Patent Law Blog (Patently-O)

Innovation Alliance Video

The innovation alliance has a well engineered video focusing on various inventor-patentees explaining the “value of a strong patent system.”

A couple of the inventors (Richard Dean, Qualcomm & Rob Smithson, Fallbrook Tech) make the argument that strong US patents preferentially generates R&D in the US.  I don’t really understand that argument. US patents are available to inventors from around the world almost regardless of where the R&D took place. As a consequence, a strong US patent regime provides a global incentive to innovate products that will be valued in the US.

Four New Job Postings on Patently-O Jobs

• Law Professor at the University of Utah Quinney School of Law (Salt Lake)
• Inhouse Patent Prosecution Counsel at Wellstat in Gaithersburg, Maryland
• Inhouse IP Counsel for Alstom Power in Knoxville, Tennessee
• Deputy Executive Director of the AIPLA (To clarify, the AIPLA is hiring a second Deputy Executive Director to work alongside Director Dickinson and Deputy Vince Garlock.)

A 30–day job listing costs $200. Contact the Job Board manager Ryan Swarts (jobs@patentlyo.com) for more information

Statement of David J. Kappos, Nominee for Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property

Statement of David J. Kappos
Nominee for Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property
and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Nomination Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee
July 29,2009

Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions and distinguished members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am grateful to President Obama and to Secretary Locke for the trust they have placed in me and to you for considering my nomination to serve as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

… It is exceptional and humbling under any circumstance to have the chance to serve one's country. But it is particularly so for me as the son and grandson of immigrants – my father came to this country from Greece and my mother's parents came to the US from Italy. So, the opportunity to be here today is particularly poignant for me, as it is for my family.

If recommended by this Committee and confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to joining Secretary Locke and his team at Commerce in their mission as stewards of American economic growth, job creation and innovation.

I have spent nearly my entire professional career in the field of intellectual property law, and indeed my entire career around technology and innovation. After receiving my education from the University of California system, first in electrical and computer engineering and subsequently in law, I went to work for IBM as an intellectual property law attorney.

During my career at IBM, I have held intellectual property law positions in nearly all of its business units. I have written and prosecuted patent applications in many technical areas and I have searched the prior art files of the USPTO alongside other patent professionals, including examiners themselves. I have handled many trademark matters in the US and globally. I managed IBM's IP law interests across the Asia-Pacific region, and lived in Japan during that period. Currently and for the past six years, I have served as Vice President and Assistant General Counsel for intellectual property law at IBM's corporate headquarters. In that role, I am responsible for the management of intellectual property interests - patents, trademarks, trade secrets and copyrights - on a worldwide basis. Additionally, I have served in leadership positions in the major professional associations that represent the intellectual property law community in this country and globally, including the Intellectual Property Owners Association and the American Intellectual Property Law Association.

I care passionately about this field and the role intellectual property plays in advancing American innovation. So, it is particularly exciting for me to be considered for the position of Director of the USPTO, an organization that traces its roots to the founding fathers and their understanding that promoting and rewarding innovation is critical to our country's success.

The PTO faces many challenges. Most immediate are those resulting from the current economic downturn, the need for a stable and sustainable funding model, the need to address pendency concerns while preserving and enhancing patent quality, and the imperative to attract and retain skilled personnel at a time of fiscal constraint. Secretary Locke has personally asked me to make it my number one priority to refashion the patent examination process to meet these challenges. In carrying forward this direction, I will focus substantial personal attention within the USPTO. Additional challenges flow from a rapidly globalizing trade environment , impacting trademark and patent interests, as well as respect for intellectual property and the consequences where IP is not respected.

Longer term, the USPTO must keep abreast of the astounding pace of technological change across a broad range of scientific disciplines. It needs to understand new modes of innovation and their effect on its mission. And it will need to constantly rethink how to maintain and enhance the constitutional imperative to promote innovation and scientific advancement for the public good - both in terms of the technology confronting the Office and in terms of leveraging and applying the law to that technology.

I welcome this challenge and pledge to you all of my energy, creativity and intellect should I be confirmed. As I consider this challenge, I am mindful of several things.

I am mindful that the USPTO serves the interests of ALL innovators in this country, small and large, corporate and independent, academic and applied, and – most importantly -- the public interest. While I have spent my career to date at a large corporate enterprise, I am familiar with the concerns and issues of all USPTO constituents - including small and independent inventors, the venture and start-up community, public interest groups, the patent bar and many others - and will reach out to all of them.

I am mindful of the incredible dedication of the thousands of USPTO employees, and the essential role they play to the success of the US innovation system. I will work every day with the USPTO employees and the unions that represent them to establish strong, positive relationships grounded in professional treatment for these workers producing work product based on professional judgment.

I am acutely mindful that innovation today is global and that IP policy is of paramount importance, not only in our country, but also in the EU and Japan, in China, India, Brazil and many other developing countries. I will use my international experience and my understanding of global IP trends to help this Administration represent, advance, and protect the interests of American innovators in the global arena and to lead the world in developing strong, balanced, inclusive intellectual property systems that advance the well-being of all participants.

Finally, I am mindful that the office for which I am being considered, working as part of Secretary Locke's team and within the Administration's agenda, must be intensely focused on how to serve the American people at this time of economic uncertainty. I believe the USPTO can play a significant role in enhancing economic growth, creating jobs and advancing American innovation. I hope to play a part in this important mission.

Again, I am grateful for the opportunity to address you today. I am honored by the opportunity to serve and I look forward to joining this Administration and Secretary Locke's team should I be confirmed.

I am pleased to answer any questions.

David J. Kappos

Claim Construction

Wavetronix v. EIS Electronic Integrated Systems (Fed. Cir. 2009)

Wavetronix’s patent covers a big brother sensor to monitor vehicle trafic and to ensure that drivers are properly using the carpool (high-occupancy vehicle) lane. EIS was accused of infringement but convinced the Utah-based district court to grant summary judgment of non-infringement.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed – largely based on claim construction of the claim term “probability density function estimate” or PDFE used to define the traffic lanes.

The excerpted claim reads as follows: 1. … a method for defining traffic lanes, comprising … b. generating a probability density function estimation … of said selectable plurality of vehicles; and c. defining said traffic lanes … from said probability density function estimation.

Writing for the court, Judge Patel (sitting by designation from the N.D. of Cal.) construed PDFE to as “a finite data set large enough to approximate a function of a continuous variable whose integral over a region gives the probability that a random variable falls within the region.”

[Updated] That definition - requiring an approximation of a continuous variable – helps EIS. The EIS system can also automatically define the traffic lanes based on traffic data, but the company claims that its device does not do so with “probability analysis” but rather uses large binary bins. Based on this distinction Judge Patel held that the EIS system data is “too coarse” to be a PDFE.

Even in a close case such as this, the court held that the DOE cannot rescue the patentee because of the tight requirements of element-by-element application of the DOE and the doctrine of vitiation.

Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 121: #Kappos

• The Kappos recently ended. Bryan Beel tweeted.
  • Some statements as recorded by Beel:
  • Need to refashion fee system to accurately assess relationship between fees and work being done
  • "Overhaul count system" means completely remake, on orders from Secretary Locke.
  • My job is to watch out for the U.S., not IBM.
  • Should do more [to accelerate examination], wants to do more. Will submit writing.
  • I hate fee diversion. Community happy to fund PTO, even higher fees, but diversion is bad.
• Tafas v. Dudas case appear is be suspended until Kappos is confirmed.
• Remember to check your PTA calculation [Link] (snooze you lose).

Requester Success Rates In Inter Partes Reexamination

by Matthew A. Smith. Smith regularly updates his treatise entitled Inter Partes Reexamination (available online for free).

Much attention has been paid in the past week to the recently released PTO statistics on inter partes reexamination. These statistics show a high success rate for third party Requesters. In particular, 60% of all cases surveyed resulted in all claims being canceled.

As has been recognized by a number of observers, however, the PTO statistics are based on a sample population (the 77 issued inter partes reexam certificates) that is systematically biased. This is demonstrated by the absence of any Federal Circuit decision on the merits in an appeal from an inter partes reexamination. As a matter of logical necessity, every single one of the 77 reexam certificates resulted from a proceeding where someone either missed a hard deadline or gave up.

This has obvious implications for the PTO’s overall pendency statistics. Barring a change in the way reexams are handled, the average and median pendencies should rise as more certificates issue. The effect on Requester success rates is not so clear, however. Ideally, a potential Requester would like to have data that predict the outcome of cases that are fully contested. Do the PTO’s statistics provide that?

At the end of 2008, the author studied Requester success rates while attempting to avoid the systematic bias introduced through the use of reexam certificates. The study was done in two different ways, both of which yielded similar results. First, Right of Appeal Notices were examined. Right of Appeal Notices, although they reflect a result that is alterable on appeal, are a potentially more accurate predictor of the outcome of fully contested reexaminations. This is because the PTO will not issue a Right of Appeal Notice where there is no right to an appeal,i.e., where someone missed a hard deadline or gave up at the Examiner level.

At the time of the study, 99 such notices had issued. The results are detailed in the attached excerpt. Briefly summarized, about 47% of the cases resulted in all claims being rejected, with about 70% of all cases resulting in cancelation or amendment of all independent claims. Of course, the effect of an amendment on the Requester’s overall position is not easy to judge. An amended claim may be a victory for a Requester, but can also be a disaster if past damages are unimportant, and the Patent Owner manages amend the claims to preserve infringement while excluding prior art.

The second approach attempted to capture some of these subtleties by examining the respective probabilities that the Patent Owner and Requester will be the primary appellant. The “primary” appellant is one that files a Notice of Appeal, as opposed to a Notice of Cross-Appeal, or no notice at all. The status as the primary appellant tends to indicate a party’s subjective dissatisfaction with the result before the Examiner. This study demonstrated that appeals were initiated three times more often by the Patent Owner than by the Requester. In a significant number of cases (35%), however, no appeal was filed by either party.

The results of these studies tend to support the effectiveness of inter partes reexamination as a tool for the Requester. Such statistics may also ultimately have an impact on whether events from reexamination are admissible in court. For example, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chemicals Ltd.,78 F.3d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996), affirming a district court’s exclusion from evidence of a PTO grant of ex parte reexamination, was based on 1994 ex parte reexam statistics. This decision is still being followed by district courts, but a significant uptick in requester success rates may change the way such cases are decided.

===

Also on Patently-O: Inter Partes Reexamination Statistics (2009); Ex Parte Reexamination Statistics (2008)

Published Applications as Prior Art

[edited to fix my pre-coffee typos where my eyes though provisional = published]

In 2001, the USPTO published its first patent application. Since then, almost two-million patent applications have published. During this same time period, about 1.3 million patents issued. There are a couple of ways that the prior art created by patent applications change the prosecution game. First, published applications increase the sheer volume of prior art. Most notably, around ten percent of the published applications will never issue and would not have been otherwise published. And, even if published elsewhere at a later date, applicants would be faced with the later 102(a) effective date rather than the 102(e) effective date associated with a published application. This ties in with the second importance of published patent applications — they bring innovations to light more quickly and in a manner that patent examiners can readily use. Along these lines, the early publication of published applications triggers the clock for the statutory bar of 102(b).

Looking at patents issued during the past four years, I calculated the average percent of cited references that are US published patent applications. As you might expect, that figure has been rising steadily – doubling from under 6% in 2006 to almost 12% for patents issued in the early part of 2009. The evidence shows that examiners are using the patent applications. On their own examiner’s locate 41% of all cited US patent application publications even while locating only 25% of other cited references. (The remaining references are submitted by the applicant).

Note, this post was prompted by an interesting series of comments on IPWatchdog questioning whether this newly available prior art has been a factor in the dropping allowance rate.

Question on dedication of material

I’m working on compiling the data from the recent survey on antedating prior art through the use of Rule 131 affidavits during patent prosecution. I have a question for practitioners on the current state of the dedication rule.

MPEP 715 reads as follows:

An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 is not appropriate . . . (F) Where the reference is the disclosure of a prior U.S. patent to the same party, not copending. The question is one of dedication to the public. Note however, In re Gibbs, 437 F.2d 486, 168 USPQ 578 (CCPA 1971) which substantially did away with the doctrine of dedication.

What is the current state of the law regarding later claiming material disclosed in earlier not-copending application?

Blackboard: Federal Circuit Again Find Software-Related Means-Plus-Function Claims Invalid for Failing to Disclose Sufficient Structure

Blackboard v. Desire2Learn (Fed. Cir. 2009) 08-1368.pdf

Blackboard's patent covers an internet-based educational support system and method. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,988,138). On summary judgment, the district court (Judge Clark, E.D. Tex.) found claims 1-35 invalid as indefinite, but a jury found found that Desire2Learn liable for infringement of claims 36-38. On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed that Claims 1-35 are indefinite, and – after altering the claim construction – held that the remaining claims were also invalid as anticipated.

Means-Plus-Function: Blackboard's seemingly broadest claim (claim 1) includes several means-plus-function clauses, including a "means for assigning a level of access and control." The specification briefly discusses an "access control manager" (ACM) with an "access control list." On appeal, however, the court found that brief description to be an insufficient "disclosure of the structure that corresponds to the claimed function" and consequently indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶2. See In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(en banc).

"[W]hat the patent calls the 'access control manager' is simply an abstraction that describes the function of controlling access to course materials, which is performed by some undefined component of the system. The ACM is essentially a black box that performs a recited function. But how it does so is left undisclosed."

Important for patent drafter, means-plus-function claims require disclosure in the specification even if the means are already well known in the art.

The fact that an ordinarily skilled artisan might be able to design a program to create an access control list based on the system users' predetermined roles goes to enablement. The question before us is whether the specification contains a sufficiently precise description of the "corresponding structure" to satisfy section 112, paragraph 6, not whether a person of skill in the art could devise some means to carry out the recited function.

