Patent Law Blog (Patently-O)

Double Patenting: Proving Distinctiveness Based on Later Developed Evidence

Takeda Pharma. v. Doll (Fed. Cir. 2009)

For several decades, Hal Wegner has been the shepherd of Takeda's family of Cepham patents claiming priority back to 1974. The question on appeal in this case involves double patenting and whether post-filing developments in the art can be used to inform the question of whether two claims are "patentably distinct." Takeda's evidence that its claims were distinct was generated in this decade, but the PTO argued that double patenting must be determined based on evidence pre-dating the priority application. Takeda could file a terminal disclaimer, but that would destroy the valuable pre-GATT patent term.

Obviousness Type Double Patenting is also known as non-statutory double patenting because ... the theory is not based on any statute. Rather the doctrine is a judicially created mechanism designed to prevent a patentee from unfairly extending the term of patent rights through consecutive patents. To the extent this problem existed, much of it was eliminated in the 1995 changes that linked the patent term with the filing date rather than the issue date. Under the doctrine, separate claims with different patent terms will not both be patentable unless their subject matter is "patentably distinct." Today the double patenting issues may arise most frequently when family-member patent terms differ due to patent term adjustments based on PTO delay during prosecution.

Product and Process: Takeda's case involves a change in claim form. The PTO argued that the company's latter manufacturing process claims are not patentably distinct from its earlier product claims. Generally, a product and its manufacturing process are deemed patentably distinct when “the product as claimed can be made by another materially different process.” MPEP § 806.05. Here, the "materially different process" was not known until well-after the applications were filed.

Holding: In its holding, the Federal Circuit compromised: Evidence of distinctiveness can be post-filing, but must be prior to the filing of the secondary application because that filing "actually triggers the potential of an unjustified extension of patent term."   The case is then remanded for a determination of whether Takeda can prove distinctiveness using evidence that predates the second application (which was filed in 1990).

Judge Schall concurred in the judgment of remand, but disagreed with the rule of law that post-filing information should be available to prove distinctiveness. "I believe that tying the inquiry to the invention date is most commensurate with patent law as a whole and the policy goals relating to obviousness-type double patenting." Judge Schall noted that the double patenting doctrine is one of patentability - and thus should be judged based on the date of invention.

Comments: I do not pretend to know the correct rule. However, Judge Rader's decision looks to be incorrect. His judgment was based on the filing date of the second application as being the triggering date for the potential of an unjustified extension of patent term. Of course, the potential having double patenting problems was at least implicitly created in the original filing. If you are looking for an explicit trigger, that might not even be found in the second application as filed since claims are usually amended during prosecution. If selecting a triggering date - I would have chosen the date that the second patent issues. Until that point, there is no double patenting.

Note:

• Judge Moore joined Judge Rader's majority opinion.

In re Ferguson (Answers to Frequently Asked Questions FAQ)

Scott Harris is the attorney who prosecuted, briefed, and argued in re Ferguson at the Federal Circuit. Harris is a former Fish & Richardson partner and is now in solo practice. He is also listed as a co-inventor on the patent application in dispute here as well as 40 other patents and 100+ pending applications. I asked him to provide his perspective on the case. In response, Harris provided the following FAQ.

What is Ferguson’s holding?

In order for a claim to be patentable under 35 USC 101, that claim must recite either a machine, or recite something that is tied to a machine; or the claim must transform some physical thing. The machine or the physical thing being transformed cannot be a paradigm, cannot be a corporation, and cannot be a legal obligation. 35 USC 101 requires that you must be able to “touch” the machine or the thing being transformed.

How does Ferguson differ from Bilski?

The patent application of In re Bilski, 545, F.3d 943 (Fed Cir 2008) related to an improved mathematical way in which hedged commodities were analyzed and managed. Like many of the previous “preemption” cases that had been decided by the Supreme Court and by the Federal Circuit, Bilski’s claims recited a mathematical algorithm. The Federal Circuit holding announced a new test – requiring the claim combination to be either tied to a “machine” (e.g. a computer) , or claiming a transformation of an object. Since there was no “machine” or “transformation”, the court concluded that Bilski’s claims would “preempt” one specific mathematical form of hedging, effectively stopping anyone else from using these mathematical formulas in the same way. The machine/transformation cannot be peripheral to the claim – which means that the machine or transformation cannot be related to data gathering or “mere” post solution activity.

Unlike the “preemption” cases relied on by the Bilski court, Ferguson had no mathematical calculation at all. The Federal Circuit chose to extend the Bilski test beyond the confines of “preemption” to defeat patentability of Ferguson’s pure business method. Ferguson holds that Bilski’s “machine or transformation” test is the sole and exclusive test for determining patentable subject matter, with or without a mathematical calculation.

Ferguson also held

- that the machine prong of the Bilski test must be a physical thing that one must be able to touch, and

- that the “article” to be changed into a different state or thing cannot be a legal obligation – and presumably likewise must be something that can be touched.

What was the Ferguson patent application about?

In a nutshell – software written by the little guy that was marketed and supported as though it had been written by the big guy. We believed that institutions would simply refuse to adopt or purchase any software unless it was supported by a credible company. Someone in their basement could write the best word processor or drawing program ever – but no one would ever know, because few would ever adopt it.

The patent application claimed a way to support a very small software developer or writer - who had the skills to write the software, but did not have the skills or resources to market and support the software. Ferguson claimed a shared marketing force that took a share of the income or profit from the software in return for doing this marketing and support.   

Why did you write claims to a “paradigm”?

In 1999, new forms of patents and claims were erupting. The patent office had decided to accept as statutory Beauregard claims, which recited a sequence of instructions on a readable computer media. I was excited by the prospect of writing a whole new claim form for the business method genre.

I had originally filed Ferguson’s patent application with many claims reciting a “paradigm”, a way in which a business organization would carry out a specific business task. Other claims defined a process of doing that business task. Ferguson was about selling computer software, and that was not something that would normally be carried out on a computer.   

Based on everything I knew at that time, business methods should be patentable. I wanted to see if we could get the patent office to accept a wholly new form of claim adapted to the business method. I called this a paradigm, which Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions defined as “an accepted model or pattern, . . . Paradigms gain their status because they are more successful than their competitors in solving a few problems that the group of practitioners has come to recognize as acute.” A paradigm in this sense, therefore, referred to the successful way in which a problem is solved.

Why did you think you get claims like this?

I believed the Supreme Court when they said that 35 USC §101 allows you to patent “anything under the sun that is made by man". Diamond v Chakrabarty, 447 US 303, 308 (1980).

I believed the Federal Circuit, when they said that "business methods" were patentable. State Street Bank and Trust v Signature Financial Group Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed Cir 1998).

I did not believe there was any prior art defeating patentability, and indeed, the patent office never found any.

Are Business Methods still patentable after Bilski/Ferguson?

Bilski expressly did not overrule the part of State Street Bank and Trust v Signature Financial Group Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed Cir 1998), which held that business methods were NOT per se unpatentable.

However, I define a business method as a novel and unobvious way that a business carries out a new business function.

The holdings in Bilski and Ferguson make any such business method unpatentable, unless tied to a machine, or operated to transform a physical object. Therefore, some ways of carrying out the business method may be patentable under Bilski / Ferguson. I do not believe any pure business method could be patented under the holdings of Bilski/Ferguson.

What’s your take away from Ferguson?

Disclose (and claim) interaction with a computer in every patent application that is not a pure mechanical device.

Don’t get your hopes up about the patent office accepting an innovative claim form.

No Stay of District Court Proceedings Pending Appeal of Preliminary Injunction

Fairchild Semiconductor v. Third Dimension (3D) Semiconductor (Fed. Cir. 2009) (nonprecedential order)

Fairchild originally licensed 3D's US and Chinese patents - agreeing to a royalty for all Fairchild products "covered by" a 3D patent. However, after analyzing the patents, Fairchild decided that it need not pay any royalties and then sued for a declaratory judgment that it owed no royalties and that none of its products are covered by 3D's patents.

Restraining License Termination: In a preliminary ruling, the district court granted Fairchild's request for a preliminary injunction prohibiting 3D from terminating the license agreement. The ongoing license serves as a defense to charges of patent infringement by 3D. As the district court held, "termination of the agreement does create irreparable harm in depriving Fairchild of its primary defense to 3D patent infringement litigation.

The threat of such litigation is not speculative: 3D has already filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and has promised to file an infringement case in China based on the Chinese patents otherwise licensed by the Agreement. Without the Agreement as an affirmative defense to those suits, Fairchild could be forced to endure years of litigation in those other forums despite this Court eventually ruling that Fairchild did not breach the Agreement.

The preliminary injunction is now on appeal to the Federal Circuit. In a recent order, the appellate panel rejected 3D's motion to stay the district court proceedings pending outcome of the appeal. 3D argued that the appeal divested the district court with jurisdiction over the matter. That argument was regarded "without merit."

A preliminary injunction, i.e., an injunction pendente lite, is an injunction issued pending the ongoing litigation. Although a district court may not proceed with matters involved with the injunction itself, e.g., it may not amend the injunction, or make findings to support its injunction while the injunction is on appeal, the district court may proceed with the litigation and permit discovery, enter rulings on summary judgment, or hold a trial on the merits. (internal citations omitted)

Briefing in the appeal will begin in April.

