California Should Not be Immune from Charges of Patent Infringement (But it is Immune)

BPMC v. California Department of Health (on petition for certiorari). [Read the Petition]

States generally support strong patent rights. Why? Because States are free to enforce their patent rights yet are generally immune from suit for infringing patents owned by others. 

The Eleventh Amendment – ratified in 1795 – provides immunity to State governments from suits by “Citizens of another State … [or] any Foreign State.” The US Supreme Court has expanded the literal reading of the amendment — holding that state immunity broadly extends to almost all lawsuits brought against a state.

A State may, of course, waive its immunity.  A classic example of waiver occurs when a state files a patent infringement lawsuit.  After filing the lawsuit, the State cannot claim immunity against related counterclaims filed by a defendant. 

The facts of this case are quite simple: Healthcare Giant Kaiser filed a declaratory judgment action against the patent holder BPMC back in 1997. The State of California intervened in that case in support of Kaiser’s position.  The DJ action was eventually dismissed for improper venue. Almost a decade later, BPMC filed an identical (mirror image) infringement action against the State asserting the identical patent and issues and in the same venue as the 1997 action.

The issue then is whether California’s original waiver of immunity also applies to this second – seemingly identical case.

On appeal, the CAFC narrowly construed California’s waiver of immunity to be limited to only the same action. The court noted precedent that the waiver would apply if BPMC had been able to file its case as a revival of the original action an “numbered as that cause of action.”

The appellate panel also rejected BPMC’s argument that the DOH should be judicially estopped from changing its position in this litigation. According to the court, the about-face was excusable because of an intervening change in the law of immunity.  In particular, during the interim, the Supreme Court decided Florida Prepaid. That case held that Congress could not legislatively eliminate a State’s sovereign immunity from patent infringement claims without showing cause under the 14^th amendment.

In its petition for certiorari, BPMC focuses on the issue of waiver due to litigation conduct. The patentee argues that its case is particularly special — because of past waiver in the same transaction. In addition, however, the patentee argues that some states – such as California – have become such major market participants in patent litigation that it would be unjust to allow immunity to continue:

California’s effort to invoke sovereign immunity selectively in this case is part of a larger scheme to use the federal courts as both a sword and a shield. California embraces federal patent jurisdiction when it seeks to benefit but avoids that jurisdiction when it faces liability. Through its frequent voluntary invocation of federal patent jurisdiction, however, California has unambiguously demonstrated that it is generally amenable to federal jurisdiction in these matters and has thereby waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Although not likely, BPMC has a better than average chance at certiorari.  It is a fundamental constitutional question with a circuit split and changed business circumstances (States are now major patent players).  Another plus is that noted Supreme Court specialist Andy Pincus is on the brief and would likely argue for BPMC. 

Notes:

• BPMC v. California Department of Health (Fed. Cir. 2007).
• Vas-Cath v. University of Missouri (Fed. Cir. 2006).
• Tegic v. U.Texas (Fed. Cir. 2006)
• Pennington Seed v. Produce Exchange No. 299 and Univ. of Arkansas (Fed. Cir. 2006).
• Interestingly, BPMC’s claims are quite similar to those in the LabCorp v. Metabolite debacle. Here, we have a method of diagnosing placental disfunction by comparing a pregnant woman’s HCG levels against normal levels. Justice Breyer may want to hear this case to take another shot at medical methods.
• WSJ Article by Peter Lattman

Supreme Court to Decide Patent Exhaustion Case

Quanta v. LG Electronics (Supreme Court 2007)

The Korean chaebol LG licensed a set of patents to Intel.  The license expressly excludes Intel's customers and similarly does not cover any customer product made by combining an Intel product with a non-Intel product.

When LG sued a host of Intel chip-based computer manufacturers for infringement, they complained of attempted double-dipping.  According to the defendants (including Quanta), their use of licensed Intel chips implicated the first sale doctrine of patent exhaustion.

Now the Supreme Court has granted certiorari to determine whether LG’s narrow license terms avoid exhaustion.

Question presented: “Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding, in conflict with decisions of this Court and other courts of appeals, that respondent’s patent rights were not exhausted by its license agreement with Intel Corporation, and Intel’s subsequent sale of products under the license to petitioners.”

Exhaustion – also known as the first sale doctrine – serves as a default rule in both patent and copyright laws. Under the principle, a license fee is only be charged one time per object. Thus, a rights holder controls the first sale of a protected object, but does not control subsequent sales. The copyright rule is codified in Section 109. The patent rule, however, is only based on case law.

Lower Court Ruling: The lower court found that Intel’s "unrestricted" license and Intel's sale of its chips under the license exhausted LG's rights to any additional patent recovery.

CAFC Ruling: On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed, finding that when restrictions are placed on a license, "it is more reasonable to infer that the parties negotiated a price that reflects only the value of the ‘use’ rights conferred by the patentee." The appellate panel found that there was no exhaustion because of express conditions on the use of Intel's licensed products -- specifically that the products could not be combined with non-Intel parts.

Quanta's argument is quite simple:

• Intel sold chipsets to the petitioners;
• Those sales were fully authorized under the LG license and were made without restriction;
• Therefore, LG's patent rights are exhausted.

Quanta goes on to say that under Supreme Court jurisprudence, a sale cannot be conditional. (No improper restraints on alienation).  And, without citing Arizona Cartridge, the petition lists a set of upcoming problems if conditions for sale are allowed for patented items:

[T]he Federal Circuit's new jurisprudence threatens to kick off a new era of "notices" attached to sold goods.  Obvious candidates include "single use only," "no use outside of Massachusetts," "no repair," "no resale," or "no resale for less than the price of purchase."

On the other side, LG points-out that Intel made a business decision not to cover its customers.  Because of that decision, Intel received a cheaper license, but now the customers must make-up the difference.

[When there are no patent misuse or notice concerns,] parceling out of the exclusivity rights is simply a matter for negotiation in the marketplace, not for a legal override of commercially fashioned terms.

An amicus on behalf of Dell, HP and others identifies the origin of the current CAFC precedent: Mallinckrodt.

Mallinckrodt held that a restriction on the post-sale use and enjoyment of a patented article is enforceable under the patent laws as long as it does not “venture[] beyond the patent grant and into behavior having an anticompetitive effect not justifiable under the rule of reason.”

According to the Amicus (and Quanta), the Mallinckrodt decision and its progeny do not follow Supreme Court precedent as stated in Univis Lens.

