Patent Law Blog (Patently-O)

Federal Circuit Again Declines to Revisit Cybor

By Jason Rantanen

Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company (Fed. Cir. 2011) (CAFC en banc denial) Download 2010-1402 en banc order
Before Rader (dissenting), Newman, Plager, Lourie, Bryson, Linn, Dyk, Prost, Moore (dissenting), O'Malley (dissenting), and Reyna.

As in the past, the Federal Circuit has again expressly declined an invitation to revisit its 1998 en banc holding in Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 that claim construction is reviewed de novo.  Once again, however, that decision was not without dissent.  Both Judge Moore, joined by Chief Judge Rader, and Judge O'Malley wrote to express their view that Cybor should be revisited. Professor Tun-Jeng Chiang expresses his views on this issue below.

In addition to recommending that the court reconsider the issue of deference, Judge Moore's dissent emphasizes the problematic nature of claim construction review by the Federal Circuit itself: on the one hand, "[c]laim construction is the single most important event in the course of a patent litigation"; on the other, "our rules are still ill-defined and inconsistently applied, even by us."  Moore dissent at 1.  This problem is especially acute in Retractable Technologies: "Retractable simply cannot be reconciled with our en banc decision in Phillips."  Id. at 4.  Here, Judge Moore asserts, the majority applied its own approach to claim construction, not that of Phillips, "[c]hanging the plain meaning of a claim term to tailor its scope to what the panel believes was the actual invention."  Id. at 6.  This is not an isolated instance, Judge Moore points out, but is a common practice that points to a fundamental split on the court about the nature of claim construction: a disagreement over whether claim scope should be limited to "what the inventor actually invented" or instead construed according to the plain meaning to one of skill in the art, a meaning that may be informed - but is not dictated - by the specification.

Note: In  support of her view that the Federal Circuit's own claim construction is ill-defined and inconsistently applied, Judge Moore cited the views of several commentators who "have observed that claim construction appeals often lead to frustrating and unpredictable results for both the litigants and trial courts," including Dennis's post on the panel decision and Hal Wegner's post on Arlington Industries v. Bridgeport Fittings on IP Frontline. 

Guest Post by Tun-Jen Chiang: Functionalism versus Faux Formalism at the Federal Circuit

Guest Post by Tun-Jen Chiang, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law

One of the longstanding myths about the Federal Circuit is that it is formalist.  This is usually levied by academics as a criticism, but no one does more than the Federal Circuit itself to spread the myth.  For judges, being labeled as a jurisprudential machine is a badge of honor.  Thus, even where their true motivation is clearly policy-based, judges invariably couch their opinions in legalistic terms.

The recent dissents from en banc rehearing in Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. provide perfect examples.  The issue in Retractable is an old one: should the Federal Circuit give deference to district judges on claim construction?  Judge Moore (joined by CJ Rader) and Judge O’Malley both argued the court should.  Their dissents each begin with the assertion that the Supreme Court in Markman held that claim construction is a “mongrel practice” with both legal and factual components, and this counsels for deference to trial judges.

Let me start by debunking this legalistic argument.  The Supreme Court in Markman did not hold that claim construction is a “mongrel practice.”  It started off by observing that claim construction is intrinsically a mongrel practice, and then held that the Court would adopt a legal fiction that claim construction was a pure question of law.

Why do I say this?  If it is correct that Markman held that claim construction has a factual component, then the result under traditional common law principles is not that trial judges get to decide the factual component.  Trial judges do not decide facts; juries do.  Some well-known exceptions are for suits in equity, for jurisdictional facts, and for procedural facts.  But nobody contends that these exceptions apply.  The claim-construction-is-factual line of reasoning is a legalistic and logical dead end.

Rather, the case for deference to district judges on claim construction must succeed, if at all, entirely based on policy-based concerns.  Trial judges have better access to evidence than appellate judges, and yet they are more experienced at dealing with legal documents like patents than juries.  This is a perfectly plausible policy-based argument, and is almost certainly the true reason for Judges Moore and O’Malley to seek deference for trial judges.  Too bad they feel the need to couch the argument in formalist terms.

Pending Supreme Court and en banc Federal Circuit Patent Cases

By Jason Rantanen

The Supeme Court continues to take an active interest in patent cases, with three currently pending before the Court.  Briefs are available through the American Bar Association's Supreme Court coverage site.

Patent Cases Pending Before the Supreme Court:

Mayo v. Prometheus: Subject Matter Patentability of Processes, redux. In Mayo, the Supreme Court will revisit the issue of patentable processes in a case that was the subject of a grant-vacate-remand order following Bilski.  The Court has asked the parties to answer the following question:

Whether 35 U.S.C. § 101 is satisfied by a patent claim that covers observed correlations between blood test results and patient health, so that the claim effectively preempts all uses of the naturally occurring correlations, simply because well-known methods used to administer prescription drugs and test blood may involve “transformations” of body chemistry.  

Argument is set for December 7, 2011.  This case has prompted substantial debate and numerous amici submissions.  Prior PatentlyO posts:

• Prometheus v. Mayo (January 25, 2009)
• Mayo v. Prometheus: Medical Methods and Patentable Subject Matter at the Supreme Court (October 28, 2009)
• Prometheus v. Mayo: En Banc Petition on Patentability of Medical Methods (June 26, 2010)
• Mayo v. Prometheus Labs: Bilski and Medical Methods (June 29, 2010)
• Prometheus v. Mayo: Patenting Medical Methods (September 15, 2010)
• Prometheus Laboratories v. Mayo: The Broad Scope of Statutory Subject Matter (December 22, 2010)
• Supreme Court to Revisit Patentable Subject Matter Eligibility (June 20, 2011)

Kappos v. Hyatt: Standard of Review of Patent Office Appeals to the District Court.  In Kappos v. Hyatt, the Supreme Court will address the de novo nature of a civil action brought by a patent applicant under 35 U.S.C. § 145.  The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, previously held that in such a proceeding the applicant many present new evidence to the district court and that any factual conclusions impacted by that evidence must be determined de novo, without deference to the patent office.  The Supreme Court has not yet set oral argument.  Prior PatentlyO commentary:

• Appealing a BPAI Rejection: Can the Applicant Present New Arguments and New Evidence to the District Court? (February 17, 2010)
• The Timeliness of the En Banc Rehearing of Hyatt v. Kappos (February 18, 2010)
• Hyatt v. Kappos: Federal Circuit Opens Door to Post-BPAI Civil Actions (November 8, 2010)
• US Government Asks for Increased Deference When Patent Applicants Challenge BPAI Decisions in Court (April 11, 2011)
• Supreme Court takes Two More Patent Cases (June 27, 2011)

Caraco v. Novo: Counterclaims Relating to Brand Name Description of Claim Scope. This case relates to a generic company's ability to seek a counterclaim to correct a brand pharmaceutical company's alleged misdescription of patent claim scope submitted to the FDA. Oral argument is set for December 5, 2011.