Notes & Docs:

• Federal Circuit Order
• Dennis Crouch, Enforcing Foreign Patents in the US: Distinguishing Voda, Patently-O (Dec. 12, 2008) at http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/12/enforcing-forei.html.

Federal Circuit Awards Sanctions for Frivolous Appeal

E-Pass v. 3Com, Palm, Visa, et al. (Fed. Cir. 2009)

This litigation began in 2000 when E-Pass sued for infringement of its electronic credit card patent. Patent No. 5,276,311. The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement, which was affirmed on appeal. The district court then found the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarded attorneys' fees to the defendants. E-Pass appealed that judgment. In a counter-motion, PalmSource also asked for attorneys fees for the appeal – arguing that the appeal was frivolous as well. The Federal Circuit affirmed the trial court without opinion, but wrote an extensive opinion finding a frivolous appeal.

Frivolous Appeal: An appeal is frivolous if the appellant fails "to present cogent or clear arguments for reversal." In addition, the court may award sanctions based on misconduct or misrepresentations to the appellate court.

Here, the court found that E-Pass did not present any specific argument relating to the attorney fees for one of the defendants – PalmSource. Instead, the plaintiff-appellant focused on its case against the other defendants. E-Pass did not "challenge any finding of the district court relating to litigation misconduct in the case against PalmSource." Furthermore, E-Pass did not change its strategy even after being notified of PalmSource's frivolous appeal argument. Adding to E-Pass's problems are "multiple misrepresentations" to the Federal Circuit – primarily in referring to the defendants collectively when each stood in different situations. Perhaps the straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back was E-Pass's use of the quote that "a trial court may only sanction the patentee if both the litigation is brought in subjective bad faith and the litigation is objectively baseless." With the help of PalmSource and the CAFC clerks, the court easily found that a critical exception to the sanctions rule had been left off. Notably, the full quote reads: "Absent misconduct in the litigation or in securing the patent, a trial court may only sanction the patentee if both the litigation is brought in subjective bad faith and the litigation is objectively baseless."

Sanctions and attorney fees granted against E-Past and its counsel, jointly and severally.

In dissent, Judge Bryson saw serious misconduct, but would not have imposed sanctions.

Accepting that in those regards E-Pass’s briefs on appeal fell short of the standards we expect of counsel in this court, I nonetheless conclude that the shortfall is not so egregious as to call for the imposition of sanctions.

Inequitable Conduct Based on Failure to Submit Rejection in Co-Pending Case

Larson Mfg. Co. v. Aluminart Products Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2009)

In an earlier post, I discussed the concurring opinion in this case where Judge Linn argued for a restatement of the law of inequitable conduct that makes it more difficult to allege inequitable conduct absent evidence of fraud. This post covers the majority opinion.

Larson sued Aluminart for infringement of two claims of its patent covering a storm door with a moving glass panel. Without reaching the merits of the infringement argument, the district court found the patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during prosecution. The district court found that the patentee had improperly withheld documents from the examiners during reexamination of the patent. (The reexamination had been requested by Aluminart). The Federal Circuit provided the following description of the lower court holding:

The [district] court found that Larson failed to disclose to the Reexamination Panel three items of prior art and two office actions issued in the prosecution of a continuation application that grew out of the application that resulted in the ’998 patent [the patent being reexamined]. The court rejected Larson’s argument that the three items of prior art were cumulative of prior art which already was before the Reexamination Panel and therefore were not material, as well as its argument that the office actions were not material because all of the critical references noted in them already had been disclosed to the Reexamination Panel. After finding that Larson intended to deceive the Reexamination Panel, the court balanced its findings of materiality and intent and found inequitable conduct.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the holding and remanded for a potential new trial on inequitable conduct.

The inequitable conduct charges stem from the PTO's parallel examination of both the reexam of the patent in suit and a continuation application. During the reexam, Larson's patent attorney submitted hundreds of references, district court proceedings, and disclosed the co-pending continuation. However, the patent attorney did not cross-cite two office action rejections from the continuation or one of the prior art references from the continuation (although every other reference from the continuation was cited). In addition, the attorney did not cite two marketing configuration sheets that were later uncovered during discovery.

Law of Inequitable Conduct: Inequitable Conduct requires clear and convincing evidence of at least a threshold level of evidence that the applicant both (1) "made an affirmative misrepresentation of material fact, failed to disclose material information, or submitted false material information" and (2) by that act "intended to deceive the PTO." The materiality of the action is determined based on a reasonable examiner standard - what would a reasonable examiner "consider important in deciding whether to allow the application to issue as a patent?" If an unsubmitted reference is cumulative to information already on hand, then it will not be seen as material. Proof of intent to withhold a reference is not sufficient. Rather, the evidence must show intent to deceive the PTO. That said, intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence. After finding both threshold materiality and intent, the court must determine if the proof is sufficient to find inequitable conduct and consequently hold the patent unenforceable.

What is Cumulative?: After reviewing the submitted and unsubmitted prior art references in detail, the Federal Circuit found that the lower court had clearly erred in finding the art non-cumulative. Notably, the only features found in the non-submitted art that were not in the submitted art were "irrelevant to the claim limitations at issue and therefore could not support a finding of materiality and non-cumulativeness." Although the unsubmitted prior art included a different embodiment than the submitted reference, that difference was not important because the claims were broadly drafted in a way that cover both embodiments.

Disclosure of Office Actions in Related Cases: The examiner of the co-pending continuation filed four office action rejections. The first was used as the basis for the reexamination request. The second was used as a basis for an initial rejection in the reexamination. However, the patentee did not submit the third or fourth office action for consideration. The Federal Circuit agreed with the lower court that the office actions should have been submitted because the rejections contained "adverse decisions about substantially similar claims" that were "not cumulative" to materials already submitted to the examiner.

Because the Third and Fourth Office Actions contained another examiner’s adverse decisions about substantially similar claims, and because the Third and Fourth Office Actions are not cumulative to the First and Second Office Actions, the district court correctly found the withheld Office Actions material.

In its analysis, the Federal Circuit reviewed Dayco Products where it found the patentee had wrongly withheld rejections from co-pending applications.

In Dayco Products, the patentee failed to disclose rejections in a copending application of claims “that were substantially similar in content and scope to claims pending in the applications that issued as the patents-in-suit.” 329 F.3d at 1367. We held “that a contrary decision of another examiner reviewing a substantially similar claim” was material. Id. at 1368. We further explained that, because a “rejection of a substantially similar claim refutes, or is inconsistent with the position that those claims are patentable, [the] adverse decision by another examiner . . . meets the materiality standard.” Id.   

Thus, on remand, the district court must determine whether the patentee failure to submit the two office actions was done with sufficient intent to deceive the PTO. Although seemingly dicta, the Federal Circuit provided four points of explicit guidance to the lower court. First, the district court need not accept any additional evidence; Second, the court should remember that "material does not presume intent, and nondisclosure, by itself, cannot satisfy the deceptive intent element." Rather, if intent is inferred, it must be "the single most reasonable inference able to be drawn from the evidence." Further, intent cannot be inferred based on a decision to withhold if the patentee has plausible legitimate reasons for withholding. Third, good faith on behalf of the applicant must be considered as it "militates against a finding of deceptive intent." One element of good faith here, may be that the patentee notified the examiners of the co-pending application. Finally, although the Federal Circuit agreed that the office actions were material, the court did not opine on how material. Thus, if the lower court does find clear and convincing evidence of a threshold intent to deceive, the court must again determine whether the combined intent and materiality are sufficient to warrant a holding of inequitable conduct.

Notes:

• This case is rather silly because the defendant Aluminart was closely following the reexamination. I can almost guarantee that Aluminart realized that the documents had not been submitted even before the reexamination certificate was issued. Certainly, the company could have brought the omission Larson's attention if it truly was material.

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.

Improper Summary Judgment on Doctrine of Equivalents; Marking Products that Perform Method Claims

Crown Packaging v. Rexam Beverage Can (Fed. Cir. 2009)

On summary judgment, the district court held that Rexam did not infringe Crown's patent beverage can-top patent. The lower court also found that that Crown did not infringe Rexam's beverage can "necking" patent. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed both rulings.

The Doctrine of Equivalents: Over the past two decades, the doctrine of equivalents been pushed out of the usual infringement discussion. Part of the doctrine's downgrade is due to restricted application due to prosecution history estoppel (Festo) and tighter doctrine (Warner-Jenkinson). Perhaps equally important in the decline of the DOE has been the rise of claim construction as the primary variable of patent litigation. Rather than arguing for infringement as an equivalent, applicants are instead arguing for broad construction of the claim terms. Finally, patent drafters are – on average – better today than they were twenty years ago and spend more energy on considering how to draft claims that capture literal infringement. In a 2007 paper, Professors Lemley and Allison found something similar – that since the late 1990's (even before Festo), that "equivalents claims usually failed, most often on summary judgment." Their paper title - "Demise of the Doctrine of Equivalents" – overstates its case. The DOE is sometimes valuable.

Function-Way-Result Test: There are at least two alternate tests for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The function-way-result test considers "on a limitation by limitation basis" whether "the accused product performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way with substantially the same result as each claim limitation of the patented product."

