M. in Room 201, the Federal Circuit will hear en banc arguments in the case of Ariad Pharmaceutical v. Eli Lilly. The case questions whether Section 112 of the Patent Act creates a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. An audio version of the oral arguments is expected to be available that same day. [Calendar]
  • PATracer reports on the pending Federal Circuit case of Kawasaki v. Bombadier. In that case, Kawasaki had sued to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement. Rather than enforcing the agreement, Judge Folsom of the E.D. Tex. dismissed the lawsuit – holding that his court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over what had become a contract dispute. In the 1994 case of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life, the Supreme Court held that unless incorporated into a court order, disputes over a settlement agreement must stand on its own jurisdictional feet. [LINK]
  • Eriq Gardner asks Can a Science-Fiction Movie Infringe a Tech-patent? His question is prompted by a lawsuit where – you guessed it – a patentee (Carl Burnett & his company Global Findability) has sued Summit Entertainment for making/distributing the Nicholas Cage film entitled “Knowing” in which Cage is portrayed as acting like he is using an allegedly infringing geo-locator. The complaint was filed by the Cahn Samuels firm in Federal Court in Washington DC. In the movie setup, the geo-locating technology is based on information provided in 1958 (and rediscovered in 2008). If pretending to be an infringer is actionable, this reconstructed history may also render the patent obvious… The movie was critically panned, but Cage’s star power still helped bring in almost $80 million in box office revenues.
  • Global Findability’s patent is actually quite interesting. It focuses on a mechanism that converts latitude, longitude, & altitude readings into a “single discrete all-natural number.” I.e., one number to uniquely identify a position anywhere (relative to the earth). [LINK]

 

Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 302

Patent, , ,
  • Texas Juries: Michael Smith reviews E.D. Texas patent trial verdicts for 2009 (thus far). Depending upon how you count, the score ranges “from 8-3-1 to 6-6-1 (depend[ing] on whether you count a post-jury selection grant of summary judgment or not).” [Link]
  • Judge Michel: A transcript of Chief Judge Paul Michel’s recent speech to the FCBA is now available through that organization’s website. [Link] In addition to announcing his retirement, Judge Michel argued strongly against a statutory right to appeal claim construction decisions. His discussion also touched on the fact that eight of the twelve Federal Circuit judging slots could open within the next 12-months. He suggests that the replacements should include (a) a district court judge and (b) a patent litigator who has extensive experience trying commercial cases in front of juries. Judge Michel suggested room for diversity on the court since all members are white and only 25% are women.
  • Appointing Judges: Regarding Federal Circuit appointments. The Obama administration is already focused on ensuring that minorities and women receive their share of appointments. In the words of Judge Michel, it is the Bar’s job to help “assure that the appointees to the Court are selected based on merit, on experience, on quality, on intellect, on intelligence, on energy, and not because they’re, you know, somebody’s cousin or whatever the other considerations might be.”
  • Concentration of Ownership: Hal Wegner and Justin Gray review the top 150 patent holders and reports on growing ownership concentration. [Link][See also Patent Prospector]
  • Written Description: Amicus Briefs in Ariad v. Lilly: Patent Docs Review the Briefs. [Link]
  • Presumption of Validity: Lucent v. Gateway: The Federal Circuit has denied Microsoft’s petition for rehearing. Microsoft is expected to file a petition to the Supreme Court focusing on the interpretation of Section 282’s “presumption of validity.” Microsoft questions whether that statute is properly construed to always require clear and convincing evidence of invalidity.
  • Presumption of Validity Redux: In a recent article, Scott Kieff and Henry Smith argue for a reduction in the presumption of validity. [Link]
  • Reexaminations: Reexamination Statistics: Of the 734 inter partes reexaminations that have been requested in the past decade, 498 (68%) are “known to be in litigation.” [Link]

Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 302

Patent, , ,
  • Texas Juries: Michael Smith reviews E.D. Texas patent trial verdicts for 2009 (thus far). Depending upon how you count, the score ranges “from 8-3-1 to 6-6-1 (depend[ing] on whether you count a post-jury selection grant of summary judgment or not).” [Link]
  • Judge Michel: A transcript of Chief Judge Paul Michel’s recent speech to the FCBA is now available through that organization’s website. [Link] In addition to announcing his retirement, Judge Michel argued strongly against a statutory right to appeal claim construction decisions. His discussion also touched on the fact that eight of the twelve Federal Circuit judging slots could open within the next 12-months. He suggests that the replacements should include (a) a district court judge and (b) a patent litigator who has extensive experience trying commercial cases in front of juries. Judge Michel suggested room for diversity on the court since all members are white and only 25% are women.
  • Appointing Judges: Regarding Federal Circuit appointments. The Obama administration is already focused on ensuring that minorities and women receive their share of appointments. In the words of Judge Michel, it is the Bar’s job to help “assure that the appointees to the Court are selected based on merit, on experience, on quality, on intellect, on intelligence, on energy, and not because they’re, you know, somebody’s cousin or whatever the other considerations might be.”
  • Concentration of Ownership: Hal Wegner and Justin Gray review the top 150 patent holders and reports on growing ownership concentration. [Link][See also Patent Prospector]
  • Written Description: Amicus Briefs in Ariad v. Lilly: Patent Docs Review the Briefs. [Link]
  • Presumption of Validity: Lucent v. Gateway: The Federal Circuit has denied Microsoft’s petition for rehearing. Microsoft is expected to file a petition to the Supreme Court focusing on the interpretation of Section 282’s “presumption of validity.” Microsoft questions whether that statute is properly construed to always require clear and convincing evidence of invalidity.
  • Presumption of Validity Redux: In a recent article, Scott Kieff and Henry Smith argue for a reduction in the presumption of validity. [Link]
  • Reexaminations: Reexamination Statistics: Of the 734 inter partes reexaminations that have been requested in the past decade, 498 (68%) are “known to be in litigation.” [Link]

Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 302

Patent, , ,
  • Texas Juries: Michael Smith reviews E.D. Texas patent trial verdicts for 2009 (thus far). Depending upon how you count, the score ranges “from 8-3-1 to 6-6-1 (depend[ing] on whether you count a post-jury selection grant of summary judgment or not).” [Link]
  • Judge Michel: A transcript of Chief Judge Paul Michel’s recent speech to the FCBA is now available through that organization’s website. [Link] In addition to announcing his retirement, Judge Michel argued strongly against a statutory right to appeal claim construction decisions. His discussion also touched on the fact that eight of the twelve Federal Circuit judging slots could open within the next 12-months. He suggests that the replacements should include (a) a district court judge and (b) a patent litigator who has extensive experience trying commercial cases in front of juries. Judge Michel suggested room for diversity on the court since all members are white and only 25% are women.
  • Appointing Judges: Regarding Federal Circuit appointments. The Obama administration is already focused on ensuring that minorities and women receive their share of appointments. In the words of Judge Michel, it is the Bar’s job to help “assure that the appointees to the Court are selected based on merit, on experience, on quality, on intellect, on intelligence, on energy, and not because they’re, you know, somebody’s cousin or whatever the other considerations might be.”
  • Concentration of Ownership: Hal Wegner and Justin Gray review the top 150 patent holders and reports on growing ownership concentration. [Link][See also Patent Prospector]
  • Written Description: Amicus Briefs in Ariad v. Lilly: Patent Docs Review the Briefs. [Link]
  • Presumption of Validity: Lucent v. Gateway: The Federal Circuit has denied Microsoft’s petition for rehearing. Microsoft is expected to file a petition to the Supreme Court focusing on the interpretation of Section 282’s “presumption of validity.” Microsoft questions whether that statute is properly construed to always require clear and convincing evidence of invalidity.
  • Presumption of Validity Redux: In a recent article, Scott Kieff and Henry Smith argue for a reduction in the presumption of validity. [Link]
  • Reexaminations: Reexamination Statistics: Of the 734 inter partes reexaminations that have been requested in the past decade, 498 (68%) are “known to be in litigation.” [Link]

A Brief Defense of the Written Description Requirement

Patent,

by Michael Risch

The Federal Circuit’s upcoming consideration of Ariad v. Lilly has generated a fair amount of buzz among those who follow patent policy. The dispute arises from the interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 1, which states in relevant part:

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same….

All agree that this language includes an “enablement” rule, which requires that the specification enable a person having ordinary skill in the art (the PHOSITA) to make and use the invention. More controversial is the phrase, “written description of the invention,” and whether that phrase entails a separate requirement apart from enabling the PHOSITA to make and use the invention. It appears that academics are split on the question, and most practitioners appear to disfavor a separate requirement.

This essay briefly describes the dispute, and then raises an important but under-theorized argument in favor of a separate written description requirement. The essay accepts the persuasive grammatical reading of the statute proposed by opponents of a separate written description requirement. This reading suggests that a patent disclosure is sufficient so long as the PHOSITA can practice the invention.

However, while enablement is necessary to satisfy Section 112, it is not sufficient. The statutory language certainly requires that an applicant identify the invention sufficiently to allow a PHOSITA to make and use it. However, even if the specification enables a PHOSITA to practice the invention, the applicant is not relieved of the obligation to identify the invention. Instead, the specification must contain a “description of the invention” even if such description would only serve to reinforce other parts of the disclosure that enable one to make and use the invention.

This reading of the statute is consistent with the grammatical breakdown of Section 112. It is also the preferred interpretation, because a description of the invention fulfills an important purpose in the patent system. The requirement ensures that the applicant actually invented the claimed subject matter. Reading description out of the statute would allow patent applicants to claim subject matter they did not invent, and would effectively rewrite nearly 120 years of precedent about the conception of inventions.

This is certainly not the only argument in favor of a written description requirement; a strong written description requirement provides policy benefits in clarifying claim scope and policing patentable subject matter. This essay leaves such benefits to the side, and focuses only on the statutory basis for the rule.

Finally, the essay considers the Ariad case and concludes, perhaps surprisingly, that under the vision of written description presented in this essay the claims at issue may well be described.

The remainder of the essay is available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1504631.

Precedential BPAI Opinion Rejects Functional Claim Elements as Indefinite and Not Enabled

Indefinite, Patent,

logoEx parte Rodriguez, 08-0693 (BPAI 2009) (Precedential) fd080693.pdf 

In its first precedential decision since February 2009, an expanded BPAI panel has applied the Federal Circuit's 2008 Aristocrat decision in rejecting applicant's means-plus-function (MPF) claims as indefinite for failing to provide any corresponding structures in the specification other than a general purpose computer. From Aristocrat:

For a patentee to claim a means for performing a particular function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Because general purpose computers can be programmed to perform very different tasks in very different ways, simply disclosing a computer as the structure designated to perform a particular function does not limit the scope of the claim to "the corresponding structure, material, or acts" that perform the function, as required by section 112 paragraph 6.

In Aristocrat, the Federal Circuit made clear that reference to "appropriate programing" was not sufficient to transform a general purpose computer into a specific structure for 112p6 purposes. Rather, the court indicated that an algorithm for operating the computer should also be provided in the specification.

Here, the Rodriguez claim 10 included several MPF elements such as "means for generating a random system configuration file." However, the specification did not include an algorithm for generating the file apart from a statement that "[a]ppropriate software coding can readily be prepared by skilled programmers." Based on that failure the claim was found invalid as indefinite.

The Appellants have failed to disclose any algorithm, and thus have failed to adequately describe sufficient structure, for performing the functions recited in the means elements contained in claim 10 so as to render the claim definite. Accordingly, claim 10 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333.

