Patent Law Blog (Patently-O)

Bilski v. Doll: Reconsidering Patentable Subject Matter

Bilski v. Doll (Supreme Court 2009)

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in an important case challenging the scope of patentable subject matter. [Order]

Questions Presented:

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 (“machine-or-transformation” test), to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 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.

Prior Coverage of the Case:

• Supreme Court Docket
• Mar 5, 2009: Bilski v. Doll: Round I of Amicus Briefs  
• Mar 1, 2009: Patentable Subject Matter Redux: Bilski 2009
• Jan 30, 2009: BPAI Again Rejects System Claims under Bilski  
• Jan 28, 2009: Bilski Petitions Supreme Court to Decide Issues of Patentable Subject Matter
• Jan 27, 2009: Should Patent Attorneys Support Bilski?
• Nov 18, 2008: Software Method Claims: Bilski in light of Benson  
• Nov 13, 2008: Post-Bilski BPAI Approves of Beauregard Claims
• Nov 10, 2008: Applying Bilski to Metabolite’s Diagnosis Claim   
• Nov 4, 2008: Holman: Applying Bilski to Biotechnology and the Life Sciences
• Nov 2, 2008: Collins: In re Bilski: Tangibility Gone “Meta”
• Oct 30, 2008: In re Bilski: Patentable Process Must Either (1) be Tied to a particular machine or (2) Transform a Particular Article
• May 8, 2008: CAFC Hears En Banc Bilski Case (oral arguments)
• Apr 10, 2008: Ex Parte Bilski: On the Briefs
• Mar 28, 2008: Ex Parte Bilski: Once Again Rethinking the Scope of Patentable Subject Matter   
• Feb 15, 2008: Bilski: Full CAFC to Reexamine the Scope of Subject Matter Patentability

Documents:

• Supreme Court: Bilski Petition for Certiorari
• Supreme Court: Government Opposition to Certiorari, Bilski Government Opposition to Certiorari
• Supreme Court: Bilski Reply in Support of Certiorari, Bilski.reply.pdf
• Supreme Court: Nine Amicus Briefs In Support of Certiorari.
• Federal Circuit: En Banc Decision: 07-1130.pdf
• Federal Circuit: Dozens of Amicus Briefs
• PTO Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences Bilski Decision: BPAI.Bilski.pdf

Amicus Support:

• According to the Supreme Court rule, the petitioner (here Bilski) now has 45 days to file its opening brief on the merits. The respondent's brief is ordinarily due within thirty days of that date. Any amicus brief would be due 7 days after the filing of the brief for the party being supported. This pushes the deadline for the first round of amicus briefs to the week of July 20.

Supreme Court Asked to Expand Defenses to Patent Infringement

IGT v. Aristocrat Tech of Australia (on petition for certiorari)

Every year, the PTO revives hundreds of unintentionally abandoned patent applications, and about half of those eventually issue as patents (not counting continuations and other descendants).

In the IGT case, the gaming-manufacturer was sued for allegedly infringing two of Aristrocrat's slot-machine patents. The first patent stemmed from an Australian provisional application that was followed by an international PCT filing. At the national stage in the US, the applicant missed the filing deadline but was able to convince the PTO to revive the application as unintentionally abandoned. The second patent is a continuation from the first.

In court, IGT has argued the revival was improper and thus, that the patents are invalid. IGT reasoned (and the district court agreed) that the revival was improper because the PTO lacked authority to revive national stage applications that were unintentionally filed late. Rather, the statute arguably only allows revival of applications upon proof that the tardiness was unavoidable.

Without determining the proper scope of the PTO's revival authority, the Federal Circuit rejected IGT's argument - holding that improper revival is not a "cognizable defense" to patent infringement and reminding defendants that a patent is not invalid simply because the PTO erred in issuing the patent.

Enumerated Defenses in Litigation: Section 282 of the Patent Act defines the defenses available against charges of patent infringement. These enumerated defenses include:

1. Noninfringement …,
2. Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit on any ground specified in part II of this title as a condition for patentability,
3. Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with any requirement of sections 112 or 251 of this title.
4. Any other fact or act made a defense by this title.

In its analysis, the Federal Circuit found that improper revival did not fall within any of the four categories of defenses - and thus cannot be raised as a litigation defense. The case implicitly calls into question other traditional defenses such as nonstatutory double patenting, improper inventorship. IGT argues that the decision also implies that a defendant could not challenge a patent based on its expiration due to failure to pay maintenance fees. Of course, a defendant should have some mechanism for challenging an improperly revived patent - either through the courts or a post-grant procedure at the PTO. Under the Federal Circuit's rule, however, a typical defendant would have no recourse. (Two potential avenues could be (1) inequitable conduct in the revival and (2) trigger an interference.)

Leaving the PTO's revival grant's unchallengeable is particularly troublesome because of the serious lack of transparency in the petitions office. Pre-grant revivals are tucked away in individual prosecution file wrappers and cannot be searched in any public database. Thus, the public is left without any check on the system at either the micro or macro level.