Summary Judgment on DOE: Here, the issue was not so much the law of the DOE, but rather the requirement for summary judgment that there be no remaining material issue of fact. Crown's patent claims an "annular reinforcing bead," while Rexam's product uses a reinforcing fold. The lower court found those different enough to avoid infringement under the DOE. On appeal, however, the Federal Circuit reversed – finding at least one unresolved material issue of fact that precluded summary judgment. DOE requires expert testimony to step through the function-way-result test. And, here, the patentee's expert stepped through each element and his testimony had not been completely indicted or even refuted.

Because Crown provided evidence in support of its position that the annular reinforcing bead of claim 14 of the '826 patent had only one function, and because we must resolve any reasonable factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, we conclude that there is a material issue of fact regarding the function of the claimed bead. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement.

This decision by Judge Moore is in line with the court's 2008 Voda case which was affirmed after parsing expert testimony to ensure that the elements had been properly proven. (In Voda, the court used the alternative "insubstantial difference" test.)

Unmarked Sales by Licensee: In a scenario reminiscent of the recent Quanta v. LG case, Rexam licensed its patents to Belvac to make "neckers" used to stretch out the top of the can bodies. Under the license, Belvac was required "to notify its customers that they would require a separate license from Rexam to perform the smooth die necking method" that is claimed in Rexam's patents. The license did not require Belvac to mark the machines that it sold. And, in fact, Belvac did not mark them with the Rexam patent number. Crown then used the machine to make over one hundred billion cans.

Marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a): The district court found that this past infringement was not actionable because Crown was not on notice of the patent. That decision seemingly follows from 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). Under that provision, a patentee who does not properly mark a patented article "is not entitled to damages for infringement prior to actual notice." (quoting CAFC decision).

Marking of Method Claims: Rexam's trick here was to assert only method claims. On its face, Section 287 applies to "any patented article," and Federal Circuit precedent has clearly stated that the marking requirement does not apply when only method claims are asserted. With palpable regret, Judge Moore writes:

"The law is clear that the notice provisions of § 287 do not apply where the patent is directed to a process or method. Bandag, Inc. v. Gerrard Tire Co., 704 F.2d 1578, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In Hanson, 718 F.2d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1983)—we held that 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) did not apply where the patentee only asserted the method claims of a patent which included both method and apparatus claims. Hanson is factually identical to this case, and we are therefore bound by the rule of Hanson."

Thus the patentee is free to claim damages back six years under Section 286 even without marking or providing actual notice. This decision thus provides an additional reason to include method claims in a patent application. Now, it would be improper to conclude that there is no reason to mark products that perform method claims. In the 1993 American Medical Systems case, the Federal Circuit ruled that marking would be required if "both apparatus and method claims" were asserted and there is a "tangible item to mark." In this case, the patent claimed both a method and apparatus, but Rexam sued only on the method claims.

The Essential Element Test and ICU Medical

In discussing the recent ICU Medical case, I noted that Judge Moore's decision did not rely on the "essential element" test or even cite Gentry Gallery. In Gentry Gallery, the patent covered a sectional recliner. During prosecution, the patentee had amended its claims to drop any reference to the location of the recliner controls. The Federal Circuit held those later-drafted claims invalid because the location of the controls was an "essential element" of the invention that must be included in the claims – otherwise, the claim scope would be unduly broad. Following Gentry Gallery, however, the Federal Circuit stepped-back from the essential element language– instead narrowing the case holding to the well trod notion that claims should be limited to the supporting disclosure. In both Johnson Worldwide, and Cooper Cameron, for instance, the Federal Circuit explicitly denied that Gentry Gallery created any new requirement.

"[W]e did not announce a new 'essential element' test mandating an inquiry into what an inventor considers to be essential to his invention and requiring that the claims incorporate those elements." Cooper Cameron, 291 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

In parallel fashion to Gentry Gallery, ICU had included a "spike" in every embodiment and each original claim. During prosecution, and apparently after seeing competing products, ICU amended its claims to drop the "spike" limitation. This was important because the market had moved to a spikeless version of IV valves. This district court in ICU discussed Gentry Gallery and the essential element test, but found no need to base its ruling on that "disfavored" theory. Rather, the court based its analysis on the traditional notion that claims must be described in the specification.

"[T]he Court's analysis employs the accepted rule that the claims may be no broader than the supporting disclosure, or, conversely, that claims are invalid when the entirety of the specification clearly indicates that the invention is of a much narrower scope. By focusing on the language of the Common Specification in a manner that highlights the function of the "spike" element, and the frequency and ubiquity with which it is referenced, the Court is only attempting to discern the breadth and substance of the invention ICU actually disclosed in the original 1992 Application."

Although the district court denied its application of any "essential element" test, it went on to hold that any valid claims must include a spike:

"The pervasiveness of the "spike" element in the invention description clearly informs the Court, and would inform any reasonable juror, that what was disclosed and claimed as the invention in the 1992 Application was a needleless medical valve with at a minimum, a "body," a "seal" and a "spike.""

Likewise, the Federal Circuit's version denies an omitted element test, but held that any valid claim must include a spike limitation because "a person of skill in the art would not understand the inventor ... to have invented a spikeless medical valve."

Notes:

• ICU Medical Part I
• ICU Medical Part II
• ICU Medical Part III
• The essential element and omitted element test are largely interchangeable, although some logical distinction could perhaps be made.

Written Description: Federal Circuit Again Invalidates Broadened Claims

ICU Medical v. Alaris Medical System (Fed. Cir. 2009)

This is the second post on the ICU case. Part I discusses the $4.6 million award of attorney fees to the accused infringer based on the patentee's litigation misconduct.

The district court found several of ICU's claims invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed. (Judges Michel (CJ), Prost, and Moore; Opinion by Moore). Although similar to enablement, the written description requirement pushes an applicant to "convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention." Most often, written description arises in cases where new matter is added to the claims during prosecution. That is also the case here - during prosecution ICU amended its claims to include "spikeless" claims -- directed to a valve mechanism for adding drugs to an IV without using needles.

To be clear - the original claims included the "spike." That element was removed during prosecution - seemingly broadening the claims. As the court stated "we refer to these claims as spikeless not because they exclude the preferred embodiment of a valve with a spike but rather because these claims do not include a spike limitation—i.e., they do not require a spike." It is that failure to include any discussion of a spike in the claim that lead to the claim being held invalid for lack of written description.

The Federal Circuit does not cite Gentry Gallery or the infamous "omitted element" or "essential element" theories. However, the court does rely heavily on LizardTech. In that case, the court did not point to any claim limitation that was not sufficiently described. Rather, the court found the claim invalid because an embodiment arguably covered by the claim was not sufficiently disclosed.

We addressed a similar issue in LizardTech . . . We explained that "the specification provides only one method for creating a seamless DWT, which is to 'maintain updated sums' of DWT coefficients. That is the procedure recited by claim 1. Yet claim 21 is broader than claim 1 because it lacks the 'maintain updated sums' limitation." We determined, however, that "[a]fter reading the patent, a person of skill in the art would not understand how to make a seamless DWT generically and would not understand LizardTech to have invented a method for making a seamless DWT, except by 'maintaining updat[ed] sums of DWT coefficients.'" We therefore concluded that claim 21 was invalid under the written description requirement of § 112, ¶ 1.

In LizardTech, the court explicitly rejected the argument that the written description requirement "requires only that each individual step in a claimed process be described adequately."

In this case, ICU's original disclosure focused on spiked embodiments, but the more generic claims are not so limited.

ICU's asserted spikeless claims are broader than its asserted spike claims because they do not include a spike limitation; these spikeless claims thus refer to medical valves generically—covering those valves that operate with a spike and those that operate without a spike. But the specification describes only medical valves with spikes.

Since all the embodiments included the "spike," the court concluded that "Based on this disclosure, a person of skill in the art would not understand the inventor ... to have invented a spikeless medical valve."

Invalidity affirmed

Notes:

• This case also includes an important discussion of claim differentiation that will be dissected in a later post.  
• Of course, this case suggests the best patent drafting practice of providing multiple embodiments of each claim element, and considering whether each and every limitation in the broadest original claims are necessary.
• ICU broadened its claim by dropping a limitation -- did ICU introduce new matter?
• In a powerful rhetorical approach, Judge Moore chose to refer to the broad claims as "spikeless claims." As mentioned, those claims do not include a "spikeless" limitation. Rather, they simply omit a "spike" element. As it turns out more than 99.9% all patent claims issued in 2008 are silent about "spikes," and under the traditional interpretation of the "comprising" transition - all those claims would literally cover embodiments without spikes. The holding here cannot be that all those claims are invalid. I believe that the holding here is largely a result of the fact that the accused device was in-fact spikeless. Unfortunately, this decision does not provide helpful guidance as to when it will apply. Rather, it appears to simply be an additional vague tool available to defense attorneys.
• The court did not mention enablement - since it was easy to remove the needle from a syringe and the disclosure includes a preslit seal that could arguably work with a spikeless syringe. That modification would have been enabled based on the original disclosure.

Federal Circuit Affirms $4.6 million award for litigation misconduct

ICU Medical v. Alaris Medical System (Fed. Cir. 2009)

ICU's patents covers technology for using syringes to add drugs to an IV. The district court granted summary judgment of invalidity and also awarded attorney fees and found a violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Alaris was awarded $4.6 million in attorney fees and sanctions. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed.

