Patent Law Blog (Patently-O)

Bits and Bytes: PTO Director

• Nothing to report on the quest for a new PTO director. Although the Obama administration's "fast start" has been reported by the media, he is now slower than President Clinton who nominated Bruce Lehman in April of his first year in office. President Bush nominated Jim Rogan in May of his first year in office. President Obama has two more days to match that benchmark. (My prediction of a May 8 nomination has come and gone...)
• Albritton v. Cisco: The Patent Troll Tracker case continues. Trial in the defamation case is set for September 14 in Tyler Texas. Defendants include Cisco, Richard Frenkel (the Patent Troll Tracker) Mallun Yen, and John Noh.
• Ward v. Cisco: Johnny Ward Jr. (son of Judge Ward) has a parallel case running against Cisco in Texarkana (Arkansas). Ward voluntarily dismissed Frenkel from the lawsuit after Cisco "admitted agency." Discovery is ongoing and the parties have asked for trial to begin December 30, 2009.
• Speaking of EDTX: Last week, the Canadian company i4i won a $200 million verdict for willful patent infringement against Microsoft. Apparently i4i's xml editing software was completely undercut when Microsoft included xml editing software in MSWord. The patent is here. Joe Mullin has more.
• Voting continues for the "best patent blog." (I don't like this survey, but it is still nice to make a good showing.)
• Singulair Patent Reexamination: Earlier this year, ArticleOne asked for prior art on Merck's Singlair patent and two of its "community members" offered seemingly important references. ArticleOne then filed for reexamination of the patent, which was granted on May 20. Today ArticleOne issued press releases related to the reexamination. Peter Ludwig (Darby & Darby) is representing ArticleOne before the PTO. Singulair garnered $4 billion+ in sales last year.
• Information Query: The Singulair patent's reexamination number is 90/009,432. If you were an investor, how would you go about closely following the prosecution history in that case?
• Patent Jobs:
  • Washida & Associates in Tokyo (US Prosecutor in Japan)
  • Cochlear (hearing company) in Sydney (Sr. Counsel)
    
  • Anonymous Big Firm in DC (EE with Prosecution Experience)
  • Akerman Senterfitt (VA or Florida) (EE with Prosecution Experience)

Discovery Misconduct

Boss v. Yamaha (Fed. Cir. 2009)

Boss sued Yamaha for infringement of its patents covering a snowmobile seat. After an unfavorable claim construction, Boss admitted that it could not prove infringement. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the construction and the verdict of noninfringement.

The interesting portion of the opinion focused on the alleged discovery abuses by Yamaha's counsel. Although a moot point (because Boss did not appeal its motion for sanctions that had been denied), the Federal Circuit felt compelled to at least verbally admonish the attorneys "unacceptable" conduct.

[I]t appears from the record presented to us that Yamaha’s discovery practices were less than commendable. For example, on several occasions Yamaha date-stamped documents to be filed with the district court using the court’s time stamp, but did not actually place the document in the court’s drop-box at that time. Rather, Yamaha actually filed the documents, by placing them in the drop-box, several days after the “filed” stamp was placed on the documents. After the district court realized that this was not an isolated incident, but happened several times, it admonished Yamaha, stating that “[t]his deceitful conduct will not be tolerated” and that this inappropriate practice “is particularly egregious when . . . the court is liberal in granting extensions of time.” The court further noted that “counsel in this case have been admonished before about the gamesmanship that has been taking place in this lawsuit.” In addition, regarding Yamaha’s interpretation of communications with the district court, the court further characterized Yamaha’s actions as “unreasonabl[e]” and “disingenuous.” This type of conduct during litigation is unacceptable and reflects a lack of respect for both the opposing party and the court.

Despite the ruling on misconduct, Yamaha walks away without any sanctions.

Paragon v. Timex: Claims with Contextual Limitations

Paragon Solutions v. Timex (Fed. Cir. 2009)

Paragon's patent covers a GPS/physiologic exercise monitoring system that displays realtime calculated values such as heartrate, altitude, velocity. The components of the invention are divided between a data acquisition unit and a display unit. After an unfavorable claim construction, Paragon stipulated to a non-infringement judgment. On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated judgment - finding that the district court had improperly construed the terms.

Disavowal of Claim Scope : The district court concluded that the claimed "data acquisition unit" must be a single structure encompassing both GPS and physiologic sensors. That ruling was critical because the accused device (Timex Biolink) physically separates the GPS and physiologic monitors. Although the claim language did not limit the acquisition unit to a single physical device, the district court found that Paragon had disavowed that scope

when it amended the claims to require that the acquisition unit be separate from the display unit.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed that the patentee had clearly disavowed a single structure. However the court could not find a reason that the amendment would limit the acquisition unit to a single device.

We conclude that, read in light of the specification, the claim term “data

acquisition unit” is not limited to a single structure but may comprise multiple physically separate str

uctures, and that the applicants did not make a clear and unmistakable disavowal of multiple physically separate structures during prosecution.

Parallel Construction: In construing claims, courts presume that a term in one claim will hold its meaning throughout the claims. That presumption is overcome when "it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims." Here, because the claimed "acquisition unit" can be multiple structures, the Federal Circuit found that the claimed "display unit" may also include multiple structures.

Real Time Data: The district court interpreted the claimed "real time" display of data as contextual. For some activities - such as mountain climbing - a thirty second delay may well be "real time." However, for ot

her activities, a thirty second delay would not be considered real time.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that this context-dependent definition is not proper in an apparatus claim. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard v. Bausch & Lomb, 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Absent an express limitation to the contrary, any use of a device that meets all of the limitations of an apparatus claim written in structural terms infringes that apparatus claim. ... Construing a non-functional term in an apparatus claim in a way that makes direct infringement turn on the use to which an accused apparatus is later put confuses rather than clarifies, frustrates the ability of both the patentee and potential infringers to ascertain the propriety of particular activities, and is inconsistent with the notice function central to the patent system.

Consequently, the Federal Circuit modified the construction of “displaying real-time data,” to be “displaying data without intentional delay, given the processing limitations of the system and the time required to accurately measure the data.”

Based on these modifications to the claim construction, the Federal Circuit vacated the finding of non-infringement and remanded for further proceedings. I wonder -- if the specification had clearly indicated that the definition of "real-time" could shift depending on the type of use, would the claim then be held invalid as indefinite under 35 USC 112.

Notes:

• This case could potentially have an impact on pharmaceutical composition claims that include limitations such as "a physiologically sufficient amount." Of course, whether a drug is "physiological sufficient" will often depend upon the individual patient and that patient's particular situation at that time.
• There are two major difference between the Paragon situation and my hypothetical compound claim. First, the real-time display capability in Paragon was seen as a structural limitation while the "physiologically sufficient" amount could be seen as a functional limitation. This difference is important because the Federal Circuit expressly limited its holding to the construction of "non-functional term[s]." However, that distinction is slight because it is unclear what the court meant by "non-functional." (I.e., "a non-functional term" could be a purely aesthetic limitation; it could be a means-plus-function term; it could be a term that defines the purpose of a particular structure; etc.) A second distinction is that Paragon's claim is an apparatus claim not a compound claim. Neither of these distinctions appear compelling.

Patently-O Bits and Bytes: Legally Drawn

I am enjoying Vasanth Sarathy's new legal comics: LegallyDrawn. Sarathy is a patent agent and law student at Boston University.

Declaratory Judgment: Personal Jurisdiction over Foreign Patent Holder

Autogenomics v. Oxford Gene Tech (Fed. Cir. 2009) 08-1217.pdf

The opposing viewpoints of Judges Newman and Moore continues to be seen in Federal Circuit decisions. This appeal arrived at the Federal Circuit after the Central District of California district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment defendant (and patent holder) Oxford Gene Technology.Writing for the majority, Judge Moore (joined by N.D. Ill. Judge Gettleman sitting by designation) affirmed the judgment. Judge Newman wrote in dissent.

Even in patent cases, a federal court's personal jurisdiction over parties is based on state boundaries. Here, the case was filed in a federal court sitting in California. When a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, the court must consider two general factors: (1) whether the forum state’s long-arm statute permits service of process and (2) whether assertion of personal jurisdiction would violate due process." Most states have extended their long-arm statutes to the bounds of due process. Thus, the question collapses to a consideration of the US Constitutional as applied at the geographic state boundaries.

The Constitutional limits of due process can be met by either showing general personal jurisdiction (based on continuous and systematic contacts with the state) or specific personal jurisdiction (based on a defendant's activities in the state that relate to the cause of action.)

Focusing on specific personal jurisdiction, this case is in some ways a repeat of the court's 2008 Avocent holding that a patentee's efforts at commercialization are irrelevant to the specific jurisdiction question. Rather, the minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction must relate to "only enforcement or defense efforts related to the patent." Thus, although Oxford has licensed its patents to several California companies, those licenses do not work toward a finding of specific personal jurisdiction over the foreign company.

DJ Jurisdiction over a Non-US Company: Both the majority and dissent expressed concern that foreign patent holders may often fly under the radar in such a way that no US court would have personal jurisdiction. Of course, the patent statute deals with that potential eventuality. For a non-US patent holder, the District of Columbia Federal Court has jurisdiction "to take any action respecting the patent or rights thereunder" to the same extent "that it would have if the patentee were personally within the jurisdiction of the court." 35 USC 293.

Section 293 makes an exception for non-US patent holders who designate a US person to receive process. The statute does not indicate that such designation serves as consent to personal jurisdiction in the person's home location. However, cases have held that designating a US process agent under Section 293 operates as consent to personal jurisdiction. See In re Papst Licensing, 590 F. Supp. 2d 94 (D.D.C. 2008).

Section 293 reads as follows.

Every patentee not residing in the United States may file in the Patent and Trademark Office a written designation stating the name and address of a person residing within the United States on whom may be served process or notice of proceedings affecting the patent or rights thereunder. If the person designated cannot be found at the address given in the last designation, or if no person has been designated, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction and summons shall be served by publication or otherwise as the court directs. The court shall have the same jurisdiction to take any action respecting the patent or rights thereunder that it would have if the patentee were personally within the jurisdiction of the court.

In the past year, about 11 patent infringement cases were filed in DC District Court.

Ranking Patent Blogs

There are now many excellent Patent Law focused blogs. Gene "Quixote" Quinn is trying to rank them. Take his two-question survey:

• Take the survey.
• See Quinn's IPWatchdog site.