Petition for Certiorari: IGT has petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and has garnered the support of the group of usual defendants (Cisco, Dell, Google, Microsoft, etc.) with the simple question:

Whether a patent infringement defendant may assert as a defense the fact that the patent resulted from an abandoned application that was not revived according to the requirements prescribed by Congress.

In several ways, this cases parallels the other recent Supreme Court patent cases such as KSR, eBay, and MedImmune. At least as history tells the story, each of those cases began with a rigid rule created by the Federal Circuit to favor patent holders. In each case, the Supreme Court softened the rule to add flexibility in a way that favors the defendants. In KSR, the rigid TSM test for applying multiple references during obviousness analysis was relaxed. In eBay, the rule strongly favoring injunctive relief was relaxed. And, in MedImmune, the rule setting a reasonable apprehension of a lawsuit as a condition precedent to a declaratory judgment action was also relaxed. In the IGT case at hand, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to tear down another rigid application of the law and open a new avenue for defendants to challenge a patent holder's rights.

Invalidity of the patent or any claim: Although slightly off-topic, I am intrigued by the wording of Section 282, which creates the defense of "invalidity of the patent or any claim." (Emphasis added). Ordinary validity issues focus on individual claims. Is the claim anticipated or obvious? Is the claim definite, fully described, and enabled, and does it properly claim patentable subject matter? The general focus on the validity of claims begs the question of what we mean by "invalidity of the patent." IGT's theory of invalidity based on improper revival is bolstered here because it would breathe meaning into the statutory invalid "patent."

Aristocrat's opposition and any amici in opposition are due April 22.

Briefs:

• IGTSupremeCt.pdf
• IGTamicus.pdf

Related Posts:

• Dennis Crouch, Erroneous Revival by PTO is not a Cognizable Defense in an Infringement Action, Patently-O (Sept. 22, 2008)
• Dennis Crouch, CAFC to Decide Important Revival Case: Aristocrat v. IGT, Patently-O (Dec. 12, 2007)
• Dennis Crouch, No Revival For "Unintentional" Missed National Stage Filing Date (Delay Must Be Unavoidable), Patently-O (Jul. 26, 2007)
• Dennis Crouch, Reviving Unintentionally Abandoned Patent Applications, Patently-O (Feb. 26, 2008)
• Dennis Crouch, IGT Petitions for En Banc Rehearing: Asking Court to Allow Invalidity Defense for “Improper Revival”, Patently-O (Oct. 7, 2008)
• Dennis Crouch, Reinstating Patents After Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee, Patently-O (Feb. 26, 2009)
• I mentioned above that improper revival could be challenged in the course of an interference. Chico Gholz pointed me to his 2009 IP Today article addressing the issue: Aristocrat V. IGT: Another Reason Why Provoking An Interference May Be Preferable To Defending An Infringement Action. Of course, as one comment already indicates, interferences are severely time-limited.
  

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)

Applying Supreme Court Precedent

Carlsbad Technology v. HIF Bio (Supreme Court 2009)

The Supreme Court held oral arguments in this case on February 24. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to review a district court order to remand a case back to state court. The Federal Circuit's decision goes against precedent set by the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits. And, the case appears in conflict with the Supreme court's Powerex v. Reliant (2007) decision.

During oral arguments the Justice Roberts was considering when lower courts follow Supreme Court holdings when he made the following statement:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, they don't have a choice, right? They can't say, I don't like the Supreme Court rule so I'm not going to apply it, other than the Federal Circuit.

(Laughter).

Patently-O Bits and Bytes

• New Commerce Secretary: Gary Locke. Former Washington State Governor, Partner at Davis Wright Tremaine. Gov. Locke is Chinese American and co-chairs the firm's China practice. He is also an Eagle Scout, a Yalie, and a Terrier.
• 
  USPTO Deferred Examination Comments Due February 26:
  
  
  • http://www.uspto.gov/main/homepagenews/2009feb09.htm
  • https://uspto.connectsolutions.com/p91717658/ (Watch the Roundtable discussion)
  
  
  
  
• 
  Cert Denied: The Supreme Court has denied certiorari in the following patent related cases.
  
  
  • Singleton v. Volkswagen (E.D. Texas Venue Case where 5^th Circuit ordered transfer).
  • Forest Labs v. Caraco (Declaratory Judgment standing).
  • FTC v. Rambus (Duties of a patent holder in standard setting negotiations).
  • Burandt v. Dudas (When is a failure to pay "unavoidable").
  • Apotex v. Roche (reverse doctrine of equivalents).
  