Patent Cases Pending Before the Federal Circuit Sitting en banc:

Akamai v. Limelight and McKesson v. Epic: Multi-Party, Multi-Step Infringement issues.  In this set of cases the Federal Circuit will address infringement liability when multiple parties collectively perform separate steps of a muti-step process claim but no single entity performs all the steps. Oral argument will take place on November 18, 2011.  Prior PatentlyO commentary:

• Akamai v. Limelight: Joint Infringement Requires an Agency Relationship or a Contractual Obligation
• Joint Infringement: When Multiple Actors Work in Concert
• Federal Circuit orders En Banc rehearing of Akamai Joint Infringement Claim
• En Banc: Federal Circuit to further Address Joint Infringement

En Banc Federal Circuit Arguments in TheraSense and TiVo: Update

By Jason Rantanen

Update: Binal Patel from Banner & Witcoff was kind enough to provide Patently-O with a transcript that the firm prepared of the TheraSense oral argument.  It can be obtained here: Download Therasense v Becton - transcription

* * *

Today the en banc Federal Circuit heard arguments in TheraSense v. BD and Bayer (Inequitable Conduct) and TiVo v. Echostar (post-injunction infringement proceedings).  Audio of both arguments is now available via the Federal Circuit's website, and Bruce Wexler of Paul Hastings has written a summary of the TheraSense argument.

Hyatt v. Kappos: Federal Circuit Opens Door to Post-BPAI Civil Actions

By Dennis Crouch

Hyatt v. Kappos (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)

Summary: In a 6-2-1 en banc decision, the Federal Circuit has reversed its prior precedent and held that a patent applicant must be allowed to introduce new evidence in a Section 145 civil action filed to challenge a USPTO refusal to grant patent rights and that the issues implicated by the new facts must be considered de novo.

[W]e hold that the only limitations on the admissibility of evidence applicable to a § 145 proceeding are the limitations imposed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, we hold that the district court applied the wrong legal standard for the admissibility of evidence in a § 145 proceeding and abused its discretion when it excluded Mr. Hyatt's declaration. . . .

The particular significance of a § 145 civil action is that it affords an applicant the opportunity to introduce new evidence after the close of the administra-tive proceedings—and once an applicant introduces new evidence on an issue, the district court reviews that issue de novo.

However, the Court also wrote that an applicant may still be barred from presenting new "issues" in the civil action and that, when no new evidence is presented, that BPAI findings and rulings should be given deference under the Administrative Procedures Act.

Impact: This decision could be seen as relieving some pressure on applicants to ensure that their cases for patentability are exhaustively presented to the USPTO's internal Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). The decision is especially important in light of the growing role of BPAI appeals in the ordinary course of patent prosecution. In its argument, the USPTO suggests that a strategic applicant may now choose hold-back some evidence from the BPAI appeal in order to overcome the APA deference if the case goes to the District Court.

Statute in Question: 35 U.S.C. § 145 creates a right to a "civil action" in Federal District Court against the USPTO Director whenever an applicant is "dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in an appeal under section 134(a)." In the alternative, an applicant may appeal directly to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Background: Gil Hyatt is a well-known inventor and successful patentee. Hyatt filed a civil action in 2003 after the BPAI sustained written description and enablement rejections for seventy-nine of Hyatt's claims. The examiner had issued "2546 separate rejections of Mr. Hyatt's 117 claims" based on the doctrines of inadequate "written description, lack of enablement, double patenting, anticipation, and obviousness." The Board reversed all of the examiner rejections except for the § 112 p1 arguments. Complicating this case is the fact that the application's claimed priority date is 1975. Hyatt has aggressively pushed the bounds of USPTO practice. This decision is one of more than a dozen Federal Circuit decisions focusing on Hyatt's patent rights. When California pursued Hyatt for tax revenue for his patent licenses, Hyatt took the case to the Supreme Court and eventually won a $388 million judgment against the state of California for invasion of privacy.

After the Board affirmed a set of written description and enablement rejections, Hyatt filed a Section 145 civil action and included a declaration offering new evidence of enablement and written description. The district court excluded that inventor-declaration from evidence based on Hyatt's "negligence" in failing to previously submit the information to the PTO. In a 2009 panel decision, the Federal Circuit held that the district court had properly excluded the new evidence – holding that the district court may properly exclude evidence that Hyatt should have produced to the PTO. That opinion was penned by former Chief Judge Michel and Joined by Judge Dyk. Judge Moore wrote a vigorous dissent that supported a patent applicant's right to a full civil action including the right to submit additional evidence when challenging a PTO decision.

Judge Moore wrote the en banc decision that was joined by Chief Judge Rader and Judges Lourie, Bryson, Linn, and Prost. Judge Dyk dissented and was joined by Judge Gajarsa. Judge Newman Concurred-in-Part – arguing that the civil action should not give deference to PTO factual determinations.

A key to the majority decision is the notion that a Section 145 civil action is not an appeal, but rather a new, separate lawsuit filed to force the PTO to act. In its analysis, the court began with a focus on the 150-year history of the civil action right (and its predecessor Bill in Equity) and the reality that new evidence has always a part of those remedies. See, e.g., Gandy v. Marble, 122 U.S. 432 (1887) (explaining that the [predecessor] § 4915 suit in equity was "not a technical appeal from the Patent Office, nor confined to the case as made in the record on that office"). The court then reviewed the current text of the statute, implications of the APA, and various policy arguments before reaching its conclusions.

In a 37-page dissent, Judge Dyk argued that the majority made an improper leap from (1) the correct premise that new evidence should be admissible in the civil action to (2) the incorrect conclusion that the law provides no meaningful limits on the introduction of new evidence regardless of what was presented at the BPAI.

Notes:

• Michael Barclay's Discussion of the case
• Oral Arguments
• Appellate specialist Aaron Panner argued the case on behalf of Hyatt. The USPTO's case was argued by Beth Brinkman of the DOJ. In the original panel, the late Ken Bass has argued for Hyatt and Bill Jenks for the Government. Michael L. Martinez represented Hyatt in the civil action.

Guest Post: The Great Haste and Less Milling of Beer v. United States

 

Guest Post: The Great Haste and Less Milling of Beer v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2010, cert. pet. pending)

By Andrew Dhuey

When patent litigators hear the term “rocket docket”, they usually think of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, long-known for its dedication to accelerated justice. The term doesn’t usually call to mind the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, though its docketing-to-disposition time has averaged a reasonable 9-10 months. The recent case of Beer v. United States, however, shows that it is possible to have the Federal Circuit decide your appeal on the merits and rule on your en banc hearing petition in a mere 85 days, docketing to disposition.

Beer concerns a newsworthy issue dear to the hearts of federal judges: their pay. Eight current and former federal judges seek to recover cost-of-living adjustments Congress promised federal judges in 1989, but failed to deliver in 1995-97, 1999 and 2007. While the Beer parties disagreed on whether this deprivation of COLAs was an unconstitutional diminishing of judicial pay, they all agreed that the Federal Circuit rejected this exact position in Williams v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2001). In 2002, the Supreme Court denied cert. in Williams over the dissent of Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Scalia and Kennedy.

With the issue resolved in Williams, why did these federal judges raise the same pay issue again in a 2009 U.S. Court of Federal Claims case? The answer rests not with any changes in the law, but instead with changes in the makeup of the Supreme Court. All four justices who joined the court since 2002 (Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor and Kagan) replaced justices who voted to deny cert. in Williams. Assuming the Beer judges still have the three Williams dissenters on their side, they can win on the merits with two of the four newest justices.  