The remaining claims did not use standard MPF claim language. However, the Board found that the remaining claims all included elements that were properly interpreted as MPF because they claimed functional elements without any "noun denoting structure." (Citing Lighting World & Linear Tech). The claim elements in question include a "system configuration generator," "system builder," and "simulation verification environment." (et al.). These are the same functional elements found in claim 10 – and thus were found indefinite for failing to provide any corresponding structure in the specification.

In many ways, this MPF structure requirement runs parallel to the written description doctrine. It may well be that one of ordinary skill in the art could easily generate a random system configuration file without undue experimentation. That potential fact is irrelevant for MPF definiteness analysis. Rather, the question for definiteness of a MPF claim is whether a corresponding structure is described in the specification.

The Board did also rejected the claims for lack of enablement under Miyazaki because the functional claim language was not "commensurate in scope with an enabling disclosure." As the use of MPF claims has dropped, this third portion of the opinion may be the most important.

Notes:

  • The patent application is owned by LSI and entitled "Automated random verification of complex and structurally-variable systems."
  • Rejected Claim 1 is listed below. 

  1. 1. An apparatus comprising: a system configuration generator configured to generate a random system configuration file of a structurally variable and complex system; a system builder configured to build a system level netlist in response to said random system configuration file; and a simulation verification environment configured to verify said structurally variable and complex system in response to said system level netlist, wherein said simulation verification environment is configured to provide automatic random verification of said structurally variable and complex system in response to said random system configuration file.

Ariad v. Lilly Amici Briefs

Patent,

NYIPLA Amicus Brief.pdf: Supporting a strong written description requirement: "By the time of the O'Reilly v. Morse decision in 1853, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62, it was understood that attempting to dominate an entire field by generic functional claiming was prohibited when the applicant had invented and disclosed only limited techniques or apparatus to carry out such function. Though phrased differently, this doctrine has continuing vitality and is today most closely embodied in the requirement that the specification enable the full scope of the claimed invention."

Professors Janis & Holbrook.pdf: Section 112 does not support a separate written description requirement – not even one limited to the context of new matter.

Morris.DOC: The text of Section 112 does not create a separate written description requirement. Professor Morris suggests giving teeth to Section 112p2 in requiring the applicant to "particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] what he regarded as his invention."

Novozymes.pdf: WD should be limited to new matter issues.

Holman in Support of Neither Party.PDF: The genus and species possession requirements unjustifiably discriminate against biotech inventions by creating a technology-focused super-enablement requirement. [Read Prof. Holman's Biotech IP Blog where he is following the case.]

University of California (and other major patent-holding universities): The requirements prejudice university researchers who "often make the most important basic science discoveries. . . . As a result [of the written description requirement], university researchers are denied the recognition and reward of inventorship due solely to lack of a available resources rather than lack of inventive contribution."

Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 132

Enablement, Patent, , ,
  • Ariad v. Eli Lilly (Written Description): Ariad has filed its opening brief in the en banc Federal Circuit challenge to the statutory basis for a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from enablement requirement. The patentee’s strongest arguments are textual and historic. Although done with tact and persuasive skill, the brief asks the court to read the statute: “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” [File Attachment: Ariad v. Lilly Plaintiffs-Appellees Principal Brief.pdf (509 KB)]
  • Forest Group v. Bon Tool False Marking Case: The question on appeal is whether mass production of a falsely marked product constitutes a single instance of false marking. If the Federal Circuit agrees, the false marking statute will continue to have no impact because damages are limited by statute to $500 or less per offense. Judges Rader, Plager, and Moore will likely issue a decision in January. In oral arguments, the court struggled with the potential problem of “marking trolls” — suggesting that an amicus in this case is “pretty close to that.”
  • USPTO Website: Out of Beta
  • Patent Reform: Senator Leahy has suggested a Senate debate on patent reform “before the end of the year.”
  • Board of Patent Appeals: Numbers are in for FY2009 (ending September 30, 2009). 15,349 appeals docketed; 6,757 appeals completed; 12,489 appeals pending at the end of the FY. The Board took heroic efforts to increase its throughput by over 35% in FY2009. However, the Board was already operating in a deficit and the number of cases received in FY2009 is more than double that of FY2008.
  • Board of Patent Appeals II: Despite the backlog, the Board reports an average pendency of only 7.7 months (calculated from assignment of appeal number to decision date).
  • Patent Law Jobs:

Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 132

Enablement, , ,
  • Ariad v. Eli Lilly (Written Description): Ariad has filed its opening brief in the en banc Federal Circuit challenge to the statutory basis for a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from enablement requirement. The patentee’s strongest arguments are textual and historic. Although done with tact and persuasive skill, the brief asks the court to read the statute: “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” [File Attachment: Ariad v. Lilly Plaintiffs-Appellees Principal Brief.pdf (509 KB)]
  • Forest Group v. Bon Tool False Marking Case: The question on appeal is whether mass production of a falsely marked product constitutes a single instance of false marking. If the Federal Circuit agrees, the false marking statute will continue to have no impact because damages are limited by statute to $500 or less per offense. Judges Rader, Plager, and Moore will likely issue a decision in January. In oral arguments, the court struggled with the potential problem of “marking trolls” — suggesting that an amicus in this case is “pretty close to that.”
  • USPTO Website: Out of Beta
  • Patent Reform: Senator Leahy has suggested a Senate debate on patent reform “before the end of the year.”
  • Board of Patent Appeals: Numbers are in for FY2009 (ending September 30, 2009). 15,349 appeals docketed; 6,757 appeals completed; 12,489 appeals pending at the end of the FY. The Board took heroic efforts to increase its throughput by over 35% in FY2009. However, the Board was already operating in a deficit and the number of cases received in FY2009 is more than double that of FY2008.
  • Board of Patent Appeals II: Despite the backlog, the Board reports an average pendency of only 7.7 months (calculated from assignment of appeal number to decision date).
  • Patent Law Jobs:

Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 132

Enablement, Patent, , ,
  • Ariad v. Eli Lilly (Written Description): Ariad has filed its opening brief in the en banc Federal Circuit challenge to the statutory basis for a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from enablement requirement. The patentee’s strongest arguments are textual and historic. Although done with tact and persuasive skill, the brief asks the court to read the statute: “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” [File Attachment: Ariad v. Lilly Plaintiffs-Appellees Principal Brief.pdf (509 KB)]
  • Forest Group v. Bon Tool False Marking Case: The question on appeal is whether mass production of a falsely marked product constitutes a single instance of false marking. If the Federal Circuit agrees, the false marking statute will continue to have no impact because damages are limited by statute to $500 or less per offense. Judges Rader, Plager, and Moore will likely issue a decision in January. In oral arguments, the court struggled with the potential problem of “marking trolls” — suggesting that an amicus in this case is “pretty close to that.”
  • USPTO Website: Out of Beta
  • Patent Reform: Senator Leahy has suggested a Senate debate on patent reform “before the end of the year.”
  • Board of Patent Appeals: Numbers are in for FY2009 (ending September 30, 2009). 15,349 appeals docketed; 6,757 appeals completed; 12,489 appeals pending at the end of the FY. The Board took heroic efforts to increase its throughput by over 35% in FY2009. However, the Board was already operating in a deficit and the number of cases received in FY2009 is more than double that of FY2008.
  • Board of Patent Appeals II: Despite the backlog, the Board reports an average pendency of only 7.7 months (calculated from assignment of appeal number to decision date).
  • Patent Law Jobs:

Using Claim Terms and their Synonyms

Patent, ,

Edwards Lifesciences v. Cook, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2009)

The four Edwards patents all relate to internal blood-vessel grafts for treating aneurisms. The grafts are designed to be inserted endovascularly without the need for open surgery. After construing the claims, N.D. Cal. District Court Judge Jeffrey White granted summary judgment of non-infringement to the two defendants, Cook and Gore. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed.

Lumpy Claim Construction: Patent claim construction serves as a prime example of how litigators can take a simple issue and make it quite complicated. For their part, judges are keen to limit the issues. A common approach in claim construction is to group similar claim terms together and give them identical meaning. In this case, the patent used the terms “graft,” “graft body,” graft structure”, “bifurcated base structure,” and “bifurcated base graft structure.” Examining these terms, the appellate panel agreed that these terms could properly be analyzed together because the applicant had used them “interchangeably in the specification,” at least with respect to the disputed differences.

This risk of synonymous meaning is not necessarily bad. Using various terms to describe the same idea helps to flesh out the detail and scope of the idea. However, in most cases, applicants would probably be better off emphasizing distinctions between similar terms. The distinctions may well be useful for ensuring varied claim coverage.

The point from this case is that the distinctions between similar terms must be explicitly emphasized if the applicant wants to have confidence that it can later rely on the differences.

Broadening Claims:During prosecution, Edwards seemingly broadened some of its claims by amending the “intraluminar graft” elements to simply “graft” elements. Despite that change, the court found that the specification’s written description still required that all grafts be intraluminal.

An Appeal to the New Patent Office Director: Repeal the Single Sentence Rule

Patent,

Guest Post by Stephen Schott of Volpe & Koenig 

[File Attachment: PDF Version of this Article (135 KB)]

Like all elementary school graduates, I learned that a single sentence should be short. One source suggests that a well-written work should average 20 to 25 word sentences.[1] With that as the guide, sentences averaging 50 words would raise the ire of a 3rd grade teacher. Those averaging 100 words would drive a sane person mad. And a 250 plus word sentence would drive even Proust to distraction.

 

But sentences of such prodigious lengths are commonplace in patent law. The offending sentences are patent claims.[2] These claims are a U.S. patent’s most important feature. It is here that the inventor, or more likely the inventor’s attorney, sets forth the “metes and bounds” that define the invention. The claims serve as property lines: Cross into those lines with your product and you infringe the patent.

 

With such importance placed on claims, you would expect them to be quite readable. You would at least expect them to have been the subject of the “plain English” movement, perhaps best summed up by Albert Einstein when discussing science: “Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in language comprehensible to everyone.” But the claims—despite the substantial time spent drafting and interpreting them—are not a place where the discerning reader finds linguistic respite.

(more…)

Federal Circuit: Is a Human An Animal? Written Description; Enablement; and Inventorship

Patent, , ,

Martek Biosciences v. Nutrinova and Lonza (Fed. Cir. 2009)

[Read part I of the discussion of Martek]

Sitting in as an expanded five-member panel, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has largely affirmed a jury verdict finding Martek’s patents valid and infringed. The case involves issues of written description, enablement, sufficiency of infringement evidence, corroboration of prior inventorship arguments, and claim construction of the word “animal.” The five members agreed as to all issues except for claim construction. On that claim construction issue, the majority opinion of Judges Newman, Gajarsa, and Moore held that a human is an animal. Judges Lourie and Rader argued in dissent that the patentee’s use of animal suggested that it did not include humans.

Is a human an animal: The four patents in suit cover various aspects of making and using the omega-3 fatty acids. Nutrinova sells allegedly infringing products for human consumption. One of the patents claims a method for achieving high concentrations of the omega-3 acids in an “animal,” and the parties contested whether an a human is an animal. The majority based its decision on the maxim that the patentee is free to be its own lexicographer. “When a patentee explicitly defines a claim term in the patent specification, the patentee’s definition controls.” In its specification, Martek appears to plainly define the term animal in the following sentence: “The term ‘animal’ means any organism belonging to the kingdom Animalia.” It is undisputed that humans are classified within the kingdom Animalia – and thus, humans fit within the claims animal limitation. Q.E.D.