  
  
  
• 
  Judge Linn recently gave a Keynote address to the PTO examiner's corps. [Read it here]. Judge Linn started as a patent examiner in 1965. The following are some quotes from the full speech:
  
  
  • "Your job is much harder now than it was for me all those years ago. The technology of today's inventions is immensely more complex than ever before. The length and breadth of applications is greater. The volume of prior art is much larger. The legal issues are more intricate and harder to comprehend. And the law is in a continual state of change. Compounding all of this is the perception among some individuals that the work of the PTO in general, and the examiners in particular, is somehow of secondary importance and questionable quality. It is commonly said that the real action in patents is in private or corporate practice."
  • "Your job is to grant patents—valid patents. And that takes a combination of skills, reasoning and informed judgment. The Examiner's task is to assess the patentable merits of each invention, as presented, and to grant patents where patents are due. No applicant wants an invalid patent. Similarly, no examiner wants to grant an invalid patent. Thus, both the applicant and the examiner play parallel and complementary—not contradictory— roles in seeing to it that valid patents are issued."
  • "[R]eading legal decisions, particularly those of the Board and the Federal Circuit, is not only the best way to learn how to make the tough decisions you are regularly called upon to make, but also the best way to make your job easier and more enjoyable. You might ask, "why should I bother to read decisions of the Board and the Federal Circuit? After all, I have all the guidance I need in the MPEP, and I don't have time to spend reading other cases that have nothing to do with me." The answer is that the cases bring to life the statutes and rules you are required to apply and give you real world examples of how those statutes and rules apply in similar cases. The MPEP has some guidelines, but they are just a sampling and cannot possibly reflect the full range of claims and circumstances you face every day. Keeping up with the law by reading decisions of the Board and the Federal Circuit will allow you to master your craft and will result in your standing out from your peers."
  • "The last point I want to make is to not forget about §112. … [I]t is not correct to trivialize or ignore these kinds of Informalities [such as claims that are vague and indefinite or lacking in support in the written description]. Indeed, these kinds of problems affect not only the applicant but the public as well in a significant way. … In case after case before my court, the central debate revolves around the meaning of claims terms that, for example, were added during prosecution and do not appear anywhere in the written description. For those cases, the meaning of the claim limitation has to be inferred from other words, leaving the issue open to unnecessary dispute and leading frequently to protracted and costly litigation. You have the authority and the responsibility to not let that happen and to insist that applicants use words in the claims that find unambiguous and full support in the written description."
  
  
  
  

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

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

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”

Supreme Court Patent Update

Completed Cases: The Supreme Court has denied certiorari of two pending appeals: BPMC v. California and Rattler Tools v. Bilco. In BPMC, the patentee had challenged the Western state’s defense of sovereign immunity. In Rattler Tools, the appeal challenged a non-precedential claim construction opinion.

Upcoming Case: In a recently filed petition, 800 Adept has asked the Supreme Court to build on its 1995 Markman decision and consider “whether a district judge’s construction of a patent claim is ever entitled to deference upon appellate review, or, instead, are all such claim constructions reviewable only de novo, as the Federal Circuit has, over many dissenting opinions, held?” In this case, the Federal Circuit had reversed the lower court’s claim construction and – as a consequence – also reversed the jury verdict of infringement. [Link]. FTC v. Rambus is the most likely candidate of patent cases in the petition stage. That case involves the activities of a patentee during a standard setting process. In a related case, well respected Federal Judge Sue Robinson held that Rambus could not enforce twelve of its patents against Micron as a penalty for litigation misconduct. [Link]

Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 46: Supreme Court Edition

• In re Nuijten: The applicant has filed a petition for certiorari to overturn the Federal Circuit’s decision that a man made signal is not patentable.  Professor Duffy filed a ‘law professor’ amicus supporting the position which I signed. We argue that the CAFCs Nuijten decision improperly creates a new subject matter exclusion of transitory inventions that cannot be perceived without special equipment.  The AIPLA also filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. [Law Professor Brief][AiplaNuijten (119 KB)]. Judge Linn’s dissent in the Nuijten decision may well serve as an additional amicus.
• Biomedical Patent Management v. California: This case challenges California’s claims to 11th Amendment Soveriegnty based in part on the state’s increased involvement in the business of patenting and commercialization. The Supreme Court is awaiting views from the US Solicitor General on whether the US recommends grant of certiorari.   
• Translogic v. Dudas: In this case, Translogic asks the Supreme Court to invalidate a BPAI opinion based on the unconstitutional appointment of BPAI judges. In a recent study, I showed that 83% of recent BPAI decisions included at least one judge appointed by the PTO Director rather than the constitutional required “head of department.”  Translogic has several procedural hurdles.
• Calmar v. Arminak: The design patent holder asked the Supreme Court to reverse the Federal Circuit’s application of the “ordinary observer” test that improperly excludes the most natural ordinary observer – a retail customer. On June 9, the Supreme Court Denied certiorari.

BPAI Administrative Patent Judges

There continues to be interest in the BPAI appointments problem identified by Professor John Duffy. The solution going forward is quite simple — change the law so that BPAI administrative patent judges will be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce then re-appoint the current judges.  No one is arguing that the BPAI judges are incompetent or lack qualifications for their position — only that they have been appointed in a way that runs contrary to the Constitution.  This issue may not come to a head until demanded by a court of law. The Translogic petition for certiorari is one avenue, although many more will follow until a clear resolution is reached. 

In 2000, the BPAI judge appointment law changed to require the PTO director to appoint the administrative patent judges rather than the Secretary of Commerce. Through a FOIA request, Wendy Gombert and Joel Ard from the Black Lowe firm recently obtained a listing of the 47 BPAI judges who have been appointed since the law was amended. [THE LIST].