Of course, before they could even file their cert. petition, the Beer judges needed to work their way through the Claims and Federal Circuit courts. To expedite that process, the judges conceded that both the Claims court and the Federal Circuit panel were bound to follow Williams. Their purpose was to overturn Williams, which could only be done by the Federal Circuit sitting en banc, or by the Supreme Court.

On Nov. 3, 2009, thirteen days after filing their notice of appeal at the Federal Circuit, the Beer appellants filed a Petition for Initial Hearing En Banc or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Affirmance. Alas, the clerk’s office rejected this filing since the appellants included a copy of their trial court complaint, and that apparently is not okay. [Side note to Judge Beer, et al: none of your court clerks can hold a candle to Federal Circuit clerks when it comes to finding a way to reject a filing]. Appellants’ counsel, Christopher Landau of Kirkland & Ellis, resolved this problem the following day, and the case was then before all 12 active Federal Circuit Judges.

On Jan. 15, 2010, the court denied the petition for initial hearing en banc over the dissent of then-Chief Judge Michel, joined by Judges Lourie and Moore, and the separate dissent of Judge Newman. With that denial of the en banc petition, a three-judge panel granted the Beer appellants’ motion for summary affirmance, with a concurrence by Judge Mayer, who reiterated his previous view that Williams was wrongly decided, but that “neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has done anything in the interim that would warrant this court taking the matter up again.” The Federal Circuit had thus resolved Beer on the merits, en banc, only 85 days after docketing.  

So what, you ask? How could this possibly be of interest to you, a patent litigator? Well, you have a point – you probably won’t have occasion to stipulate at the district court or the BPIA, and on appeal, that your client is toast due to applicable, binding Federal Circuit case law. But some patent litigants are out to make a big, precedential splash (e.g. ,the ACLU in its challenges to the BRCA gene patents). Perhaps in some of these “big picture” cases, a litigant has no realistic hope on the merits, absent the overruling of a Federal Circuit panel decision. [This was not the case for the ACLU, which actually won at the district court].  Or perhaps obliterating a binding precedent would be so valuable to a litigant (e.g., a “frequent defendant”) that it would be willing to concede away weak but non-frivolous arguments on the merits in order to directly attack the harmful precedent, post haste.

Maybe you’ll never have a Beer, but in the right, highly-exceptional patent case, you might want to use the Beer strategy.

Andrew Dhuey is an appellate lawyer last seen being chased by a flower-carrying guy in a dress.

TheraSense v. BD: Briefs on the Merits

By Dennis Crouch

Briefing continues in the en banc appeal of TheraSense (Abbott) v. BD and Bayer. That case stems from a district court finding that the TheraSense patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during prosecution of the patent. The Federal Circuit is taking the case as a vehicle for re-evaluating the judge-made-law of inequitable conduct. I have collected the majority of merits briefs filed thus far in the en banc rehearing.  Becton Dickinson & Bayer’s opposing brief is due October 8, 2010.  Amici-briefs in support of BD/Bayer are due the following week. Oral arguments are scheduled for November 9, 2010 in Washington DC.  (This post merely provides briefs. Analysis to follow.)

Court Decisions:

• District Court Opinion
• Original Panel Decision
• En Banc Order

Party Briefs:

• TheraSense (Abbott) Opening Brief: TheraSense.pdf (608 KB)

Amicus Brief filed in Support of TheraSense

• Sanofi-Aventis and Microsoft: AventisMicrosoft.pdf (791 KB)
• Ole Nilssen: Nilssen.pdf (1608 KB)

Amici Briefs filed in Support of Neither Party

• Apotex: Apotex.pdf (904 KB) 
• United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO): USPTO.pdf (770 KB)
• Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO): IPO.pdf (213 KB)
• Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA): FCBA.pdf (3291 KB)
• American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA): AIPLA.pdf (1036 KB)
• Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO): BIO.pdf (4318 KB)
• American Bar Association (ABA): ABA.pdf (1501 KB)
• Boston Patent Law Association: BostonPLA.pdf (290 KB)
• Conejo Valley Bar Association: ConejoValley.pdf (385 KB)
• Houston IP Law Association: HIPLA.pdf (1424 KB)
• San Diego IP Law Association: SDIPLA.pdf (1246 KB)
• Kentucky IP Law Students: Kentucky.pdf (731 KB)
• IP Law Association of Chicago: Chicago.pdf (1080 KB)
• Washington State IP Law Association: WashingtonState.pdf (194 KB)
• Patent Attorneys from Eli Lilly: EliLilly.pdf (416 KB)
• SAP: SAP.pdf (126 KB)
• Acacia: Acacia.pdf (481 KB)
• Dolby: Dolby.pdf (128 KB)
• Professor Hricik: Hricik.pdf (102 KB)
• Professor Mammen: Mammen.pdf (616 KB)
• J&J + P&G: JJPG.pdf (1539 KB)
• 22 Patent Law Firms: PatentFirms.pdf (244 KB)
• Verizon: Verizon.pdf (151 KB)
• ECore International: ECoreIntl.pdf (1192 KB)
• EISAI Pharmaceuticals: EISAI.pdf (1490 KB)
• Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA): PhRMA.pdf (2425 KB)

Changing the Law of Inequitable Conduct: Abbot Briefs its Case

TheraSense, Inc. (Abbott Labs.) v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. (Fed. Cir. 2010)(En Banc Rehearing)

In TheraSense v. BD, an en banc Federal Circuit is reconsidering the doctrinal structure that it has created to handle allegations of inequitable conduct. Abbott (the patent holder) has filed its opening merits brief arguing that the current law of inequitable conduct over-extends its proper bounds.  In an eloquent opening statement, Abbott writes:

The question in this case is not whether to reform the doctrine of inequitable conduct, but whether to restore it—to its origins in Supreme Court precedent; to the confines Congress intended in the 1952 Patent Act; to the standards this Court articulated en banc in Kingsdown Medical Consultants v. Hollister, Inc., 863 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1988); and to the standards that govern in other areas of law. This Court has expanded the inequitable conduct doctrine well beyond those boundaries, and the result has been an “ongoing pandemic” of inequitable conduct charges. Taltech Ltd. v. Esquel Enters. Ltd., 604 F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Gajarsa, J., dissenting). The expansion has rendered valuable patents unenforceable based on minor omissions far afield from the doctrine’s purposes. And it has converted the federal courts into roving commissions to enforce standards of conduct before the PTO without regard to whether the alleged infractions had any impact. . . .

Supreme Court precedent and the legal principles embodied in the Patent Act reserve those extreme consequences for the most egregious circumstances—cases where a party “obtained its patent by fraud.” Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172, 175, 176 (1965). As this Court has recognized, the Supreme Court has held patents unenforceable “only in cases of ‘fraud on the Patent Office.’” Star Scientific, 537 F.3d at 1365-66 (quoting Hazel–Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 250-51 (1944)); see Larson Mfg. Co. of S.D., Inc. v. Aluminart Prods. Ltd., 559 F.3d 1317, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Linn, J., concurring). A party seeking to invalidate a trademark or copyright based on misconduct before the agency must prove it was the product of fraud. The standard should be no less stringent here.