Appellate Practice: Working Models for the Court

Farrago v. Rawlings Sporting Goods (Fed. Cir. 2009)

Farrago's patent covers a pad for relieving knee stress. The argument focused on whether Rawlings' product has four surfaces (as claimed) or only three surfaces (as Rawlings argues). On appeal, the Federal Circuit quickly affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement without opinion. (A narrowing amendment during prosecution precluded application of the doctrine of equivalents.)

I'll only focus here briefly on the appellate practice. Farrago submitted a sample of the accused product to the appellate court so that the judges and clerks could examine the product prior to oral arguments. During oral arguments, the court thanked Farrago's attorney - noting that the sample "was very helpful." Of course, the court needed only 24 hours to release its opinion against Farrago.

Genentech & Volkswagen: Federal Circuit Splits on Venue Transfer Cases

In re Genentech (Fed. Cir. 2009)(granting mandamus and ordering transfer) 09-M901.pdf
In re Volkswagen of America (Fed. Cir. 2009)(denying mandamus) 09-M897.pdf

Since deciding TS Tech, the Federal Circuit has received a gaggle of Mandamus petitions - most of them asking the appellate court to order cases transferred out of the Eastern District of Texas to more convenient locations. In a pair of opinions - both authored by Judge Linn and released on the same day - the appellate court has provided additional guidance on deciding these transfer issues.

Genentech - Transfer Granted:

• Key Witnesses: Genentech identified several witnesses in Northern California and argued it would be more convenient for them to attend trial in that locale. The district court, however gave little weight to Genentech list because the did not identify location of "key" witnesses. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that at such an early stage of trial, it is unreasonable to require a defendant to show that potential witnesses are "more than relevant" or face denial of transfer.
• European Witnesses: Several identified witnesses would come from Europe. The Texas court held that it would be more convenient for the European witnesses to travel to Texas than to California because California is further from Europe than is Texas. Here, the district court directly followed the Fifth Circuit's proportionality test that “[w]hen the distance between an existing venue for trial of a matter and a proposed venue under § 1404(a) is more than 100 miles, the factor of inconvenience to witnesses increases in direct relationship to the additional distance to be traveled.” On appeal, the Federal Circuit noted that the difference in distance should be given less weight when the witnesses are already traveling a great distance.
• Centralized Location: Although Texas is certainly a more central location, the Federal Circuit held that the factor could not favor a Texas venue because none of the identified witnesses reside in Texas. Rather, the court found that California is more centralized because a number of material witnesses reside within California.
• Convenience to the Parties: Genentech is in Northern California, Biogen (another defendant) is in San Diego, Sanofi (the plaintiff) is in Germany.
• Availability of Compulsory Process: If trial is in Texas, there may be several third-party witnesses that could not be compelled to attend because they are in California - outside the long-arm of Texas jurisdiction.
• Evidence: "In patent cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence comes from the accused infringer." Here, all of Genentech & Biogen's relevant evidence is in California.
• Prior Suit: Genentech has been a plaintiff in the Eastern District of Texas and the district court. On appeal, the Federal Circuit ruled that it would be legal error to consider a prior case that would not otherwise provide for judicial economy.
• California's Jurisdiction over Sanofi: There is some question of whether the California court has jurisdiction over Sanofi. The Federal Circuit held that the potential lack of personal jurisdiction in the transferred venue does not weigh heavily against transfer. "There is no requirement under § 1404(a) that a transferee court have jurisdiction over the plaintiff or that there be sufficient minimum contacts with the plaintiff."
• Court Congestion: This is a speculative factor and given little weight.

In re Volkswagen - Mandamus Denied:

• The plaintiff - MHL - is a small company headquartered in Michigan, but registered in Texas.
• In two lawsuits separate lawsuits (both in the Eastern District of Texas), MHL has sued over thirty US & Foreign automobile companies for patent infrignement.
• VW has asked that the case be transferred from the Eastern District of Texas to the Eastern District of Michigan.
• Multiple Lawsuits: The Federal Circuit identified the "existence of multiple lawsuits" involving the same patents and overlapping issues to be "a paramount consideration when determining whether a transfer is in the interest of justice. ... Although these cases may not involve precisely the same issues, there will be significant overlap and a familiarity with the patents could preserve time and resources. Because the district court’s decision is based on the rational argument that judicial economy is served by having the same district court try the cases involving the same patents, mandamus is inappropriate under our precedents."

Comment: In patent cases, these venue games tend to approach the absurd, and I am surprised that the Federal Circuit has taken these cases so seriously. Defendants want to move out of the Eastern District of Texas because they fear trial and the potential major damage award. The "convenient venue" argument is concocted because the Eastern District of Texas is clearly a "proper forum" with personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

MHL is a patent holding company that registered as a Texas business in June of 2007. That registration appears to have served its purpose - to win the Texas venue argument even though the principles of the business are all located in Michigan. On the other side - it looks like the Federal Circuit refused to consider the two most important facts of convenience in the Genentech case. First, in 2006, Genentech sued MedImmune for patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas. At that time, Genentech calculated that Texas was perfectly suitable even though neither party was located in the state. Yet, the Federal Circuit held that it was legal error for the district court to consider Genentech's prior activities in the present motion for Venue. The second issues is jurisdiction - it just does not make sense to transfer a case to a new forum without some assurances that the court has personal jurisdiction over the parties.

Disclaimer: I just noticed that my former firm MBHB (who is now a sponsor of Patently-O) is involved in the Genentech case. I do not represent any clients these days. One reason why I have enjoyed having MBHB as a sponsor is that the firm has never tried to exert editorial control over the blog or its content beyond the layout of the firm's ad.

Impact of Merger/Buyout on Prior Agreement to Not Challenge Patent Validity

Epistar v. ITC (and Philips Lumileds Lighting) (Fed. Cir. 2009) 07-1457.pdf

Merger: Lumileds owns a patent covering a light-emitting diode (LED) with an electrically conductive window layer that is both brighter and more efficient than other LEDs. The conductive layer helps spread the flow of electrical current avoid "current crowding."

At issue in this case is the impact of a corporate merger/buyout on a settlement agreement that included a promise to not challenge a patent's validity.

Lumileds and Epistar have signed at least two prior settlement agreements involving the patent at issue here. In those agreements, Epistar agreed to pay a licensing fee for certain products, but reserved its right to challenge the patent if Lumileds asserted the patent against other patents. A third company, UEC, agreed that neither it nor its successors would later challenge the validity of the Lumileds patents.

Subsequently, Epistar purchased UEC, and the patentee argued that UEC's agreement should also bind Epistar. On appeal, the Federal Circuit partially rejected that argument - holding that the UEC settlement continues to bind the parties, but only "as understood and intended by them, according to its ordinary terms." Thus, even though Epistar took on all the legal obligations of UEC, Epistar can still challenge the Lumileds patent if the case does not involve UEC related products.

UEC’s settlement agreement has preclusive effect upon Epistar only “to the same extent as upon [UEC it]self.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 43 (1982). The preclusive effect of that agreement, if any, is limited to UEC’s pre–Epistar product lines. To paraphrase this court in International Nutrition v. Horphag Research, Epistar’s acquisition of UEC does not have the effect of limiting Epistar’s rights that are unrelated to the product lines it acquired from UEC. Accordingly, this court overturns the Commission’s final determination that Epistar is estopped from challenging validity of the ’718 patent when asserted against its own products, separate from the UEC–Lumileds settlement agreement.

Here, the court could have done well to cite the Supreme Court's decision of Lear v. Adkins and its statements favoring the ability to challenge patent validity based on on "the strong federal policy favoring the full and free use of ideas in the public domain.”

BPAI Statistics: How Many Opinions do BPAI Judges Write?

As a follow-up to an earlier post on BPAI decisions; appeal efficiency and potentially over-worked Administrative Patent Judges, I took a look at BPAI decisions from January and February 2009. According to BPAI's statistics, the BPAI disposed of 993 ex parte appeals during that two month period. Based on the PTO's FY2009 numbers, about 9% of those disposals were either remands or dismissals without a decision on the merits. The examiner's rejection was affirmed in 55% of the cases; Affirmed-in-part in 14% of the cases; and reversed in 23% of the cases.

776 of the Jan-Feb 2009 ex parte decisions show-up in the Westlaw database. Those 776 decisions were authored by 78 different Administrative Patent Judges. During the two month period, four judges penned more than 25 opinions, although the average is closer to 10 opinions. (If we assume that Westlaw includes 80% of the opinions, then the average jumps to 12 opinions in the two months – or six opinions per month). On an annualized basis this extrapolates to authoring an average of 72 opinions per year. Of course, this average includes opinions by BPAI administration who regularly write only a small handful of decisions. Excluding those individuals pushes the extrapolated average to about 75 opinions per year for each BPAI Judge handling ex parte cases.

These numbers are comparable to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Each of the twelve Federal Circuit judges (not counting Senior Judges) wrote about 28 majority opinions in 2008. In addition, each Federal Circuit judge participated in over 400 cases (most of which were decided without opinion). Thus, while the BPAI judges write more opinions, the Federal CIrcuit judges actually decide more cases.

Notes:

• The lower number of cases found in Westlaw is due – in part – to the fact that many of the cases being appealed are unpublished. In those cases, the BPAI decisions are kept secret. In addition, for some reason, Westlaw is not picking up all of the released BPAI decisions. Still, the Westlaw format is easier to use than the BPAI PDF.

Patent Licenses Include Inherent Rights Allowing Third-Party Manufacture

Corebrace, LLC. v. Star Seismic LLC (Fed. Cir. 2009) 08-1502.pdf

Corebrace's patent covers an earthquake-resistant brace for steel framed buildings. The original rights-holder (the inventor, Benne Murthy Sridhara from Bangalore) first licensed patent rights to Star. Later, the patent rights were assigned to Corebrace.

Star's nonexclusive license from the inventor grants a right to “make, use, and sell” licensed products. The license also includes a restriction that Star may not "assign, sublicense, or otherwise transfer" its rights - except to an affiliated company. The inventor did already have a relationship with CoreBrace and reserved for that company "all rights not expressly granted" including any improvements created “by a third party whose services have been contracted."