Because claims 2-35 all depend upon claim 1, they are all invalid as indefinite

Claim construction: At the trial, Blackboard's expert could only identify one difference between claims 36-38 and the prior art. Namely, that the Blackboard patent identified a "single login" feature that allowed one user to have various roles within the system. "For example, Blackboard asserted that its claimed method would allow a graduate student who was a student in one course and a teacher in another to use a single login to obtain access to both courses and to obtain access to the materials for each course according to the graduate student’s role in each." However, on appeal, the Federal Circuit determined that the claims do not actually require that feature -- leading them to hold the claims invalid based primarily on the admissions of Blackboard's own expert.

[O]nce the claims are properly construed, the conclusion of anticipation is dictated by the testimony of Blackboard’s own witnesses and the documentary evidence that was presented to the jury. Based on that evidence, and in the absence of a “single login” requirement in claims 36-38, it is clear that the prior art contains every limitation of those claims.

Defendant Desire2Learn wins a complete victory (after a few million in attorney fees).

Priority Claims in Issued Patents

Patent families continue to grow. With the increasing popularity provisional patent applications, most issued patents now claim priority to at least one prior patent filing. I created a database of all priority claims for non-reissue utility patents issued February 14, 2006 – February 17, 2009 (Pat. Nos. 7,000,000 – 7,493662). In fact, only 31% of the patents have no listed priority claims. For the graph below, I looked at the earliest listed priority date (one for each patent) and then categorized those according to the type of priority claim. 40% of the earliest claims were to foreign patent filings, and 18% claimed earliest priority to a provisional patent application. The remaining 11% earliest priorities reached back via US continuations, divisionals, and continuations-in-part (CIPs).

Centocor v. Abbott (E.D.Tex.)

Centocor v. Abbott (E.D.Tex.)

Abbott has two chances to block the $1.67 billion jury verdict while the case is still in the hands of E.D. Texas Judge Ward.

Inequitable Conduct: Because inequitable conduct is an equitable doctrine, it is determined by a judge. In this case, Judge Ward bifurcated the trial and will hold a one-day bench trial on inequitable conduct on August 4, 2009. On the 4^th, parties will each have three hours of witness time and 25 minutes for argument.

Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV): This is unlikely in Judge Ward’s courtroom – especially here since the Judge has already denied Abbott’s motions for summary judgment.

On appeal at the Federal Circuit look for a number of different disputes, including:

• Priority dates and anticipation: Centocor’s patents claim priority to 1991 via a series of continuations-in-part, but the claims at issue were probably not enabled until a 1994 filing. In 1993, a foreign counterpart of the original application published - becoming prior art against the 1994 CIP filing. The appeal may focus on the symmetry (or lack therof) between enablement and anticipation.
• Damages: The damage calculation here is somewhat complex and could lead to important Federal Circuit precedent on lost profits

Inventorship: Conception does not Require Scientific Certainty; Rather, "Proof that the Invention Works to a Scientific Certainty is Reduction to Practice"

University of Pittsburgh v. Marc Hendrick (Fed. Cir. 2009) 08-1468.pdf

The patent at issue (6,777,231) relates to a method of creating stem cells from liposuction residue. In an inventorship dispute amongst former Pitt scientists, the district court held that the Hendrick was not a co-inventor. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed - based primarily on the corroborating evidence found in one of the listed inventor's laboratory notebook.

Inventorship is a question of law, although a challenge to inventorship must be proven with clear and convincing evidence. In a joint invention situation, "each inventor must contribute to the joint arrival at a definite and permanent idea of the invention as it will be used in practice." However, there is no requirement that the inventors actually work together; that all asserted claims be jointly invented; or that all inventors realize that they invented something.

In this case, the timeline is important: The two listed inventors had written evidence (in lab notebooks and elsewhere) from before Hendrick arrived on campus that they believed their liposuction derived stem sells could transdifferentiate into various types of cells such as bone, cartilage, nerves, and muscles. At that time, however, they were not "scientifically certain" that nerve cells had been created. And, almost certainly, the two did not have enough evidence to patent their specific claim to adipose-derived stem cells that can differentiate into nerve cells. Hendrick and his REBAR team of researchers then came along and confirmed that the "highly speculative" suggestions of the original listed inventors was indeed correct.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that despite the lack of scientific certainty, the invention had been conceived before Hendrick joined the team.

[Hendrick's] is premised upon a misapprehension of what it means to “know” the limitations of the claims.

Knowledge in the context of a possessed, isolated biological construct does not mean proof to a scientific certainty that the construct is exactly what a scientist believes it is. Conception requires a definite and permanent idea of the operative invention, and “necessarily turns on the inventor’s ability to describe his invention.” Proof that the invention works to a scientific certainty is reduction to practice. Therefore, because the district court found evidence that Katz and Llull had formed a definite and permanent idea of the cells’ inventive qualities, and had in fact observed them, it is immaterial that their knowledge was not scientifically certain and that the REBAR researchers helped them gain such scientific certainty.

Here, the lab notebooks were important to to show that the listed inventors had "sufficiently described to those skilled in the art how to isolate the cells from adipose-tissue ... [and] thus they had disclosed a 'completed thought expressed in such clear terms as to enable those skilled in the art to make the invention.'" Citing Coleman.

Affirmed

Diverging Claim Constructions

Yesterday raised a valuable discussion on claim construction with many excellent comments on the Cotropia-Bey article. The issue is obviously important since claim construction disputes arise in virtually every attempt to enforce a patent. One problem with claim construction in litigation is that the district court follows a completely different process of claim construction than do PTO examiners. The rules suggest that the two claim construction scopes should form concentric circles with the PTO's broad construction and the Court's narrower construction. The reality is that it is hard to form these concentric circles -- especially with complex claims. And, it is virtually impossible to form concentric circles of construction using such distinct construction processes. Instead of nested constructions, in many cases the outcome of the district court tends to diverge from that suggested during prosecution.   

It seems odd that the patent prosecution process does not focus on determining the correct meaning of the claims. The better approach may well be to allow the original examination to determine the correct meaning of claims in a way that can be followed by courts down the line. I suspect that this approach would actually lead to more valid patents -- especially if examiners applied a stronger hand on issues of indefiniteness.

Notes:

• Joel Miller's 2006 JPTOS article in the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard is available here.
• Mark Lemley and Dan Burke recently wrote a paper arguing that we should admit defeat and move to a central claiming system. Their analogy is that claims might be better used as sign-posts rather than fence-posts. [Link]
• Lemley's 2005 article on The Changing Meaning of Patent Claim Terms is also a good read. [Link]

The Unreasonableness of the Patent Office's 'Broadest Reasonable Interpretation' Standard

Chris Cotropia (Richmond Law) and Dawn-Marie Bey (King & Spalding) have an interesting draft article out on the PTO's "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard for interpreting claims during patent prosecution. The article notes that the increase in post-grant reviews (reexaminations) running concurrently with infringement litigation raises the stakes of the PTO's standard.