Section 285 of the Patent Act provides for the award of attorney fees to the winning party in "exceptional cases." In Brooks Furniture, the Federal Circuit discussed a two-part test for whether attorneys fees may be awarded due to litigation conduct. The test requires that "both (1) the litigation is brought in subjective bad faith, and (2) the litigation is objectively baseless.” A district court fee award will be affirmed absent clear error.

The problem - ICU argued that the claim term "spike" could be a non-pointed structure such as a tube even though the specification "repeatedly and uniformly describes the spike as a pointed instrument." The claim construction was not ICU's only problem:

For example, the district court found that ICU made “multiple, repeated misrepresentations . . . to the Court regarding its own patents in an effort to conceal what are now characterized as errors in order to rescue the TRO/PI from denial.” These misrepresentations related to (1) ICU’s assertion of claims in the ’509 patent that were identical to claims in the ’592 patent (i.e., assertion of double-patented claims); (2) ICU’s assertion of more double-patented claims from the ’509 patent even after Alaris and the district court warned ICU of the double-patenting issue; (3) ICU’s misrepresentation of Federal Circuit authority; (4) ICU’s representation that figures 13 and 20–22 of the common specification “clearly” disclosed a spikeless embodiment, only to later acknowledge that these figures do not disclose such an embodiment and state that its representation was an “honest mistake.”

Although the Brooks Furniture rule discusses objectively baseless "litigation," that rule is not construed to focus on the litigation as a whole. Rather, attorney fees may be assessed if any portion of the litigation is brought in bad faith and in an objectively baseless manner. Here, the Federal Circuit found that the lower court had "appropriately exercised its discretion in awarding attorney fees only for [a] portion of the litigation."

Notes:

• Federal Circuit Decision 08-1077.pdf
• District Court award of Fees: 232495.pdf. Bottom line: "The Court finds that Alaris is due $4,587,622.44 in attorney fees and $164,721.19 in costs for the reasons set forth below. . . . This represents a reasonable lodestar calculation for Alaris’ work . . . , and it constitutes a reasonable pro rata amount of Alaris’ total expenditure of $11,000,000 in attorney fees and $2,000,000 in costs overall in this case."
• District Court decision to find a Section 285 exceptional case and Rule 11 sanctions. 232494.pdf. Money Quote: "[The submitted declarations] do not substantively justify or excuse ICU’s litigation tactics or show its good faith. These declarations were prepared by ICU’s litigation counsel for the purpose ofopposing the Rule 11 and Fees Motions, and comprise mostly self-serving assertions of good faith by interested witnesses, such as ICU’s CEO (Dr. George Lopez), trial counsel (Fulwider, Patton, Lee & Utecht; Paul Hastings; or Pooley & Oliver), patent counsel (Knobbe Martens) and its paid experts (Dr. Maureen Reitman and Bob Rogers). These materials lack the indicia of credibility provided by declarations or opinions from outside, independent counsel or experts, particularly outside patent, as opposed to litigation, counsel. Most of the materials appear to have been “memorialized” in retrospect, providing marginal support compared to, for example, an ex ante documented and vetted analysis that preceded the litigation or that, al minimum, preceded the TRO/PI request and the inclusion of the “spike” claims in the amended complaint."
• Although the district court decision appears to identify the Fulwider firm as "trial counsel," that appears to have been a mistake made by the court. A Fulwider attorney has indicated that their firm "was never one of ICU's trial counsel in that matter, and thus made no representations to the court on ICU's behalf." In fact, ICU appears to be somewhat of a toxic client. According to the court documents, Fulwider represented ICU in the 1990's. At some point ICU dropped the firm as a client and sued for malpractice based on Fulwider's representation of alleged ICU competitors. Fulwider did not admit wrongdoing, but a 2007 press release by ICU claims that ICU "will be paid $8 million in settlement of its claims against Fulwider."

In re Nature's Remedies: Foreign Regulatory Submission Invalidates Patent Under 102(b)

In re Natures Remedies (Fed. Cir. 2009) (nonprecedential)

In October of 2005, a third party (Jemo-Pharm) submitted a request for ex parte re-examination of Natures Remedies patented claim covering an herbal composition of guarana, damiana, and yerbe-mate claimed to cause weight loss. More than one year before Remedies' filing date, an anticipating composition had been submitted to a Danish regulatory organization as part of a request for approval for clinical testing. (The decision is unclear, but implies that the submission was done by Remedies).

A Danish official provided testimony that the submission was a public record and was open for inspection since its date of submission. Remedies' expert, however, argued that a Danish trade-secrecy law would have prevented such inspection. The BPAI accepted the open-access line of argument and found the submission invalidating prior art under 35 USC 102(b). The patentee appealed - arguing that the official submission was not sufficiently publicly accessible to be considered 102(b) prior art.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed - finding that the regulatory submission was publicly available more than one year before Remedies filed its application. The court began by recognizing that the official's testimony created a prima facie case that the submission was publicly accessible - shifting the burden to the patentee. Of course, BPAI factual findings such as this will be affirmed with a finding of "substantial evidence."

Because [the Danish Official's] declaration established a prima facie case of public availability, the onus was on Remedies to demonstrate that the [regulatory submission] was not accessible to interested members of the public. Remedies, however, failed to carry its burden.

Under the Danish trade-secrecy law, the regulatory submissions are kept secret when they are of "material importance" to a company's "economy." It appears that Remedies could have proven its case but failed to provide evidence to the Board.

Attorney argument, however, cannot take the place of record evidence. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Here, the evidence of record does not establish that Remedies intended to keep the formulation of the Medi-Tab capsule confidential until after the study had been completed and a patent application had been filed.

Rejection affirmed

Notes:

• 102(b) looks at prior art that was "described in a printed publication" more than one year prior to the date of application for the US patent. Implicit within 'publication' is a notion that the material is publicly accessible. Notably, however, there is generally no need to prove that the material was actually accessed. Thus, in this case, there is no discussion of whether the regulatory submission was ever seen by anyone.
• Read the case
• Reexam No. 90/007,785 (look it up in PAIR).
• In some ways, this case is simply an extension of the Pivonka v. Axelrod case where the Federal Circuit held that the applicant has waived arguments by failing to present them at the Board of Patent Appeals.

In re Ferguson: Patentable Subject Matter

In re Ferguson (Fed. Cir. 2009)

Scott Harris has been discussed several times on Patently-O. Harris is a former Fish & Richardson partner. Fish handles the most patent litigation of any firm in the country. In addition to being a patent attorney, Harris is an inventor. He has contracted with the plaintiffs firm Niro Scavone in several actions to enforce patents against Google and other companies. Harris is one of the named inventors of the Ferguson application and he handled the [futile] appeal.

The claimed invention focuses on a "method of marketing a product" and a "paradigm for marketing software." These claims focus on methods and structures for operating a business.

Methods Under Bilski: Claim 1 reads as follows:

A method of marketing a product, comprising:

developing a shared marketing force, said shared marketing force including at least marketing channels, which enable marketing a number of related products;

using said shared marketing force to market a plurality of different products that are made by a plurality of different autonomous producing company, so that different autonomous companies, having different ownerships, respectively produce said related products;

obtaining a share of total profits from each of said plurality of different autonomous producing companies in return for said using; and

obtaining an exclusive right to market each of said plurality of products in return for said using.

Under Bilski, this case is open and shut. The claim is not even arguably tied to a machine -- especially under the Nuijten construction of machine to be a "concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices [including] every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result." (Quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 531, 570 (1863)). Thus, the 1863 touchability definition of machine appears to hold weight. On the second Bilski prong, the claim does not require transformation of any article into a different state or thing. The only transformation is that of legal rights and organizational relationships that were explicitly excluded in the Bilski decision: "transformations or manipulations simply of public or private legal obligations or relationships, business risks, or other such abstractions cannot meet the test because they are not physical objects or substances, and they are not representative of physical objects or substances.”

Harris asked the court to consider a different test of patentable subject matter: “Does the claimed subject matter require that the product or process has more than a scintilla of interaction with the real world in a specific way?” The CAFC panel rejected that proposal primarily based on the precedential value of Bilski: "In light of this court’s clear statements that the “sole,” “definitive,” “applicable,” “governing,” and “proper” test for a process claim under § 101 is the Supreme Court’s machine-or-transformation test, see Bilski, passim, we are reluctant to consider Applicants’ proposed test." The court went on to determine that the "scintilla" test would create too much ambiguity as well.

Non Method Claims: The application also included claims directed to a "paradigm for marketing software" made up of a marketing company that markets software in return for a contingent share of income. Although "instructive," the Federal Circuit did not directly follow Bilski. Rather, the court looked to determine whether the claimed paradigm fit within one of the four statutory classes listed in Section 101:

Inventions Patentable: "... any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof..."

In a gentle Koan, the Court stated that it "need not resolve the particular class of statutory subject matter into which Applicants' paradigm claims fall, [however], the claims must satisfy at least one category." In fact, the court did attempt to resolve the particular class, but was unable to fit the paradigm claim into any of the four.