The question on appeal is whether the license grants Star the right to use third-party contractors to manufacture licensed products for its own use. The Federal Circuit answered in the affirmative - holding that absent a clear disclaimer, a patent license includes a right to use a third party manufacturer.

The right to “make, use, and sell” a product inherently includes the right to have it made by a third party, absent a clear indication of intent to the contrary. (Following Utah law)

Patent licensing is complicated because the contracts are interpreted under state law. Here, the contract indicates that Utah law should be followed. There is not Utah decision on point. However, the Federal Circuit noted its own precedent as well as California Supreme Court cases that "have both persuasively held that a 'have made' right is implicit in a right to make, use, and sell, absent an express contrary intent. We consider that the Utah Supreme Court would therefore likely arrive at the same conclusion were it to consider the issue."

Often, exclusive licensees are implicitly granted greater rights than their non-exclusive counterparts. In the non-exclusive setting - allowing the licensee to subcontract undercuts the patent-holder's rights; while in an exclusive licensee scenario, the patentee is presumed to have fully exploited its patent rights in that one contract. In this case, however, the Federal Circuit ruled that the implicit right to sub-contract manufacturing does not depend on any exclusive license status.

Zuhn: A Model Patent Office for the Future

Dr. Zuhn has been covering patent happenings at the BIO Conference. His article discussing a panel on suggestions for fixing the USPTO is a great read. The theme presented by Sherry Knowles (from GSK) is one that many Patently-O readers understand - stakeholders cannot count on someone else to address problems at at the PTO.

John Duffy, who participated followed-up with a note about GSK's role in the case of Tafas v. Dudas.

GSK has been very well served by its attorneys, which includes an excellent team of lawyers from Kirkland & Ellis headed by John M. Desmarais. They've been successful in winning 99% of what GSK wanted. The rules still aren't in effect, and they are unlikely ever to go into effect without substantial revision. Moreover, as for the last 1% percent that GSK attorneys weren’t able to win, I don't think any attorneys could have won. The administrative law issues in the case were always very difficult for GSK’s position. I don’t think any set of attorneys could have produced a better result, and I don’t doub t that GSK’s lawyers recognize that Supreme Court review would have its risks.

Duffy also discussed the potential risks of a Supreme Court decision in Tafas v. Dudas.

Judge Prost did a masterful job on the administrative law issues in the Tafas case. If the case were appealed to the Supreme Court, I think the Court would largely affirm her opinion. The most difficult issue in the case has always been whether, giving the agency’s rules an appropriate amount of Chevron deference, a court should nonetheless hold Final Rule 78 inconsistent with the clear meaning of section 120 of the Patent Act. Judge Prost ruled against the agency on that issue, and her result seems to me to be one reasonable resolution of a difficult issue. But the issue is a close one, as even Judge Bryson’s concurrence suggests. If Tafas were to be heard by the Supreme Court, it is entirely possible that the Justices (a majority of whom either have taught ad law or have served on the ad law-heavy D.C. Circuit) might give the agency a bit more deference than the Federal Circuit panel did. Thus, if the case went to the Supreme Co urt, I think likely outcomes would be either a complete affirmance or a reversal limited to the one issue that GSK won at the Federal Circuit.

Other News:

• The White House has again recognized Peer-to-Patent as an example of "approachable government." http://www.whitehouse.gov/newmedia/. ("Improves the quality of issued patents").

BPAI Shuts Down Dissent in Favor of Efficiency

The Board of Patent Appeals (BPAI or Board) is very much a quasi-judicial body. The emphasis for today is on quasi. 35 USC §6 calls for each appeal to be heard by at least a three judge panel. Yet, the Board appears to be taking steps to limit the effectiveness of those panels. These changes are apparently motivated by a need for efficiency in the face of budget shortfalls and increased appeals.

Like examiners, BPAI judges have a count system. BPAI Judges are expected to sit on about 300 panels per year and draft about 100 opinions. In the past, judges would receive credit for drafting full dissents and concurring opinions. That has changed. In an internal email, BPAI Vice-Chief Jay Moore has indicated that these extraneous opinions will no longer ordinarily garner any credit. According to Vice-Chief Judge Moore, "[c]oncurrences, dissents, and remands are not normally efficient mechanisms for securing the 'just, speedy, and inexpensive' resolution of an appeal before the Board." The e-mail is reproduced below:

====

From: Moore, James T
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 9:57 AM

To: All BPAI Judges
Cc: MacDonald, Allen; Fleming, Michael R.; Santiago, Amalia

Subject: Policy Clarification on Dissents, Concurrences and Remands

Importance: High

Colleagues:

Please note that, effective immediately, if you would like a dissent, concurrence, or remand to be considered towards your productivity totals, you must submit a request. The form is attached, and may be used retroactively for cases prior to this date. For cases after this date, it must be submitted to your Vice Chief Judge within one week of mailing of the dissent, concurrence, or remand in order to be considered.

Concurrences, dissents, and remands are not normally efficient mechanisms for securing the “just, speedy, and inexpensive” resolution of an appeal before the Board. (Bd. R. 1). As indicated in the PAPs, a productivity credit is not automatically earned for a concurring opinion, dissenting opinion, or remand. Accordingly, justification is required to explain the need to undertake the extra work and occasion the extra delay in order to ensure efficient and proper utilization of our resources. Further, any credit given for a concurring opinion, dissenting opinion, or remand will be commensurate in scope with the justification provided and the scope of the extra work.

Please see Al or Jay if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Jay Moore
Allen MacDonald

====

The push for efficiency at the BPAI is also seen in the non-judge "patent attorney" program. Many of the BPAI opinions are now ghost written by newly minted patent attorneys and then signed by the BPAI judges. The real problem with this program is that when the patent attorneys are used, the BPAI judge is given a much higher throughput quota.

According to an anonymous observer - "the time constraints [under the Patent Attorney program] are so serious that for many cases, not a single one of the judges signing off on a decision will have read the underlying papers detailing the facts of the case." This observer asked to remain anonymous based on "the intolerance of dissent at the Board."

This need for efficiency is also the driver behind the still-pending BPAI appeal rule changes.

Dickson Industries: Inequitable Conduct Holding Vacated

Dickson Industries, Inc. v. Patent Enforcement Team, L.L.C . (Fed. Cir. 2009) (nonprecedential) 08-1372.pdf

Application of inequitable conduct jurisprudence continues to divide the Federal Circuit. Judge Rader has perhaps been the most outspoken critic of the current over-use of inequitable conduct allegations. In this case, Judge Rader was joined by Judges Mayer and Posner (by designation) in vacating a lower court finding of inequitable conduct.

The PET patent covers an apparatus for making drainage grooves at the edge of a roadway. Prior to litigation, PET had argued that the machines for making rumble strips at the side of the road also violate the patent rights. Subsequently, Dickson sued for declaratory relief.

The jury found the patent invalid and found the patent holder liable for $1.5 million for tortiously interfering with with Dickson's business relationships. The court then also (1) found the patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during reexamination for failure to disclose material information and (2) awarded attorney fees to Dickson.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the anticipation decision, but vacated the decision on inequitable conduct.

The case largely centered around one prior art reference - "Spangler" - which discloses an apparatus to make rumble strips. PET knew about Spangler during reexamination of its patent, but did not disclose that reference to the PTO.

Agreeing with the Jury, the Federal Circuit found substantial evidence indicating that Spangler discloses all the elements of PET's patent - rendering the patent invalid.

Ordinarily, after finding the patent invalid, the court would not need to decide issues of inequitable conduct. Here, however, the appellate panel addressed inequitable conduct because that conduct served as the basis for the lower court's award of exceptional case attorney fees.

Amending Pleadings to Add Inequitable Conduct Charges: Allegations of inequitable conduct are parallel to charges of fraud and ordinarily must be pled with specificity. Thus, in most cases the accused infringer does not have sufficient evidence to allege inequitable conduct in the initial filing of defenses. Here, the court initially denied Dickson's motion to amend its complaint to add IC charges. However, at trial the court changed its mind and allowed the issue to be presented.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that PET was "prejudiced" by the inconsistent orders and was thus denied "the opportunity to adequately defend against the allegation of inequitable conduct at trial. For instance, PET was denied the opportunity to introduce evidence of good faith, which militates against a finding of deceptive intent."

The district court’s contradicting positions undermine the legitimacy of its ruling on inequitable conduct. This court cannot say with confidence that the record regarding inequitable conduct is not incomplete. Thus, this court vacates the district’s decision on the issue of inequitable conduct and remands to provide an opportunity to fully develop the record regarding inequitable conduct. Further, this Court vacates the award of attorney fees premised on inequitable conduct as premature.

In a warning to the lower court, Judge Rader again raised the notion that inequitable conduct litigation "has become an absolute plague."

Given the severe consequences of unenforceability when it is imposed on a patent, it is paramount that the district court exercise necessary caution to ensure that the patent owner met its burden of proof with respect to both the materiality and deceptive intent.

Vacated-in-part.

Notes:

• Judges Mayer and Posner (sitting by designation) participated in the panel.
• Update: I have fixed an important typographical error. Judge Rader indicated that inequitable conduct litigation is the problem (not inequitable conduct itself).

Deference to ITC Claim Construction Decisions?

Erbe Elektromedizin v. ITC and Canady Tech (Fed. Cir. 2009) 08-1358.pdf

Erbe's patent appears to cover aspects of a surgical flesh-welding technique known as argon plasma coagulation (APC). After narrowly construing the claimed plurality of endoscopic “working channel," the ITC found no evidence of direct infringement. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed.

I'll avoid the claim construction particulars, but focus here on whether the Federal Circuit can properly review ITC Claim Construction decisions de novo.

Claim construction is a matter of law, and under the Administrative Procedures Act, the Federal Circuit reviews ITC decisions of law for "correctness." However, in the usual course, agency decisions interpreting a matter of law are ordinarily given at least Skidmore level deference. See Christensen v. Harris County.

En Banc Federal Circuit: Infringement of Product-by-Process Claim Requires Practicing the Process

Abbott Labs v. Sandoz (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc) 07-1400.pdf

The Federal Circuit had developed two opposing lines of cases for interpreting the scope of a product-by-process claim. Acting en banc sua sponte sub secretum, the appellate body sided with the Atlantic Thermoplatics line in holding that infringement of a product-by-process claim requires practicing the claimed process steps. This decision makes Judge Newman's 1991 Scripps decision no longer good law. (Note, the en banc portion is only Section III.A.2).