To get some sense of the impact of these judges, I looked at the 2500+ BPAI decisions between March 2007 and March 2008 and found most of those decisions (83%) included at least one panel member that had been illegally appointed under the Duffy construction. A significant number of panels (44%) included a majority of illegally appointed judges, and about half of the opinions were authored by illegally appointed judges. By technology center, applications classified in TC1700 (Chemical and Material Engineering) had the fewest opinions drafted by the illegal appointees while TC1600 (Biochemistry and Organic Chemistry) had the most. This difference is likely primarily due to the core group of veteran TC1700 judges.

Notes:

• 35 USC 6
• Translogic Tech. v. Dudas (on petition for certiorari 2008)
• Patently-O Patent Law Journal article
• Duffy on NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90245762.

Supreme Court Decides Quanta v. LG Electronics, __ U.S. __ (2008),

Quanta v. LG Electronics, __ U.S. __ (2008)

Justice Thomas delivered the Supreme Court’s 19–page unanimous decision that provides some new life to the doctrine of patent exhaustion.  The opinion reverses the Federal Circuit and holds that under the exhaustion doctrine applies to the authorized sale of components that “substantially embody” a process patent. Here, Intel’s authorized sale of chip components to Quanta exhausted LGE’s patent rights. 

Buried in this statement are two important holdings: (1) method claims can be subject to exhaustion and (2) sales of products that that do not fully practice the invention can still trigger exhaustion when the products include essential features of the patent and the “reasonable and intended use” of the product is to practice to patent. 

In coming to its conclusions, the court reiterated its longstanding rule that “the right to vend is exhausted by a single, unconditional sale, the article sold being thereby carried outside the monopoly of the patent law and rendered free of every restriction which the vendor may attempt to put upon it.” Motion Picture Patents, 243 U. S. 502 (1917).  The Motion Picture decision is more nuanced than the even older statement from Adams, which the opinion also quotes approvingly: “[W]hen a patented item is ‘once lawfully made and sold, there is no restriction on [its] use to be implied for the benefit of the patentee.’” Quoting Adams v. Burke (1873).

Contractual Limits: Although the defendant won in this case, the Supreme Court gave some glimmer of hope to those hoping to limit the scope of patent exhaustion through specific licensing terms. In this case, the court found that the LGE-Intel license did not limit the scope of what Intel could sell.  Rather, the contract “broadly permits Intel to ‘make, use, [or] sell’” the invention. Under that interpretation of the contract, LGE’s patent rights over a particular component are extinguished as soon as that component is sold – regardless of whether the license included post-sale restrictions.  

“LGE points out that the License Agreement specifically disclaimed any license to third parties to practice the patents by combining licensed products with other components. But the question whether third parties received implied licenses is irrelevant because Quanta asserts its right to practice the patents based not on implied license but on exhaustion. And exhaustion turns only on Intel’s own license to sell products practicing the LGE Patents.”

The practical impact is that the patentee has direct power through only the first level of the production/marketing process and forces the patentee to rely on contract rather than patent rules. This shift is less preferred by patentees because (1) contract law requires agreement and privity and (2) patent law typically results in stronger relief than contracts (despite eBay).  Because there is usually a lack of privity with downstream users, and the manufacturer is unlikely to agree to be liable for improper downstream uses, it appears that a patentee will now have even more difficulty controling downstream users and purchasers.

Authorized: Despite the broad language of Adam v. Burke, the Supreme Court appears to have conceded that a license may include some restrictions.  Interestingly, the court indicated, the sale might not have been authorized if sale had been done in a way that breached the contract between Intel and LGE.

“No conditions limited Intel’s authority to sell products substantially embodying the patents. Because Intel was authorized to sell its products to Quanta, the doctrine of patent exhaustion prevents LGE from further asserting its patent rights with respect to the patents substantially embodied by those products”

In Footnote 7, the court limited its holding to patent exhaustion — and expressing “no opinion on whether contract damages might be available even though exhaustion operates to eliminate patent damages.”  This means that violation of use restrictions associated with an authorized sale will not constitute patent infringement. However, it may still constitute a breach of contract. The case says little to nothing about the growing tendency of providing products as a service rather than through the sale of goods.  Those offering the service believe that their business structure moves the deal outside of the “first sale” doctrine because the products are transferred via a license & service agreement rather than the sale of goods.

Notes:

• “The sale of a device that practices patent A does not, by virtue of practicing patent A, exhaust patent B. But if the device practices patent A while substantially embodying patent B, its relationship to patent A does not prevent exhaustion of patent B.”

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 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]

Cite as Dennis Crouch, “KSR Shifts Obviousness Debate to ‘Mere Aggregations,’ Patently-O, available at http://www.patentlyo.com.

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

KSR v. Teleflex: In Support of the Status Quo

 KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2006).

By Dennis Crouch [dcrouch@gmail.com]

Background: Teleflex and its supporters have now filed their briefs in defense of the Federal Circuit’s methodology for determining whether a patent is “obvious.” [Copies of briefs are provided below]. The doctrine of nonobviousness is fundamental to our patent system.  In order to be eligible for a patent an invention must be both novel and non-obvious.  Novelty is generally narrowly applied to cases where the invention is identical to something already in the public domain.  Obviousness, however, is a more difficult beast and is intended to ensure that patent rights are only granted to inventions that move us a significant distance past the prior art. 