Briefs Filed Thus Far:

• Abbott Brief on the Merits — File Attachment: TS.EnBanc.TheraSense.pdf (608 KB) (discussed above).
• ABA Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party — File Attachment: TS.EnBanc.ABA.pdf (1501 KB) (Arguing that the standard should resemble requirements for common law fraud).
• Dolby Labs. Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party — File Attachment: TS.EnBanc.Dolby.pdf (128 KB) (intent to deceive should not be found where a proper prior art search by the examiner could have uncovered a withheld the reference).
• Professor Hricik Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party — File Attachment: TS.EnBanc.Hricik.pdf (222 KB) (arguing, inter alia, that the Patent Act provides important guidance for the law of inequitable conduct and unenforceability).
• Verizon Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party — File Attachment: TS.EnBanc.Verizon.pdf (151 KB) (arguing that judges should be free to consider equitable remedies that are less severe than holding the entire patent unenforceable).

Prometheus v. Mayo: En Banc Petition on Patentability of Medical Methods

Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services (Fed. Cir. 2010)(on petition en banc)

by Dennis Crouch

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in Bilski v. Kappos, Mayo has petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to sit en banc to re-hear its statutory subject matter challenge to the Prometheus  patents. (U.S. Patents 6,355,623 and 6,680,302).

The Prometheus Claims are directed toward an iterative approach of dosing an active drug ingredient (6-thioguanine).  Most of the claims are centered around three ordered-steps of:

1. administering a dose of the drug to the subject;
2. determining the amount of the drug in the subject’s blood; and
3. re-calibrating the drug dosage.

A broader claim (claim 46 of the ‘632 patent) does not require the administering step of claim 1 above.

In its 2006 decision, The district court held the Prometheus patents invalid under Section 101 — holding that the claims preempt all practical uses of a natural phenomenon.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed that decision — that the claims satisfied the Machine-or-Transformation test. Namely, the Federal Circuit panel held that the steps of “administering a drug” and “determining the level of 6-thioguanine” were both sufficiently transformative of “a particular article into a different state or thing.”

The transformation is of the human body following administration of a drug and the various chemical and physical changes of the drug’s metabolites that enable their concentrations to be determined. Because the claimed methods meet the transformation prong under Bilski, we do not consider whether they also meet the machine prong. . . . [C]laims to methods of treatment . . . are always transformative when a defined group of drugs is administered to the body to ameliorate the effects of an undesired condition. . . .

[T]he determining step, which is present in each of the asserted claims, is also transformative and central to the claimed methods. Determining the levels of 6-TG or 6-MMP in a subject necessarily involves a transformation, for those levels cannot be determined by mere inspection. Some form of manipulation, such as the high pressure liquid chromatography method specified in several of the asserted dependent claims or other modification of the substances to be measured, is necessary to extract the metabolites from a bodily sample and determine their concentration.

Preemption: The original appellate panel addressed preemption issue somewhat indirectly — holding that the claims could not preempt a fundamental principle because they passed the machine-or-transformation test: “Regardless, because the claims meet the machine-or-transformation test, they do not preempt a fundamental principle.”

Following its Bilski decision, the Supreme Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s Prometheus holding and remanded for further proceedings. 

Not Concentric: Some have described the Supreme Court’s Bilski v. Kappos holding as situated somewhere between the broad State Street decision and the narrow machine-or-transformation test. (See Joe Mullin’s article quoting Mark Lemley as saying “Now we're halfway in between.”).  However, Supreme Court’s vacatur in Prometheus suggests that there are cases that would have been patentable under the strict machine-or-transformation test but that are no longer patentable.  (Otherwise, the court could have simply denied Mayo’s petition for a writ of certiorari as it did in Fergusun.) 

Roadmap: The machine-or-transformation test offers a clue to the existence of Section 101 qualifying subject matter. However, Prometheus may well present a situation where the claims satisfy MoT, but fail because of their preemptive nature. In its brief, Mayo argues that the three-justice opinion dissenting from the dismissal (DIG) provides a “roadmap” for this case.

Avid ID v. Crystal Import: En Banc Request Denied On Issue of Inequitable Conduct by Non-Inventor CEO

By Dennis Crouch

In Avid ID, the Federal Circuit denied Avid's motion for en banc rehearing on the issue of whether inequitable conduct exists when the non-inventor, non-attorney CEO of a company applying for a patent failed to submit information to the USPTO about pre-filing but non-invalidating trade-show exhibit of a prior version of the patented product. Judge Newman dissented.   

* * *

Avid Identification Systems v. Crystal Import Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2010).

In its original decision in this case, the Federal Circuit held that the president of Avid ID Systems was "substantially involved" with the prosecution of the asserted patent and therefore was subject to the duty of disclosure. The court went on to find that the president had failed that duty by failing to advise the PTO of a trade-show demonstration that occurred more than one-year before the patent application was filed. The inequitable conduct decision was important to the case because the trade-show demonstration of a prior product did not leave the patent invalid under the statutory bar of 102(b)/103(a).   

Avid requested rehearing en banc and that its case join with the pending TheraSense en banc case or, in the alternative, to stay the rehearing decision until after Therasense is decided. The Federal Circuit has denied Avid's motion for rehearing en banc.

Judge Newman dissented from the rehearing denial and would have stayed the case to await changes in the law of inequitable conduct:

The law as applied in Avid is subject to conflicting precedent, a conflict whose resolution is reasonably likely to alter the result. Thus it is prudent, and just, to hold Avid’s petition while the law is clarified. The court today has declined to do so, rendering the subject patent permanently unenforceable, although the patent was found valid on the same prior art that is the basis for its unenforceability.

. . .

This court held that Dr. Stoddard’s demonstration during the Livestock Committee trade show of what the panel calls “some of Avid’s technology,” and Avid calls a “precursor product,” was material to patentability and that Dr. Stoddard was required to assure that the patent examiner was informed. According to the panel opinion, the district court “found that the precursor product, while not invalidating, reflected the closest prior art, and thus was highly material to patentability.” Avid Identification Sys., Inc. v. Crystal Import Corp., 603 F.3d 967, 973 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(“Avid II”). While “closest prior art” has been discussed in the context of whether certain information is cumulative of that already presented to an examiner, see, e.g., AstraZeneca Pharms. LP v. Teva Pharms. USA, 583 F.3d 766, 773-75 (Fed. Cir. 2009), it has never been the law that information is “highly material” simply because it is “closest.” It is not disputed that whatever was demonstrated was not an invalidating disclosure of the patented invention, and not a sale or offer to sell the patented invention, for the jury found that the demonstration at the Livestock Committee was not invalidating. See Avid I, 2007 WL 2901415, at *1.

Dr. Stoddard, who is the president of Avid, is a veterinarian whose principal occupation is running an animal hospital; he is not an electronics engineer and not a chip designer and not an inventor of the patented device and not a lawyer. See Avid II, 603 F.3d at 970. On the undisputed fact that the challenged information is not invalidating, the court’s holding of inequitable conduct is sufficiently questionable to warrant a stay until this court resolves the larger issues before us, including the en banc Order’s query: “Should a finding of materiality require that but for the alleged misconduct, one or more claims would not have issued?” Order, 2010 WL 1655391, at *1. It is at least possible that the court will answer this question in the affirmative. Although I do not venture to guess how Therasense will fare overall, it is not unreasonable to expect that it may affect the Avid decision.