From the abstract:

Although there has been much commentary on patent claim interpretation methodology in general, very little has been written about the unique interpretation approach the Patent Office employs. The courts, starting with the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and continuing with the Federal Circuit, instruct the Patent Office to give every applied-for claim its 'broadest reasonable interpretation' (BRI) during patent examination. This Article explores this special standard and concludes that not only are the previously articulated rationales behind the BRI standard severely lacking, the standard is also contrary to both the patent statutes and the concept of a unitary patent system. The BRI standard additionally allows patent examiners to avoid difficult claim interpretation issues, leads to improper and uncorrectable denials of patent protection, and is incurably ambiguous.

Notes:

• Read the article here.
• MPEP 2111 "CLAIMS MUST BE GIVEN THEIR BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION"
• Ex parte Koo (BPAI 2008) (PTO Should Apply Broadest Reasonable Claim Interpretation to Section 101 Analysis)

USPTO Annual Fee for Patent Practitioners

Hal Wegner and Harry Moatz have provided me with additional information on the $118 annual patent practitioner registration fee for FY2009.

The Office has not issued a notice to pay the annual practitioner maintenance fee for FY2009. The Office has not required payment of the fee by September 30, 2009. No decision has been made to collect the fee in or for FY2009.

Information regarding fees will be “published and sent to practitioners in advance of the due date.” Since FY2009 ends in less than 80 days (September 30, 2009), it is unlikely that any fees will be due by that date. However, the office has not publicly ruled-out the possibility of a retroactive charge.

Background:

• http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/11/patent-practice.html

The Effectiveness of Examiner Interviews

Often, a face-to-face discussion can help two parties resolve a sticky dispute. In patent prosecution, the patent applicant can request to sit down interview with an examiner to discuss the examiner's rejections. See 37 CFR 1.133. The interview can be face-to-face or via telephone or even video conference. Law firms located across the street from the PTO tend to tout the value of examiner interviews while those outside of DC tend to downplay their significance.

I recently created a database of about 17,000 patent applications filed 2000–2005. For each of those applications, I also have a listing of the prosecution history that indicates the timing of any examiner interview. I used this data to consider the effectiveness of examiner interviews. Note two important caveats: I did not look at the underlying documents in the file wrapper, and my data does not distinguish between interviews in person and those done at a distance.

The results: Overall 18% of applications were associated with an examiner interview. I broke the data into two groups.

Early Interviews: In what I call the "early interview" group are applications where the examiner interview took place prior to the mailing of any final office action. Applications in the early interview group had the same grant rate as those that did not have an early interview (70% grant rate of terminated cases). However, those with an interview tended to stay pending longer, and be more likely to have an RCE in the file history.

Late Interviews: In what I call the "late interview" group are applications where an examiner interview took place after a final office action was mailed. Applications in the late interview group had a much higher grant rate than did applications where a final action was mailed but the case was not subsequently interviewed. Here, 74% of those in the late interview group were allowed as compared with only 60% other applications where a final action was mailed. (+/– 3% at 95% CI).

Interviews by Organization: The table below looks at the top twenty filing organizations (as listed in the application correspondence) in my dataset based on the number of applications filed 2000-2005. For each organization, the table lists the number of applications that were interviewed, number of issued patents, percent of cases interviewed, and the percent of cases patented. (Note, this percent of patented cases includes still pending cases in the calculation instead of only terminated cases and is consequently lower than the rates reported above). Although these are organizations who filed the most applications, readers should note that they represent less than 20% of all filed patent applications.

Organization	Number of Applications in Database	Applications with Interviews	Number of Issued Patents	Percent of Cases Interviewed	Percent of Cases Patented
OBLON SPIVAK	374	107	241	29%	64%
SUGHRUE MION	248	35	150	14%	60%
BIRCH STEWART	210	46	138	22%	66%
HEWLETT PACKARD	190	26	91	14%	48%
OLIFF BERRIDGE	172	60	124	35%	72%
Harness Dickey	171	37	92	22%	54%
FOLEY LARDNER	153	25	93	16%	61%
KNOBBE MARTENS	138	27	73	20%	53%
NIXON VANDERHYE	138	21	82	15%	59%
FISH RICHARDSON	136	30	74	22%	54%
FINNEGAN HENDERSON	129	18	68	14%	53%
MCDERMOTT	119	14	80	12%	67%
Blakely Sokoloff	115	15	65	13%	57%
STAAS HALSEY	109	21	60	19%	55%
FITZPATRICK CELLA	108	19	74	18%	69%
TOWNSEND	108	22	65	20%	60%
ANTONELLI TERRY	101	12	68	12%	67%
PHILIPS IP	93	9	54	10%	58%
YOUNG THOMPSON	92	12	50	13%	54%
WENDEROTH LIND PONACK	91	22	57	24%	63%

  

When The Infringing Device only Temporarily Meets the Claim Limitations

Gemtron v. Saint-Gobain (Fed. Cir. 2009)

The Michigan-based district court found that Saint-Gobain’s refrigerator shelves infringe Gemtron’s patent No. 6,679,573 and awarded a permanent injunction against further infringement. The shelves were unique – primarily because the glass panel shelf securly snaps into its plastic frame rather than being held by adhesives. The claims required the plastic fram to be “relatively resiliant” so that the glass could snap into place.

The claim construction issue was interesting because it focused on timing. Saint-Gobain’s plastic frame was resiliant while still warm immediately after forming. However, it quickly hardened and became brittle afterward. The accused infringer argued that the limitation “‘relatively resilient’ should not mean ‘temporarily resilient immediately after cooking in an oven and before any opportunity to cool.’”

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed – finding that the purpose of the resiliance (to install the glass panel) “suggests that the claimed resilience of the frame need only be exhibited during assembly.”

There is no discussion in the specification of any purpose for or value of the “relatively resilient” structural characteristic …, other than to facilitate assembly of the shelf. This indicates that the end edge portions of the frame have the claimed structural characteristic—“relatively resilient”—if they are able to deflect at the time the shelf is assembled, to “snap-secure” the glass panel within the frame.

Affirmed.

• Note: The permanent injunction was affirmed without comment.

Patent Backlog

Yesterday, I posted data about patent application pendency at the US Patent Office. The following comment came from an a longtime partner at a midsized IP botique in DC:

I suppose I’m something of a lone wolf in thinking that the backlog in applications we have now is not much worse (certainly not DRAMATICALLY) worse than the backlog we’ve had all along, or at least since I’ve been in patent law. Your chart shows that 50% of application were disposed of in about 3.5 years and about 90% in roughly 6 years. When I was an examiner, back in 1990 or thereabouts, there was a lot of verbiage given to getting average pendency to 3 years – so it must have been higher than that at the time. It would be interesting, I think, to see the same analysis done for application filed one and two decades earlier then those in these charts, plotting all the data normalized to the starting date. Maybe someone has done this in a meaningful way already; but, I haven’t seen it. If the curves are the curves are substantially the same, it would put the lie to oft heard cries about a burgeoning backlog that’s crushing competitiveness and the false impression given by quoting the raw number of applications now pending.

Patent Application Pendency: Percent of Applications Still Pending

The large backlog of cases at the PTO has added greatly to the problem of long patent application pendency. There are other contributors to the problem – such as applicants and examiners unwilling to reach a compromise solution (often based on the demands of superiors).