Obviousness has always been a “squishy” term, but over the past twenty-five years, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has developed a somewhat objective nonobviousness doctrine using a teaching/suggestion/motivation (TSM) test. According to the test, when various pieces of prior art each contain elements of an invention, the prior art can be combined together to invalidate a patent on the invention only when there is some motivation, suggestion, or teaching to combine the prior art. One problem with any obviousness test is hindsight bias. It is all-to-easy to look-back and assert that an invention would have been obvious. One purpose of the objective TSM test is to avoid this type of hindsight bias.

KSR has asked the Supreme Court to rethink that approach and take a fresh look at the obviousness standard for patentability. The petition questions whether obviousness should require any proof of some suggestion or motivation to combine prior art references.

Question Presented: Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a claimed invention cannot be held "obvious," and thus unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. sec. 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"?

Interestingly, the Supreme Court has not heard an obviousness since well before the founding of the Federal Circuit. In that case (Sakraida 1976), the Court held that a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions is precluded from patentability under 103(a).  Under the Sakraida standard, the Teleflex patent is arguably obvious.  In an article several years ago, Professor John Duffy identified this obviousness issue as one that should attract the Supreme Court’s attention.

[The Federal Circuit’s suggestion] test, which tends to make even seemingly trivial developments patentable, is entirely the Federal Circuit’s product.  It has no basis in the Supreme Court’s case law and may, in fact, be inconsistent with the Court’s most recent pronouncement on the subject (though that precedent is now more than a quarter century old).

Duffy, The Festo Decision and the Return of the Supreme Court to the Bar of Patents, 2002 S.Ct. Rev. 273, 340-41 (2003).  Now, Duffy, a former clerk of Justice Scalia, is part of the KSR team that is trying to change the rule of law. The KSR case itself concerns a patent covering a gas pedal for an automobile. KSR makes pedals for GM & Chevy trucks and was sued for infringement of the Teleflex patent.

A discussion of briefs in support of the petitioner are found here: Discussion of Breifs Supporting Petitioner.

What follows is a discussion of briefs in support of the respondent: (i.e., in support of the status quo).

Respondent Teleflex: Brief on the Merits

Settled Law: Respondent begins with a compelling exposition on the power of stare decisis. “Millions of patents” have issued based on the suggestion test, and modifying that test would in Hal Wegner’s words, “threaten the validity of literally hundreds of thousands of existing patents still in force.”

Non-Rigid Test: Respondent defines the suggestion test as a “flexible [test that] looks to any available indication that a practitioner in the art would have had some reason to select the elements of the invention from among the prior art and combine them in the manner claimed by the invention.”  Relying heavily on the CAFC’s very recent obviousness pronouncements of Dystar and Alza, the brief points out that a suggestion does not need to be found in prior art, but rather can be implicit in the nature of the problem, customer demand, similarity between references, knowledge of PHOSITA, wide knowledge of value of feature to be combined, etc.  [DDC: Query whether the broad application of implicit suggestions would constructively eliminate the rule.]

The suggestion test can be contrasted with the “synergy” test proposed by petitioner and the “extraordinary level of innovation” test from the Solicitor General. Those approaches essentially mirror the pre-103 requirement of an “invention.” According to Judge Rich, “The first policy decision underlying Section 103 was to cut loose altogether from the century-old term ‘invention.’”

Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) in Support of Respondent:

The IPO is an organizatoin of intellectual property owners. MBHB (where I am of counsel) filed the brief on behalf of IPO. IPO’s brief supports the motivation requirement as an objective but flexible and practical approach to the obviousness problem.  IPO hits on the hindsight problem:

[The test must rely on] objective evidence, not mere unsupported opinion or argument. Otherwise, the inevitable use of hindsight will tend to render meritorious inventions "obvious" by using the inventor’s own teachings as a roadmap to piece together prior art references in ways that would not have been obvious at the time of the invention.

IPO also takes-issue with any “synergy” requirement. Synergy occurs when the "the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements." There are many patent-worthy inventions, however, that lack true synergy. In addition, the Solicitor General’s proposed "extraordinary level of innovation" requirement goes too far. “Nothing in the patent statute suggests that patents should only be awarded to Nobel laureates.”

Paul Berghoff, Jeremy Noe, and Aaron Barkoff (of OrangeBookBlog) are on the brief.

American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) in Support of Respondent:

AIPLA’s brief is a fun read — it starts off with quotes from Billy Wilder and King Solomon, both of which give us pause on the question of hindsight.

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done;
there is nothing new under the sun.

According to AIPLA, King Solomon wasn’t so wise — perhaps because his vision of the past was colored by hindsight. The CAFC’s test of obviousness is useful because it helps avoid hindsight.

TSM is a well-established, thoughtfully-analytic framework that provides certainty and uniformity in obviousness determinations while allowing proper flexibility. By requiring a showing of why someone of ordinary skill in the relevant art would think the invention obvious, it functions as a critical evidentiary device that prevents arbitrary decisions driven by hindsight.