[T]his court now restates that “process terms in product-by-process claims serve as limitations in determining infringement.”

The holding here explicitly focuses on claim construction for the purposes of infringement. Based on my first-pass, it appears that the court has left undecided whether this rule applies for validity purposes. I.e., can a product-by-process claim now cover a well known product made through a new process?

Notes

• This is a very interesting decision and more analysis will be forthcoming.
• Perhaps the most interesting portion of the decision is Judge Newman's 39 page dissent.
• Based on this Decision, generic Omnicef will continue to be available.

Patently-O Bits and Bytes

Courtoon via David Mills.

Although patent activity may be down 10%, it is still much more active than it was a decade ago. Folks are hiring:

• Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP seeks a patent agent with 3-5 years of patent prosecution experience.
• Hiroe & Associates (Japan) needs another expert in US Prosecution with 2-5 years patent prosecution experience.
• Huawei Technologies USA (Plano, TX) needs a Senior Patent Counsel with 8-10 years experience.
• Buchanan Ingersoll (Alexandria) needs a patent agent with specialty in Materials Science or Chemical Engineering.
• Connolly Bove wants lateral patent litigators in LA.
• Amin Talati, a Chicago based IP/FDA specialty firm needs patent agents and attorneys with experience.
• Warner Norcross (Michigan) seeks experienced patent attorneys with 6+ years experience.

BPAI Precedential Opinion on Rejecting Software Means Claims

Ex parte Catlin (BPAI 2009)(precedential) fd073072.pdf.

The first-time around, the BPAI found some of Catlin's claims patentable. On rehearing (requested by the SPE), the BPAI reversed course - finding the means-plus-function claims indefinite under 35 USC § 112.

Catlin's claim one reads as follows:

1. A method for implementing an on-line incentive system, said method comprising the steps of:
providing, at a merchant's web site, means for a consumer to participate in an earning activity to earn value from a merchant; and
transferring value from said merchant to said consumer for participation in said earning activity, if said consumer qualifies, without re-directing said consumer away from said merchant's web site, whereby said consumer's focus of activity remains at said merchant's web site.

The Patent Act allows a patentee to claim inventive elements using "means plus function" language. A means plus function term is construed to cover the corresponding structures as described in the specification as well as any equivalents. This rule of construction means that seemingly broadly written means limitations are often quite limited in practice -- especially when the specification is not thoroughly drafted.

If no corresponding structure can be identified in the disclosure, then the claim will be found "invalid as indefinite."

Here, the claim recites a "means for a consumer to participate in an earning activity to earn value from a merchant." On rehearing, the BPAI could not find any corresponding structure in the specification. In particular, the Board was looking for an algorithm for performing the claimed function.

[W]e have thoroughly reviewed the Appellants' Specification and have not been able to locate an adequate disclosure of structure, material, or acts corresponding to the functions of allowing a consumer to participate in an earning activity and earn value from an earning activity. In particular, the Specification does not disclose any specific algorithm that could be implemented on a general purpose computer to allow a consumer to participate in an earning activity and earn value from an earning activity.

Holding: Claims indefinite.

Irreparable Harm of Generic Competition: Federal Circuit Affirms Finding that Generic Entry Does not Cause Irreparable Harm

Altana Pharma & Wyeth v. Teva (Fed. Cir. 2009)

Altana's Patent No. 4,758,579 claims the proton pump inhibitor pantoprazole - the active ingredient the anti-ulcer drug Protonix®. Of course, PPI's were known before Altana's patent and even one of Altana's own prior patents discusses a "compound 12" that is structurally similar to those claimed in the '579 patent.

Teva and Sun filed for permission to begin making generic versions of the drug, and Altana subsequently filed this infringement action. (Altana filed separate actions that were consolidated.)

This appeal stems from the New Jersey district court's denial of Altana's motion for a preliminary injunction. The lower court found that the patentee had failed to prove two critical prerequisites of equitable preliminary relief: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and (2) irreparable harm.

The equitable test for preliminary injunctive relief requires that the requesting party prove:

1. a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits;
2. irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted;
3. a balance of hardships tipping in its favor; and
4. the injunction’s favorable impact on the public interest.

Although the ultimate grant or denial of preliminary relief is within the "sound discretion of the district court," failure to abide by these four factors would be reversible error. Orders to grant or deny a preliminary injunction are immediately appealable.

Likelihood of Success: The Federal Circuit has held that preliminary relief should be denied if the accused infringer raises a "substantial question" of invalidity of the asserted claims. At the PI stage, the court need not consider the ultimate "clear and convincing" standard. Rather, the focus is on "vulnerability."

Obviousness of Chemical Compound: When considering the obviousness of a chemical compound, courts ordinarily first look for a "lead compound" known in the prior art and then consider whether a chemist would have had some reason to modify the known compound in the particular manner to achieve the new compound. Courts are not rigidly bound by this ordinary approach - thus, for instance, a court may look to multiple lead compounds:

Moreover, to the extent Altana suggests that the prior art must point to only a single lead compound for further development efforts, that restrictive view of the lead compound test would present a rigid test similar to the teaching-suggestion-motivation test that the Supreme Court explicitly rejected in KSR.

Here, the appellate panel found "ample evidence" that a chemist would have chosen "compound 12" as a natural choice for further PPI research. The particular modification of compound 12 was then suggested in articles by Sachs and Bryson who were researching properties of effective PPIs.

Considering this evidence as a whole, the Federal Circuit found it sufficient to raise a substantial question of obviousness.

Irreparable Harm: The district court could not find any irreparable harm of allowing infringement during the course of the litigation. Often, money damages are seen as insufficient when the defendant does not have cash-on-hand. Here, however, Teva and Sun both have plenty. The court also found that Altana almost certainly has a business plan to deal with the launch of generics. During the litigation, Nycomed purchased Altana -- seemingly in the lower court's view, that purchase also indicates that money damages are adequate (since a price can be placed on the company & its patent rights).

Perhaps most harmful to Altana was that the lower court found the patentee's statements of harms "exaggerated" and lacking "credibility." A court sitting in equity righty places a dim light on activities suggestive of unclean hands.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed without significantly commenting on the merits. Rather, the court made this case about equitable discretion: "the law cited by the district court highlights this court’s deference to a district court’s determination whether a movant has sufficiently shown irreparable harm."

Denial of Preliminary Injunction Affirmed

Judge Newman wrote a short concurring opinion.

Although the evidence presented to the district court does not, in my view, establish invalidity of the patent on the pharmaceutical product pantoprazole, see, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 429 (2006) ("the burdens at the preliminary injunction stage track the burdens at trial.") at this preliminary stage deference is warranted to the district court’s weighing of the conflicting expert opinions interpreting the evidence. On this basis, I concur in sustaining this discretionary action.

People (lots of) vs. The Breast Cancer Gene Patents

Assn for Medical Pathology v. USPTO & Myriad & the Directors of the University of Utah Research Foundation (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

A host of medical organizations, researchers, and cancer patients have filed a Section 1983 action against the USPTO, Myriad Genetics, and the University of Utah Research Foundation (via its directors) demanding that the BRCA gene patents be declared invalid as unpatentable under 35 USC Section 101.

"Because human genes are products of nature, laws of nature and/or natural phenomena, and abstract ideas or basic human knowledge or thought, the challenged claims are invalid under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution and 35 U.S.C. Section 101."

In addition, the suit alleges that the patents are unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution.

Myriad's patents allow the company to maintain a monopoly in the US over genetic testing for human BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes - markers for breast cancer. Claim 1 is directed to "an isolated DNA coding for BRCA1 polypeptide." (The patent defines the amino acid sequence of the polypeptide).

PubPat and the ACLU are serving as attorneys for the plaintiffs.

Notes:

• Read the Complaint: BRCA1 complaint.pdf
• NYTimes Article
• ACLU Blogs Here (with pictures of the plaintiffs).
• The gene patenting debate has been interesting - emphasis here on has been. The genome has been mapped and sequences published. Very few new patents claiming isolated human genes are being filed. The ones already patented will expire within the next decade -- most of them will expire before being put to any practical use.  
• Caplan of CNN Says "Lawyers who work on patents in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are sweating bullets today." This is good, because the US is currently suffering under a bullet shortage.
• On May 6, PubPat filed two other lawsuits.
• PubPat v. Cumberland Packing (alleging false marking of its Sweet n Low sugar packets).
• PubPat v. Iovate (alleging false marking of Xenadrine).

Actonel Patent Validity Affirmed: Nonobviousness of Positional Isomer

Procter & Gamble (P&G) v. Teva Pharmaceuticals (Fed. Cir. 2009)

P&G's osteoporosis drug Actonel reportedly has $1.5 billion in annual sales. Hoping to manufacture a generic version, Teva challenged P&G's patent – arguing obviousness in light of a prior P&G patent (the '406 patent) and obviousness-type double patenting. The district court rejected those challenges, and on appeal the Federal Circuit affirmed the patent's validity. The patent is set to expire in 2013.

New Compound is Nonobvious: The claimed active compound – risedronate – is a bisphosphonate. In arguing obviousness, Teva pointed to P&G's '406 patent which listed "central problems" in using bisphosphonates to treat osteoporosis. Although the prior art patent does not list risedronate, it does suggest the use of thirty-six similar molecules in the same class including one a positional isomer of the claimed risedronate. The positional isomer (2-pyr EHDP) includes the same atoms as risedronate, but those atoms are arranged in a somewhat different order.

In risedronate, the hydroxy-ethane-diphosphonate group is connected to the #3 carbon of a pyridine ring, while in 2-pyr EHDP, the hydroxy-ethane-diphosphonate group is connected to the #2 carbon. Because the nitrogen atom is in a different position in the two molecules, they differ in three dimensional shape, charge distribution and hydrogen bonding properties.

In addition to these structural differences, P&G pointed to "contemporaneous writings from Herbert Fleisch, the preeminent authority on bisphosphonates during the relevant time period." Fleisch wrote that "every … bisphosphonate, exhibits its own physical-chemical, biological and therapeutic characteristics, so that each bisphosphonate has to be considered on its own. To infer from one compound the effects in another is dangerous and can be misleading."

On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed that these differences were sufficient to push development of the new compound beyond the obvious – additionally noting that Teva had not shown that a PHOSITA would have had a "'reasonable expectation of success' in synthesizing and testing risedronate." Here, the court quoted its 1988 O'Farrell decision: "Patents are not barred just because it was obvious 'to explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it.'"