Applicants’ paradigm claims are not directed to processes, as “no act or series of acts” is required. Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355. Applicants do not argue otherwise. Applicants’ marketing company paradigm is also not a manufacture, because although a marketing company may own or produce tangible articles or commodities, it clearly cannot itself be an “‘article[]’ resulting from the process of manufacture.” Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356. Again, Applicants do not argue otherwise. And Applicants’ marketing company paradigm is certainly not a composition of matter. Applicants do not argue otherwise.  

Again applying the touchability notion of machine, the Court also rejected the notion that the company paradigm could be a machine:

Applicants do assert, however, that “[a] company is a physical thing, and as such analogous to a machine.” But the paradigm claims do not recite “a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices,” Nuijtent, and as Applicants conceded during oral argument, “you cannot touch the company.”

Ending in a flourish, the court found that in fact, the Ferguson paradigm claims are "drawn quite literally to the paradigmatic abstract idea." (quoting Warmerdam).

Judge Newman offers a poignant concurring opinion.  

Bilski v. Doll: Round I of Amicus Briefs

Bilski v. Doll (on petition for writ of certiorari 2009)

In a 2008 en banc decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Office ruling that Bernard Bilski’s claimed method of hedging the risk of bad weather through commodities trading was not patent eligible under Section 101 of the patent act. The Court applied a “machine-or-transformation test” as the only test to be used in determining whether a claimed process is eligible for patenting under § 101. The decision holds that a claimed process either (1) be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or (2) transform a particular article into a different state or thing. Although the Court identified the Bilski test as the only test, it added two corollaries: (1) the addition of a mere field-of-use limitation without other meaningful limits on claim scope will not render a method claim patent eligible; and (2) insignificant extra-solution limitations will not render a method claim patent eligible.

Bilski has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its appeal and look at the question of patentable subject matter for the first time in a generation. Diamond v. Chakrabarty and Diamond v. Diehr together opened the door for broader patent eligible subject matter. Notably, Justice Stevens – author of the Diehr dissent – is the only justice still on the bench. Bilski’s petition asks two questions:

1.       Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that a “process” must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing … despite this Court’s precedent declining to limit the broad statutory grant of patent eligibility for “any” new and useful process beyond excluding patents for “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.”

2.       Whether the Federal Circuit’s “machine-or-transformation” test for patent eligibility, which effectively forecloses meaningful patent protection to many business methods, contradicts the clear Congressional intent that patents protect “method[s] of doing or conducting business.” 35 U.S.C. § 273.

The first round of Amicus briefs – those supporting the petition – have now been filed. The PTO’s briefs and briefs in opposition to the petition are due in early April.

Amicus Briefs Supporting the Petition (I have not reviewed all of these, but wanted to post them for public consumption):

• AIPLA: “There is no support in this Court’s precedent for the Federal Circuit majority’s conclusion that this Court enunciated a definitive ‘machine or transformation’ test for determining the patent eligibility of a claimed process under § 101.” The statute should be interpreted to promote new areas of technology.   File Attachment: aiplaamicus.pdf (148 KB)

• Boston IPLA: The “machine-or-transformation test” conflicts with Supreme Court precedent. File Attachment: bostonamicus.pdf (142 KB)

• Borland Software: File Attachment: borlandamicus.pdf (158 KB)

• Koninklijke Philips Electronics: File Attachment: philipsamicus.pdf (162 KB)

• Anne Barschall: The Supreme Court appears to have some “prejudice against electronic devices [as evidenced by] both Benson and Morse.” Its not magic, it is engineering. You can’t see electricity or quantum particles but that does not make them abstract ideas. File Attachment: barschallamicus.pdf (217 KB)

• Medistem: Bilski has considerable bleed-through to non-business method patents. File Attachment: medistemamicus.pdf (109 KB)

• Accenture and Pitney Bowes: The Federal Circuit's "only one test" rule is too rigid and goes against the Supreme Court's precedent that demonstrated flexibility in the Section 101 inquiry. [DDC Comment: The flexibility theme is strongly present in the past several years of Supreme Court patent cases. In eBay, MedImmune, and KSR, the Supreme Court saw a rigid Federal Circuit rule and made it more flexible.] File Attachment: accentureamicus.pdf (122 KB)

• Franklin Pierce Law Center: File Attachment: fplcamicus.pdf (128 KB)

• John Sutton: File Attachment: suttonamicus.pdf (120 KB)

Eastern District of Texas as the Best Venue

Mayer Lebowitz was a noted inventor of security technology. He died in 2005, but the trustee of his estate (Gellman) sued to enforce patent rights against various security companies including ADT, Diebold, Digital Security, Europlex, NAPCO, Numerex, Protection One, and Telular. Gelman lives in Texas and brought suit on behalf of the estate in the Eastern District of Texas – alleging infringement of U.S. patent No. 6,075,451. The '451 patent covers the method and electronics for sending alerts via a cellular network. That way, the lines can't be cut, and installation may be much cheaper.

Judge Ward rejected the defendants motion to transfer Venue to the Northern District of Illinois – finding that the Plaintiff's Texas location weighed heavily in favor of keeping the case in Texas. Gellman v. ADT Sec. Services, Inc., 2008 WL 4280351 (E.D.Tex. 2008). Following In re TS Tech, Telular has now moved for mandamus – asking the Federal Circuit to order that venue be transferred. In a preliminary ruling on the Motion, Judge Dyk demanded that Gellman brief the matter.

In a parallel case, Judge Ward recently refused to transfer a case that had been filed against a dozen auto manufacturers. MHL TEK, a Texas corporation, sued Audi, VW, Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, BMW, Porsche, Isuzu, etc. The defendants asked that the case be sent to the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Ward found numerous reasons why Michigan was a poor choice of venue. MHL TEK, LLC, v. NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13676 (E.D. Tex. 2009). In his opinion, Judge Ward made the law on venue look quite silly when applied to major multi-party patent cases. For instance, the convenience factor looks at distance to the forum: "For defendants flying in from Germany, the Detroit airport would possibly be closer than the Shreveport airport. For defendants flying in from Asia over the Pacific, the Shreveport airport would possibly be closer than the Detroit airport." As in the Gellman case, at least one defendant here (VW) has asked for the Federal Circuit to rule on mandamus. Briefing on that motion continues.

Both cases are easily contrasted with Odom v. Microsoft. (AKA Patent Hawk) In Odom's case, both the patent holder and defendant were located in the Pacific Northwest, and the defendant asked that the case be transferred to the Plaintiff's home jurisdiction. In both Gellman & MHL TEK, the plaintiffs are located in Texas and the multiple defendants are located throughout the country and the world without any particular site of nexus.

Waiving Arguments at the Board of Patent Appeals

Pivonka v. Axelrod (Fed. Cir. 2009)(non-precedential)

In 2003, Axelrod asked the PTO to declare an interference against Pivonka’s patent which had issued the year prior. (Pat. No. 6,408,797). During the interference, the BPAI found Pivonka’s collapsible pet carrier claims to be unpatentable as obvious. [Link] On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed.

In reviewing a BPAI obviousness rejection, the Federal Circuit looks for “substantial evidence” to support any factual determinations, but reviews the ultimate question of obviousness de novo.

Here Pivonka pointed to three potential errors: (1) improperly saying that the invention has a “barn-like structure;” (2) failing to consider the patented claims individually; and (3) failing to appreciate the structural differences and functional benefits provided by the claimed invention as compared to the prior art.

The Federal Circuit dismissed these concerns in turn: (1) the reference to the barn was merely shorthand and not reversible error; (2) the applicant waived any right to have claims 2–9 considered separately by failing to make arguments on those claims earlier; and (3) the Board’s conclusion of obviousness was correct.

“Under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” 550 U.S. 398, 1739 (2007). According to Dr. Shina’s unrebutted affidavit [Axelrod’s Expert], both the structural benefits and the way in which to build the container claimed by Pivonka were readily apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we find no error in the Board’s conclusion that claims 1-9 are obvious.”

The Court also rejected an argument of improper procedure based on Pivonka’s waiver of the issue before the BPAI. One important take-away from this case is that the Federal Circuit generally treats the BPAI as it would a lower court in the sense that an issue must first be raised with the BPAI in order to be ripe for appeal to the Federal Circuit. If the issue is not raised at the lower level, then any appeal will be deemed waived.

Although not directly related, I enjoyed the following recent anonymous comment to another post:

Whoever said "necessity is the mother of invention" was wrong. According to KSR, "necessity is the mother of obviousness."

Underlying the interference is a patent infringement case between Pivonka and TFH Publications (Axelrod’s assignee). That case is also on appeal but will be heard by a different panel. Interestingly, after this favorable decision, TFH requested that the case be reassigned to the Axelrod panel. The Federal Circuit denied that motion. [Link]

Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Extension of 30-Month FDA Stay

Eli Lilly v. Teva Pharmaceuticals (Fed. Cir. 2009)

Teva is hoping to make a generic version of Lilly's Evista brand raloxifene tablets that are used to help prevent postmenopausal osteoporosis. In May 2006, Teva filed an abbreviated new drug agreement (ANDA) and Lilly subsequently sued for patent infringement and to block the generic release. Under the law, after the patentee files suit, the FDA cannot then approve the generic for thirty months "unless the court has extended or reduced the period because of a failure of either [party] to cooperate reasonably in expediting the action." This is commonly known as the "thirty month stay."