The Avid panel applied the former Rule 56 standard of materiality as stated in J.P. Stevens & Co. v. Lex Tex Ltd., 747 F.2d 1553, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1984), although this standard was abandoned by the PTO in 1992. The information here criticized does not appear to violate the current Rule 56 standard, and Dr. Stoddard is not within the cadre upon whom is placed the obligation of understanding the patent law, as Judge Linn explained in his dissent. I must, respectfully, dissent from the court’s refusal to stay this appeal in view of the en banc proceeding in Therasense.

Documents:

• Avid En Banc Order (Avid III)
• Avid Inequitable Conduct Decision (Avid II)

Statutory Guidelines for Inequitable Conduct

In TheraSense, the en banc Federal Circuit is looking to rewrite the rules of inequitable conduct. By both its name and historic precedent, inequitable conduct appears to stem from non-statutory doctrines of equity. However, as with other equitable doctrines (such as injunctive relief), inequitable conduct could be somewhat tamed by the language of the Patent Act. In his TheraSense amicus brief, Professor Hricik is taking a useful approach by focusing on the statutory basis for holding claims unenforceable.

Two provisions of the Patent Act come to mind. One is general and the other specific. The general statute is 35 USC 282(1). That portion of Section 282 identifies "unenforceability" as a defense to patent infringement. In TheraSense, the court's first goal should be to interpret the meaning of unenforceability as found in that statute.

The more specific provision is Section 288. It is Section 288 that allows a patentee to assert infringement of remaining claims even after some of the claims are found invalid. Section 288 sets a specific limit on this separability principle. Namely, separability of claims does not apply when an invalidated claim was obtained through deceptive intent.

Whenever, without deceptive intention, a claim of a patent is invalid, an action may be maintained for the infringement of a claim of the patent which may be valid. 35 U.S.C. §288.

Section 288 is not exhaustive in its approach. Rather, the statute is only explicit that the remaining claims of a patent can be asserted even after one of the claims was found invalid, so long as that invalid claim was not obtained with deceptive intent. The statute does not explicitly indicate the result when an invalid claim was obtained with deceptive intent or, for that matter, when a valid claim was obtained with deceptive intent. In his brief, however, Professor Hricik concludes that these statutes should be read to – at times – limit the Court’s ability to automatically render all claims of a patent unenforceable after a finding of inequitable conduct.

Contact Professor Hricik if you (or your firm / company) are interested in joining the brief.

An Empirical Study of the Role of The Written Description Requirement in Patent Prosecution

[Download the Draft Essay]

Essay Overview: In the pending case of Ariad v. Eli Lilly, an en banc Federal Circuit is considering whether Section 112 of the Patent Act as properly interpreted includes a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. Although the USPTO has no direct role in the infringement dispute, the government submitted an amicus curiae brief arguing that a separate written description requirement is “necessary to permit the USPTO to perform its basic examination function.” However, when pressed during oral arguments the government could not point to any direct evidence supporting its contention.

This essay presents the results of a retrospective empirical study of the role of the written description requirement in patent office practice. It is narrowly focused on rebutting the USPTO’s claim that the separate written description requirement serves an important role in the patent examination process. To the contrary, my results support the conclusion suggested by Chief Judge Michel during oral arguments that it is indeed “exceedingly rare that the patent office hangs its case on written description.”

For the study, I analyzed 2858 Board of Patent Appeals and Interference (BPAI) patent opinions decided January-June 2009. Written description issues were decided in 123 (4.3%) of the decisions in my sample. Perhaps surprisingly, I found that none of the outcomes of those decisions would have been impacted by a legal change that entirely eliminated the written description requirement of Section 112 so long as the USPTO would still be allowed to reject claims based on the addition of “new matter” (perhaps under 35 U.S.C. Section 132). New-matter style written description requirement rejections were outcome-determinative in 20 of the 2858 cases – about 1.0% of the cases in my sample. (I am very confident that the PTO will retain its ability to make new matter rejections even if the separate written description requirement is eliminated.)

Although there may be valid reasons for retaining a separate written description requirement, this study safely leads to the conclusion that the government’s conclusory statements regarding the doctrine's critical importance for patent examination lack a factual basis.

Continue reading the essay. [PDF]

These results fit well with those of UMKC professor Christopher Holman that he reported in his 2007 article, Is Lilly Written Description a Paper Tiger?: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Impact of Eli Lilly and its Progeny in the Courts and PTO , 17 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 1, 62 (2007).

Bits and Bytes No. 127: Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

Upcoming Conferences:

• World Research Group, a Patently-O job board sponsor, will be holding a TechNet Patents Forum in New York on November 5-6. Patently-O readers will receive a $300 discount by using the promo code EAG476.

Federal Circuit En Banc:

• On September 18, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will sit en banc to hear two non-patent cases.
• Nebraska Public Power v. US:
  • The Nebraska case is one of several dozen Federal Claims actions against the US Government for breach of contract and takings for the Government's failure to begin removing spent nuclear fuel.
  • Question: Does the mandamus order issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Northern States Power Co. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 128 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 1997) preclude the United States from pleading the "unavoidable delay" defense to the breach of contract claim pending in the United States Court of Federal Claims, and if so, does the order exceed the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia Circuit?
• Henderson v. Dep't of Veteran Affairs:
  • Equitable tolling of claims for veteran's benefits
  • Question: Does the Supreme Court's decision in Bowles v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360 (2007), require or suggest that this court should overrule its decisions in Bailey v. West, 160 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Jaquay v. Principi, 304 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc), holding that 38 U.S.C. § 7266 is subject to equitable tolling?.

Relevance of the “manner in which the invention was made:”

• 35 U.S.C. 103(a) makes clear that “[p]atentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.” That final sentence of the paragraph was apparently intended to contrast the 1952 law from the Supreme Court’s loose statement in Cuno that a patentable invention must “reveal the flash of creative genius.” 314 U.S. 84 (1941).
• Should this statement be interpreted to mean that the inventor’s actual process has no relevance to the questions of novelty and nonobviousness? Or, is there still room for a jury to consider the actual creativity and genius of the inventor and the process used. (This question was suggested by a comment on the blog).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

• Written Description: Araid Petitions en banc Federal Circuit to Eliminate Separate Written Description Requirement
• Written Description: Pioneering Claims Require More Expansive Written Description
• See Chris Holman's blog for more [Link]
• Other News: Today the court also lifted its stay of en banc proceedings in the Tafas v. Dudas case. Briefs are due in October. However, it is widely expected that PTO Director Kappos will end the litigation by giving up on implementation of the proposed rules.

Written Description: Araid Petitions en banc Federal Circuit to Eliminate Separate Written Description Requirement

Ariad v. Eli Lilly (en banc suggestion 2009)

Ariad has petitioned the Federal Circuit for an en banc rehearing - boldly asking the court to eliminate the written description test as a distinct requirement of patentability under 35 USC Section 112, paragraph 1. The petition - drafted by Professors Duffy and Whealan - is essentially a well-formed collage of quotations from Federal Circuit dissents and 19th Century Supreme Court decisions.

The petition raises the following two questions:

(1) Whether this Court has erred by "engrafting . . . a separate written description requirement onto section 112, paragraph 1 .... " Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 560 F.3d 1366, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Linn, J., concurring).

(2) What is the proper test to satisfy the requirement in Section 112, paragraph 1, that a patent specification contain "a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same"?