Univis Lens ... held that the authorized sale of an article manufactured “under the patent” exhausts all patent claims in the article regardless of any purported limitation on the subsequent use and enjoyment of the article. . . Univis Lens held that a condition on the post-sale use and enjoyment of a patented device violated the antitrust laws because it was not enforce-able under the patent laws, and thus was not protected against antitrust scrutiny. See 316 U.S. at 252 (“[t]he price fixing features of appellees’ licensing system, which are not within the protection of the patent law, violate the Sherman Act”).United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241 (1942)

Notes

• It turns out that the patents were originally issued to Wang Labs and are indeed quite broad. U.S. Patent Nos. 4,918,645; 5,077,733; 4,939,641; 5,379,379; and 5,892,509
• Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
• Jazz Photo v. ITC, 264 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 950 (2002)("United States patent rights are not exhausted by products of foreign provenance. To invoke the protection of the first sale doctrine, the authorized first sale must have occurred under the United States patent.").
• Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v Lexmark International Inc, 421 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005)
• United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241 (1942)
• Birdwell, ''Exhaustion of Rights and Patent Licensing Market Restrictions,'' 60 J. Pat. Off. Soc'y 203 (1978)

KSR and the Line Between Fact and Law

By Professor Chris Cotropia

Well, we have gotten early indications from the major patent players as to how the substantive part of KSR will play out.  TSM still has a place in the post-KSR world, at least according to Chief Judge Michel of the Federal Circuit and Deputy Commissioner Focarino of the USPTO.  These are preliminary statements.  We will not know what the Federal Circuit or USPTO really think until the first precedential opinion or interim guidelines issue.  But these early comments make one wonder if KSR changes anything, particularly those like myself who witnessed the Federal Circuit's acceptance of, and reliance on, implicit TSM well before In re Kahn, DyStar, and Alza.

While the substantive impact may turn out to be minimal, KSR could have a significant procedural effect.  The Court appears to have shifted the line between factual and legal parts of the nonobviousness analysis, moving what was (is?) the TSM test from being a question of fact to a question of law. 

The Supreme Court in Graham established that nonobviousness was ultimately a question of law, but there were recognized underlying factual issues—content of the prior art, scope of the claims, and the level of the PHOSITA.  When the CCPA, and then the Federal Circuit, started employing the TSM test, the test became another underlying factual component of the inquiry.  As a result, there was not much left at the question of law level, and the Federal Circuit affirmed most appeals from rejections by the USPTO and or trials before district courts on the nonobviousness issue.

The Legacy of KSR v. Teleflex

Part of the legacy of KSR will depend upon how the case is treated by the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Graham v. John Deere is the seminal patent case on obviousness, and is cited by most patent decisions involving the question of obviousness.  Cases like Sakraida and Anderson's Black-Rock are much less likely to be relied-on. Sakraida, for instance, is fifty-times (50x) less likely to be cited by the CAFC than Graham -- even though Sakraida represented (until 2007) the Supreme Court's most recent pronouncement on obviousness.  Sakraida's low-level influence has waned in recent times.  For instance, the cow-dung case has only been cited once by the CAFC in the past decade. (in DyStar).

The table above shows the number of Shepard's citations found for the Supreme Court's set of obviousness decisions. Total citations include all known citations while "total court" citations include only instances where the case was cited in a court opinion. The No. 2 case (in CAFC citations) is US v. Adams. That case is notorious as the only nonobviousness case -- i.e., were the Supreme Court found the claims nonobvious.

The KSR Opinion has much more meat than Sakraida, but the case will never challenge the canonical status of Graham v. John Deere.  Of course, the question of KSR's legacy is now in the hands of the CAFC.

KSR v. Teleflex: Supreme Court on Obviousness

KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. ___ (2007).

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court rejected any notion that the concept of obviousness in patent law can be rigidly or narrowly defined -- holding that "the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception."  However, the opinion does not radically change the notion of obviousness or immediately invalidate a wide swath of already issued patents.

The question of nonobviousness comes-up in Section 103 of the Patent Act. That section declares that a patent shall not issue if "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."

But what is "obvious"?  Certainly, this amorphous term has continuously stumped engineers and scientists for the past 50+ years.  One particular issue involves combination inventions that take various existing elements and combine them in a new way.  When is such a combination obvious?  In an attempt to provide improved notice and regularity, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) introduced a test that holds a combination invention is nonobvious absent some teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) to combine the various parts together.

In KSR, the Supreme Court began by rejecting the CAFC's test for obviousness:

"We begin by rejecting the rigid approach of the Court of Appeals. Throughout this Court's engagement with the question of obviousness, our cases have set forth an expansive and flexible approach inconsistent with the way the Court of Appeals applied its TSM test here."

At this point, I would have expected the Court to obliterate the past twenty-five years of obviousness jurisprudence and begin again with a clean slate. It did not do that — rather, the opinion appears to simply refine the particulars of how prior-art can be combined and when a "combined patent" will be seen as obvious.  Without explicitly saying so, the Court's opinion appears to affirm the CAFC's more recent pronouncements of a flexible test of obviousness. Dystar, Alza.

Patent Value: In the short-term, this case reduces the average value of patent holdings. Courts should find it easier to invalidate patents based on expert testimony and the jury's concept of obviousness. The story also becomes more important -- and attorneys who can tell an "invention story" will be in demand.  During prosecution, inventors and experts should get their pens ready to sign declarations of patentability.

Preliminary Gems:

• PHOSITA is Creative: A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.
• Obvious to Try: When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
• Hindsight Bias: Rigid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it.
• No Presumption of Validity: We need not reach the question whether the failure to disclose Asano during the prosecution of Engelgau voids the presumption of validity given to issued patents, for claim 4 is obvious despite the presumption.
• Patents Halt Innovation: Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation retards progress and may, in the case of patents combining previously known elements, deprive prior inventions of their value or utility.
• Common Sense: Mentioned glowingly five separate times. 

Supreme Court Retracts Patent Protection

KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U. S. ____ (2007): In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Circuit's "narrow" & "rigid" TSM test is not the proper application of the nonobviousness doctrine of Section 103(a) of the Patent Act.

"To facilitate review, [the obviousness] analysis should be made explicit. But it need not seek out precise teachings directed to the challenged claim's specific subject matter, for a court can consider the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."

"A patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each element was, independently, known in the prior art."

"There is no necessary inconsistency between the [TSM] test and the Graham analysis. But a court errs where, as here, it transforms general principle into a rigid rule limiting the obviousness inquiry."