This holding further supports the conventional wisdom that the KSR case will have much less impact in the area of pharmaceutical research.

Secondary Factors: In arguing secondary considerations of nonobviousness, TEVA argued that the element of long-felt but unmet need could not be proven because another drug (aledronate) was available prior to risedronate. The Federal Circuit rejected that argument – holding that the need may still have existed because the P&G patent application was filed before the other drug was on the market. "Under Monarch, we look to the filing date of the challenged invention to assess the presence of a long-felt and unmet need."

Swearing Behind Not Allowed: P&G's researcher had evidence that it had invented risedronate prior to the filing of the '406 patent. In particular, the inventor submitted a lab notebook with detailing the structure of risedronate and the procedure for its synthesis. However, the Federal Circuit rejected the evidence because the entry "was unwitnessed and was not corroborated by any other evidence."

Double Patenting: "Having concluded that risedronate was not obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we similarly conclude that the [risedronate] patent is not invalid for obviousness-type double patenting … [because] the claims of the [risedronate] patent are distinct from the claims of the '406 patent."

Further Discussion:

• Opinion by Judge Marilyn Huff sitting by designation from the Southern District of California. Joining her on the panel were Judges Mayer and Dyk. Judge Huff presided over the huge Alcatel-Lucent case against Microsoft.
• Discussion of District Court Case: http://www.patracer.com/the_patent_litigation_blo/2008/06/pg-v-teva.html
• Discussion of District Court Case: http://www.orangebookblog.com/2008/03/district-court.html

Claim Construction Disclaimer & Judicial Estoppel

Fitness Quest (FQ) v. Jonathan Monti (Fed. Cir. 2009) (non-precedential)

In 2002, Monit – an individual inventor – approached FQ with his idea for personal exercise equipment. FQ agreed to a confidentiality & nondisclosure agreement, but FQ eventually walked away from the deal.

In 2003, FQ began making the now-popular "Ab Lounge" and Monti sent a letter accusing the company of infringement and breach of the confidentiality agreement. FQ quickly filed for declaratory relief.

The district court ruled for FQ on summary judgment – finding that FQ had not violated the confidentiality agreement and that its new product did not infringe Monti's patent. On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part – holding that summary judgment of non-infringement was improper as to claim 28 of Monti's patent.

Disclaimed Needed Scope: Claim construction focused first on the term "back extension" in the apparatus claims. Monti argued that "back extension" could include pushing back in the Ab Lounger. The court rejected that argument because Monti's application specifically disclaimed coverage of back extensions that require pushing.

From the patent: "Many Nautilus ^TM type machines have been constructed in the prior art to mimic this movement and add resistance to it, biomechanically, the core movement of this type of machine was a pushing movement. This is a distinct disadvantage of the prior art methods of back extension. Also, this does not fall within the scope of Kinesiologically Correct ^TM [i.e., this invention]."

One of the asserted claims (claim 28) does not, however, include the back extension limitation. Apparently, the disclaimer only applies to the coverage of the "back extension" term. Consequently, the Federal Circuit held that that claim may still be infringed (pending reconsideration by the lower court.)

Judicial Estoppel: During litigation, Monti explained the claim term "selectively applying a force" as applying a different force based on the weight of the user, but then later wanted to expand the definition after learning that the relevant portion of the Ab Lounger does not apply a force based on the weight of the user. Following the equitable doctrine of judicial estoppel, the district court refused to allow Monti to change his argument.

Monti clearly advocated that the system must determine that amount of force to apply with reference to the weight of the individual using the device. This position is directly contrary to his current position, which is that the force producing assembly applies a force irrespective of the user's weight. The Court adopted Monti's previous construction and finds that FQ would suffer an unfair detriment if Monti was not estopped because Monti could defeat summary judgment by assuming a contrary position now that the facts show his prior position is unhelpful to him.

In New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750-51 (2001), the Supreme Court outlined the guidelines for finding judicial estoppel in federal courts:

First, a party's later position must be "clearly inconsistent" with its earlier position. Second, courts regularly inquire whether the party has succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party's earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create the perception that either the first or the second court was misled. Absent success in a prior proceeding, a party's later inconsistent position introduces no risk of inconsistent court determinations, and thus poses little threat to judicial integrity. A third consideration is whether the party seeking to assert an inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped.

Here, the Federal Circuit vacated the finding of judicial estoppel – finding that Monti's new claim construction argument was not "clearly inconsistent" with his prior winning position. Rather, the Federal Circuit saw Monti's explanation as an attempt to distinguish "selectively applying" in the asserted claim from a "selectively adjusting" limitation in another claim. "This was not "clearly inconsistent" with his arguments on summary judgment, making the application of judicial estoppel inappropriate."

Breach of Contract (Confidentiality): The breach of contract ruling is also interesting. During discussions Monti sent the following message to FQ: "After using the machine I noticed that it would be better for me to take the back extension out and lower the pivot point." According to Monti, FQ then disclosed the beneficial aspects of lowering the pivot point (but not removing the back extension). On appeal, the Federal Circuit did could not find any breach of confidentiality because Monti had not disclosed that "lowering the pivot point alone has any benefit."

 

US News Top IP Programs

[Updated 5/12/09 at 2:00 pm]

The US News & World Report ranking of Intellectual Property focused law schools was released in late April. The ranking is created by polling professors who teach at least one IP course. The professors then list up to fifteen programs with good IP programs. Those "votes" are then used to create a ranking. Of course, most IP professors are not patent professors. All of the programs on the list have excellent IP faculty. However, only a few have a patent focus.

The US News list:

Rank	Law School
1.	Stanford University
2.	University of California--Berkeley
3.	George Washington University
4.	Columbia University; Illinois Institute of Technology (Chicago-Kent) (tie)
6.	Franklin Pierce Law Center
7.	University of Houston
8.	Santa Clara University; Yeshiva University (Cardozo) (tie)
10.	Duke University

Link

Patently-O Rankings: I have redone my list of "the top thirty law school patent programs" based solely on the number of Patently-O visits received from the associated university in the past year. There are many issues with problems with this study – although it is probably at least as good as the US News IP Specialty ranking. Some of the problems: Many schools may not use their name in their IP address — making them lose their ranking. This appears to be largely true of Franklin Pierce Law Center. Schools where students (and professors) primarily study away from campus building may also rank relatively lower.  Finally, many of the visits to Patently-O may come from other departments – such as the Technology Transfer office – rather than the law school.

Rank	School	Relative Score
1	GWU	100%
2	Stanford	65%
3	Harvard; Columbia	50%
5	Texas; Missouri; Washington U; George Mason; Santa Clara	45%
10	Richmond; NYU	40%
12	BU; Berkeley; Georgetown; Virginia	35%
16	Duke; Minnesota; Northwestern; U Washington	30%
20	SUNY Buffalo; Loyola (LA); Cornell	25%
23	Illinois; BC; Houston; Denver; Arkansas; Ohio State; Depaul	20%
30	Iowa; Fordham; William & Mary; Suffolk; Wisconsin; Colorado; Penn State; Utah; Florida; Yale; Chicago; Syracuse; UPenn	15%

 

To add an additional layer of confusion, remember that many folks access Patently-O through the free daily e-mail. The following list ranks law school's according to the number of Patently-O e-mail subscribers. Here, we may have bias if some subscribers use their personal e-mail account (such as gmail) instead of the university account.

Rank	Law School	Relative Score
1	Pierce Law (Franklin Pierce)	100%
2	University of Michigan	75%
3	Stanford	55%
4	GWU	40%
5	NY Law School; Columbia; Colorado; Case Western, U Washington, Elon	35%
11	Michigan State; Chicago-Kent; Denver	30%
14	George Mason; Cornell; BU; Berkeley; Albany; Washington U; SMU	25%

 

Lieter Ranking: One part of the 'reputational' ranking of an IP program is based on the scholarship of the faculty. In 2007, Professor Lieter compiled a list of the top-ten intellectual property / cyberlaw faculty and ranked them according to the number of times their work had been cited in law review articles. The Lieter ranking is listed below:

• Mark Lemley (Stanford University):  2110 citations, age 41.
• Robert Merges (University of California, Berkeley):  1280 citations, age 48.
• Thomas McCarthy (University of San Francisco), 1100 citations, age 70.
• Pamela Samuelson (University of California, Berkeley):  970 citations, age 59.
• Jessica Litman (University of Michigan):  870 citations, age 54.
• Dan Burk (University of Minnesota [Now IRVINE]):  840 citations, age 45.
• Jane Ginsburg (Columbia University):  840 citations, age 52.
• Rochelle Dreyfuss (New York University):  790 citations, age 60.
• Paul Goldstein (Stanford University):  790 citations, age 64.
• Julie Cohen (Georgetown University):  740 citations, age 43.

Runners-up for the top ten:  Yochai Benkler (Harvard University):  730 citations; Rebecca Eisenberg (University of Michigan), 690 citations; Neil Netanel (University of California, Los Angeles), 640 citations; Wendy Gordon (Boston University), 610 citations; A. Michael Froomkin (University of Miami), 600 citations. 

Other highly-cited scholars who don't work exclusively in this area::  Lawrence Lessig (Stanford University [Now Harvard]), 2500 citations; William Landes (University of Chicago), 1550 citations; Margaret Jane Radin (University of Michigan), 1210 citations; William W. Fisher (Harvard University), 1020 citations; James Boyle (Duke University), 710 citations.

 

Design Patent Law: The New Ordinary Observer Test

Sofpoool LLC v. Intex Recreation Corp . (Fed. Cir. 2009)(Nonprecedential)

In Egyptian Goddess, an en banc Federal Circuit eliminated the points of novelty test as a separate requisite test of infringement of a design patent. Rather, the court held that design patent infringement should be determined based on the "ordinary observer test" -- a test that originated in the 19th century Gorham case.

In Sofpool, a pre-Egyptian Goddess District Court asked a jury to determine infringement based on both the points of novelty test and the ordinary observer test. As expected in essentially all point of novelty cases, the jury returned a verdict of noninfringement.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated. The interesting portion of this opinion stems from the patent holder's request that the appellate court issue a judgment of infringement. During trial, Intex admitted that its design might infringe under the ordinary observer test. The Federal Circuit disregarded that admission and broke from tradition by noting that Egyptian Goddess created a "new" ordinary observer test. Thus, the prior admission does not satisfy the new test.