To provide some measure of pendency, I created a database of 20,000+ randomly selected patent applications and issued patents filed 2000 - 2007. For each of case, I tallied the final status as of mid-July 2009. (Status is either patented, abandoned, or pending). Using that data, I created a chart of the percent of utility applications still pending as of July 2009. This data can be helpful for someone considering whether their still-pending application is an anomaly. Over 84% of the applications filed in 2007 are still pending (+/– 2% at 95% CI) , while less than 1% of applications filed in 2000 are still pending (+/– 1% at 95% CI).

The second chart standardizes the same data according to the amount of time in prosecution.

Notes:

• This data only includes applications that were either (1) published or (2) patented. I do not know the percentage of cases unpublished cases that are still-pending versus those that are abandoned.
• The data presented here does not distinguish between technology centers, continuations, etc. The still-pending rates varies considerably within those different categories.
• The pendency rate for applications filed Q4 2004 appears unexpectedly high and the rate for Q1 2005 appears unexpectedly low.. That is at least partially explained by a data collection artifact. My data sample includes a relatively large number of applications filed in late December 2004 and early January 2005 rather than being more evenly distributed throughout the respective three months.

More False Marking: Forest Group v. Bon Tool

The Forest Group v. Bon Tool

A company that falsely marks or advertises a product as patented "for the purpose of deceiving the public" can be held liable to the government for "not more than $500" for each offense. 35 USC 292. The statute gives standing to "any person" to sue and collect one-half of the award.

Forest Group originally sued Bon Tool for infringement of its patent on stilts used primarily in construction work such as hanging drywall.   Forest's claims were dismissed on summary judgment for lack of infringement.

Based on the court's claims construction, It turns out that Forest Group's stilts are not covered by its own patent either. You see, the asserted patent requires "a resiliently lined yoke" but Forest Group's products (marked as patented) do not include that element.

The court found a false marking elements were met, but refused to find false advertising under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act because Bon Tool did not prove that the deceptive marking was "likely to influence the purchasing decision" of consumers.

On damages, the court awarded only $500 (with $250 going to the government) because Bon Tool could point to only one factory-order of marked products after Forest Group had "knowledge" that its stilts were not covered by the listed patent.

"That single decision constitutes a single offense for purposes of calculating damages under § 292. The Court assesses a penalty in the amount of $500.00 against Forest pursuant to § 292(b)."

The case is on appeal at the Federal Circuit. Patent Attorney Paul Hletko filed an amicus brief in that appeal arguing that damages should be applied on a per-article basis. Hletko's company Heathcote Holdings sued Church & Dwight for false marking of its Mentadent products.

• District Court Decision 282158.pdf
• Hletko Brief Brief 07-11-09 235833.pdf

Office Actions

Although not necessarily any indication of quality, the length of non-final office actions has been increasing over time – shifting from an average of 7.5 pages in 2003 to 10.7 pages in 2009. The chart below – shows that the increase has been relatively steady over the past six years based on a sample of 8400 non-final office actions from patent applications filed 2001–2007. (Page count includes cover page and summary).

What is the cause of this rise?

Ranking of Patent Law Blogs

Gene Quinn – author of IP Watchdog – spent a good amount of time cataloging and ranking the various patent law focused blogs from around the world. His rankings are based on website popularity and popular influence with three primary inputs: (1) voting by readers; (2) Technorati.com ratings (based on links to the site); and (3) Alexa.com ranking of website popularity. I’m happy that Patently-O received the top rank. However, I encourage you to check-out the other blogs on the list. I read about 15 of them on a regular basis. Thanks Gene.

Quinn’s 2009 Patent Blog Ranking:

1. Patently-O
2. IPWatchdog.com
3. IP Kat
4. Spicy IP
5. Patent Baristas
6. Intellectual Property Watch
7. Patent Docs
8. 271 Patent Blog
9. BlawgIT
10. Patent Prospector
11. The Invent Blog
12. IP Think Tank and The Prior Art
13. -
    
14. Orange Book Blog
15. IPJUR and European Patent Caselaw
16. -
    
17. Promote the Progress
18. IP NewsFlash
19. Anticipate This!
20. Patentably Defined
21. India Patent
22. Intellectual Asset Management
23. Against Monopoly
24. Patent Circle
25. I/P Updates
26. PHOSITA
27. IP Spotlight
28. Chicago IP Litigation
29. The IP Factor
30. Patent Arcade and File Wrapper
31. -
    
32. Securing Innovation
33. Patents 101 and IP Estonia
34. -
    
35. PatLit
36. Just An Examiner
37. The Business of Patents
38. Patentability
39. Inventive Step
40. Holman’s Biotech IP
41. Washington State Patent Law
42. California Biotech Law
43. Patent Infringement Updates and Patent Assassins
44. -
    
45. Russian Patents
46. Georgia Patent Law
47. Patentnapsis
48. Honoring the Inventor
49. OC Patent Lawyer
50. Nanomedicine & IP

False Marking Case Dismissed

Pequignot v. Solo Cup (E.D. Va.)

Judge Brinkema has dismissed Matthew Pequignot’s false marking case against Solo Cup and cancelled the trial previously set to be heard this month. [Order] At oral arguments, the Judge indicated that the ruling is intended to "get [the] case teed up for the Federal Circuit."

In this case, Solo knew that its patents had expired but continued to use the same molds to make its coffee cup lids and other disposable products. During that time - between 20 and 50 billion products were manufactured - each marked as patented. The falseness of the marking was not in serious dispute. Nonetheless, Judge Brinkema ruled that Pequignot did not have any direct evidence to prove that the false marking was done “for the purpose of deceiving the public” as required by the statute. 35 USC 292.

On appeal the Federal Circuit will likely be asked to clarify the level of culpability or intent necessary for a finding of purposeful deception. The choice may follow the same lines of debate as the issue of willful patent infringement. The Federal Circuit recently shifted the law of willfulness to require at least objectively reckless acts of infringement (Seagate) and away from any affirmative duty of caution (Underwater Devices). Professor Winston has argued that intent to deceive should be presumed.

Although the Federal Circuit will probably not be able to reach this issue, the parties hotly dispute the appropriate remedy. The statute calls for a maximum penalty of "not more than $500 for every such offense." Here, the question is whether damages should be calculated based on one offense per product line or one offense per item marked.

[AP Article by Matthew Barakat]

Mexican Yellow Bean Patent Finally Cooked

In re POD-NERS (Fed. Cir. 2009)

Larry Proctor purchased a package of Mexican beans of various colors. He separated-out the yellow ones and spent three years selectively breeding the plants. He then named his line "Enola" and obtained utility patent protection for the bean, its plant, its pollen, and the method of producing it. Pat. No. 5,894,079. Proctor also obtained a US Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) Certificate.

Soon thereafter, Proctor's company POD-NERS wrote to importers of Mexican beans asking for a royalty of 6 cents per pound. Mexican government officials identified the patent as "Mexican bean biopiracy" and that they would "do everything necessary, anything it takes, because the defense of our beans is a matter of national interest." The not-for-profit International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) requested an ex parte reexamination in 2000 (Procter also filed for a reissue so that claims could be added). A non-final rejection was mailed in 2003, a final rejection in 2005, and a BPAI decision affirming the decision in 2008. Now, the Federal Circuit has affirmed the "decision of the Board that all the claims here would have been obvious and therefore that they are invalid."