In this case, the court originally set a trial date four months after the end of the thirty month period. In the months leading up to trial Teva altered its proposed generic formulation, which changed Lilly's litigation strategy. As a result, the district court ordered that the FDA thirty month stay be extended for four extra months – until May 2009. Teva filed an emergency appeal to lift the stay.

On appeal, a split Federal Circuit panel affirmed – finding that the district court acted within its discretion in extending the stay based on Teva's activity. "Trial courts, thus, may shorten or extend the thirty-month statutory period based on the parties' uncooperative discovery practices before the court." In its decision, the court distinguished the 2002 Andrx v. Bioval case. In Andrx, the Federal Circuit found that the district court had abused its discretion in shortening a thirty-month stay based on a party's "positions before the FDA." Rather, changes to the thirty-month period must be based on failure to cooperate court.

In dissent, Judge Prost argued that the majority misinterpreted the statute to grant too much deference to the district court in extending the stay. Rather, the statute requires that the stay should only be extended when a party fails "to cooperate reasonably in expediting the action." Here, Judge Prost argues, the lower court did not find that Teva failed to cooperate, but only that Lilly could use more time to respond. The statute is limited in a way that does not allow extension of the stay in that situation.

Notes:

• Judge Rader wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Chief Judge Michel.
• On the expedited schedule, Appellant filed its principle brief November 24, 2008; briefing was complete on December 30, 2008; Oral arguments were heard on January 14, 2009; and a decision rendered on February 24, 2009.

Patent Attorney Argument as Inequitable Conduct

Rothman v. Target Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2009)

A New Jersey jury found Rothman's patent invalid, not infringed, and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. (Pat No. 6,855,029). On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the inequitable conduct holding, but otherwise affirmed.

Obviousness: The asserted patent covers a breastfeeding shirt that includes a concealed, but fully supportive nursing bra. The original prototype was built by Ms. Rothman by sewing a Jockey brand tank-top together with an Olga brand nursing bra and some additional fabric. Thus, here we have a situation where the inventor took off the shelf items and took a few hours (a day into the night) to form them into a new combination. The appellate panel recognized that the particular manner in which an invention is actually made does not negate patentability. However, the appellate panel did see the simple inventive process as evidence of "the predictability and expectations in this field of art." Based on these facts, the court could find no reason to disturb the obviousness holding since a PHOSITA "would have been motivated to combine an existing tank top with an existing nursing bra to arrive at the claimed invention."

Inequitable Conduct: The Federal Circuit reversed the jury's finding of inequitable conduct. One point of interest involved the patent attorney argument that "nursing garments are highly specialized … as distinguished from maternity garments, [and] are not analogous prior art to women's garments in general…. Therefore, it is improper to combine a prior art reference from nursing garments with a prior art reference from garments generally, with no connection to nursing garments." It turned out that the patent attorney had no prior experience in nursing garment technology and did not consult any industry experts before making his claims regarding the 'highly specialized' nature of the art and the impropriety of combining prior art.

The Federal Circuit no problem with these attorney statements:

While the law prohibits genuine misrepresentations of material fact, a prosecuting attorney is free to present argument in favor of patentability without fear of committing inequitable conduct. . . . This court has little basis to find deceptive intent in the routine back and forth between examiner and applicant. Moreover, this court recognizes that the Patent Act gives the examiner the discretion to reject or accept an applicant's arguments based on the examiner's own conclusions regarding the prosecution record. [The attorney's] remarks show an effort to persuade that does not even approach an effort to deceive the PTO or abuse the prosecution process. … Appellees find fault with the final sentence from the excerpt above. However, [the attorney's] conclusion that it is "improper to combine a prior art reference from nursing garments with a prior art reference from garments generally, with no connection to nursing garments" is nothing more than attorney argument based on the foregoing facts … [derived] from his analysis that nursing garments are different from regular women's wear. … In any event, this type of conclusory analysis betrays no intent to deceive the PTO and obtain a patent with objectively false information. Rather, it is an attempt to characterize the prior art in a manner favorable to the attorney's client—far from deception. No reasonable jury could rely on Mr. Jacobson's statements as clear and convincing proof of inequitable conduct.

Attorneys should take this decision with a grain of salt based on the fact that Judge Rader authored the opinion and Judge Friedman was on the panel. Judge Rader is well known for his opinion that inequitable conduct is too liberally adjudged.

Federal Circuit Takings Case: Set Up for Supreme Court Review

Casitas Municipal Water v. US (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc denial) (MAYER, SCHALL , and MOORE*)

Casitas is not a patent case, it is a takings case involving regulatory restrictions on water use imposed by US Government. The Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over this takings claim against the US Government because it is on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims (CFC). Although the Federal Circuit has denied the Federal Government's motion for en banc rehearing, a set of diverging opinions sets this case in position for likely Supreme Court review.

History: The Ventura River Project provides water supply to Ventura County, California. In 1956, the US Government granted the local government the "perpetual right to use all water that becomes available through the construction and operation of the Project." Then, in 1997, steelhead trout living in the Project became an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the US Government required that Casitas construct a fish ladder and divert water over the fish ladder. Casitas complied, but filed suit in the CFC alleging that the Federal Government had taken its property without just compensation (and also under breach of contract). The CFC classified the Government action as "regulatory" rather than a "physical." In takings law, compensation for regulatory takings is much more difficult to obtain, and Casitas admitted that it could not prove the required elements. This conclusion followed the Federal Government argument that "it did not seize, appropriate, divert, or impound any water, but merely required water to be left in the stream."

Appeal: On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed. Writing for the majority, Judge Moore concluded "that the government physically appropriated water that Casitas held a usufructuary right in."

Here, the government admits for the purposes of summary judgment that it required Casitas to build the fish ladder facility, which is a man-made concrete structure that was not a portion of the existing … The government also admits that the operation of the fish ladder required water, which prior to the fish ladder's construction flowed into the Casitas Reservoir … Specifically, the government admits that the operation of the fish ladder includes closing the overshot gate …and that the closure of this gate causes water that would have gone into the Casitas Reservoir via the Robles-Casitas Canal to be diverted into the fish ladder. … These admissions make clear that the government did not merely require some water to remain in stream, but instead actively caused the physical diversion of water away from the Robles-Casitas Canal … and towards the fish ladder, thus reducing Casitas' water supply.

In dissent, Judge Mayer rejected the physical takings argument. At base, he argued, Casitas does not actually own the water. Rather, under California law, all water sources within California "belong to the public." Even if Casitas did own the water flow, Mayer would have seen the endangered species requirements as regulatory because the requirements simply force a specific use of the water rather than take it away.

En Banc Rehearing: In what looks like a 7-5 (or 6-6) vote, the Federal Circuit denied a rehearing en banc. Judge Moore wrote a new opinion defending her original approach in the original opinion. In particular, Judge Moore focused on the "facts as presented" in the case. "[T]he government conceded (1) that Casitas had a property right in the water diverted from the Ventura River, and (2) that the government required Casitas to build and operate the fish ladder in such a way as to permanently appropriate water in which Casitas had the conceded property right." Based on those two facts, the holding of a physical takings was easy.

Judge Gajarsa would have heard the case en banc. Gajarsa (joined by Chief Judge Michel and Judge Dyk) saw the taking as clearly regulatory in form because nothing had actually been taken by the US Government.

This denial implicates fundamental questions regarding takings law. The panel majority's opinion suggests that a government action can be construed to be a physical taking even if no physical proprietary interest has actually been taken by the United States. This is contrary to present Supreme Court law and contrary to our case law. Accepting this analysis of the panel majority eliminates the fine distinction and balance that has been established by the Supreme Court between physical and regulatory takings. Moreover, it eliminates the ability of the legislature to provide for limited and parsimonious legislation protecting endangered species.

Notes:

• Republican vs. Democrat: Moore's position is clearly one of stronger property rights while Gajarsa/Mayer's position is in favor of regulatory power of the government. It appears that this decision falls along political lines. Those thinking of the regulation as a physical taking (Moore, Schall, Rader, JJ) are all Republican appointees. Three of the five thinking of the regulation as regulatory in nature are Democratic appointees (Linn, Dyk, Gajarsa, JJ are all Clinton appointees; Michel, CJ, and Mayer, J, are Reagan appointees). At least three of the four other judges voted to deny a rehearing. Of those four, three are Republican appointees (Newman, Lourie, Prost, JJ, are all Republican appointees; Bryson, J, is a Clinton appointee). As you can see here, eight of the twelve active Federal Circuit judges are Republican appointees.
• En Banc Denial
• Original CAFC Opinion: Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 543 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
• Original CFC Opinion

Obviousness; Scope and Content of the Prior Art; Secondary Considerations

Süd-Chemie v. Multisorb Technologies (Fed. Cir. 2009)

Süd-Chemie holds a patent covering a desiccant container for keeping products dry in shipment. In an infringement action, the Kentucky district court found the patent invalid as obvious. On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated - holding that the lower court had erred in its analysis of the scope and content of the prior art. There are two primary take-away points from Sud-Chemie. First, obviousness jurisprudence continues to require detailed analysis of the claims and the prior art. I.e., KSR did not suddenly allow handwaving as a substitute for evidence and clear argument. Second, well presented secondary indicia of nonobviousness continue to be important in rebutting obviousness allegations.