Microsoft v. AT&T: With a 7-1 majority, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Microsoft in its extended fight againt extraterritorial application of US Patent Law -- holding that Section 271(f) of the Patent Act does not extend to cover foreign duplication of software. Justice Stevens dissented.

Opinions:

• Download KSRvTeleflexOpinion.pdf
• Download MSFTvATTOpinion.pdf

Microsoft v. AT&T: Transnational patent Law

Microsoft v. AT&T (Supreme Court 2007).

Section 271(f) of the Patent Act expands the territorial scope of US patent protection by creating liability for exporting one or more “components” of a patented invention so that the whole invention may be practiced abroad. The statute is divided into parts one and two dealing with inducement and contributory activity respectively.

The case at hand involves Microsoft’s infringement of AT&T’s speech coding technology patent. Microsoft has conceded that its software (once installed on a computer) infringes the patent in the US. However, Microsoft has fought against paying patent royalties for sale of the same software abroad.  Microsoft’s argument, spelled out in its brief, is two-fold: (1) Software cannot be a ‘component’ as required by the statute because software code is intangible; and (2) Software copies made abroad cannot be considered ‘supplied’ from the US as required by the statute because no physical particle that Microsoft exported actually became part of the finished product.  I have previously labeled these arguments as the tangibility requirement and the molecular conservation requirement. [Link]

Now, AT&T and its supporters has filed their briefs that explain why 271(f) should encompass foreign copies of software shipped from the US. [Petitioner and Gov’t briefs are discussed here]

AT&T’s Brief on the Merits:

Tangibility: AT&T attacks the tangibility requirement head-on, arguing that there is no such requirement.

[The software] is plainly a component of [the patented] device, just as a unique collection of intangible words is a component of any book bearing the title Moby-Dick, even though those words, too, must be combined with ink and paper before the book can be read.

Of course AT&T is correct — the statute does not spell-out any tangibility requirement, and Microsoft’s statutory argument is, at best implicit. AT&T’s arguments are supported by business practice as well. Software and hardware are developed and sold separately, and each side can easily be though of as providing components of the whole.

Molecular Conservation Requirement: AT&T takes a different view of the statutory requirement that the components be “supplied” from the US. In AT&T’s story, “supplied” means satisfying a need or furnishing.  Using a but-for analysis, AT&T makes clear that without Microsoft’s shipment of the code abroad, it would not have ended-up in the foreign computers.

Here, the Windows object code is present in the foreign made computers only because Microsoft “provided” or “furnished”—in a word, supplied—it from the United States, via golden master disk or electronic transmission.

As it stands, the AT&T brief is well written and convincing on its own — the major problem being that it leads with a petty argument for dismissal.

Philips Corporation also filed a brief in support of AT&T.  Philips makes several arguments, two of which I discuss here:

1. In today’s market, software and hardware companies do compete head-to-head.  A finding that software export is noninfringing would be at the expense of electronics companies because hardware exports would continue to be considered infringing.  Thus, awarding the win to Microsoft here may free the software industry, but will even further damage the hardware export industry.
2. In many ways, this case is about the size of damages. Microsoft hopes that copies made abroad will not be seen as infringing because those copies were not literally shipped from the US.  Philips points out under the rules of consequential damage calculations, Microsoft would owe damages for sales of all copies even if 271(f) only covered the initial master disk shipment.

WARF, California, and RCTech filed a joint brief in support of AT&T. These holders of strong bio-related patents see the potential that this case could narrow the scope of their protection. WARF points-out how Microsoft comes to the table with unclean hands:

When it suits its interests, even Microsoft acknowledges that the number of units it supplies is not limited by the number of golden masters it sends abroad. In Microsoft Corp. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, Microsoft argued that it was entitled to tax deductions . . . for all foreign sales of software replicated from Microsoft’s golden master abroad, claiming that such copies were "export property" under the statute. The Ninth Circuit . . . agreed with Microsoft that all copies created from the golden master were export property, thereby providing Microsoft with another $31 million in claimed deductions for 1990 and 1991.

BAYHDOLE25.inc is an educational NGO that supports, as you might guess, the Bayh Dole act (at its 25th anniversary).  In a brief supporting AT&T, BD25 argues for the protection of intangible assets — especially assets that are replicable and intended to be replicated.  These include software code, cell lines, patented seeds, DNA, etc. Replicable assets are important and should be protectable.

Documents:

• On the Merits
• In Support of Microsoft
• Petitioner: Microsoft Brief;
• Amicus: US Government;
• Amicus: Law Professors (Lemley & Duffy);
• Amicus: Amazon;
• Amicus: SIIA (Industry Org.);
• Amicus: SFLC (Moglen & Ravicher);
• Amicus: Shell Oil (Method Claims);
• Amicus: Intel;
• Amicus: AIPLA;
• Amicus: Eli Lilly;
• Amicus FICPI;
• Amicus Autodesk
• Amicus BSA (Industry will be destroyed if AT&T wins);
• Amicus Yahoo!.
• In Support of AT&T
• Respondent: AT&T;
• Amicus: BayhDole25.inc;
• Amicus: US Philips;
• Amicus: UC WARF RCTech.
• In Support of Neither Party
• Amicus: Professor Edward Lee.
• Reply Brief:
• Petitioner: Microsoft Reply Brief.
• On Petition for Certiorari
  • Petitioner: Microsoft Petition
  • Petitioner: Microsoft Petition Appendix
  • Respondent: AT&T Opposition
  • Petitioner: Microsoft Reply in Support
  • Respondent: AT&T Supplemental Brief
  • Petitioner: Microsoft Supplemental Brief
  • Amicus: Software and Information Industry Association in Support of Microsoft
  • Amicus: Government in Support of Microsoft

Important recent 271(f) cases:

• NTP v. Research in Motion, (271(f) “component” would rarely if ever apply to method claims).
• AT&T v. Microsoft, 414 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (271(f) “component” applies to method claims and software being sold abroad);
• Union Carbide v. Shell Oil (Fed. Cir. 2005) (271(f) “component” applies to method claims).
• Eolas v. Microsoft, 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (271(f) “component” applies to method claims and software);
• Pellegrini v. Analog Devices, 375 F.3d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (271(f) “component” does not cover export of plans/instructions of patented item to be manufactured abroad);
• Bayer v. Housey Pharms, 340 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (271(g) “component” does not apply to importation of ‘intangible information’).