This decision makes sense - a published article compared the DNA of Enola with ordinary mexican yellow-seeded beans and found them identical.

One of ordinary skill in the art seeking to reproduce (and hopefully improve) the yellow beans that Proctor brought back from Mexico would have done what he did: plant the beans, harvest the resulting plants for their seeds, planting the latter seeds, and repeat the process two more times.   

There is no indication that in taking these steps Proctor sought to provide beans of the particular narrow range of yellow that the claims specified. To the contrary, it appears that all Proctor was attempting to do was to reproduce the yellow beans he had acquired in Mexico, and hopefully to improve them.   

To do so he followed normal and well-established agricultural methods and techniques for doing that. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (“a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”) He does not contend that he devised or applied new or unexpected techniques in reproducing the beans.   

Although happy with the outcome, public interest groups have labelled the process a "travesty." "In essence, the U.S. patent system allowed the owner of a flagrantly unjust patent to legally monopolize markets and destroy competition – for close to half the 20-year patent term." [Link]

The Pope on Patents

In a recently published encyclical letter, Pope Benedict XVI has taken a stand against strong patent rights because of they way that the exclusive rights of patents tend to promote wealth inequality at the expense of development in the world's poorest countries.  

"On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care."

The intellectual property statements only make up a few lines in the 144-page letter. However, they fit with the overall theme - that relying solely on monetary greed as an incentive does not lead to the right kind of development and actually creates instability.

The letter does not edify official Church doctrine, but it is used by Church leaders around the world in setting priorities.

In response, the IPO released a statement that it is "working to educate on the incentives that IP rights provide for advancing knowledge and creating jobs."

• See “Encyclical Letter Caritas In Veritate Of The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI To The Bishops Priests And Deacons Men And Women Religious The Lay Faithful And All People Of Good Will On Integral Human Development In Charity And Truth,” June 29, 2009. [Link][Related Post]

Sanctions for Frivolous Lawsuit: Fraser v. High Liner Foods

Fraser v. High Liner Foods, et. al. (Fed. Cir. 2009)(non-precedential)

Acting pro-se, Alfred and Paul Fraser sued a handful of fish-stick makers for patent infringement. The Frasers apparently run

The Fraser Patent No. 4,781,930 covers a method of soaking fish in oil before freezing the fillets. The only claim reads as follows:

A method of preparing a fish product comprising filleting a fish to appropriate thickness, immediately immersing the filleted fish in a vegetable oil for a period of 5 to 10 minutes at room temperature to effect absorption of the oil to a depth such as to inhibit excretion of the natural fluids from the fillet and prevent incursion of air and moisture, draining the excess oil from the surface, covering the surface with crumbs and then freezing the fillet.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants:

1. Defendant Midship could not be liable because that company was dissolved more than six years before Frasier filed suit. 35 U.S.C. § 286.
2. Defendant Good Harbor was dissolved bankruptcy in 2006. It cannot be held liable.
3. Defendants UNFI and National Fish were never properly served and thus cannot be required to appear in court. The court noted that “A return of service merely noting delivery to ‘girl at front disk’ does not comply with the strictures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h) or Mass. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) with respect to service on a corporation.”
4. Defendants Gorton’s, Roche Bros., ConAgra, High Liner, and Pinnacle did not infringe, literally or by equivalents. “None of the five appellees immerse their frozen fish products in a vegetable oil for a period of 5 to 10 minutes at room temperature. Further, none of these appellees begin preparing frozen fish fillets using fresh fillets.”

The Federal Circuit affirmed each of these decisions and then turned to the issue of sanctions:

“The district court noted that Appellants did not provide any of the defendants with any notice of their patent, that they did not question any defendant concerning the manner of fish processing, and in the case of Midship and Good Harbor, that they did not even inquire as to the existence of these defendants prior to bringing suit. The record shows that Appellants proceeded to file suit without ascertaining correct names of some defendants. Despite detailed letters from counsel for various defendants explaining their clients’ processes and pointing out the differences between those processes and the patented process, Appellants continued to press forth the litigation. Appellants continued despite the district court’s clear explanation at a hearing that they could not prove infringement merely by proving the presence of oil as an ingredient on the list of the products at issue.”

In the end, the court affirmed the minimal sanction of only $500 per defendant.

The Changing Nature Inventing: Collaborative Inventing

Although inventing can still be a solo endeavor, patenting data indicates that paradigm no longer predominates. Over the past four decades, the number of inventors per patent has steadily crept upward. The first chart below shows the average number of inventors per patent moving from 1.6 for patents issued in the 1970’s to 2.5 for patents issued since 2000.*

As the chart below shows, this rising average is being driven by a dramatic increase in the proportion of “highly collaborative” inventions with three or more listed inventors. That rise is coupled with a proportional decrease in the proportion of solo inventions. Interestingly, the proportion of two-inventor patents has stayed relatively steady throughout the entire time period.

Some areas of technology lend themselves to team work. Biotech research and drug development is typically extremely expensive and done in structured teams while lower-tech areas may not be so structured. Compare, for instance patents in classes 514 (drugs) and 435 (chemistry of molecular biology) with patents in classes 135 (tents) and 297 (chairs). The first group averages three times the number of inventors as the second group.

It may also be that team-built inventions are more likely to get funding and be patented. Thus, non-US applicants are more likely to spend patenting money in the US on multi-inventor applicants. Likewise, multi-inventor applications are likely to have larger patent families through continuations and CIPs.

The rugged individualists are still out there – they are just getting more lonesome.

Notes:

• This data is derived from a sample of 750,000 patents issued from August 1971 through February 2009. All reported results are significant at the 99% confidence level.

OVERVIEW OF USPTO PROCEEDINGS FOR THE REEXAMINATION OF A U.S. PATENT

Effect of a Pending Reexamination -- Each claim of a patent is presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. 282 and may be enforced notwithstanding the presence of a pending reexamination proceeding. See Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1428, 7 USPQ2d 1152, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 1988); See also Viskase Corp. v. Am. Nat'l Can Co., 261 F.3d 1316, 1328, 59 USPQ2d 1823, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 857, 225 USPQ 1, 4 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(en banc). Although litigation may move forward in parallel with a reexamination proceeding, at the district court's discretion, the results of the reexamination proceeding may have an effect on the litigation. See e.g., In re Translogic, 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Under 35 U.S.C. 307, a patent is not revised by any amendment or cancellation of a claim made during a reexamination proceeding until a reexamination certificate is issued.