Sofpool argues that it “is entitled to an instruction on remand that the ’817 patent is infringed, because both Intex’s expert and its attorney conceded that the accused design satisfied the ordinary observer test.” We disagree. Although Intex acknowledged that its oval pool might infringe the ’817 patent under the ordinary observer test as it existed prior to Egyptian Goddess, Intex has never conceded that its oval pool infringes under this court’s newly articulated ordinary observer standard.

Attorneys will need to work-out how this decision meshes with the statement in Egyptian Goddess that the court was reviving the Gorham test:

From Egyptian Goddess: [I]n accordance with Gorham and subsequent decisions, we hold that the “ordinary observer” test should be the sole test for determining whether a design patent has been infringed.

If anything, Egyptian Goddess changed the Gorham test by stating that similar prior art may be used to "highlight[] the differences between the claimed and accused design."

BPAI Precedential Opinion: The Nexus for Obviousness and Nonobviousness

Ex parte Jellá (BPAI Precedential Opinion) fd081619-1.pdf

Most modern metal garage doors have four or five panel sections. The older wooden doors often had only one panel. Jella's invention is simple -- have three panels each "substantially twenty-eight inches" in hight. The prior art taught "any number" of panels including one, four, five, or six. Following the examiner's lead, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) found the invention obvious.

The BPAI issued a precedential opinion focusing on obviousness. The prima facie case of obviousness is easy under KSR even without any evidence that anyone had previously considered a twenty-eight inch door.

The Court in KSR noted that "[wlhen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, Section 103 likely bars its patentability." Changing a conventional seven foot high overhead garage door from a four panel section door to a three panel section door is nothing more than a predictable variation sparked by design incentives in the hope that a new look to the door would result in increased sales.

What it looks like here is that the driver for the innovation really was a need for a new ornamental design - motivating PHOSITA to create the obvious variation.

In our minds, this is an example of market demand driving a design trend, and the Supreme Court in KSR warned against granting patent protection to advances such as this that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation . . . .

We further find that market pressure existed in the garage door industry to create a new design trend by updating the look of garage doors to spur additional sales in the industry.

In addition to allowing ornamental design needs to serve as the motivator to try a new design, the Board did not require any tight nexus between the design motivation and the new design (other than the need for a new design).

I highlight the lax approach on obviousness to contrast the Board's strict approach when considering objective or secondary factors of nonobviousness.

Nexus: The bulk of the Jellá opinion is spent repeatedly shooting down the applicant's arguments on secondary considerations of non-obviousness and the accompanying declarations. The most often repeated point was that any objective evidence must have a clear nexus with the invention as claimed.

"To be given substantial weight in the determination of obviousness or non-obviousness, evidence of secondary considerations must be relevant to the subject matter as claimed, and therefore the examiner must determine whether there is a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations."

The nexus requirement include being "commensurate in scope with the claims."

Ornamental Features in Utility Patents: Additionally, the ornamentality or striking good looks of a design cannot be used as evidence of nonobviousness. Here, the BPAI rejected a declaration discussing the "unique" look of the garage door based on a desire to avoid overlap with design patent law: "Were we to allow secondary considerations of non-obviousness to be based on the industry's reaction to the ornamental appearance of the claimed invention, we would be blurring the distinction between design and utility patent protection. Objective evidence of secondary considerations of non-obviousness should be tied to the functional aspects of the claimed invention for a utility patent application." Oddly enough, the BPAI did allow the PTO to use the ornamental features to prove a "market pressure" -- finding that "market pressure existed in the garage door industry to create a new design trend by updating the look [and appearance] of garage doors to spur additional sales in the industry. ...  In our minds, this is an example of market demand driving a design trend, and the Supreme Court in KSR warned against granting patent protection to advances such as this that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation."

Rejection Affirmed.

Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Splitting Ownership (CAFC Says Don't Do It)

In re Fallaux (Fed. Cir. 2009) 08-1545.pdf

The Fallaux family of patents began with a PCT filing in June 1995. The first US patent issued in November 1999. Three more patents issued from continuation applications in 2001, 2003, and and 2006. The application at issue here was filed in 2003.

The PTO's appellate board - the BPAI - rejected the most recent application under the judge-made doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. Obviousness-type double patenting is equitable in nature and operates as a mechanism to prevent "unjust extension of patent exclusivity beyond the term of a patent." Thus, an obviousness-type double patenting rejection requires a link between the two applications - either in terms of inventorship or ownership. The doctrine is only relevant when a prior patent cannot be considered prior art as defined by Sections 102 and 103(a) of the Patent Act. (If it is prior art, then the reference is applied under those statutory provisions.)

The change in the patent term and publication of pending applications eliminated most of the need for this judge-made regime. Because patent term is calculated from the filing date, it is now difficult to extend the term while claiming priority. Likewise, published applications ordinarily create a statutory bar that operates to prevent an applicant from extending the term by not claiming priority to an earlier filing. Here, the Federal Circuit recognized the significance of the change in the law, but was not prepared at this juncture to eliminate the doctrine.

It is true that the unjustified patent term extension justification for obviousness-type double patenting has limited force in this case. Indeed, this is surely true of many double patenting rejections today, in no small part because of the change in the Patent Act from a patent term of seventeen years from issuance to a term of twenty years from filing. ... Nonetheless, we do not think that we may disregard all of our cases relying on this justification for obviousness-type double patenting. In some cases there may still be the possibility of an unjust time-wise extension of a patent arising from patent term adjustment under § 154 or patent term extension under § 156.   

Furthermore, there is a second justification for obviousness-type double patenting—harassment by multiple assignees. ... The harassment justification for obviousness-type double patenting is particularly pertinent here because the Fallaux application and the Vogels patents are not commonly owned.

Of course, careful Patently-O readers will realize that the Court's use of mismatched patent term extensions as a justification for a double patenting rejection does not sit well with the law. In 2007, the Federal Circuit in Merck v. HI-TECH held that the patent term extension should apply to further extend the patent term despite a terminal disclaimer. Id. (Holding that a patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, 35 U.S.C. § 156, may be applied to a patent subject to a terminal disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253, filed to overcome an obviousness-type double-patenting rejection.) The dicta of this Fallaux decision will tend to confuse the issue.

Common Inventorship: As the court notes, in this case, the double patenting rejection is based on second patent family. Both families list multiple inventors, and the link between the families is a single common inventor. Originally, the families were commonly owned by IntroGene, but some of the patents were assigned to Crucell and others to Galapagos Genomics.

No Common Ownership: The division of ownership rights here puts the applicant in a bind. Notably, it could not file a terminal disclaimer because the prior patent and the pending application were not commonly owned.

One Way versus Two Way Test: In most obviousness determinations, the examiner applies a "one way test" - asking "whether the application claims are obvious" over the prior art. This same approach is used in obviousness-type double patenting except that the prior patent is generally not considered "prior art." More particularly, because the focus is on extending patent term, the question is whether the pending claims are only obvious variations of the already patented claims. Occasionally, courts have required a more stringent two-way test where the examiner additionally considers "whether the patent claims are obvious over the application claims.”

The two way test can be required if the PTO "is at fault" for a delay that causes an improvement patent to issue prior to the basic patent. Here, the court agreed with the PTO that

Dr. Fallaux was entirely responsible for the delay that caused the Vogels patents to issue prior to the filing of the Fallaux application. . . . there [is no] evidence to suggest—that the PTO shared any responsibility for the delay. . . . Dr. Fallaux elected to prosecute other applications and delay filing the Fallaux application [for] six years after the [original US] application was filed. During this six year period, the Vogels patents were filed for and issued. In view of the Board’s fact findings, we hold that the PTO was not responsible for the delay.

Because the PTO had not caused the delay in prosecution, it could apply the less stringent one-way test of obviousness. And, as a consequence, the Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection.

Notes:

• The Fallaux panel of Judges Schall, Archer, and Moore* have no overlapping authors with the Merck v. HI-TECH panel of Judges Linn*, Friedman, and Plager. The direct contradiction of this case and the dramatic shift in the statutory law opens it to en banc rehearing.
• Patent term adjustments (due to PTO delay) are definitely limited by terminal disclaimers. Meck ("Section 154(b)(2)(B) expressly excludes patents in which a terminal disclaimer was filed from the benefit of a term adjustment for PTO delays.").

Patently-O Bits and Bytes

• Tom Bakos and Mark Nowotarski have posted their own inventions on the Peer-to-Patent site. You can review them and add prior art: Invention 1, a Risk Assessment Company; Invention 2, SoberTeen Driving Insurance
• I am expecting an announcement of the next PTO director on Friday (May 8). Jim Pooley is being nominated as deputy director of WIPO and is apparently out of the running for the job of PTO director. The two leading candidates thus appear to be Todd Dickinson and David Kappos.
• If Kappos is nominated, the Peer-to-Patent system (originally funded by IBM) will receive a boost.
• Speaking of WIPO, the US has proposed "comprehensive" PCT Reform "which would result in the establishment of a new Patent Cooperation Treaty, PCT II. The new treaty would serve to better facilitate workload sharing between the patent offices.
• I just looked at Prof. Margo Bagley new article on First-to-Invent published in the Berkeley Technology Law Journal. Her conclusions: "The US First-to-Invent system may be unique in the world but it offers significant benefits to small entity entrepreneurs and others." Bagley sees these benefits as primarily coming through the "robust grace period." When should FITF be adopted? "Only when such a move will provide a clear advantage for small entities by facilitating the adoption of a one-year grace period outside of the US." See The Need for Speed (and Grace).
• Bagley's short article is well received. My one quibble is that she perpetuates the idea that a desire to end interferences is a major motivation in the debate. She says "Eliminating interferences and the uncertainty associated with them appears to be a prime motivation for the FITF legislation." Lets be clear, in the US, proponents of the first to file legislation want to make it easier to invalidate patents by creating more prior art.

The Economy and IP Law Practice

BTI consulting group recently released its the results of a survey of 370 corporate counsel at Fortune 1000 companies. The graph above shows the expected legal budget change over the next six months grouped by type of work. Notice "Intellectual Property" down 4.3% and in the basement "IP Litigation" down 7.7%.

Read more here.