Earlier Discussion of this case

• http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/12/microsoft_v_att.html
• I will be discussing this and other extraterritorial issues at Duke University Law School on February 23, 2007. Link.

Text of 35 USC 271(f)

(1) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.

(2) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States any component of a patented invention that is especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, where such component is uncombined in whole or in part, knowing that such component is so made or adapted and intending that such component will be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.

Merges: Back to the Shadows, or Onward and Upward? Current Trends in Patent Law

By Professor Robert Merges

When no less an authority than Hal Wegner of Foley and Lardner starts worrying about the current direction of the Supreme Court on patent issues, it’s time to sit up and take notice. I have heard some of these concerns in the past few years, especially in the wake of the eBay injunction case. But when Hal sent around his widely-read “top 10 cases” email recently, I could see that his outlook had taken a serious turn for the worse. Here are some quotes from the recent Wegnerian missive:

“eBay philosophically piggybacks off an anti-exclusionary right climate in the electronics/software/manufacturing industries that has had a constant, anti-patent drumbeat in the academic and business communities and in the mainstream press. The Court has listened. . . .

[A] decidedly anti-patent core nucleus from the Douglas era is reforming at the Court that - save for Justice Stevens - had disappeared in the wake of the 1980 Chakrabarty and 1981 Diehr decisions . . . .

I believe this is a fairly mainstream view, at least among some chem/biotech/pharma practitioners. And despite how much Hal knows about all things patent (things he has generously shared with me and other academics over the years), I have to disagree with his assessment. Even more, though, I am worried about the larger implications of these views. The wedge between the pharma/biotech/manufacturing and the software/electronics views of the patent world is on one level just a normal development in a vibrant and growing field. But beyond a certain point, it is not a good sign. This is especially true when it is combined with the view that the current Supreme Court is anti-patent. Taken together, this attitude reminds me of the bad old days, the days whose shadow we in this field have only recently emerged from: the days when patent lawyers huddled together, defensively, while a hostile world seemingly bent on the destruction of this area of law (and these incentives for inventors) lobbed random attacks their way.

Jeff Steck: Saving the Supreme Court from Folk Science

Based on the briefs filed in the Microsoft v. AT&T case, the Supreme Court faces a substantial risk of establishing logically indefensible precedent relating to computer software. The status of software in patent law is a fair subject of debate, but such policy decisions should not be based on folk science.

In the briefs now before the Court, software-and information generally-is characterized as an ethereal construct, barely capable of being controlled or understood. In its amicus brief, Autodesk calls information "meta-physical." The Software & Information Industry Association describes information as "purely intangible." According to Microsoft, information is "abstract," and is "floating in the ether." Information has been so denigrated that AT&T, who holds the patent on the software method relevant to the case, claims that "software is not 'information.'" 

Colloquially speaking, information is hardly a new concept. Perhaps this is why the briefs assume it is reasonable to use a dichotomy pulled from Aristotelian philosophy: optical disk as "substance" versus computer program as "accident." But like physics, chemistry, and other topics of interest to the ancients, information has become a science, and it should be discussed as a science.

Supreme Court: Licensee in Good Standing May File Declaratory Judgment

MedImmune v. Genentech (Supreme Court 2007).

Declaratory judgment (DJ) actions are often used by potential defendants to obtain a declaration that a patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed.  Under Federal Circuit law, a licensee cannot challenge a patent without first breaching the license.  The CAFC's reasoning was that a licensee in good standing feels no apprehension of suit since the license is essentially a settlement between the parties. Without an apprehension of suit, the DJ action would not rise to an actual controversy as required by the Constitution.

In a broadly worded opinion, the Supreme Court has scrapped the Federal Circuit's "reasonable-apprehension" test on declaratory judgment standing in favor of a rule that allows licensee's in good-standing to file DJ actions.

We hold that petitioner was not required, insofar as Article III is concerned, to break or terminate its 1997 license agreement before seeking a declaratory judgment in federal court that the underlying patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed.

There are several things to note immediately:

Not Limited to Patents: This case at least extends to all licensing issues and likely to most contracts -- whether or not they involve patents or intellectual property.

Suggested Contractual Work-Around: Reading between the lines, the opinion may indicate that a contractual "prohibition against challenging the validity of the patents." may serve to block challenges by licensee's in good standing. Without the clause, however, the Court found no such prohibition:

To begin with, it is not clear where the prohibition against challenging the validity of the patents is to be found. It can hardly be implied from the mere promise to pay royalties on patents

Regarding apprehension of suit, the Opinion's footnote 11 is a complete divergence from common practice -- finding that a licensee who pays royalties either in fear of an injunctions or for fear of treble damages is being coerced in a way that creates an Article III case or controversy.

Links:

• Download MedImmune.pdf
• Briefs filed in MedImmune v. Genentech;
• CAFC Decision in MedImmune v. Genentech;
• CAFC Decision in MedImmune v. Centocor;
• MedImmune Petition Granted;
• Lear v. Adkins;
• Professor Miller’s comments;
• Supreme Court on the March;
• Supreme Court docket sheet.

Scalia's Hint on KSR

As you read this, keep in mind Michael Slonecker’s recent remark that “predictions are the musings of fools.” In late November, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in KSR v. Teleflex — the case that will determine what constitutes a “nonobvious” invention. Then, last week, Justice Scalia briefly discussed the case at a meeting of technology business group and was quoted as saying: “I know how that one comes out, but I'm not going to tell you.”  What does Scalia’s quote mean? Perhaps nothing, but it might mean that the court has already come to a unanimous consensus on the case.

Link: Washington Post Article

Microsoft v. AT&T: Transnational Patent Law At The Supreme Court

Microsoft v. AT&T (Supreme Court 2006)

Transnational patent law is a hot topic, and one the Supreme Court cannot ignore. The issue de jour involves the question of unauthorized export of patented software.  AT&T holds the speech compression patent that is infringed by Microsoft Windows. (RE 32,580). Microsoft exports the software code from Redmond to various international locations.  Once abroad, the code is then copied and installed in computers that are then sold abroad.  As the invention is claimed, the code alone does not infringe. Rather, infringement would only occur once the code is combined with the computer hardware. 

Under traditional notions of patent law, Microsoft’s actions are not infringement because the code alone does not infringe the patent, and (for the purposes of this case) the code is not combined with the hardware within the U.S. 

Here, however, traditional notions of territoriality have been supplanted by statute.  Under 35 U.S.C. 271(f), supply of only a portion of a component of a patented invention from the U.S. can be infringement.