According to the court, once a patentee defines a term, extrinsic evidence of that term’s meaning “is simply irrelevant.” On remand, the district court will need to consider whether the patent is infringed under the broader definition.

The dissent does not disagree with the traditional maxim, but argues that the patent is not so clear in its definition:

This case illustrates the unusual situation in which a purported definition of a claim term in the written description is totally negated by the remainder of the text of the patent. Martek’s attempt at lexicography does not conform to the way in which it otherwise describes its invention.

In particular, the dissent points to the fact that the claim in question is “a method of raising an animal” in a way that increases the “content of omega-3 highly unsaturated fatty acids in said animal” and that the field of the invention looks toward “food products derived from such animals.” The specification and claims spell out a variety of animals that could be so-raised: poultry, swine, cattle, shrimp, shellfish, milk producers, and goats. However, the specification only refers to humans when it discusses the benefits of ingesting the milk and meat of those animals.

Written Description: The accused infringers argued that the patentee had added new matter to the claims of one of the patents during prosecution and that the claims are consequently invalid under the traditional written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The Federal Circuit disagreed – finding that the jury had sufficient evidence to reject the written description argument. In particular, the ‘594 patent generally claims “a food product.” Although that claim term had been added during prosecution, the Federal Circuit found that it was sufficiently supported by the original disclosure – noting again that “the earlier application need not describe the claimed subject matter in precisely the same terms as found in the claim.” Tech Licensing (Fed. Cir. 2008). Rather, the test is “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter.”

Evidence of Infringement: The claims of the ‘281 patent recite a limitation that the claimed microorganisms designed to create the omega-3 fatty acids caused less vessel damage than another other cultural medium (which used more sodium chloride). Martek did not provide results of any physical analysis of the accused infringing product to ensure that it met this limitation. Rather, Martek’s experts discussed the “literature” on the topic and a conceptual analysis of the known effects of a high chlorine concentration. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the expert testimony was sufficient for a jury to find infringement – holding that there is no “general rule requiring one who alleges infringement of a claim containing functional limitations to perform actual tests or experiments on the accused product or method. Rather, a “patentee may prove infringement by any method of analysis that is probative of the fact of infringement.” Forest Labs. 239 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Evidence of Prior Inventorship: It is improper to say that ‘prior inventorship’ is a defense to patent infringement. However, an accused infringer can invalidate a patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2) by showing clear and convincing evidence that it (1) conceived of the invention before the patentee and (2) either reduced the invention to practice or was diligent in reducing the invention to practice from a time beginning before the patentee’s conception date; and (3) did not abandon, suppress, or conceal the invention. In this case, the defendants had filed a patent application on a similar invention prior to the patentee. However, that application had gone abandoned. The application properly serves as evidence of conception, but – because it was abandoned – does not serve as constructive reduction to practice. Here, the accused infringer’s defense failed because it could not provide other corroborating evidence of reduction to practice or diligence.

Enablement: The claims of the ‘567 patent were found invalid on JMOL due to lack of enablement due to a genus-species issue. Claim 1 broadly discusses growing “euryhaline microorganisms” while the specification only discloses two examples of thraustochytrium and schizochytrium organisms. The defendants’ experts testified that there were at least 10,000 different qualifying species and the district court agreed that two species were insufficient. On appeal, it appears that the patentee gave-up on its claim 1, but the Federal Circuit agreed that the other claims had been improperly invalidated because they included limitations to the specific examples proffered in the specification. Evidence presented indicated that the species of those dependent claims together encompassed “only 22 known species.”

Federal Circuit Expanded Panel

Patent, ,

Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2009) (expanded panel)

Sitting in as an expanded five-member panel, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has largely affirmed a jury verdict finding Martek’s patents valid and infringed. The case involves issues of written description, enablement, sufficiency of infringement evidence, corroboration of prior inventorship arguments, and claim construction of the word “animal.”  The five members agreed as to all issues except for claim construction. On that issue, the majority opinion of Judges Newman, Gajarsa, and Moore held that a human is an animal.  Judges Lourie and Rader argued in dissent that the patentee’s use of animal suggested that it did not include humans.

I’ll write more about the case in a separate post, but here I want to focus on the procedure of an expanded panel.

Expanded Panel: It appears that the expanded panel was prompted in-part as a show dignitaries who were visiting the court.  The court claimed authority under 28 U.S.C. 46(b) which indicates that the “Federal Circuit . . . may determine by rule the number of judges, not less than three who constitue a panel.”  There is a problem with this authority. The statute calls for the court to create a “rule” for determining the number of judges. Rather than following a rule, however, the expanded panel here appears to be an ad-hoc creation. 

Notes:

  • Parallel Reexamination: As with most litigation, the patents are also under reexamination at the PTO.  As usual – and perhaps as required by the law – the Federal Circuit entirely ignored that proceeding.

Microsoft v. i4i: Relevance of the Pending Reexamination

Patent, , , ,

[This post continues the discussion of emergency stays pending appeal that was begun here]

i4i Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2009)

Pending Reexamination: Microsoft has submitted its motion for a stay of injunctive relief pending the outcome of its appeal to the Federal Circuit.  Oddly, the first sentence of Microsoft's introduction begins with a statement that the PTO "already had provisionally rejected upon reexamination as anticipated and obvious." By 'provisionally rejected' Microsoft means that a non-final office action has been mailed out in the ex parte reexamination that it requested in November 2008 (the litigation was filed in March 2007).

The opening is odd because of its irrelevance. The vast majority of third party requests for ex parte reexaminations are granted (over 95%) and then 'provisionally' rejected (83% of those). That usual course is simply the beginning of a typically long reexamination process. Even amongst reexaminations that received a non-final rejection – most resulted in a reexamination certificate that confirmed the patentability of at least one original claim. Of course, the final resolution of the reexamination is likely years away. (The figures are based on my own study of 5,000 ex parte reexamination file histories).