Background: Economic Downturn => Downturn in Patent Filings

Holman: A Contrarian Law Professor’s Two Cents on the Arkansas Carpenter's (Ciprofloxacin) Petition for Certiorari

By Christopher M. Holman, Ph.D., J.D., Associate Professor at UMKC Law School

Professor Mark Lemley recently filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of himself and a cohort of prominent professors of law, economics, and business in support of a petition for certiorari in Arkansas Carpenter's Health and Welfare Fund v. Bayer (the "Professors’ Brief").[1] Joining the professors as amici on the brief are the American Antitrust Institute, the Public Patent Foundation, and AARP. These professors and organizations are asking the Supreme Court to review and reverse the Federal Circuit's decision in In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation.[2] Arkansas Carpenter's is the latest in a string of certiorari petitions that have been filed in cases involving an unsuccessful antitrust challenge to a so-called “reverse payments settlement” between a drug patent owner and a potential generic competitor. So far the Supreme Court has denied all of the petitions.

The defining characteristic of a reverse payments settlement is the transfer of some form of consideration, often but not always cash, from the patent owner to the alleged infringer. In most settlements of patent infringement suits any payment typically flows from the alleged infringer to the patent owner, i.e., in the "forward" direction. Reverse payment settlements of challenges brought against prescription drug patents under the Hatch-Waxman Act have been controversial for years. The FTC and others charge that these agreements are anti-competitive and result in substantially higher prescription drug prices for consumers (and ultimately third-party payers such as the government). The atypical direction of the payment is considered suspect by many who view it as evidence that the merits of the patent case must be weak, and argue that the branded drug company is in effect paying the generic company to stay off the market and using the patent as a mere pretense to skirt antitrust liability. Clearly, absent the patent a naked agreement by a generic drug company to stay off the market in exchange for cash would constitute an antitrust violation.

Nonetheless, courts who have considered the legality of reverse payment settlements have repeatedly concluded that, in view of the incentives and dynamics created by the unique structure of a patent infringement suits brought under the Hatch-Waxman Act, it is neither surprising nor particularly suspicious to find payments flowing from the patent owner to the alleged infringer in the settlement of these suits. In fact, even the FTC has acknowledged that at least some reverse payment settlements are legitimate and even pro-competitive. In most patent infringement litigations, the alleged infringer faces the prospect of potentially large money damages based on its past infringement, so there is often an incentive to pay the patent owner to settle the lawsuit and avoid this risk. In contrast, Hatch-Waxman litigation generally occurs before the potentially infringing generic drug goes on the market. The generic drug company typically faces no risk of money damages for past infringement. At the same time, the drug patent owner faces huge potential financial losses if even one court finds its patent invalid or not infringed, and given the uncertainty patent litigation, particularly at the district court level, it is not surprising that some patent owners would be willing to pay to settle the lawsuit and resolve the uncertainty.

The Professor's Brief is essentially an updated version of a brief Professor Lemley filed in 2006 in support of a petition for certiorari in In re Tamoxifen, a reverse payment settlement antitrust challenge arising out of the Second Circuit. In 2006, I seriously considered signing on to his Tamoxifen amici brief; without having delved into the issue, the notion of reverse payments settlements as characterized by Professor Lemley and others struck me as suspicious and anti-competitive . After all, why would a patent owner pay an alleged infringer to settle a lawsuit unless the merits of the patent case were weak? Under these circumstances, is it not logical to infer that the parties are using the patent lawsuit as a mere pretense to provide cover for what is in actuality an agreement between potential competitors not to compete? However, before I signed on to the brief I decided to read the Second Circuit'sTamoxifen decision, as well as the reverse payments settlement decisions that had already been issued by the Sixth and Eleventh circuits. In his brief, Professor Lemley argued that the decisions from these other circuits were in conflict with the Second Circuit's decision in Tamoxifen. After reading the cases, I found that I disagreed with Professor Lemley's interpretation of the decisions, and concluded that in fact there is no split between the circuits. In fact, the decisions by the Second, Sixth and Eleventh circuits (and now the Federal Circuit) are all quite consistent, taking into account that each case involves its own unique settlement agreements and other surrounding facts, and that the decisions necessarily reflect the facts of the individual case being decided.

Reading these decisions sparked my curiosity, particularly since my interpretation of the case law diverged substantially from that of Lemley and many other academic commentators. I decided to research the topic, and in 2007 I published an article entitled “Do Reverse Payments Settlements Violate the Antitrust Laws?”[3] In the article, I survey the diverse array of patent settlements that have been lumped together under the imprecise label "reverse payment settlement,” and explain the factors that motivate the structure of these settlements. After reviewing the facts surrounding specific settlement agreements, and considering the well reasoned explanations of various judges who have rejected the notion that the mere presence of a reverse payment can render an otherwise legitimate patent settlement illegal, I came to disagree with the position propagated by the FTC and academics such as Professor Lemley, i.e., that the mere inclusion of a reverse payment in an otherwise legal patent litigation settlement renders the agreement per se or presumptively in violation of the antitrust laws. Moreover, my view is aligned with that of the vast majority of courts that have addressed the issue. After a close reading of the decisions, it is clear to me that the purported split between the circuits has so far failed to materialize, although the situation could change if and when other circuits weigh in on the issue.

In this short article penned for Patently-O, I will challenge some of the specific assertions made in the Professors’ Brief. For simplicity, many of the citations in this article are to my law review article. Those interested in a more expansive treatment of the subject are encouraged to consult the law review article, which includes primary cites to the cases and other authorities.

Supreme Court Reverses: Finding that the Federal Circuit has Appellate Jurisdiction to Review Remand to State Court

Carlsbad Tech v. HIF Bio (Supreme Court 2009) 07-1437-1.pdf

This involves the power of a federal appellate court to review a district court order to remand a case back to state court. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit held that it lacked such power. The Supreme Court has now reversed that decision and instead followed lead of the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits.

HIF first sued Carlsbad in California state court seeking a declaratory judgment of ownership and inventorship of various anti-angiogenesis drugs under California state law. The complaint also alleged various issues of slander, conversion, fraud, etc. The case was removed to federal court based on one federal RICO allegation. However, once that claim was dismissed, the district court refused to continue to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction to hear the remaining state claims -- thus remanding the case back to state court. The Federal Circuit refused to review the remand for an abuse of discretion - instead finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Federal Circuit's outcome makes sense if you look at the statute. 28 U.S.C. §1447(d) says: ‘An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise . . . .’ However, the Supreme Court has clearly moved beyond the words of the statute in this situation. Here, the Supreme Court reversed -- finding that the remand may be appealed in federal court.

When a district court remands claims to a state court after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the remand order is not based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for purposes of §§1447(c) and (d). The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

On remand, the Federal Circuit will need to determine whether the remand was properly within the discretion of the lower court.

Although the decision was unanimous, the decision is accompanied by three concurring opinions by Justices Stevens, Scalia, and Breyer. Justice Stevens was honest about the court's failure to follow the text of the statute: "If we were writing on a clean slate, I would adhere to the statute’s text."

When the Federal Circuit's decision was issued in 2007, I noted that "[t]his case would have a good shot of being granted certiorari. Its impact on patent law, however, is nil." [Link]

Pointing Out the Problem to be Solved or Objects of the Invention

Revolution Eyewear v. Aspex Eyewear (Fed. Cir. 2009) 08-1267.pdf [UPDATED 5/7/09 – To correct a mix-up of parties]

The patents at issue in this litigation focus on eyeglasses configured to be fitted with a second set of sunglass lenses using magnets. Magnetic auxiliary frames were already in the prior art, but the apparent advance is that the magnets are located in projections rather than embedded in the frames -- thus allowing for a stronger magnetic bond. The patent also identified a second deficiency in the prior art: insufficient "stability support."

The district court held that Revolution infringes claim 22 of Patent No. RE37,545.

On appeal, Revolution argued that that the claim was invalid -- raising three separate arguments: (1) failure of written description under Section 112 ¶ 1 because the apparatus as claimed does not address both deficiencies in the prior art; (2) failure to claim the "original" invention in the reissued patent under Section 251; and (3) improper expansion of claim scope in the reissue application under the recapture rule. The Federal Circuit rejected each of these invalidity arguments.

Written Description: The written description requirement is often raised when the issued claims are different than those originally filed. New claims must find support in the original specification in a way that "convey[s] with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, [the inventor] was in possession of the [claimed] invention."

Revolution admits that all of the claimed elements are found in the original drawings. Of course, that is not conclusive for written description. Rather, in cases such as LizardTech and Liebel-Flarsheim, the Federal Circuit found claims invalid even though all the explicitly claimed limitations and arrangements were originally disclosed. The problem with the claims in those cases was that they did not include enough limits.

The invalidity argument in this case is actually more akin to Gentry Gallery. Here, Revolution argues that the patent is invalid because the claimed apparatus does not address both of the stated functions of the invention. The Federal Circuit found that argument lacked legal grounding: "when the specification sets out two different problems present in the prior art, it is unnecessary for each and every claim in the patent to address both problems." Of course, the negative implication of the court's statement is that the claim must address at least one of the stated problems. "Inventors can frame their claims to address one problem or several, and the written description requirement will be satisfied as to each claim as long as the description conveys that the inventor was in possession of the invention recited in that claim." In this case, the claim addressed the magnetic strength problem - and thus satisfied the written description requirement.

Claiming the Same Invention: 35 USC Section 251 focuses on requirements of reissue applications. Under the statute, a reissued patent must be for the same "invention disclosed in the original patent." Here, the Federal CIrcuit found that this requirement is "analogous to the written description requirement." "Because we have held that the written description requirement is satisfied, we similarly hold that claim 22 complies with § 251."

Recapture Rule in Reissue Patents: Reissue patents are intended to correct errors in the originally issued patents. Courts have created the recapture doctrine which would exclude certain intentional acts from the list of correctable 'errors.' In particular, under the recapture rule, an intentional and deliberate act of narrowing claims or disclaimer of claim scope in order move the patent application toward issuance will not be considered an "error" under Section 251. Akin to prosecution history estoppel, "the recapture rule is aimed at ensuring that the public can rely on a patentee's admission during prosecution of an original patent." On appeal, the Federal Circuit could find no admission or disclaimer being recaptured.

Affirmed.