35 U.S.C. 271(f) prohibits the “suppl[y] . . . from the United States . . . [of] all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention . . . in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States,” as well as the “suppl[y] . . . from the United States [of] any component of a patented invention that is especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention.” 

Microsoft, of course, wants to avoid infringing the U.S. patent for its activity abroad and gives two separate reasons why its activity of exporting software do not fall within the parameters of 271(f). (I) Software code is an intangible string of information not a “component” as required by the statute. (II) Because copies of the code were used to create the infringing software/hardware combination, no physical particle that Microsoft exported actually became part of the finished product.  According to Microsoft, this means that nothing in the infringing combination was actually supplied from the U.S. as required by the statute. I term these two arguments the tangibility requirement and the molecular conservation requirement.

Microsoft and its supporters have now filed their merits briefs to the Supreme Court, and my reading of their arguments is that there is strong support for molecular conservation, but only weak support for tangibility. The Bush Administration supports this distinction in its brief filed jointly by the DOJ and PTO. 

On tangibility, the Government argues that software can certainly be a component, and that the statute is not limited to “only tangible components” as Microsoft suggests. Although not cited by the Government, Section 271(c) provides a statutorily distinct way of limiting components.  In referring to infringement through importation, that clause identifies only components of certain types of inventions such as machines and compositions.

On molecular conservation, the Government correctly notes that the statute requires that the exported components be the same components that are combined in the infringing manner. “Conduct that merely induces the combination of foreign-made components does not violate Section 271(f).” The statute, according to the Gov’t, leaves foreign manufacturers “free to manufacture and assemble copies of the identical components overseas” so long as none of the components actually assembled were made within the US.  Applying their argument to this case, we know that the software was copied and only those copies were combined with hardware in a would-be infringing manner.

A group of electronics companies led by Amazon filed a colorful brief that also supports the requirement of molecular conservation.

No matter where their unique arrangement was invented or dictated, if each molecule in the machine was supplied from outside the U.S., then no component was supplied from the U.S. In the present case, Microsoft did not supply even a single molecule of the foreign machines at issue.

Amazon also raises the slippery slope issue.  According to the brief, if Microsoft is liable here, then the Court would open the door to infringement for export of blueprints or a CAD/CAM design scheme.  That result, the brief argues, goes against congressional intent. As an aside, Amazon cited Wikipedia but did not include it in its list of “authorities.”  Although they do not cite it, the Pellegrini case holds that plans or instructions for a patented item cannot serve as components under 271(f).

In support of the molecular argument, a group of professors led by professors Lemley (Stanford) and Duffy (GWU), looked appropriately at the language of 271(f):

[A]s a matter of grammar that the phrase “such components” refers back to the components that have been “supplied” from United States. Thus, the plain language of the statute requires that inducing an extraterritorial combination constitutes an act of infringement if and only if the combined components are in fact the same components that were “supplied in or from” the United States.

For the professors, supplying exact copies does not meet the requirement. Most of the briefs come-up with some hypothetical metaphor to explain their situation — a guy memorizing some code and flying on an airplane, a hard-copy print out of some code that runs a fuel-injection system, CAD/CAM instructions, blueprints, etc.  The idea apparently is that if we allow copies of software to be considered components, then these situations necessarily also provide for infringement actions.  More accurately, however, they are just poor hypotheticals.

Software as Patentable Subject Matter: The anti-patent activist group SFLC led by Dan Ravicher and Eben Moglen also filed a brief that may be the dark-horse of this debate.  Their brief asks the Court to take a fresh look at the patentability of software.

Software can not be a “component[] of a patented invention” under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) because software is not patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. As such, the Federal Circuit’s holding to the contrary in this case is erroneous and should be reversed.

It would be odd for the Court to decide the 101 issue in this case after dismissing LabCorp earlier this year.  However, I expect at least one concurring opinion supporting the ideas in this brief.

Impact on Software Industry: If Microsoft loses here, it will at least have a clear avenue to avoid future infringement. Unfortunately for US business, that avenue is to move all software development activities abroad so that components are never exported. This harmful effect was recognized and discussed in SIIA’s brief. SIIA is an industry group of software & technology companies who want to continue to design products in the US, but manufacture those products abroad. This argument is punctuated by BSA’s questionable hyperbole: “The purpose of patent protection is to encourage domestic innovation, not to drive it overseas.”

Impact in Biotech: Although not yet a viable industry, this could have a potentially large impact on biotechnology patent issues.  Like software, DNA code (or other biologics) could be shipped from the U.S. to be copied abroad and incorporated into an organism in an infringing manner.  Even more abstract, the export may merely involve transmitting a sequence listing that would be used to reproduce the sequence abroad.  Any decision on software should consider the potential impact on these areas as well.

Methods: What Professor Wegner has called the “Bizarre Twist” of this case involves the CAFC’s notion of export of components of method claims. In Union Carbide v. Shell, the court found that methods could indeed have components, and those included items used in the method (such as a catalyst).  Thus, in that case, the defendant could be held liable for exporting a stock catalyst if it intended to use the ingredient in a would-be infringing manner. Shell settled its case with Union Carbide, but has filed an amicus brief in this case, arguing that the Federal Circuit “seriously erred” by declaring that “every form of invention eligible for patenting falls within the protection of section 271(f).” 

Statutory Construction Excludes Methods?: Shell compares the use of the term “component” in 271(f) its use in 271(c) — the section addressing importation.  In 271(c), Congress explicitly limited components to “component[s] of a patented machine, manufacture, combination, or composition,” but also included a provision excluding importation of materials used in a patented process.  Shell’s argument: because 271(f) does not include the provision discussing materials used in a patented process, it cannot cover processes.  Of course, the unstated counter-argument to shell is that components discussed in 271(c) are specifically limited to components of machines, while 271(f) components are not so limited — indicating that “component” in 271(f) should receive a broader interpretation.

International Law: All of the transnational patent issues have an impact on international law issues. FICPI, a Swiss-based organization of patent folks filed its brief asking the the U.S. to keep its patents territorial and avoid stomping on the toes of others (as “young nations” are bound to do). FICPI’s implication that the Supreme Court is bound by the Paris Convention is plainly wrong.  The Paris Convention is not U.S. law. However, their point is well-taken, if 271(f) covers software, it thwarts the efforts of other countries to eliminate software patents.