The opening is also odd because, to my knowledge, the Federal Circuit has never placed any weight on the fact that a co-pending reexamination has been provisionally rejected.

Finally, the opening is odd because it does not relate to Microsoft's arguments for a stay. In particular, the company does not argue for a stay pending outcome of the reexamination. Microsoft does argue anticipation and obviousness, but those arguments are based on the district court claim construction. As discussed on Patently-O extensively last month, claim construction in court has no direct legal link with the claim construction used at the patent office during reexamination. [Link]

The reexamination request by Microsoft focuses on two prior art references: U.S. Patent No. 6,101,512 ("DeRose") is apparently 102(e) prior art because it was filed prior to i4i's application, and i4i is unable to antedate the reference and a published description of the "Rita" SGML editor. Both of these references were considered by the jury in its analysis. In addition, Judge Davis reviewed the jury determination and found no cause for a JNOV. Interestingly, Microsoft never moved for summary judgment on any of its invalidity arguments based on these references.

To be clear, Microsoft's brief is still well written and presents compelling arguments. The only problem is that its first argument may lead the court astray. A ruling is expected prior to the October 10. 

Documents:

  • Microsoft Motion for Emergency Stay: Download 2009-1504 [Note – A complete brief was due August 25, for that brief, Microsoft was granted permission to file an 18,000 word brief instead of the normal 14,000 word brief]
  • Judge Davis Memorandum: Download 20090817i4imemo 
  • Documents from the Reexamination Download 90010347 

Notes:

  • An important aspect of this case from a policy perspective is that it the patent covers XML software whose function is to facilitate interoperability.  The patent enforcement is looking largely block (or at least control) that function.
  • As the role of reexaminations continue to rise as a litigation strategy, understanding the interplay and conflict between Federal Court decisions and USPTO decisions will become critical.  Important questions involve: waiver; preclusion; and deference.

Ariad v. Lilly: Federal Circuit Grants En Banc Request to Challenge Written Description Requirement

En Banc, Enablement, Patent, Patent Cases 2009, , ,

Ariad Pharmaceuticals, MIT, and Harvard v. Eli Lilly (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc)

The Federal Circuit has granted Ariad's motion for an en banc rehearing of its case. The motion boldly asks whether the written description requirement should be eliminated as a doctrine that is separate and distinct from enablement. The questions:

a. Whether 35 U.S.C. ? 112, paragraph 1, contains a written description requirement separate from an enablement requirement? and

b. If a separate written description requirement is set forth in the statute, what is the scope and purpose of the requirement?

Ariad's brief is due within 45 days, and Lilly's brief is then due within thirty days of that.

Briefs of amici curiae will be entertained, and any such amicus briefs may be filed without leave of court but otherwise must comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 and Federal Circuit Rule 29. The United States is invited to submit an amicus brief.

Value of Amicus Briefs: In its recent Cardiac Pacemaker decision, the Federal Circuit expressly indicated that it was "appreciative of these [amicus] contributions." To make one particular point in the decision, the court emphasized that Cardiac's extreme position was "not even supported by the lone amicus brief we have received in favor of including method patents within Section 271(f)'s reach."

Although the written description requirement is primarily raised in pharmaceutical and biotechnology cases, it is an increasing aspect of software patent litigation. This decision could have a significant impact both on how patents are litigated and on how they are prosecuted. The inventors here discovered an important biochemical pathway and broadly claimed uses of that pathway.

Notes:

Challenging PTO Decisions in District Court: Federal Circuit Affirms Exclusion of Enablement Evidence that “Should Have” Been Raised During Prosecution

Patent, Patent Cases 2009, , , , , ,

Hyatt v. Doll (Fed. Cir. 2009) 07-1066.pdf

Gil Hyatt is a prolific inventor who has spent much of his time over the past thirty years challenging the bounds of USPTO practice. This August 11, 2009 opinion marks the seventeenth Federal Circuit decision focusing on Hyatt’s patent rights in addition to the 2003 Supreme Court decision Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Hyatt.

This Case: During prosecution, the examiner rejected each of Hyatt’s 117 computer memory architecture claims based on anticipation, obviousness, enablement, double patenting, and written description. Hyatt appealed (pro se) to the BPAI who reversed the bulk of the rejections, but affirming only the written description and enablement rejections associated with 79 claims. Hyatt then took his case to Federal Court by filing a civil action in DC District Court grounded in 35 U.S.C. 145.

At the district court, Hyatt submitted a new declaration offering additional evidence of enablement and written description. However, the district court excluded that inventor-declaration from evidence based on Hyatt’s “negligence” in failing to previously submit the information to the PTO.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the exclusion of evidence – holding that the district court may properly exclude evidence that Hyatt should have produced to the PTO. (Chief Judge Michel as author joined by Judge Dyk)

Hyatt was obligated to respond to the examiner’s written description rejection by In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175 (Fed. Cir. 1996), by explaining where in the specification support for each of these limitations could be found. . . . The Board noted, “It is far easier for appellant to describe where the limitation he wrote is disclosed than for the Office to prove that the limitation is not disclosed.” . . . Hyatt, however, refused to cooperate, even though he necessarily possessed the information the examiner sought by the time he filed his application.   

On these facts, the district court’s exclusion of Hyatt’s new evidence must be affirmed. . . . [I]t is clear from the record that Hyatt willfully refused to provide evidence in his possession in response to a valid action by the examiner. Such a refusal to provide evidence which one possessed was grounds in Barrett to exclude the withheld evidence. Similarly, we hold that in light of Hyatt’s willful non-cooperation here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the Hyatt declaration.

Judge Moore penned a vigorous dissent in support of the patent applicant’s right to a full civil action including the right to submit additional evidence when challenging a PTO decision.