Here, the claimed patent required the use of "compatible polymeric materials" used in a laminate seal. The prior art disclosed the use of laminate materials taken from the same general class of materials. However, the Federal Circuit recognized that the prior art did not specify that the selected materials be "compatible" in a way to allow for a proper laminate seal.

This is a case where a definition of the claim term in the specification greatly aided the patentee. The specification defined "compatible" materials as those that "mix on a molecular scale and will crystallize homogeneously." The prior art reference did not teach this form of compatibility. In fact, the prior art appeared to teach "incompatible" materials.  

Multisorb ignores the fact that while the ’942 patent requires the inner surfaces of the laminate and microporous films to have similar softening points, Komatsu [the prior art] requires the films to have dissimilar softening points. Komatsu thus does not teach the use of a microporous film that is compatible with the inner surface of the laminate film.

Looking at secondary considerations, the Federal Circuit instructed district courts to "attend carefully to any evidence of ... secondary considerations of nonobviousness." Here, the focus is on the surprising and unexpected result that compatible materials formed stronger bonds even without adhesive.

The Federal Circuit did not apply these findings to form a conclusion on the issue of obviousness. Rather, the court remanded for further development of the facts.

[NOTE- This decision is from January 2009]

Federal Circuit Finds DJ Jurisdiction Even After Time-Limited Covenant Not To Sue

Revolution Eyewear v. Aspex Eyewear (Fed. Cir. 2009)

After several years of litigation, the patentee-plaintiff Revolution delivered a covenant not to sue to Aspex. The covenant was limited to the asserted patent and to activities prior to dismissal of the action. The district court dismissed the case, but Aspex did not let go. The accused infringer wanted assurances that it could continue selling the accused version of its eyeglass design without worrying about future charges of infringement.

In the appeal, Judge Newman agreed that a case or controversy continues to exist and that under MedImmune, the district court still retains jurisdiction. In the backdrop, the Newman was careful to differentiate this case from those where an accused defendant may be hoping to seek a speculative judicial opinion on future product lines:

This case is of larger substance than merely a would-be competitor seeking to test the waters by way of an advisory judicial opinion on an adverse patent....These parties are already in infringement litigation initiated by the patentee, the case has been pending since 2003, and already has produced a summary judgment of invalidity (which was later vacated by this court, 175 Fed. Appx. 350); the patentee filed its covenant in 2007, after four years of litigation, on the eve of trial of the question of enforceability. Throughout this period the accused eyewear were removed from the market by Aspex, and would not be shielded by the covenant should it be returned to the market, as Aspex states is its intention. Aspex states, and Revolution agreed at the argument of this appeal, that it is reasonable to believe that Revolution will again file suit should Aspex return to this market with the same product as it previously sold. By now barring the counterclaims that have been pending since 2003, Aspex states that this court would enable the “scare-the-customer-and-run” tactics that were deplored in Arrowhead.

Dismissal Reversed. On remand, the lower court retains subject matter jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment counterclaims.

Federal Circuit Applies KSR - Finding Combination Claims Obvious

Ball Aerosol v. Limited Brands, Bath & Body Works, etc. (Fed. Cir. 2009)

Ball’s patent covers a candle tin with a removable lid. The lid is designed to fit under the candle to help avoid scorching the underlying surface. According to the claims, the candle tin also has legs or “protrusions” that rest upon the cover.

On summary judgment, a Northern District of Illinois court found Ball’s patent valid as a matter of law. On appeal the Federal Circuit flipped the decision — finding the asserted claims invalid as a matter of law.

Here, it was undisputed that all of the elements of the claims can be found in the combination of two prior art references. In addition, the problem of candle-tin scorching was well known in the art. Finally, it is undisputed that the technology is “simple and easily understandable.”

This case falls squarely under the rule of law expounded by KSR where the Supreme Court held that “[i]f a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Here, one prior art reference (Marchi) taught the candle with a cover that could be used as a base. The other reference (Wright) taught a candle with “bumps” on the bottom to avoid scorching the surface. In considering these two references, the Federal Circuit determined that the combination was obvious:

“The combination of a cover-stand and feet on the bottom of the candle holder was obvious to try in an effort to minimize scorching, as the combination would further raise the bottom of the candle holder above the supporting surface. The resulting, and desired, decreased heat transfer between the candle holder and the supporting surface from the combination would have been entirely predictable and grounded in common sense.”

Explicit Motivation: In KSR, the Supreme Court indicated that the reasons for combining prior art references “should be made explicit.” Here, the Federal Circuit clarified that statement – holding that the motivation need not be explicit in any prior art. Rather, the Supreme Court is referring “to the court’s analysis.” In other words, a court must explain its motivation in combining two or more references to invalidate a patent for obviousness.

Commercial Success: Even those who believe in objective indicia of nonobviousness admit that commercial success is one of the weakest forms. The problem is the general difficulty in tying the success of the product to the invention itself. Here, the Federal Circuit found that the “minimal indications of commercial success … do not outweigh the clear indication of obviousness apparent from the prior art.”

Holding: Judgment Reversed, Claims are invalid as obvious

Notes: I have pasted figures from the two prior art references. One shows a candle with “protrusions” on the bottom the other shows a candle using the lid as a base. At least one of the references specifically discussed object of creating space between the candle and the surface to avoid scorching problems. Neither reference was cited by the patentee during prosecution.

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 Split Decision Highlights Unpredictability of Claim Construction (Once Again)

Kinetic Concepts v. Blue Sky Medical Group (Fed. Cir. 2009)

Virtually every theory or defense in patent law requires claim construction before coming to a final conclusion. This case focused on obviousness and considered how the results turn on the construction of the claim term "treating a wound." A two-member majority (Judges Prost and Bryson) narrowly construed the term to only include treatment of surface wounds (instead of internal organs) and affirmed a nonobviousness holding. The dissent (Judge Dyk) saw a broader definition leading him to a conclusion that the claims were obvious in light of the prior art.

Hal Wegner aptly notes that it would be "difficult without an intensive study of the record to determine whether the majority or the dissent has properly construed the claims under Federal Circuit precedent: Indeed, it is possible that both constructions are acceptable. Kinetic Concepts thus once again points to the continued imperative of statutory claim construction reform."

As per usual, Judge Dyk's dissent is sharp - finding that the majority erred first by finding that the term should be limited to the disclosed embodiments and erred again by narrowly misreading the scope of the disclosed embodiments:

"In my view, the majority improperly holds that the claim term “wound” can be limited to the disclosed embodiments in the specification, and, having done so, then misreads the specification as showing only embodiments treating harm to the surface of the body or skin wounds. Under the correct construction of this claim term, the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,636,643 (“’643 Patent”) and 5,645,081 (“’081 Patent”) would have been obvious."

Notes: Read the decision 07-1340.pdf.

Classen v. Biogen: Request for Rehearing

In Classen v. Biogen, the Federal Circuit issued a one paragraph non-precedential opinion rejecting Dr. Classen's claimed method for evaluating a vaccine immunization schedule. The problem with the claims stems from the Bilsmane or transformation test. The appellate panel found that "the claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dr. Classen's claims are neither "tied to a particular machine or apparatus" nor do they "transform[] a particular article into a different state or thing." Bilski, 545 F.3d at 954."

Now, Classen has filed its request for a rehearing en banc and is looking for further amicus support. The brief cites only one case -- Bilski -- and argues the facts: that at least the claim limitation of "immunizing mammals" is a qualifying transformation of matter.

Notes:

• Patently-O Discusses Classen v. Biogen
• classenrehearing.pdf
• Prometheus
• Prof. Holman

BPAI Again Rejects System Claims under Bilski

Ex parte Atkins (BPAI 2009)

The BPAI has again raised the issue of Post-Bilski patentable subject matter sua sponte. Like most claims challenged under Section101, Atkins claims also have serious nonobvousness and indefiniteness problems.

Atkins claims a method of "converting a unidirectional domain name to a bidirectional domain name." In reviewing the claim under Bilski, the BPAI noted that the claims do not "recite any machine or apparatus or call for transforming an article into a different state or thing. A domain name is simply a series of characters representing the address of a resource, such as a server, on the World Wide Web. All of the steps are data manipulation steps."

Atkins also claims a parallel "system" for converting the domain name. The BPAI rejected the system claims under Bilski since "those claims encompass any and all structures for performing the recited functions. As a result, [the system claims] are at least as broad as method claims ... which we have determined recite patent ineligible subject matter under Bilski."

• Ex parte Atkin.pdf

Aventis Files for Certiorari: Challenging Federal Circuit's Low Standard for Intent to Deceive in Inequitable Conduct Proceedings

Aventis Pharma v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals and Teva (on petition for a writ of certiorari)

In a split 2008 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court decision holding two Aventis patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The patents cover a low molecular weight form of the blood thinner heparin and is marketed under the Lovenox brand. The alleged offense involved an Aventis failure to report that its tests showing improved drug half-life used a different dosage than the tests on prior-art compound. Inequitable conduct requires proof of both materiality and intent to deceive. Here, the intent was shown only through circumstantial evidence.

In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Rader argued that inequitable conduct law should be restricted to "only the most extreme cases of fraud and deception." Rader also discusses how past inequitable conduct should be correctable.