Documents:

• On the Merits
• Petitioner: Microsoft Brief;
• Amicus: US Government;
• Amicus: Law Professors (Lemley & Duffy);
• Amicus: Amazon;
• Amicus: SIIA (Industry Org.);
• Amicus: SFLC (Moglen & Ravicher);
• Amicus: Shell Oil (Method Claims);
• Amicus: Intel;
• Amicus FICPI;
• Amicus Autodesk
• Amicus BSA (Industry will be destroyed if AT&T wins);
• Amicus Yahoo!.
• On Petition for Certiorari
  • Petitioner: Microsoft Petition
  • Petitioner: Microsoft Petition Appendix
  • Respondent: AT&T Opposition
  • Petitioner: Microsoft Reply in Support
  • Respondent: AT&T Supplemental Brief
  • Petitioner: Microsoft Supplemental Brief
  • Amicus: Software and Information Industry Association in Support of Microsoft
  • Amicus: Government in Support of Microsoft

Important recent 271(f) cases:

• NTP v. Research in Motion, (271(f) “component” would rarely if ever apply to method claims).
• AT&T v. Microsoft, 414 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (271(f) “component” applies to method claims and software being sold abroad);
• Union Carbide v. Shell Oil (Fed. Cir. 2005) (271(f) “component” applies to method claims).
• Eolas v. Microsoft, 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (271(f) “component” applies to method claims and software);
• Pellegrini v. Analog Devices, 375 F.3d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (271(f) “component” does not cover export of plans/instructions of patented item to be manufactured abroad);
• Bayer v. Housey Pharms, 340 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (271(g) “component” does not apply to importation of ‘intangible information’).

Notes:

• I will be updating this page as more briefs are filed.
• I will be talking about cross-border liability at Santa Clara University’s 25th Annual Computer & High Technology Law Journal Symposium on January 26 in San Jose. Information here.

Supreme Court: Current Test of Obviousness is "Gobbledygook"

KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2006, Oral Arguments).

The doctrine of nonobviousness is the cornerstone of American patent law.  I was reminded today by Phil Swain that our nonobviousness statute, section 103(a) of the Patent Act, was drafted by Judge Giles Rich.  Judge Rich is the most celebrated patent judge of this century.  His statutory masterpiece eliminated the amorphous concept of a “flash of genius” and replaced it with our now ubiquitous objective standard of a person having ordinary skill in the art.  In Graham v. John Deere, the Supreme Court reinforced 103(a) with its concept of case-by-case consideration of secondary indicia of nonobviousness as a way to avoid potential hindsight bias. 

Later, as the Federal Circuit developed its own patent jurisprudence, the court hit upon the teaching-suggestion-motivation test as another anti-hindsight rule.  That test requires evidence of some reason to combine various references that each teach part of an invention.  Thus, if there is no evidenced reason to combine the references, then the invention will be deemed nonobvious. The test, known by acronymists as “TSM,” has been labeled as a poster-child for bad patent behavior.  According to opponents of the test, the bright-line test makes patents too easy to obtain — resulting in a glut of patents covering trivial improvements. Those patents, in turn, hold-up industry research and greatly increase transaction costs and legal fees. 

In KSR v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court is questioning whether the TSM test should exist as the sole determinant of obviousness.  Question presented:

Whether the Federal Circuit has erred in holding that a claimed invention cannot be held ‘obvious’, and thus unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), in the absence of some proven “‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant prior art teachings in the manner claimed.”

Until a few months ago, the common myth of the TSM test was that it required at least some hard evidence that provided at least a minimal reason to combine various prior art references.  It is that myth that provided the impetus for Supreme Court review. In recent months, however, we have learned that the CAFC’s version of the test allows for evidence that is implicit, based on common knowledge, found generally in the prior art as a whole, based simply on the nature of the problem or simple logic, or concluded by experts. See Kahn, Dystar, Ormco, Alza.  This jitterbug by the CAFC actually gives KSR much of what it wanted and smears the edges of the mythical bright-line rule.  Justice Scalia picked up on transition during oral arguments — noting that the recent cases leave the test “meaningless. [The CAFC] essentially said ‘our test simply reduces to what [KSR seeks] in this litigation.’ . . . this is gobbledygook. It really is, it’s irrational.” Justice Alito had a similar concern with the “new” TSM test:

J. Alito: “But what is the difference between asking whether something is implicit in the, in the prior art and simply asking whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art?:

As discussed earlier on Patently-O, all the major patent bar associations filed briefs that support the current TSM test.  In a brilliant move, KSR neutralized those briefs by implying bias based on “the enormous fees that litigation of invalid patent claims can generate.” KSR Reply Brf. CJ Roberts appeared to buy-in to that analysis, joking that the filings “just indicate[] that this is profitable for the patent bar.” KSR Oral Arg.

One concern of the Court is whether modification of the obviousness doctrine would spoil long-settled rights.  The Justices, however, mentioned on several occasions that over the past year, the CAFC may have already upset any settled rights.

Mr Goldstein [for Teleflex]: “[The CAFC has had decades to look at this to try and elaborate a standard.”
J Breyer: “And it so quickly modified itself.”

Decision in February: Reports from the hearing noted that Justice who used the term “TSM” spoke with disdain and were highly critical of the test.  Although oral arguments are always full of counterfactuals and wild theory testing, the level of criticism supports the conventional wisdom that the TSM test is likely to be eliminated as “the exclusive” test.  Cases will rather be decided on a case-by-case basis using the standards of Graham v. John Deere. Already issued patents will still be given a presumption of validity, although it will be difficult for some courts to do this with a straight face.  The new key to avoiding invalidity will be secondary indicia of nonobviousness. Look for a 9–0 decision in early February.

TSM is not Dead: Much of the oral argument was filled with an attempt to simply understand the TSM test, and to figure out what is meant by a “motivation.”  If they cannot figure-out the test, they would likely completely trash-it as unworkable. Of course, by the time the opinion is penned, they will understand the current test and the test will not be scrapped as a whole. Rather, they will follow the Government’s suggestion that TSM continue to be used as a “valid means of proving obviousness.” In addition, however, flexibility will be added to allow for other ways of determining nonobviousness.

Here are some quotes from oral arguments:

CJ Roberts: “[T]the Federal Circuit’s approach focuses . . . on prior art — as opposed to, I would say, common sense.” 

J Scalia: “And in the last year or so, after we granted cert in this case after these decades of thinking about [the obviousness doctrine, the CAFC] suddenly decides to polish it up.”