The majority takes away this patent applicant’s fundamental right to a “civil action to obtain [a] patent” as granted by Congress in 35 U.S.C. § 145. Today the majority decides that a patent applicant may not introduce the inventor’s declaration in a § 145 proceeding before the district court because the inventor had an “affirmative duty” or “obligation” to disclose this evidence to the PTO. His failure to fulfill his affirmative duty, by not disclosing evidence he could have disclosed to the PTO, results in such evidence being excluded from the district court § 145 proceeding. The district court made no fact findings indicating willful withholding or intentional suppression; in fact, the district court did not even conclude that Mr. Hyatt’s conduct amounted to gross negligence, but rather excluded the evidence under a negligence “could have” standard. Nor did the PTO even argue, at any stage of these proceedings, that Mr. Hyatt’s conduct in this case was willful or intentional. Nonetheless, the majority concludes that the applicant “owed,” the PTO all evidence he possesses that is responsive to a rejection and that failure to fulfill this newly created “affirmative duty” amounts to willful withholding as a matter of law. There are only two possible ways to interpret the majority’s willful withholding determination. Either the majority is engaging in appellate fact finding or it is determining that breach of its newly created affirmative duty is willful withholding as a matter of law.

. . .

Congress granted patent applicants the right to a civil action in the district court distinct from their right of appeal. It is our obligation to protect the distinction Congress codified in § 145, not to reweigh the virtues of that decision. The § 145 proceeding is a civil action and ought to be governed by the same Federal Rules of Evidence that govern other civil actions. Patent cases do not need, nor should they have, special rules of evidence.

. . .

The statute itself distinguishes the appeal that may be brought pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 141 because a § 145 action is not an appeal; it is a “civil action.” The statute obligates the district court to adjudicate the facts in this civil action. Because the statute affords no limitations on the type of evidence that ought to be admissible in a civil action brought under § 145, the standard Federal Rules of Evidence that govern all civil actions ought to govern. The legislative histories of § 145 and its predecessor statute, section 4915 of the Revised Statutes, repeatedly and without contradiction indicate that the intent of Congress was to permit a patent applicant to bring a new suit built upon a new record. . . . Congress intended that the district court in a § 145 action have everything that a court would have in an infringement suit. Under this standard, Congress certainly intended for an inventor, such as Mr. Hyatt, to be permitted to introduce his own declaration in a § 145 action.

. . .

The majority holds that by failing to offer his testimony to the PTO, Hyatt has failed to satisfy “an affirmative and specific duty.” Maj. Op. at 2. In this way, this new affirmative duty for prosecution seems to resemble inequitable conduct, though here the applicant is penalized regardless of their intent. . . . With all due respect to the majority, I do not believe a new “affirmative duty” to disclose is warranted, nor do I believe Hyatt was “required by law” or “obligated” to provide his declaration to the PTO. While Mr. Hyatt may have failed to overcome the rejections or to convince the Board based upon his submissions to the PTO, he did not fail to fulfill an “obligation” or “affirmative duty” as the majority alleges.   

. . .

In this case, the district court found that Mr. Hyatt’s failure to proffer his

declaration to the PTO was merely negligent. . . . I find troubling the majority’s characterizations of Mr. Hyatt. See, e.g., Maj. Op. at 51 (Mr. “Hyatt purposefully kept [the Board] in the dark”); id. (his “blatant non-cooperation”); id. at 50 (Mr. “Hyatt willfully refused to provide evidence in his possession”); id. (Hyatt “refused to cooperate”); id. (“Hyatt’s willful non-cooperation”); id. at 55 (“Hyatt willfully refused”); id. at 49 (providing his declaration “should have been simple for him”); id. at 55 (that Hyatt’s failure “to perform a simple task that it was his burden to perform is inexcusable”); id. at 54 (“Hyatt’s perverse unhelpfulness”). None of this appears in the district court proceedings, the PTO proceedings, or the record— these fact findings ought to be left to the district court which is in the best position to weigh the contradictory evidence.

. . .

Contrary to the appellate finding of willful withholding, the record contains ample evidence of a lack of willful withholding. Here, the examiner rejected all of Mr. Hyatt’s 117 claims for lack of written description, failure to enable, obviousness-type double patenting (over 8 separate references), and Schneller-type double patenting (over the same 8 references). The examiner also rejected 9 claims as anticipated (Hill reference) and 7 as obvious (over a combination of three references). Technically, Mr. Hyatt was appealing 45 separate issues totaling 2546 separate rejections of his 117 claims to the Board. He wrote a 129-page appeal brief addressing all of these different rejections. And, to be clear, the Board reversed all the examiner’s rejections for obviousness, anticipation, obviousness-type double patenting, Schneller-type double patenting, and many of the written description and enablement rejections. With regard to the written description rejections in particular, the Board reversed the rejections of 38 claims and sustained the rejections of 79 claims. Mr. Hyatt prevailed on 92% of all the examiner’s rejections at the Board level. Despite Mr. Hyatt’s success, the majority declares Mr. Hyatt’s response to be “completely and wholly inadequate” and Mr. Hyatt to have been perversely unhelpful. Maj. Op. at 55, 56.

. . .

Although Mr. Hyatt may have failed to overcome all of the written description rejections based upon his submissions to the PTO, he did not fail to fulfill an “obligation” or “affirmative duty,” and he certainly was not “perversely unhelpful” as the majority alleges. . . I believe the court is wrong to hold that breach of the newly created affirmative duty, i.e., not producing evidence to the PTO, is willful withholding as a matter of law.

. . .