Ex Parte Reexamination - A proceeding in which any person may request reexamination of a U.S. Patent based on one or more prior patents or printed publications. A requester who is not the patent owner (i.e., a "third party requester") has only limited participation rights in the proceeding. [MPEP 2209]

Inter Partes Reexamination - A proceeding in which any person who is not the patent owner and is not otherwise estopped may request reexamination of a U.S. Patent issued from an original application filed on or after November 29, 1999 based on one or more prior patents or printed publications. Both patent owner and third party requester have participation rights throughout the proceeding, including appeal rights. [MPEP 2609]

Reexamination Granted - An Order Granting Reexamination is not a determination of claim patentability. An Order that one or more claims of a U.S. Patent will be reexamined because the request has established the existence of at least one SNQ based upon prior patents and/or printed publications. [MPEP 2247.01]

In ex parte reexamination, the Order, whether granting or denying reexamination, must be mailed within three months of the filing date of the request for reexamination. [MPEP 2241]

In inter partes reexamination, the Order must be mailed not later than three months after the request is filed.   [MPEP 2641]

Reexamination Denied - An Order Denying Reexamination is also not a determination of claim patentability. An order denying reexamination of any of the claims of a U.S. Patent because the Office has determined that no SNQ has been established in the request for reexamination. [MPEP 2247.01]

Substantial New Question of Patentability (SNQ) - A request for reexamination must establish the existence of at least one new technological teaching affecting any claim of the patent for which reexamination has been requested that was not considered by the Office in a prior Office proceeding involving the patent. The SNQ is established based on prior patents and/or printed publications. [MPEP 2242]

Notice of Filing of Request for Reexamination - Notice that a request for reexamination has been filed and accorded a filing date is published in the Official Gazette. [MPEP 2215]

Rejection (Non-Final) - The initial Office action on patentability.

In ex parte reexamination, the initial action is not mailed with the Order Granting Reexamination; the patent owner may file optional comments, to which the third party requester may respond, prior to the initial Office action. Therefore the Office must await the expiration of the periods for such comments and responses thereto before mailing the initial action. [MPEP 2262]

In inter partes reexamination, the initial action may optionally be mailed together with the Order Granting Reexamination, but even if not, no party comments are permitted prior the mailing of the initial action. Patent owner files a response to a non-final action that includes argument and/or an evidentiary showing and/or amendments, and the response will be entered as a matter of right. Third party requester may thereafter respond with written comments directed to the Office action and to the patent owner's response. [MPEP 2260]

Rejection (Final) - A second or subsequent action on patentability in an ex parte reexamination may be made "final." While responsive arguments may be considered, entry of an amendment or consideration of additional evidence is not a matter of right in a final rejection. Patent owner may appeal to the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). [MPEP 2271]

Action Closing Prosecution (ACP) - The second or subsequent action on patentability in an inter partes reexamination proceeding. Patent owner may respond with argument and/or an evidentiary showing and/or amendments. Alternatively, patent owner may choose not to respond. If patent owner does file a response,
then third party requester may thereafter file written comments directed only to the patent owner's submission. Entry of the patent owner response is not a matter of right. Neither party may appeal at this point in the proceeding. [MPEP 2671.02]

Right of Appeal Notice (RAN) - After (1) considering any patent owner response to an ACP, and any third party requester written comments thereto, or (2) the expiration of the time for patent owner to file a response and no response has been filed, the examiner will either re-open prosecution if necessary, or issue a RAN. The RAN sets time periods in which the parties may appeal to the BPAI. The RAN also closes prosecution. Any amendment filed after a RAN will not be entered. [2673.02]

It is possible for the Office to issue a RAN after a patent owner response to the initial Office action on patentability if both parties stipulate that the issues are appropriate for a final rejection and or a final patentability determination.

Appeal to the BPAI - Ex Parte Reexamination - A notice of appeal is a proper response to a final rejection in an ex parte reexamination. Only patent owner may appeal. The appeal process is similar to that in a non-provisional patent application. [MPEP 2273]

Appeal to the BPAI - Inter Partes Reexamination - Either party may file a notice of appeal as a proper response to a RAN in an inter partes reexamination. If some clams are rejected and some claims are allowed or confirmed as patentable, both parties may appeal those determinations, file appeal briefs, respondent's briefs directed to the other party's appeal brief, and, after the examiner files the examiner's answer to those briefs, file a rebuttal brief directed to the examiner's answer. [MPEP 2674]

Subsequent (Court) Appeals - Ex Parte Reexamination - If the request for reexamination was filed prior to November 29, 1999, patent owner may appeal the decision of the BPAI to either the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, or to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. If the request for reexamination was filed on or after November 29, 1999, patent owner may appeal only to the Federal Circuit. [MPEP 2279]

Subsequent (Court) Appeals - Inter Partes Reexamination - Either party who was a party to an appeal to the BPAI and is dissatisfied with the result may appeal only to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. [MPEP 2683]

Concurrent Reexamination and Litigation - If there is concurrent litigation and reexamination on a patent, and the request for reexamination was filed as a result of court order, or the litigation has been stayed for the purpose of reexamination, the Office will expedite the proceedings by taking the case up for action at the earliest possible time, setting shorter response times, and permitting extensions of time only upon a strong showing of sufficient cause. [MPEP 2286]

Effect of Concluded Litigation on Reexamination

A court decision holding that a patent claim is valid will not preclude the Office from continuing to reexamine such claim in an ex parte reexamination proceeding, even if the court decision is final and non-appealable. The Office applies the "broadest reasonable interpretation" for claim language in a reexamination proceeding, because claims may be amended during the proceeding. Courts apply a less liberal standard of claim interpretation, and therefore, the Office may conclude that a claim held valid in a court proceeding is unpatentable or invalid in an ex parte reexamination proceeding. [MPEP 2286]

A final, non-appealable court decision holding that a patent claim is invalid will preclude the Office from ordering any reexamination proceeding for such claim, or, will result in termination of any reexamination proceeding previously ordered as to such claim. [MPEP 2286]

It should be noted that with respect to inter partes reexamination, a final, nonappealable holding in litigation that a patent claim is valid may operate to estop a party from even requesting inter partes reexamination of that claim, or from maintaining a previously ordered inter partes reexamination of that claim. Estoppel may also operate to preclude a party who has obtained an Order Granting Inter Partes Reexamination of a patent claim from asserting invalidity of that claim in litigation under Section 1338 of Title 28 on grounds that such party raised, or could have raised, during that inter partes reexamination, if that claim has been finally determined to be patentable in the inter partes reexamination proceeding. [MPEP 2686.04(V)]

Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate (NIRC) - Reexamination proceedings do not become "abandoned." Rather, an NIRC is mailed to inform the parties that a reexamination proceeding has been terminated, whether by the failure of a party to timely file a required response, or by the natural resolution of all outstanding issues of claim patentability. The NIRC lists the status of all claims that were subject to reexamination, including any patent claims that have been canceled and any claims added during the proceeding that were not part of the patent that were reexamined and determined to be patentable. The NIRC also indicates which patent claims, if any, were not reexamined. An NIRC may include an examiner's amendment, and must include reasons for confirmation of any patent claims that were determined to be patentable without amendment, and reasons for allowance of any amended patent claims or any newly added claims. [MPEP 2287]

Reexamination Certificate - A reexamination proceeding is concluded by publication of a reexamination certificate. The certificate amends the text of the patent that was reexamined, in a manner analogous to a certificate of correction. The Reexamination Certificate will contain the text of all changes to the text of the patent that was the subject of the reexamination proceeding. [MPEP 2288 and 2290]

Notice to the Public of Reexamination Certificate - Publication of a reexamination certificate is announced in the Official Gazette. [MPEP 2691]

Inter Partes Reexamination Statistics

In August 2008, Messrs Baluch and Maebius of Foley & Lardner published an interim report on the results of inter partes reexamination proceedings. At the time of their writing, however, only 30 inter partes reexaminations had been pushed-through to conclusion with a reexamination certificate. In the past year, that total has more than doubled to 73 issued reexamination certificates.