J. Breyer: “I’ve read it about 15 or 20 times now, I just don’t understand what is meant by the term ‘motivation.’”

Mr. Hungar [for US Gov’t]: “Construed as the sole means of proving obviousness the teaching suggestion motivation test is contrary to the Patent Act, irreconcilable with this Court's precedents and bad policy. It asks the wrong question and in cases like this one, it produces the wrong answer. It should be rejected and the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed. . . . It’s just foreign to this Court’s precedents as a mandatory prerequisite for obviousness.”

Mr. Dabney [for KSR]: “[T]here is no legal regime that is a greater generator of patent litigation than the teaching suggestion motivation test that is urged by the respondent.” [DDC: Is this true?].

Documents and Links:

• Oral Argument Transcript;
• Commentary from the Gallery on the Oral Arguments:
• Zura;
• Armstrong;
• Miller;
• Kerr;
• ScotusBlog (Run by Teleflex’s Counsel)
• Gordon Smith;
• Patent Baristas;
• LawFont;
• Hawk;
• Brooks;
• Leo Stoller;
• Ebert;
• Law School Innovation;
• DragonFly
• KSR Shifts Obviousness Debate to "Mere Aggregations" and Presumptions of Non-Obviousness;
• Discussion of Response Briefs;
• Discussion of Petitioner and Supporting Amici’s Briefs on the Merits;
• Discussion of Government's Brief in Support of Certiorari;
• Discussion of Microsoft’s Amicus Brief;
• Discussion of the CAFC decision;
• Discussion of Law Professors Brief;
• Discussion of In re Kahn;
• Discussion of Petition for Certiorari;
• Prediction Certiorari;
• Professor Wagner and Strandburg debate obviousness in Penn’s new online law reivew:PENNumbra;
• Prof Miller: KSR Lift-off!
• Prof Miller: Discussion of Gov’t Brief;
• Patent Hawk: Becoming Less Obvious;
• Patent Hawk: Hindsight Problem;
• Buchanan: "[O]nce again, patent reform has left the Capitol and walked across First Street to the Supreme Court." [Link];
• Petherbridge & Wagner Empirical Article [link]
• Cotropia Article: [link].
• Shane Popp Article on Section 103 background [link]
• Mark Smith, a student at Santa Clara Law has these three posts in SCU’s great new Tech Law Forum:
  • http://www.techlawforum.net/blogs/a-precursor-to-obviousness/
  • http://www.techlawforum.net/blogs/per-se-or-not-per-se/
  • http://www.techlawforum.net/blogs/hey-teacher-leave-our-test-alone/
• The Patent at issue: [link] [link]

Cite as Dennis Crouch, “KSR Gobbledygook,” Patently-O, available at http://www.patentlyo.com.

In Fractured Decision, CAFC Refuses to Reexamine De Novo Claim Construction

Amgen v. HMR (CAFC en banc denial)

Cybor is the much reviled CAFC decision holding that the construction of patent claim language is a question of law that is reviewed de novo — without any regard to the lower court’s reasoning or ruling.  The Cybor rule is believed by many to have dramatically increased uncertainty in patent litigation as well as likelihood of appeal.  Importantly, the associated reversal rate also demoralizes district court judges who already often struggle with the technical and legal complexity of patent cases.

In Amgen, the appellate panel reviewed construction of the term “therapeutically effective amount” of erythropoietin and, in the process illustrated how Cybor gives the court a “capacity for arriving at its own idiosyncratic construction.” (Quoting Prof. Kevin Noonan). Here, the CAFC panel reversed the lower court’s construction based on its interpretation of the specification. 

HMR’s request for rehearing en banc has been denied, but a contingent of six separate dissenting and concurring opinions show the internal conflict.

Chief Judge Michel, who also dissented from the original panel decision, led the charge against Cybor. “I have come to believe that reconsideration is appropriate and revision may be advisable.”  CJ Michel, who was joined in the opinion by J Rader, cited four practical reasons for eliminating de novo review:

1. High reversal rate;
2. Lack of predictability of outcomes — something that decreases settlement and frustrates lower courts;
3. The disregard of time spent by district court judges in understanding the evidence and patent information;
4. The mind-numbing minutia of claim construction decisions faced by the court in “nearly every patent case.”

Claim construction, although similar to statutory construction is different for many reasons and is intertwined with facts that make the foundation for de novo review questionable. The arguments of CJ Michel are further highlighted by Judge Newman’s dissent.

J Newman focuses on how scientific and technological evidence serve as the backdrop for any claim construction and how claim construction should focus on the invention rather than following formalistic requirements that trip over every statement in a patent application. Finally, Newman argues that a Daubert framework is more appropriate for claim construction.

The Federal Circuit's position that patent interpretation requires more rigorous appellate review than other fact/law issues has not well withstood the test of experience. It is time to reopen the question and to rethink, en banc, the optimum approach to accuracy, consistency, and predictability in the resolution of patent disputes, with due attention to judicial structure, litigants' needs, and the national interest in invention and innovation. (Newman dissenting).

Judge Rader agreed with both CJ Michel and J Newman, but filed his own opinion. Rader gave some legal basis for reviewing Cybor — noting the Supreme Court’s opinion that claim construction "falls somewhere between a pristine legal standard and a simple historical fact." (Markman). Rader maintained his long-standing position that district courts should be given deference because they are better versed in the facts and the issues.

“Trial judges can spend hundreds of hours reading and rereading all kinds of source material, receiving tutorials on technology from leading scientists, formally questioning technical experts and testing their understanding against that of various experts, examining on site the operation of the principles of the claimed invention, and deliberating over the meaning of the claim language. If district judges are not satisfied with the proofs proffered by the parties, they are not bound to a prepared record but may compel additional presentations or even employ their own court-appointed expert." (Rader dissenting in Cybor).

Judge Moore: In what appears to be her first patent opinion, New CAFC Judge Moore also set her target on Cybor — stating that the court should “reconsider its position on deference.” 

Judges Gajarsa, Linn, and Dyk all concurred with the decision not to rehear this particular case, but noted that “In an appropriate case we would be willing to reconsider limited aspects of the Cybor decision.”  In particular, those three judges appear to believe that de novo is still appropriate when the intrinsic evidence (written description and prosecution history) on its face resolves “the question of claim interpretation.”

SUPREME COURT NEXT: This leaves us in the situation where at least eight of the twelve Federal Circuit judges believe that Cybor should be revisited if an “appropriate case” arises. This fractured decision is also ripe for Supreme Court review, and along with the Tamoxifen antitrust cases, are the two most likely to be granted certiorari in 2007.