Apart from the merits of this case, the brief notes that half of the Federal Circuit judges "have either voted to grant en banc review of this Court’s written description jurisprudence (Newman, Rader, Bryson, Gajarsa, and Linn, JJ.), or have expressly noted that future en banc review may be appropriate because this Court’s written description standards are unsatisfactory. (Dyk, J.).

Notes:

• Ariad Brief: ariadrehearingpetition.pdf
• Federal Circuit Decision
• The original opinion was written by Judge Moore and joined by Judge Prost. Judge Linn wrote a concurring opinion as a reminder of his belief that the written description requirement should be eliminated and enablement be allowed to do its job.
• Patent Docs has more.

Tafas v. Doll (En Banc Suggestion)

Tafas v. Doll (En Banc Suggestion)

Both Tafas and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) have filed petitions for en banc rehearing asking the Federal Circuit to stop the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) from implementing any of its proposed rules on continuations and claims.

The proposed rules can be split into two major categories: Rule 75 (requiring applicants to submit Examination Support Documents (ESD) to accompany any application that includes more than five independent or 25 total claims); Rule 78 (limiting applicants to two continuation applications absent a showing of need for more).

In a split decision, the Federal Circuit held that the limitations on continuations improperly conflict with 35 U.S.C. § 120, but that the remaining limits are "within the scope of the USPTO's rulemaking authority." (Limitations on RCEs do not create a problem).

In the motion for en banc rehearing, GSK raises the the questions of:

1. Whether the Panel majority erred in rejecting the test for determining whether a Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") rule is "substantive," as set forth in the controlling precedent of Chrysler, supra; Animal Legal Defense Fund, supra; and Cooper Technologies, supra.
2. Whether the Panel majority erred in holding that the challenged Final Rules, 72 Fed. Reg. 46,716 (Aug. 21, 2007), fall within the PTO's limited, non-substantive rulemaking authority.

Tafas raises similar questions of whether the Federal Circuit:

1. misapplied significant binding Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent concerning the correct standard for classifying administrative rules as "substantive" versus "non-substantive";
2. failed, contrary to Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent, to fully consider evidence that the Final Rules significantly and adversely affect individual rights and obligations under the law;
3. failed to correctly address, as required by Supreme Court precedent, the threshold question of whether the PTO has the jurisdictional authority under 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2) to enact the Final Rules; and
4. misapplied Chevron deference to its improper determination that Final Rules 75, 265 and 114 were not "inconsistent with existing law".

The federal circuit majority opinion by Judge Prost included a dissent by Judge Rader (arguing that the rules are substantive) and a concurring opinion by Judge Bryson (arguing that the conflict with Section 120 only applies to continuations that are co-pending with the first-filed application).

The diversity of opinion here gives this case an excellent chance at being heard by the full 12-member court. The important administrative law issues will also be appealing to the Supreme Court when it comes time to petition for certiorari.

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.

Judge Linn Calls for En Banc Restatement of the Law of Inequitable Conduct

Larson Mfg. Co. v. Aluminart Products Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2008)

Larson's patent covers a specially designed outside. The appeal focuses on inequitable conduct and the Federal Circuit vacated a district court judgment that the asserted patent was unenforceable. I will return to the decision in a later post, but wanted to focus attention on the concurring opinion by Judge Linn and his call for an en banc review of inequitable conduct jurisprudence. Linn's concerns could be addressed by the Supreme Court in Aventis Pharma v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, which is pending certiorari.

I write separately … to express my view that this precedent has significantly diverged from the Supreme Court's treatment of inequitable conduct and perpetuates what was once referred to as a "plague" that our en banc court sought to cure in Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc., 863 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (en banc). …

Symptoms of this plague are apparent from the facts of this case. The patent-in-suit has undergone examination twice in the PTO, and the patentee has been accused of inequitable conduct on each occasion for allegedly withholding material information. During original prosecution, the PTO considered 143 references, 135 of which the submitted two more IDSs in the reexamination, each within approximately one month of the application's Office Actions. The IDSs contained all references relied on in those rejections but did not include the Office Actions themselves. With full knowledge of the co-pending application, the PTO confirmed the patent, which survived reexamination without substantive change to the litigated claims. When the litigation resumed, the accused infringer again charged the patentee with inequitable conduct, this time based on conduct in the reexamination. This second inequitable conduct allegation was the sole issue at trial. Following remand today, the litigation will continue to focus on inequitable conduct, to the exclusion of the patentee's infringement contentions.

The ease with which inequitable conduct can be pled, but not dismissed, is a problem of our own making. The Supreme Court's three inequitable conduct cases involved overt fraud, not equivocal acts of omission. Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Auto. Maint. Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806, 809, 819 (1945) ("patent claims infected with fraud and perjury" where assignee knew that its employee "gave false dates as to the conception, disclosure, drawing, description and reduction to practice" during interference proceeding and then "secured the perjured . . . application and exacted promises from the other parties never to question the validity of any patent that might be issued on that application"); Keystone Driller Co. v. Gen. Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240, 243 (1933) (false affidavits and deposition testimonies obtained "for valuable considerations" averring that the prior art use "was an abandoned experiment" and "to keep secret the details of the prior use"); Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 240, 243 (1944) (false trade article procured from "an ostensibly disinterested expert" in exchange for $8,000 to gain patent issuance in spite of previously "insurmountable Patent Office opposition"), overruled on other grounds by Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17 (1976).

We clarified en banc that the "two elements, materiality and intent, must be proven by clear and convincing evidence," and that "'gross negligence' does not of itself justify an inference of intent to deceive." Kingsdown. But in seeming contradiction with Kingsdown, a standard even lower than "gross negligence" has propagated through our case law. This standard permits an inference of deceptive intent when "(1) highly material information is withheld; (2) 'the applicant knew of the information [and] . . . knew or should have known of the materiality of the information; and (3) the applicant has not provided a credible explanation for the withholding.'" Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

This test is problematic. First, the "high materiality" prong of the intent element simply repeats the materiality element. Conflating materiality and intent in this manner is inconsistent with the principle that "materiality does not presume intent, which is a separate and essential component of inequitable conduct." Manville Sales Corp. The second, "should have known" prong sets forth a simple negligence standard, lower even than the "gross negligence" standard that was expressly rejected in Kingsdown. I also question whether a fact-finder who has deemed information to be "highly material" would not also be compelled to conclude that a reasonable patentee "should have known of the materiality," at least when the patentee "knew of the information," as prong two requires. Third, the "credible explanation" prong effectively shifts the burden to the patentee to prove a negative: that it did not intend to deceive the PTO. But it is the "accused infringer"—not the patentee—who "must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the material information was withheld with the specific intent to deceive the PTO." Star Scientific, Inc. As to this third prong, we have also explained that "[t]he patentee need not offer any good faith explanation unless the accused infringer first carried his burden to prove a threshold level of intent to deceive by clear and convincing evidence." Id. As explained above, however, the first two prongs are not evidence of deceptive intent. The first is evidence of materiality; the second is evidence of negligence. These two prongs are therefore insufficient as a matter of law to establish a clear and convincing "threshold level" of deceptive intent before the third prong can ever properly come into play.