As is typical of opposition briefs, the AIPLA correctly notes that the CAFC’s suggestion test does not require that the suggestion be explicit or written.

I can concieve of a strong [and thus far unstated] argument that it would be sensible to require that the suggestion be written and explicit.  At this point in history, we have more people writing than ever before and those people are each writing more than earlier writers. At the same time, search costs are dropping dramatically and will continue to drop. In this scenario, why would we need to allow the evidentiary nightmare of giving weight to previously unstated suggestions to find an invention obvious?

Professor Thomas Field of Franklin Pierce in Support of Respondent:

Professor Field looks at the CAFC and its role in the patent process.  Unlike its predecesor CCPA, the CAFC hears both administrative patentability and litigation based cases. That means that the CAFC must “confront the consequences of unwaranted grants.” 

If the problem is the grant of too-many patents, the CAFC has little to say there because the court has no role in granting patents except to occasionally rule that the BPAI’s bases for rejection are unsupported.

Pre- and post-grant opposition proceedings may be the answer, but those decisions are for Congress.

ABA in Support of Respondent:

ABA amicus briefs are always difficult to obtain becauase they need the support of both the IP Section and the entire ABA House of Delegates.  Here, the way to consensus was not to argue that the TSM test is the best test, but rather to note that it is useful, objective, and deeply rooted in the Supreme Court’s John Deere jurisprudence. In addition, the test is well settled, and messing with the test would have a far-reaching and complex impact on the economy and state of innovation.

If some elusive method not based on evidence were to be substituted for the present inquiry, hundreds of thousands of patents granted under the teaching-suggestion-motivation methodology would be immediately placed under a cloud.

Harold Milton in Support of Respondent:

Harold Milton drafted the claims being asserted by Teleflex and has filed a very interesting brief in support of Teleflex.  Interesting because he begins with a statement that the suggestion test is illusory, or at least a misnomer. There is no requirement that there be any specific statement of suggestion in the prior art. Nonetheless, the test is important to maintain an “objective standard of patentability” and “consistent evaluation.”  It also prevents chaos:

Without an objective standard, chaos would be multiplied across thousands of patent examiners, judges, juries, attorneys, etc. and would result in inconsistent decisions on patentability.

According to Milton, the Court should reject the suggestion test and stick to its prior decisions that obvious is found when there is a “mere selection of prior art elements combined to perform the identical function as they did separately in the prior art.”

Lee Thomason in Support of Respondent:

Thomason is a Kentucky-based patent attorney. One interesting aspect of his argument involves the law/equity distinction.  According to Thomason, challenges to validity are equitable in their origins as evidenced both by the recited equitable factors of 103(a) (“as a whole”) and by Blackstone’s recitation of the writ fo scire facias. As such, any changes to the rule should be to review obviousness decisions “according to the standard applied to equitable rulings.” Equitable review requires a full discussion of the record and results in more predictability.

[Please e-mail briefs in support of respondent to me at dcrouch@gmail.com]

Documents:

• On the Merits
• In Support of Petitioner
  • Petitioner's Brief on the Merits; [UPDATED WITH CORRECT VERSION]
  • 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.
  • Amicus Briefs
    • 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 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]
• The Patent at issue: [link]

Cite as Dennis Crouch, “KSR v. Teleflex: In Support of the Status Quo,” Patently-O, available at http://www.patentlyo.com.

 KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2006).

By Dennis Crouch [dcrouch@gmail.com]

By Dennis Crouch [dcrouch@gmail.com]

Background: Teleflex and its supporters have now filed their briefs in defense of the Federal Circuit’s methodology for determining whether a patent is “obvious.” [Copies of briefs are provided below]. The doctrine of nonobviousness is fundamental to our patent system.  In order to be eligible for a patent an invention must be both novel and non-obvious.  Novelty is generally narrowly applied to cases where the invention is identical to something already in the public domain.  Obviousness, however, is a more difficult beast and is intended to ensure that patent rights are only granted to inventions that move us a significant distance past the prior art. 

Obviousness has always been a “squishy” term, but over the past twenty-five years, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has developed a somewhat objective nonobviousness doctrine using a teaching/suggestion/motivation (TSM) test. According to the test, when various pieces of prior art each contain elements of an invention, the prior art can be combined together to invalidate a patent on the invention only when there is some motivation, suggestion, or teaching to combine the prior art. One problem with any obviousness test is hindsight bias. It is all-to-easy to look-back and assert that an invention would have been obvious. One purpose of the objective TSM test is to avoid this type of hindsight bias.

KSR has asked the Supreme Court to rethink that approach and take a fresh look at the obviousness standard for patentability. The petition questions whether obviousness should require any proof of some suggestion or motivation to combine prior art references.

Question Presented: Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a claimed invention cannot be held "obvious," and thus unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. sec. 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"?

Interestingly, the Supreme Court has not heard an obviousness since well before the founding of the Federal Circuit. In that case (Sakraida 1976), the Court held that a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions is precluded from patentability under 103(a).  Under the Sakraida standard, the Teleflex patent is arguably obvious.  In an article several years ago, Professor John Duffy identified this obviousness issue as one that should attract the Supreme Court’s attention.