Of course, the main point about inter partes reexaminations is that the process can be incredibly slow if either party pushes. Only about 50% of the inter partes reexaminations filed 2001-2005 have been completed either through issuance of a reexamination certificate (on the merits) or procedurally terminated. Overall, the reexamination certificates took an average of 37.5 months to issue (median of 34.4 months). When all is said and done, this pendency will be much longer since the slow and/or hotly disputed cases are all still pending. Only one (1) of the completed cases received a BPAI decision (all claims were cancelled after BPAI affirmed) and no completed cases have received a court decision.

Results of the reexamination certificates: Inter partes reexaminations continue to show promise as a mechanism for "killing" patent claims. Of the 73 issued reexamination certificates, 60% (44) cancel all the claims and only 12% (9) confirm all the original claims as patentable. The remaining 27% (20) change the claimset in some way. For the 19 inter partes reexamination certificates issued on patents with co-pending litigation, 42% (8) resulted in all claims being cancelled; 5% (1) confirmed all claims as patentable; and 53% (10) changed the claimset in some fashion.

    

En Banc Federal Circuit To Rehear Tafas v. Doll

Tafas v. Doll (en Banc) The Federal Circuit has granted Tafas & GSK’s petition for a rehearing en banc. This case focuses on the USPTO’s power to impliment rules restricting the number of ways an applicant can claim a single invention as well as the number of continuation applications that may be filed based upon an original patent application. Appellant’s briefs are due in early August (“thirty days” from July 6, 2009) and the opposing brief will be due within twenty days of that filing. Briefs of amici curiae must follow Fed. Cir. Rule 29 – and either obtain permission of the court or permission of all parties. Briefs in support of Tafas & GSK will be due “no later than 7 days after the principal brief of the party being supported is filed.”

• Read the order
• Federal Circuit Rules
• Amended Rules

Ex Parte Reexamination Pendency

The timing of reexaminations is especially important because a large percentage (around 30%) are associated with co-pending litigation. The chart above reports on the current status of ex parte reexaminations as of June 5, 2009. The vertical axis measures the percentage of reexaminations that have been completed – i.e., cases where either a reexamination certificate has been issued or the reexamination was otherwise terminated. The horizontal axis groups the data by filing year of the reexamination.

The prosecution history of these files shows that on average, the PTO issues a first non-final rejection within about one year of the filing of the reexamination (360 days). For reexaminations filed 2001-2004, the average pendency is just over three years (1120 days). This average will increase as the still-pending reissues are eventually completed.

In September 2009, I will be speaking on reexamination issues at the IPO annual meeting in Chicago.

Happy Fourth-of-July

The Flawed Nature of the False Marking Statute

A new working paper by Professor Elizabeth Winston (Catholic U) discusses problems in court interpretations of the false marking statute 35 U.S.C. § 292. Professor Winston argues that false marks should be presumptively actionable:

"A party who falsely marks their innovation as patented should be presumed to have done so with the intent to deceive the public, and the burden should rest on the marker to prove that they lacked such intent. Furthermore, the penalty should reflect the culpability of the marking party, taking into account various mitigating factors, including whether the public was actually deceived, the materiality of the marking and the harm to competitors caused by the marking. Only then can the false marking statute ring true as the effective and economically efficient vehicle it was designed to be."

The statute is receiving attention in the courts as well. PubPat has filed suit against Cumberland Packing (Sweet-n-low), McNeil-PPC (Tylenol), Iovate (Xenadrine), and Glaxosmithkline (CITRUCEL) for false marking. Attorney Matthew Pequignot has filed suit against at least Gillette, Arrow Fastener, and Solo Cup for false marking.

Read Professor Winston's Draft Article

Assistant Examiners and Patent Term Adjustment

Newly minted patent examiners play the role of "assistant examiners" at the US patent office. The work of assistant examiners is reviewed by primary examiners, and both are reviewed by supervisory patent examiners as well as quality control specialists.

Of the roughly 160,000 utility patents issued in the past year (June 29,2008 – June 29, 2009), about 37% were examined by an assistant examiner with the remaining 63% handled by primary examiners working alone. This proportion varies according to Technology Center.

Technology Center		Patents Issued 6/29/2008 - 6/29/2009	Percent Handled by Assistant Examiners
1600	Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry	11,667	38%
1700	Chemical and Materials Engineering	16,857	28%
2100	Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security	16,217	47%
2400	Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security	3,370	55%
2600	Communications	23,758	42%
2800	Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components	50,812	36%
3600	Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture,	18,098	34%
3700	Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, Products	18,018	30%
4100	Training Academy	372	98%

 

For applicants who appreciate delay, patents that were handled by assistant examiners are more likely to be eligible for patent term adjustment due to patent office delay. (This results hold true for each technology center). 80% of patents handled by assistant examiners were awarded some PTA while only 72% of those handled solely by a primary examiner. This translates to an expected PTA of 12 months versus 9 months respectively.

Only applications filed after May 29, 2000 are eligible for a patent term adjustment. More than 99.5% of patents issued thus far in 2009 have a PTA qualifying filing date. Over the past four years, the percent of patents with some patent term adjustment has been steadily rising over time.

Notes:

"The patent term adjustment (PTA) provisions of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) allow for term adjustment: (1) if the USPTO fails to initially act on an application within fourteen months of its filing date; (2) if the USPTO fails to respond to a reply or appeal by applicant within four months of the reply or appeal; (3) if the USPTO fails to act on an application within four months of a Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) or court decision in an application containing allowable claims; (4) if the USPTO fails to issue a patent within four months of the date the issue fee was paid; (5) if the USPTO fails to issue a patent within three years of its filing date; (6) if issue of a patent was delayed due to imposition of a secrecy order; (7) if issue of a patent was delayed due to an interference proceeding; or (8) if the issue of a patent was delayed due to successful appellate review. This PTA smorgasbord requires the USPTO and applicants to monitor numerous events during the prosecution of the application to determine the appropriate term adjustment, and often results in applicants obtaining patent term adjustment despite the fact that the patent has an unadjusted term of longer than seventeen years from grant.

The purpose of the patent term adjustment provision in the AIPA was to guarantee that diligent applicants would still have a patent term of at least seventeen years from grant under the twenty-year patent term system. If the USPTO issues the application within three years from its filing date, any patent term adjustment operates to overcompensate the patentee. PTA should be limited to the situations in which the USPTO delayed processing or examination of the patent and this delay resulted in the application pending before the USPTO for more than three years." Via USPTO