As it now stands, the test generally permits an inference of deceptive intent to be drawn whenever the three prongs are satisfied. This is in tension with the rule in Star Scientific that "the inference must not only be based on sufficient evidence and be reasonable in light of that evidence, but it must also be the single most reasonable inference able to be drawn from the evidence." Id. It cannot be said that deceptive intent is the "single most reasonable inference" when all that prong two shows is that the patentee "should have known" that the information was material. An equally reasonable inference under this test is that the patentee incorrectly believed that the information was not material, or that the patentee was negligent, or even grossly negligent. None of these gives rise to deceptive intent under Kingsdown, nor is deceptive intent the "single most reasonable inference" under Star Scientific.

For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully submit that the test for inferring deceptive intent, as it currently exists, falls short of the standard "need[ed] to strictly enforce the burden of proof and elevated standard of proof in the inequitable conduct context." Star Scientific. The facts of this case suggest that the time has come for the court to review the issue en banc.

Cardiac Pacemaker v. Jude: Challenging 271(f) Liability for Components of a Method

Cardiac Pacemakers v. St. Jude Medical (On motion for en banc rehearing)

35 U.S.C. § 271 defines various types of patent infringement including direct infringement and contributory infringement. Section 271(f) details a special cause of action that captures some transnational activities. In particular, Section 271(f) creates a cause of action for supplying components of a patented invention to be assembled abroad.

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled on a 271(f) case -- finding that software per se cannot be considered a "component" under the statute. Microsoft v AT&T, 550 U.S. 437 (2007). In December 2008, the Federal Circuit decided Cardiac Pacemaker and held that the Microsoft v. AT&T did not overrule a prior precedential ruling that Section 271(f) does extend to cover components of a claimed method. “[T]he Supreme Court’s decision does not alter [the] holding” that “271(f) applies to components used in the performance of patented methods and processes.” The precedent in question is Union Carbide v. Shell. Although the Federal Circuit denied a request to rehear the Union Carbide case, Judges Lourie, Michel, and Linn, argued then that the issue was ready for en banc review. Judge Dyk also dissent from the en banc denial in Union Carbide.

In their decision, the panel (Judges Newman, Mayer, & Lourie) practically begged for en banc rehearing: "As a panel, we cannot reverse the holding of another panel of this court. We thus affirm the district court’s decisions relating to damages." [Link] Of course, Judge Mayer signed-on to Judge Rader's original Union Carbide opinion.

Now, the defendant (St. Jude) has asked for a rehearing en banc. If unsuccessful, we can expect a petition for a writ of certiorari. The FCBA and AIPLA joined forces in an amicus brief supporting the rehearing en banc and for a reversal of the Union Carbide analysis. Writing on behalf of Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle, and Symantec, Ed Reines also argues that the rule should be overturned. The tech companies argue in particular that the limit on exports creates major adverse economic incentives.

"A very common business arrangement is for United States companies to export instructions, materials, recipes, and other knowledge-exports to Asian and other off-shore locations where manufacturing processes takes place. An overbroad extraterritorial interpretation of § 271(f) to apply to process patents creates potential worldwide liability for companies based in the United States that export anything that can properly be considered a process step. Yet, if their competitors exist outside the United States, they are not exposed to liability for United States patent infringement for supporting foreign manufacturing processes."

A good handful of judges have at least loosely indicated that they would support an en banc rehearing -- making this a very likely candidate.

Notes:

• Discussion of the December 2008 Cardiac decision
• Read the December 2008 Cardiac decision

Briefs:

• Petition for Rehearing En Banc.pdf
• FCBA-AIPLA Amicus Brief.PDF
• Cardiac TechCo Amicus Brief.pdf

Federal Circuit Revises (Muzzles) Comiskey

In re Comiskey (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Revised Panel Opinion)(En Banc Order)

After a request for en banc rehearing, the original Federal Circuit panel has revised its decision in Comsikey – erasing the "misunderstood" phrases of the original opinion linking Sections 101 (subject matter) and 103 (nonobviousness). The original opinion implicitly held that any portion of an invention that would constitute nonstatutory subject matter would be considered de facto obvious. [Link]

The new opinion finds that Comiskey's method claims do not present patentable subject matter and remanded the case to the PTO to determine the subject matter eligibility of the system claims. The Federal Circuit refused to consider nonobviousness issues – even though nonobviousness was the sole issue presented in the original appeal. Subject matter eligibility had been raised sua sponte by the panel.

Judges Moore and Newman each dissented from the en banc order. Judge Moore argued that the decision violates the court's "well established precedent that this court will not consider new grounds of rejecting patent claims on appeal."

En Banc Federal Circuit Revives Design Patent Law

Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa (Fed. Cir 2008, en banc)

In a rare unanimous en banc opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has revived the value of design patent protection by loosening the standard for infringement. The opinion – penned by Judge Bryson – rejects the "point of novelty" test as a requirement to prove infringement of a design patent. Instead, the judges agree that the 1871 Gorham "ordinary observer" test is the "sole test for determining whether a design patent has been infringed."

The focus of the Gorham test is to look for substantial similarity between the patented design and the accused design. It is called the ordinary observer test because the similarity is considered from the perspective of an ordinary observer who is familiar with the art. Although Gorham only requires a comparison between the patented and accused designs, prior art designs will generally be useful for highlighting differences. A second pro-patentee rule that emerges from this case is that the burden of production of prior art designs will fall on the accused infringer. On claim construction, the Federal Circuit agreed that a 'verbal description' of the diagrams is not required, but will not – by itself – be reversible error.

Ordinary Observer With a Tight Focus: Although the patentee was able to change the law, it actually lost the day. In the appeal, the CAFC concluded that even under the ordinary observer test, "no reasonable fact finder could find that EGI met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an ordinary observer, taking into account the prior art, would believe the accused design to be the same as the patented design."

The courts application of the law shows that proving infringement under the ordinary observer test will not be a walk in the park for design patent holders. Many cases will likely still turn on technical points of similarity rather than simply a broader totality of similarity. Yet, despite the potential difficulties, the situation is vastly improved from the hardships imposed by the point of novelty test.

More to come…

Ex Parte Bilski: On the Briefs:

In Ex Parte Bilski, an en banc Federal Circuit plans to reconsider the scope of patentable subject matter as it relates to business methods and so called mental methods. Perhaps more importantly to the patent system as a whole, the court is considering the proper procedures going forward for determining whether a particular invention falls within the scope of 35 USC 101.

In its en banc decision, the CAFC invited non-party amici briefs, which were due April 7. (Scroll down to find the briefs).  In reading through the briefs, the first aspect that caught my attention was a common theme that institutional strengths and weaknesses of the PTO and Courts should help dictate the ultimate subject matter rule.  

• Prof Morris: Through its examiners, the PTO has expertise in determining the technical questions of novelty, nonobviousness, and indefiniteness. On the other hand, examiners do not have the expertise to decide “philosophical and abstract” issues of statutory subject matter.
• Prof Lemley*: Arbitrary subject matter boundaries have generally been difficult to enforce and usually result in patent attorneys using “magic words” to avoid the limits. (*NOTE: I signed Prof Lemley’s brief along with 21 other law professors.)
• Prof Collins: A test that excludes “human cognition” elements is administrable.
• EFF: Proposed three-step process provides a more “efficient and meaningful” way to administer the Section 101 threshold.
• AIPLA: Section 112 should guard claim scope rather than Section 101.