Details: Judges Michel, Newman, Rader, Mayer, and Moore have all bluntly criticized Cybor. Judges Gajarsa, Linn, and Dyk have a more limited criticism.

Documents:

• AMGEN EN BANC DENIED
• Amgen v. HMR (CAFC Decision)

KSR Shifts Obviousness Debate to "Mere Aggregations" and Presumptions of Non-Obviousness

KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2006).

Section 103 of the Patent Act focuses on “differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art.”  In the 1976 Sakraida case, the Supreme Court held that simply aggregating old elements together does not pass the patentability test if the elements are each performing the same functions that they were already known to perform.

The “mere aggregation” test of Sakraida, however, has not been followed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Instead, the CAFC’s approach has allowed mere aggregations to be patented so long as there is no evidence suggesting that the elements be combined.

The pending case of KSR v. Teleflex squarely addresses this debate. KSR recently filed reply brief closes the written arguments in this landmark case, and oral arguments are scheduled for November 28, 2006.

KSR’s attorneys, including GWU Professor John Duffy, argue strongly that 103(a) has been wrongly interpreted as merely a way to challenge patentability rather than a “condition of patentability” as the section is titled. Under the current suggestion test, claims “cannot be held invalid . . . no matter how trivial might be the differences” from the prior art unless evidence suggesting the difference is found in the art.  As noted by Hal Wegner, the Court’s reaction to this argument could shift the strong presumptions of non-obviousness.

KSR has gone beyond its attack on the Federal Circuit suggestion/teaching/motivation test and raised as a further issue the point that it should win under a preponderance of the evidence standard for challenging patent validity.

In the process, KSR takes a shot at the AIPLA’s “balanced” position.

It is by no means clear why patent bar groups would have a systematic interest in a “balanced” standard of patentability, in view of the enormous fees that litigation of invalid patent claims can generate.

Briefs and Documents:

• On the Merits
  • In Support of Petitioner
    • Petitioner's Brief on the Merits;
    • Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits;
    • Government's Brief in Support of Petitioner;
    • Law and History Professors (Sarnoff) in Support of Petitioner;
    • Law Professor (Strandburg) in Support of Petitioner;
    • Electronic Frontier Foundation in Support of Petitioner;
    • Judge Colianni in Support of Petitioner;
    • Intel and Micron in Support of Petitioner;
    • Progress and Freedom Foundation in Support of Petitioner;
    • Cisco and GM in Support of Reversal (Petitioner);
    • CCIA in Support of Petitioner;
    • Business Software Alliance in Support of Petitioner;
    • Time Warner, IAC, and VIACOM in Support of Petitioner;
    • AARP.
  • In Support of Neither Party
    • IBM in Support of Neither Party;
    • Ford & DaimlerChrysler in Support of Neither Party;
    • DC Bar Assn (Eccelston);
    • Professor Hollaar.
  • In Support of Respondent
    • Respondent’s Brief on the Merits;
    • Intellectual Property Owners in Support of Respondent;
    • AIPLA in Support of Respondent;
    • ABA in Support of Respondent;
    • Automotive Suppliers in Support of Respondent;
    • Big Innovative Companies (3M, et. al) in Support of Respondent;
    • Technology Properties Limited in Support of Respondents;
    • United Inventors Association in Support of Respondent;
    • Intellectual Ventures and other Small Companies with Large Patent Portfolios in Support of Respondent;
    • Law Professors in Support of Respondent;
    • Professor Tom Field (Franklin Pierce) in Support of Respondent;
    • IPLAC in Support of Respondent;
    • Harold Milton (attorney who drafted the claims in the Teleflex patent) in Support of Respondent;
    • Tessera, Qualcomm, and Amberwave in Support of Respondent;
    • Science Professors in Support of Respondent;
    • Lee Thomason in Support of Respondent.
    • [Briefs also available at SCOTUS BLOG]
• Petitions Stage
  • Party Briefs
    • KSR’s Petition for Cert (Including the CAFC and District Court decisions in Appx. A & B);
    • Teleflex’s Brief in Opposition;
    • KSR Reply Brief (314 KB);
    • Teleflex Supplement.
  • Amici
    • Government in support of petition;
    • 24 Law Professors in support of petition;
    • Progress Freedom Foundation in support of petition;
    • Microsoft, Cisco, Hallmark, et al. in support of petition.

Links:

• Discussion of Response Briefs;
• Discussion of Petitioner and Supporting Amici’s Briefs on the Merits;
• Discussion of Government's Brief in Support of Certiorari;
• Discussion of Microsoft’s Amicus Brief;
• Discussion of the CAFC decision;
• Discussion of Law Professors Brief;
• Discussion of In re

On the Merits

In Support of Petitioner

Petitioner's Brief on the Merits;

Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits;

Government's Brief in Support of Petitioner;

Law and History Professors (Sarnoff) in Support of Petitioner;

Law Professor (Strandburg) in Support of Petitioner;

Electronic Frontier Foundation in Support of Petitioner;

Judge Colianni in Support of Petitioner;

Intel and Micron in Support of Petitioner;

Progress and Freedom Foundation in Support of Petitioner;

Cisco and GM in Support of Reversal (Petitioner);

CCIA in Support of Petitioner;

Business Software Alliance in Support of Petitioner;

Time Warner, IAC, and VIACOM in Support of Petitioner;

AARP.

In Support of Neither Party

IBM in Support of Neither Party;

Ford & DaimlerChrysler in Support of Neither Party;

DC Bar Assn (Eccelston);

Professor Hollaar.

In Support of Respondent

Respondent’s Brief on the Merits;

Intellectual Property Owners in Support of Respondent;

AIPLA in Support of Respondent;

ABA in Support of Respondent;

Automotive Suppliers in Support of Respondent;

Big Innovative Companies (3M, et. al) in Support of Respondent;

Technology Properties Limited in Support of Respondents;

United Inventors Association in Support of Respondent;

Intellectual Ventures and other Small Companies with Large Patent Portfolios in Support of Respondent;

Law Professors in Support of Respondent;

Professor Tom Field (Franklin Pierce) in Support of Respondent;

IPLAC in Support of Respondent;

Harold Milton (attorney who drafted the claims in the Teleflex patent) in Support of Respondent;

Tessera, Qualcomm, and Amberwave in Support of Respondent;

Science Professors in Support of Respondent;

Lee Thomason in Support of Respondent.

[Briefs also available at SCOTUS BLOG]

Petitions Stage