In hindsight, perhaps Mr. Hyatt should have submitted his declaration or that of any other expert earlier in the prosecution process. But hindsight is misleadingly acute. Declarations and expert reports are time consuming and expensive to prepare. It is hardly reasonable or even desirable to require patent applicants to put massive declarations into the record at an early stage of prosecution, weighing the cost to both the applicant and the PTO. See generally Mark A. Lemley, Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, 95 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1495 (2003) (arguing that it would be inefficient for the PTO to overinvest in examination because so few patents are enforced). In this case, for example, the examiner rejected the claims on many different bases (double patenting on 8 different references, obviousness, anticipation, enablement, written description, etc.), totaling 2546 separate rejections. The Board overturned nearly all of them. It is easy with the benefit of hindsight to say Mr. Hyatt should have introduced more evidence on written description to the Board. But Mr. Hyatt was not facing merely a written description rejection, he was facing 2546 separate rejections on many, many different bases. The majority implausibly asserts that 2546 separate rejections is “proportional to Hyatt’s prosecution of an application containing 117 pending claims spanning 79 pages.” Maj. Op. at 56 n.35. An average of 21 rejections per claim is hardly proportional. Mr. Hyatt was forced to appeal 45 independent issues to the Board when the average is two. Dennis D. Crouch, Understanding the Role of the Board of Patent Appeals in Ex Parte Appeals, 4, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1423922. Despite this challenge, Mr. Hyatt was largely successful on appeal. Further, the length of Mr. Hyatt’s application suggests that his efforts to pinpoint pages containing certain terms was helpful and in good faith. Mr. Hyatt’s response may have been especially valuable in the time before searchable electronic applications.

To say that Mr. Hyatt had an affirmative duty to introduce all evidence to the Board or that he “owed” (Maj. Op. at 56) all the evidence he possessed is to put an enormous and undesirable burden on the patentee, one that will foreclose patent protection for many small inventors. Congress foresaw exactly this problem and ameliorated it with § 145 by providing applicants a way to initiate a civil action and introduce new evidence after Board proceedings when the issues are much more succinct and consolidated. This is illustrated perfectly here, where the applicant was contending with 2546 rejections on many different bases before the Board. After the Board overturned nearly all of them, only a small number of rejections—based on written description/enablement—were maintained. Hence at the district court the applicant could proffer much more extensive evidence because the universe of issues was greatly narrowed. This is the sensible approach Congress enacted. The statute even places the cost of the proceeding on the party better positioned to know the value of the application—the applicant. The majority’s new exclusionary rule based upon its new affirmative duty upsets this balance.

Notes: I expect that Hyatt will ask for reconsideration and will then push for Supreme Court review.

Bilski’s Patent Application

Patent, , , , , ,

The Supreme Court is reviewing Bernard Bilski’s patent application to consider whether the application appropriately claims “patentable subject matter” under 35 U.S.C. 101 as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Much of the focus in the case is on the Federal Circuit’s exclusive “machine or transformation” test. However, I thought it would also be important to look at the underlying Bilski patent application because of how it may drive the debate at the Court.

Bilski’s application is not published. However, a copy of the 14-page application was included in a joint appendix submitted to the Federal Circuit during the en banc appeal. The application includes one independent claim; eight subsequent dependent claims; no drawings; and a priority claim to a 1996 provisional application. It appears that Buchanan Ingersoll (Pittsburgh) led the prosecution. The BPAI opinion rejected eleven claims – indicating that some amendments occurred during prosecution. (A docket sheet also indicates that drawings were later added.) Amazingly, Bilski’s case is based on an appeal from a March 2000 final rejection.

The Invention focuses on a method of managing consumption risk by commodity trading something that – in 1996 was “not currently managed in energy markets.” According to Bilski there was a “need for a fixed bill product to manage total energy costs including the consumption of risk.” The general idea of using commodity trading as a hedge against risk has been well known for years. However, Bilski proposes that consumers purchase commodities “at a fixed rate based on historical averages.” In a dependent claims, Bilski indicates that the risk to be avoided is a “weather-related price risk.” Later, that risk is drilled-down to focus on temperature shifts (heating and cooling degree days). Another dependent claim spells-out the equation for calculating the fixed cost based on prior fixed and variable costs, transportation costs, local delivery costs, and a location specific weather indicator. Additional dependent claims require specific Monte Carlo simulations and statistical tests to better calculate the fixed rate. In some claims, the commodity being traded is identified as “energy” and the market participants as “transmission distributors.”

The Claims do not focus on any particular machine or software implementation. Rather, they are organized as “methods” followed by a series of steps such as “initiating a series of transactions . . . “; “performing a Monte Carlo simulation . . .”; and “continuing to re-price the margin in the transaction until the expected portfolio margin and likelihood of portfolio loss is acceptable.”

No Machine: Even an amateur implementation of these methods would make extensive use of software and computer hardware. However, those elements are not present in the claims. Why did Bilski not include software and computer hardware in his application? My speculation: First, it does not appear – at least from the patent application – that he invented any software application of his hedging theory. Second, perhaps Bilski believed that a computer implementation element would unduly limit the scope of his invention.

Obvious and Not Enabled: The claims are likely obvious based on extensive prior art in the industry. In addition, the claims may well fail the tests of enablement and/or written description (if it survives Ariad v. Eli Lilly). However, the PTO worked-hard to properly couch this case as a test of patentable subject matter.

The abstract reads as follows:

A method is provided for managing the risk-associated costs of a commodity sold by a commodity provider at a fixed price. Such risk-associated costs include the weather-related costs of a fixed price-energy bill. The commodity provider initiates a series of transactions with consumers of the commodity wherein the consumers purchase the commodity at a fixed rate based upon historical averages. The fixed rate corresponds to a risk position of the consumers. The commodity provider then identifies market participants for the commodity who have a counter-risk position to that of the consumers. The commodity provider then initiates a series of transactions with the market participants at a second fixed rate such that the series of market participant transactions balances the risk position of the series of consumer transactions.

Read the application here: BilskiApplication.pdf