Narrow or Expansive: The main thrust of the Bilski arguments, however, focus on whether patentable subject matter should be narrow or expansive. I have categorized the briefs on this axis:

Expansive Subject Matter:

• Prof Lemley: We cannot predict the next area of innovation, and arbitrary limits on patent scope reduces incentives in those potential areas. “Bad patents” should be dealt with using the true tools of the Patent Act: Sections 102, 103, and 112. “Mental methods” should be allowed if they fall within the other requirements of patentability.
• Regulatory Data Corp (Prof Duffy): Even under a narrow definition, applied economics is now part of the “useful arts.”  Statutory subject matter should only limit claims directed to abstract ideas, physical phenomena, or principles of nature.
• AIPLA: We should continue to follow Diehr, State Street, & AT&T.
• RMC: Business methods should be patentable.
• American Express: Patenting of business and information management processes encourages the development of those useful societal tools.
• Accenture: Business methods should be patentable regardless of any physicality limitations. Congress has deemed that business methods should be patentable via 35 USC 273.
• Greg Aharonian: The Supreme Court’s 1876 Cochraine test does not exclusively define “process.” Rather, a patent eligible process should be broadly defined to include any process or method that yields a “useful concrete and tangible result.”
• Koninklijke Philips: The court should be wary of relying upon precedent that focused on traditional manufacturing methods. Rather, the court should look at the broad definition of process required by Congress in 35 U.S.C. 100(b).

Narrow Subject Matter:

• Prof Sarnoff: The court should return to the precedent of Flook. The inventive concept of a patent cannot be an abstract idea (such as hedging risk). Likewise, an information processing method must include significant post-solution activity. State Street is unconstitutionally over-broad.
• End Software patents: Software should not be patentable even when loaded on a computer. Rather, to be patentable, there must be significant additional (non-information processing) physical activity.
• American Civil Liberties Union: Patents mental processes would violate the first amendment.
• EFF: There must be a technological component of a patentable invention.
• Computer & Communications Industry Association: The CAFC should shed its “patentee-centric approach” and insted try to meet the needs of the modern world. In particular, the court should consider the systemic policy implications of its decisions. The policy implications of broader patent coverage is more litigation & rent seeking.
• IBM: There is no sound policy for allowing business method patents.
• American Institute of CPAs: Tax methods should not be patentable because they preempt free use of the tax laws. (Of course, the same could be said of CPAs charging corporations for their service).
• SAP: A process should both (1) have a concrete, useful, and tangible result and (2) be “sufficiently machine-like” in order to avoid preempting work-arounds. However, software processes should be patentable.
• Prof Collins: The court should add a “human cognition” exception to Section 101. Steps involving human cognition should receive no consideration in judging patentability.
• Red Hat: Software patents put a huge kink in the open source software movement.
• Financial Services Industry: State Street and its progeny are unduly broad. A token inclusion of a ‘machine’ in a claim would not render that claim patentable subject matter.
• Dell & Microsoft: A patentable invention must operate on “something physical.” To be patentable, software should be tied to a computer and cause some physical transformation (such as movement of electrons). And, following Comiskey, a patent should not be granted under 103 if the inventor merely combined well known computer hardware with inventive but otherwise unpatentable software.

Other?

• Yahoo! and Prof Merges: A strict “technology” requirement is too inflexible. State Street taught us that such a strict requirement does not fit well with “onrushing technology.” The Yahoo!/Merges test: a patent eligible process must itself be “stable, predictable, and reproducible” and its result must be “useful, concrete, and tangible.”  Bilski’s claims would not be eligible because they do not define a “stable” process.
• Intellectual Property Owners Association: A process that is either implemented by a machine or that transforms matter into another state is patentable subject matter.  IPO favorably cites the Flook limitations on on information processing.
• Business Software Alliance: Courts should err on the side of patentable subject matter because Sections 102, 103, and 112 make-up any slack. Software should be patentable. However, Bilski’s invention is not patentable because it is an abstract idea.
• Washington State IP Law Assn: The CAFC should re-write State Street to be consistent with Supreme Court precedent.
• Prof Morris: Subject matter questions should be avoided. Rather the PTO and courts should look to the substantive rules of 102, 103, and 112 to decide the issue. Section 101 jurisprudence has been both haphazard and unfair.

The elephant in the room is the recent Comiskey decision. There, it appeared that the court refused to give any patentable weight to the portion of the invention directed to non-statutory subject matter. In its brief, the Boston Patent Law Assn asks the court to clarify the following statement from Comiskey:

“The routine addition of modern electronics to an otherwise unpatentable invention typically creates a prima facie case of obviousness. Moreover, there is no pertinent evidence of secondary considerations because the only evidence offered is of long-felt need for the unpatentable mental process itself, not long-felt need for the combination of the mental process and a modern communication device or computer.”

Notes:

• I signed Professor Lemley’s brief along with twenty-one other law professors. The theory behind the brief follows the IPO brief that I helped draft in the Metabolite case.

Amici Briefs:

• Accenture: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.accenture.pdf
• ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/in_re_bilski_aclu_amicus.pdf
• AIPLA: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.aipla.pdf
• AMEX: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.amex.pdf
• BIO: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.bio.pdf
• BPLA: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.bpla.pdf
• BSA: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.bsa.pdf
• CCIA: http://www.ccianet.org/docs/filings/ip/CCIA-Bilski-Amicus.pdf
• CPA: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.aicpa.pdf
• Dell & Microsoft: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.microsoft.pdf
• EFF (Schultz) www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.eff.pdf
• Eli Lilly: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.lilly.pdf
• EOS (End of Software) www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.eos.pdf
• Financial Services Industry: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.fsi.pdf
• IBM: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.ibm.pdf
• IPO: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.ipo.pdf
• Mr. Aharonian: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.aharonian.pdf
• Mr. Morgan: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.morgan.pdf
• Philips: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.philips.pdf
• Prof Collins: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.collins.pdf
• Prof Lemley: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.lemley.pdf
• Prof Morris: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.rjmorris.pdf
• Prof Sarnoff: www.patentlyo.com/bilski.sarnoff.pdf
• RDC (Duffy) www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.duffy.pdf
• Red Hat: http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/federal_circuit_brief.pdf
• RMC: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.acr.pdf
• SAP: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.sap.pdf 
• Software & Information Industry Assn: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.siaa.pdf [sic]
• WA IP: www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.wash.pdf
• Yahoo! & Prof Merges: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/bilski.yahoomerges.pdf
  

 

 

 

 

Inducement Requires Knowledge of The Patent and Culpable Mens Rea

DSU Medical v. JMS (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc)

The interesting portion of this opinion rests in Section III.B, where the CAFC convened an en banc panel to clarify that “inducement” of infringement requires intent to induce actual infringement, which necessarily requires knowledge of the patent.

Section 271(b) of the Patent Act spells out the tort: “Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer."

Applying the language of Grokster, the CAFC clarified that in patent cases, “the intent requirement for inducement requires more than just intent to cause the acts that produce direct infringement. . . . [I]nducement requires evidence of culpable conduct, directed to encouraging another’s infringement.”  According to the court, this culpable conduct requires knowledge of the patent and an intent to induce infringement of the patent.

As Kevin Noonan has noted, the distinction in this case is that “there was evidence (an opinion of counsel and testimony from corporate officials) that the defendant believed that the accused behavior was not infringement. Thus, CAFC said the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the defendant did not intend to induce infringement, which was the mens rea required for liability under 35 USC 271(b).”