Notes:

• Pointing out deficiencies in the prior art: Most patent attorneys no longer discuss the prior art in the patent application because of the potential problems raised by this and other cases. Almost as an aside, this case also notes that by "pointing out the two deficiencies in the prior art, [the inventor] disclaimed an auxiliary frame that is not stably supported in top-mounting configuration and a primary frame that has embedded magnetic members."

Patently-O Bits and Bytes

• Quote of the week: "Am I starting to grow nostalgic for Jon Dudas? At least he hated all applicants, big and small. Jon, Jon, Jon - should I have not doubted your wisdom?" Greg Aharonian, on contemplating the potential that Dave Kappos (IBM) will be the next PTO director.
• My Discussion of Kappos: Here.
• Section 2 of the Sherman Act: The Truth on the Market Blog is hosting a series of interesting articles on reforms of Section 2 (unilateral monopolization). Expect a post from IP/Antitrust leader Hovenkamp on Tuesday or Wednesday. [Link].

Dave Kappos as Next PTO Director?

Although the Obama administration has not directly asked my opinion, I would certainly support David Kappos as the nominee for the next PTO director. Kappos is a longtime IBM patent guru and currently holds the title of VP and Assistant General Counsel in charge of Intellectual Property.

Bottom line here is that it will be helpful to have a patent office director who understands patents and who has been fully involved with all aspects of the patent system for the past twenty years. I believe that Kappos will be a careful shepherd of the system - leaving it better off in six years than it is today.

Kappos believes in the underlying value of innovation. In his words, "the whole system of innovation is more important now than ... ever." Beyond that, he is dedicated to a strong patent system and a strong patent office as mechanisms for fostering innovation. Kappos has been ready to try innovative approaches to "catch the intellectual property system up to the twenty first century." However, he has always been clear that his ideas for innovation "should in no way be confused with denigration or devaluing intellectual property." In addition, his years at IBM have taught him the value of consistency and tradition.

Much of the job of PTO director involves employee relations, and Kappos continues to successfully lead one of the largest private patent departments in the world. His current and former employees are loyal to him as a leader and praise his creativity and genius. The IBM IP office is known for its spirited and open debates on policy and direction. In my view, this corporate management experience and patent prosecution experience are more relevant to running the PTO than - say - running litigation teams at a law firm, managing a congressional committee, or even teaching a group of law students. Before moving forward, I want to note here that former Director Todd Dickinson is also an excellent choice, and he continues to be strongly supported by both examiners and other patent law professionals. Dickinson would almost certainly do the better job of healing the growing rift between examiners and applicants.

In his recent testimony to the Senate, Kappos put IBM's support behind the compromise form of the Patent Reform Act. For IBM, it was important that the damages portion of the bill be revised: "we must nevertheless be mindful of the fundamental importance of ensuring that patentees are appropriately compensated or the patent system will fail to provide the incentive innovators require." However, the IBM proposal was that royalties should be based on the "essential features" of a patent. (Quoting Quanta). This proposal is problematic because it would create new-rule uncertainty and also greatly favor holders of large patent portfolios (such as IBM). As director, Kappos should be careful to balance the "right" solution with the need for consistency and stability of rights. IBM also supported the post-grant review system (which I favor) and the venue changes (which I do not favor).

More than his alignment on specific provisions, we can hope that Kappos will bring an important amount of subject matter expertise - helping to ensure that any legislation does not inadvertently disrupt parts of the system that are already working well.

I do have other reservations. Patent pundit Greg Aharonian has oft complained about Kappos and his tendency to talk about patent quality and then charge forward with junky IBM patent applications. Those complaints have merit. The ill defined term 'patent quality' raises red flags in my mind. Here, Kappos has his benign and potentially helpful pet projects of dramatically improving examiner's access (and ease of access) to prior art; improving prior art and patent documents through more standard lexicons; and public collaboration in patent examination (IBM funded the peer to patent program). In the past, Kappos has talked about patent quality as a problem because it leads to a situation where "nobody has an earthly idea of what [a patent] is worth . . . creating a murky and unclear market." These are really proposals to make the prosecution system work more efficiently rather any fundamental changes to patent rights. IBM is good at systems, and Kappos may be as well.

If it is a benefit, it is also a fault that Kappos' blood is saturated with IBM knowledge and culture. Kappos joined IBM in 1983 right out of college (EE / UC Davis) and stayed with the company after law school (Berkeley). At IBM he spent time with the software legal division and also in the Asia/Pacific division. Unfortunately, in the past 25 years, Kappos may have forgotten that most of the world does not operate like IBM. Thus, when he says that "people no longer innovate individually" or that "many new innovations require investments of unprecedented size," I worry that his vision is skewed. Beyond the PTO, IBM has been able to use its large portfolio and market power to build a large licensing pool with very little litigation. Of course, there are few companies in a position to accomplish that result in today's market. It will be important for him to spend time understanding that - in fact - IBM is the atypical market player. On these point, I believe that Kappos will relax his views somewhat once he is no longer the AGC of IBM.

I am excited that Kappos will push the PTO toward a more open system - allowing access to data and information that has been hidden or limited and ready to cooperate on collaborative projects to streamline the system. Kappos has considerable experience with both European and Asian patent systems, and will likely expand cross-border examination collaboration.

On the software side, Kappos will continue to support the idea that software should be patentable - although he argues that patents should at least cover something "technological" and that business methods should be out. Kappos has also spent a lot of time thinking and working with overlapping intellectual property schemes and considering how those interplay with open source software. However, I have not seen any specific proposals.

In the Patently-O reader poll, Kappos earned only 5% of the vote, falling behind Todd Dickinson (36%), Prof Lemley (8%), and "other" (8%).

Other Sources:

• Why Kappos is Unfit
• IP Watchdog on Kappos
• From Greg Aharonian:
• "One rumored candidate to be the next Director of the Patent and Trademark Office is David Kappos, one of the head patent lawyers at IBM. Given IBM's many abuses of the patent system and patent policy over the past few decades, I think it is inappropriate, nay, wrong, for anyone from IBM to be head of the PTO. Might as well as make Bernie Madoff head of the SEC as part of his upcoming jail-time work-release program. IBM patent lawyers for too long have abused the patent system."
• "Case in point. Last week IBM was issued its usual batch of patents, many of which are crap - crappy patents whose sole value is to clog the PTO's patent examination pipelines to the detriment of everyone else. A patent application policy actively embraced by David Kappos. If I was an IBM investor, I would applaud David for doing his best to help IBM. In fact, sometimes I recommend people to buy IBM stock because the company will do anything to maintain its market value. Kudos to David for his efforts in this regard. But the reward for abusing the patent system for the benefit of IBM should be a gold watch at retirement - and should not be the reward of being appointed head of the PTO."

Bits and Bytes

• I am in San Antonio at the PIUG conference.
• INTA Conference: At the INTA conference in Seattle, my old law firm (MBHB) will host a "night of Irish merriment" at the Fado pub on First Ave (May 18, 6 - 11pm). RSVP at mbhb.com/irish. [The attorney list of MBHB includes McDonnell, McCarthy, Sullivan, and Sampson].
• The Patent Prospector describes David Simon's (Intel) testimony on NPE's here.
• New Patent Jobs:
  • CPA Global needs a new DBA for its IP database.
  • Continental (major automotive supplier) needs a patent agent.
  • Valence (high power batteries) needs a patent attorney.
  • Dalina Law Group needs a tech specialist in beautiful Pasadena.
  • University of Illinois needs a new IP counsel.

Federal Circuit Applies Phillips to Limit Gift Card Claim Construction

Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. American Express, Visa, Green Dot, MasterCard, First Data, etc. (Federal Circuit 2009)

Dr. Burke is a psychoanalyst who never liked change. I'm not talking Obama style change. No, Burke patented a method for donating leftover change ("excess cash") to charities (or to store it in a separate savings account.)

Burke's company (EPC) sued a host of defendants. who sell gift cards -- alleging that the retail sale of gift cards along with merchandise infringe upon his patents because the gift card sales “loading value onto accounts at a point-of-sale terminal.” EPC's argument was that the purchaser was using "excess cash" to buy the gift card.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected the patentee's argument for a broad claim construction - instead holding that the claimed "excess cash" was an “amount selected by the payor beyond the total amount due at the point of sale.”

Looking at the specification as “the primary basis for construing the claims,” the appellate panel noted that the specification repeatedly described the method's purpose as allowing someone to conveniently donate to charities or to painlessly save money. From the specification:

In current shopping situations a clerk inputs the price of all items in a cash register and the latter totals the price. The consumer offers either the exact amount of cash or a sum exceeding the price, and the clerk enters that amount. The cash register then subtracts the price from the cash.

The excess cash offers the customers an opportunity to save small amounts of money painlessly. It also affords the consumer to donate [sic] small amounts of money to charity.

Interpreting this, the Federal Circuit determined that the claimed "excess cash" must be only what is left over after all items (including gift cards) are paid for. "Where the consumer does not offer a sum in excess of the total displayed on the cash register, then there is no excess cash."

Non-infringement affirmed.

Notes:

• Read the Opinion: 08-1434.pdf.
• The Federal Circuit remarked that EPC wasted its appellate time arguing process - that it didn't get a fair chance to argue claim-construction below. Claim construction is reviewed de novo, and the appellant needs to focus on why it should win on the merits, not on whether the district court was listening. "EPC has surprisingly little to say about what it alleges is substantively wrong with the district court’s construction, or why its proposed construction would be better on the merits. Instead, it attempts to assign error to the district court’s construction on a number of procedural grounds. Principally, it argues that the court erred by (1) spending a portion of the claim construction hearing considering the meaning of the phrase “sales price,” which was not a disputed claim term; and (2) using the accused products to tailor a construction of the patent claims that would make it impossible for EPC to prove infringement. Neither of these arguments has merit."
• As a rule, the Federal Circuit is respectful to both parties as well as their arguments and positions. Here, Senior Judge Cudahy went about as far as the Court ever does by describing Burke's invention only within quotation marks (Burke's "invention") and once referring to the "'invention', such as it is." The court more explicitly showed its disdain by awarding costs to the defendants.
• Some of you may have heard of Bank of America's "Keep the Change" program. According to the company brochure: "Each time you buy something with your Bank of America Check Card, we'll round your purchase to the nearest dollar amount and transfer the difference from your checking account to your savings account. You get to keep the change and grow your savings. What could be easier?" EPC's litigation against BOA continues.