[The Federal Circuit’s suggestion] test, which tends to make even seemingly trivial developments patentable, is entirely the Federal Circuit’s product.  It has no basis in the Supreme Court’s case law and may, in fact, be inconsistent with the Court’s most recent pronouncement on the subject (though that precedent is now more than a quarter century old).

Duffy, The Festo Decision and the Return of the Supreme Court to the Bar of Patents, 2002 S.Ct. Rev. 273, 340-41 (2003).  Now, Duffy, a former clerk of Justice Scalia, is part of the KSR team that is trying to change the rule of law. The KSR case itself concerns a patent covering a gas pedal for an automobile. KSR makes pedals for GM & Chevy trucks and was sued for infringement of the Teleflex patent.

A discussion of briefs in support of the petitioner are found here: Discussion of Breifs Supporting Petitioner.

What follows is a discussion of briefs in support of the respondent: (i.e., in support of the status quo).

Respondent Teleflex: Brief on the Merits

Settled Law: Respondent begins with a compelling exposition on the power of stare decisis. “Millions of patents” have issued based on the suggestion test, and modifying that test would in Hal Wegner’s words, “threaten the validity of literally hundreds of thousands of existing patents still in force.”

Non-Rigid Test: Respondent defines the suggestion test as a “flexible [test that] looks to any available indication that a practitioner in the art would have had some reason to select the elements of the invention from among the prior art and combine them in the manner claimed by the invention.”  Relying heavily on the CAFC’s very recent obviousness pronouncements of Dystar and Alza, the brief points out that a suggestion does not need to be found in prior art, but rather can be implicit in the nature of the problem, customer demand, similarity between references, knowledge of PHOSITA, wide knowledge of value of feature to be combined, etc.  [DDC: Query whether the broad application of implicit suggestions would constructively eliminate the rule.]

The suggestion test can be contrasted with the “synergy” test proposed by petitioner and the “extraordinary level of innovation” test from the Solicitor General. Those approaches essentially mirror the pre-103 requirement of an “invention.” According to Judge Rich, “The first policy decision underlying Section 103 was to cut loose altogether from the century-old term ‘invention.’”

Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) in Support of Respondent:

The IPO is an organizatoin of intellectual property owners. MBHB (where I am of counsel) filed the brief on behalf of IPO. IPO’s brief supports the motivation requirement as an objective but flexible and practical approach to the obviousness problem.  IPO hits on the hindsight problem:

[The test must rely on] objective evidence, not mere unsupported opinion or argument. Otherwise, the inevitable use of hindsight will tend to render meritorious inventions "obvious" by using the inventor’s own teachings as a roadmap to piece together prior art references in ways that would not have been obvious at the time of the invention.

[The test must rely on] objective evidence, not mere unsupported opinion or argument. Otherwise, the inevitable use of hindsight will tend to render meritorious inventions "obvious" by using the inventor’s own teachings as a roadmap to piece together prior art references in ways that would not have been obvious at the time of the invention.

IPO also takes-issue with any “synergy” requirement. Synergy occurs when the "the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements." There are many patent-worthy inventions, however, that lack true synergy. In addition, the Solicitor General’s proposed "extraordinary level of innovation" requirement goes too far. “Nothing in the patent statute suggests that patents should only be awarded to Nobel laureates.”

Paul Berghoff, Jeremy Noe, and Aaron Barkoff (of OrangeBookBlog) are on the brief.

American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) in Support of Respondent:

AIPLA’s brief is a fun read — it starts off with quotes from Billy Wilder and King Solomon, both of which give us pause on the question of hindsight.

Harold Milton drafted the claims being asserted by Teleflex and has filed a very interesting brief in support of Teleflex.  Interesting because he begins with a statement that the suggestion test is illusory, or at least a misnomer. There is no requirement that there be any specific statement of suggestion in the prior art. Nonetheless, the test is important to maintain an “objective standard of patentability” and “consistent evaluation.”  It also prevents chaos:

Without an objective standard, chaos would be multiplied across thousands of patent examiners, judges, juries, attorneys, etc. and would result in inconsistent decisions on patentability.

Lee Thomason in Support of Respondent:

Thomason is a Kentucky-based patent attorney. One interesting aspect of his argument involves the law/equity distinction.  According to Thomason, challenges to validity are equitable in their origins as evidenced both by the recited equitable factors of 103(a) (“as a whole”) and by Blackstone’s recitation of the writ fo scire facias. As such, any changes to the rule should be to review obviousness decisions “according to the standard applied to equitable rulings.” Equitable review requires a full discussion of the record and results in more predictability.

[Please e-mail briefs in support of respondent to me at dcrouch@gmail.com]

Documents:

• On the Merits
• In Support of Petitioner
  • Petitioner's Brief on the Merits; [UPDATED WITH CORRECT VERSION]
  • 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.
  • Amicus Briefs
    • 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 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]
• The Patent at issue: [link]

Cite as Dennis Crouch, “KSR v. Teleflex: In Support of the Status Quo,” Patently-O, available at http://www.patentlyo.com.