Now, Aventis has hired Supreme Court powerhouse (and champion of the Federalist Society) Ted Olson and has asked the Supreme Court for its view. Aventis posits as an extension of Judge Rader's dissent - arguing that inequitable conduct should not be a viable cause of action when the mens rea evidence only rises to gross negligence. The question presented:

Under the judge-made doctrine of “inequitable conduct,” a federal court may decline to enforce an otherwise valid patent that was procured through fraud or deceit. Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Auto. Maint. Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806 (1945). As befits the punitive nature of the doctrine, this Court has invoked it only in extreme circumstances involving “deliberate,” “corrupt,” “sordid” and “highly reprehensible” misconduct. Some panels of the Federal Circuit have similarly limited the inequitable conduct doctrine to deliberately planned and carefully executed schemes to defraud, but other Federal Circuit panels—including the majority in this case— have adopted a “sliding scale” under which “less intent” is required as the materiality of an omission or misrepresentation increases. The question presented is:

Whether a court may refuse to enforce an otherwise valid patent on the basis of an inequitable conduct determination premised on a sliding scale between intent and materiality, effectively permitting a finding of fraudulent intent to be predicated on gross negligence.

Aventis has written a strong petition, amici briefs in support of the Aventis position would be due by February 25.

Notes:

• Aventis Petition for Certiorari
• Inequitable Conduct: Failure to Submit Full Experimental Details
• Patently-O: Split over Inequitable Conduct

The Exodus: Following TS Tech, Patent Lawsuit Transferred from E.D. Texas to Oregon

A few days ago I was discussing TS Tech with a patent law guru. I suggested that TS Tech would not have a major impact on the location of patent cases - largely because local judges still retain a large amount of discretion in determining whether another venue is more convenient. . . . What do I know.

Odom v. Microsoft (E.D. Tex, Jan 30 2009)

Famed patent blogger Gary Odom sued Microsoft in the Eastern District of Texas - alleging that the Office 07 toolbar infringes Odom's software patent. Judge Love was assigned the case -- but now he has granted Microsoft's motion to transfer the case to Oregon. You see, Odom is located in Oregon, Microsoft in Washington, the Klarquist firm (who once worked with both Odom and Microsoft) is in Oregon.

Judge Love relied on the Federal Circuit's TS Tech (J. Rader) opinion and the 5th Circuit's VW opinion (en banc) in determining that the suit should continue in the Northwest rather than Texas.

Under the circumstances presented here, the convenience of witnesses and localized interests weigh in favor of transfer with the other factors neutral or weighing slightly in favor of transfer. This is a case that is significantly localized in the Northwest. Both parties are residents of the Northwest, and Microsoft’s equitable defenses all arise out of conduct and contracts in the Northwest. No Texas resident is a party to this litigation, nor is any Texas state law cause of action asserted. All identified witnesses—with the possible exception of one—are located in the Northwest. This is not a case where witnesses are expected to be traveling from all over the country or world. In summary, there is little convenience to the parties for this case to remain in Texas, while there are several reasons why it would be more convenient for the parties to litigate this case in Oregon.

Case transferred.

Notes:

• Order to transfer order to transfer from texas
• E.D. Texas Blogger Michael Smith has more details
• It remains to be seen if Judges Ward and Davis follow suit.
• In the opinion, Judge Love did distinguish some portions of TS Tech. Importantly, much of the likely evidence is in electronic form. The court found that the physical location of the servers holding that electronic evidence did not impact the inconvenient forum analysis.

Bilski Petitions the Supreme Court to Decide Issues of Patentable Subject Matter

Bilski v. Doll (on petition for certiorari)

In Bilski, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied the “machine-or-transformation test” as the only test to be used in determining whether a claimed process is eligible for patenting under § 101. The decision holds that a claimed process either (1) be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or (2) transform a particular article into a different state or thing.

Bilski’s claimed method of hedging the risk of bad weather through commodities trading had been rejected by the USPTO as lacking patentable subject matter. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed – finding that the method failed the machine-or-transformation test.

Now, Bilski has petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari — asking the high court to determine whether the new test of patentable subject matter is the correct test.

The petition asks two questions:

Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that a “process” must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing … despite this Court’s precedent declining to limit the broad statutory grant of patent eligibility for “any” new and useful process beyond excluding patents for “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.”

Whether the Federal Circuit’s “machine-or-transformation” test for patent eligibility, which effectively forecloses meaningful patent protection to many business methods, contradicts the clear Congressional intent that patents protect “method[s] of doing or conducting business.” 35 U.S.C. § 273.

Under Supreme Court rules, any amici brief in support of the petitioner (Bilski) would be due within thirty days (Feb 27). Those in support of the respondent (PTO) would be due the dame day, but the PTO will likely seek an extension.

Notes

• File Attachment: Bilski Petition for Certiorari (665 KB)
• Federal Circuit Decision in Bilski
• The BPAI and the Machine or Transformation test of Bilski
• Should Patent Practitioners Support the Bilski Petition?
• Prometheus v. Mayo: Limits of Patentable Subject Matter in Medical Treatment and Diagnosis
• Drafting Software Patents Under Bilski
• Professor Collins: In re Bilski: Tangibility Gone “Meta”

Bilski at the Supreme Court

Bernard Bilski's petition for certiorari is due within days (unless an extension is granted). I think that there is a real question of whether (and how) the patent community should react to presentation of the case. Should the patent community support this case for Supreme Court review, wait for a better situated case, or sit content with the machine-or-transformation test outlined by the Federal Circuit in the en banc Bilski decision? Each position has its merits.

The case is well developed, parties and amici have already invested time standing behind the case. Yet, the underlying invention is not compelling (a method of hedging the risk of bad weather by using commodities trading) and issues of obviousness would almost certainly cloud the issues. There are many other potential cases in the pipeline, and the Supreme Court may properly wait to see how the new Bilski rule develops before weighing-in.

Federal Circuit Finds Stent Patent Obvious by Combining Embodiments in a Single Prior Art Reference

Boston Scientific v. Cordis (Fed. Cir. 2009)

In 2003, Boston Scientific sued Cordis for infringement of its drug-eluting, non-thrombogenic, expandable stent. (Patent No. 6,120,536). The stent, thus has a metal core surrounded by a drugged layer that is then surrounded by a non-thrombogenic layer. A jury found the asserted claims infringed and not obvious. The district court accepted the jury verdict and denied the Cordis motions for JMOL and a new trial. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed – finding the patent obvious as a matter of law.

Cordis pointed to another Medtronic patent ("Wolff") as prior art that – by itself – renders the claims invalid. Wolff discloses two separate embodiments: (Fig 4) a metallic core with a drug-eluting coating and (Fig 3B) a drug-eluting core with a non-thombogenic coating. Thus, Wolff "teaches all of the [claimed] limitations. . . . The only qualification to this statement of fact is that all of the limitations are found in two separate embodiments pictured side by side in the patent, not in one embodiment."

Applying KSR, the Federal Circuit found that it would have been obvious to combine the two embodiments since the combination was simply a "predictable variation."

"Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness."

Holding: The asserted claim "would have been obvious in view of Wolff."

Note: The Cordis brief used a particularly effective strategy of including the two embodiments to be combined followed by a demonstrative drawing of how they would have been combined. Here, they used the same drawing style and also used the same figure numbering.

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."

Muddling Through Claim Construction

Vehicle IP v. General Motors Corp. and OnStar (Fed. Cir. 2009)(Nonprecedential)

VIP's patent covers a vehicle navigation system. After construing the asserted claims, the W.D. Wisc. court granted summary judgment of non-infringement. This appeal focuses on construction of the phrase "a notification region defined by a plurality of notification coordinates."

The infringing systems use scalars – such as a distance – and the debate is whether those scalars fit the claimed "coordinates" limitation. The majority opinion (Prost & Bryson, JJ) held that the "plain language of the claims precludes the possibility that a coordinate can be a scalar." According to the claim, the location of the device must "substantially corresponds to a notification coordinate," and a bare distance does not correlate to a location. The majority also found suggestions in the prosecution history supporting a narrow construction of coordinate.

In dissent, Judge Mayer would not have limited the coordinate to "a longitude latitude pair."

"In mathematics, there are many types of coordinate systems and the common ground is that they all define a point. For instance, in a curvilinear system, coordinates are defined with a fixed origin point, and a scalar distance offset from that point along a known curve, such as a section of road. A distance offset necessarily has a "partner" to define a point, as offsets are necessarily set off from another known point. A coordinate should not be construed to exclude defining a point by an offset from another point along a known path."

In Hal Wegner's words, this decision "demonstrates the different views that can be reached by reasonable minds on claim construction issues which, due to appellate de novo review, creates the opportunities for so much judicial uncertainty." And, as suggested by dissenting judges in Phillips v. AWH, that en banc decision did little to create predictability in claim construction.

Jury verdict forms

Agere Systems v. Sony Corp (E.D. Tex. 2008).

In November 2008, a jury returned a verdict finding that Sony had induced infringement of Agere's patent by marketing and selling its PlayStation Portable (PSP) game. It is interesting to look at the simplicity of the jury form:

Post-verdict motions are still pending in the Sony case, but an appeal is expected.

In Spine Solutions v. Medtronic (D.Del. 2008), the jury found that the asserted claims were non-obvious and that the patentee was entitled to lost profit damages.

Some of the damages were also awarded based on a "reasonable royalty" of 18%.