Documents:

On the Merits

In Support of Petitioner

Petitioner's Brief on the Merits; [UPDATED WITH CORRECT VERSION]

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

PTO's Refusal to Register Temporary Aliens Moves Toward Supreme Court Hearing

Lacavera v. Dudas (on Petition for Certiorari).

Catherine Lacavera is an attorney admitted to practice in New York, Massachusetts, and before the Supreme Court of the United States.  She has litigated patent cases in Federal Courts, drafted patent applications, passed the PTO registration examination, and now is an attorney for Google in California. Unfortunately for Ms. Lacavera, she is Canadian and does not hold a green card.  (Lacavera holds a non-immigrant work visa). 

Under USPTO rules, Lacavera’s “nonimmigrant status is ‘inconsistent’ with [PTO] registration because [the nonimmigrant status] is limited in time and scope whereas registration is not so limited.”  The CAFC agreed with the PTO in denying Lacavera her full registration, and Lacavera has now petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

The petition presents three questions:

 1. Does the USPTO . . . have the authority to refuse to register nonimmigrant aliens as patent practitioners solely on the basis of their immigration status, where the nonimmigrant aliens are otherwise qualified for registration and authorized by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") to practice as patent practitioners in the United States?

 2. Did the Federal Circuit, in upholding a USPTO rule denying registration to nonimmigrant aliens, inappropriately apply only a "rational review" standard where it should have applied at least "heightened scrutiny," if not "strict scrutiny," to a federal agency rule that discriminates against nonimmigrant aliens without serving any special national interest?

3. Do bar admission rules, such as the state rule that is before this Court in Leclerc v. Webb and Wallace v. Calogero, and the federal rule that is the basis of this case, that deny aliens lawfully within the United States access to employment opportunities based on the duration and employment restrictions of their current visas, violate the aliens' rights to "equal protection" in the absence of any evidence that the visa restrictions relate to valid state or federal interests in ensuring competency of practitioners?

On the issue of equal protection, Lacavera argues that the CAFC “set a dangerous precedent” by denying equal protection because “the USPTO treats all nonimmigrant alien's the same by refusing to register any of them. Equal discrimination is not equal protection.”

Interestingly, because she is Canadian and a U.S. attorney, Lacavera is the perfect test case.  If she were residing in Canada, the PTO would permit her registration even without any U.S. immigration status.  Additionally, her visa specifically authorizes her to practice as a patent attorney in the U.S.

The Coalition of Service Industries has filed a brief in support of the petition — arguing that we should open our doors to legally admitted temporary residents as a bargaining chip for reciprocity.

The U.S. has for example asked many other nations not to discriminate against American lawyers who provide or wish to provide legal services in foreign countries. Because reciprocity plays a large role in trade negotiations, the USPTO rule adversely affects our legal community in the several important trade negotiations that are currently underway or planned.

The Supreme Court has expressed its interest in the case — requesting that the government file a responsive brief by November 1, 2006.

Notes:

• Interestingly, soon after Lacavera filed her petition for certiorari, her application for permanent residence was granted.  The PTO may end up mooting this issue by granting her full registration.

Documents:

• Discussion of the CAFC case
• Lacavera’s Petition for Certiorari

MedImmune Oral Arguments

MedImmune v. Genentech (Supreme Court 2006, 05–608)

Oral arguments were held today in this important case. Transcript of the arguments are available here.

Links:

• Discussion and copies of 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;
• SCOTUS Blog

Supreme Court Likely to Hear Transnational Patent Law Dispute

Microsoft v. AT&T (on petition for certiorari).

The DOJ and PTO have given their solid support to Microsoft’s petition for certiorari in its battle over transnational patent infringement. This support makes grant of the petition highly likely.

This case, like Eolas and Pellegrini before, questions the scope of Section 271(f) of the Patent Act.  That statute allows a U.S. patentee to collect damages for foreign sales of a patented invention based on the export of one or more of its components from the U.S.  Recently, the CAFC has expanded the common interpretation of the statute to include the export of software code (AT&T, Eolas) as well as to the export of elements used in a patented method (Union Carbide).  In a case that is difficult to square with AT&T or Eolas, the court held that the “component” does not apply to plans or instructions.

In this case, Microsoft’s software code was generated in the U.S. and then shipped abroad where copies were then generated and distributed.  AT&T claims (and courts have thus far agreed) that sales of those foreign copies infringe the U.S. patent and create liability.  The chart below gives my loose graphical interpretation of the events.

If it stands, this case could have far-reaching effects in the fields of biotechnology (DNA/cell replication) as well as foreign piracy (shipping product from the U.S. to reverse engineer and copy in a foreign country).

From a business perspective, this interpretation of the statute gives business executives another reason to send software jobs overseas.  If the component was not exported from the U.S., there will be no damages under 271(f).

In their brief supporting the petition, Daryl Joseffer and the DOJ crew agree that software can be a component of a patented invention.  They argue, however, that the foreign replicas do not create liability under the act because the replicas themselves were not supplied from the United States (as is required by the statute). According to the brief, the lower court’s interpretation “improperly extends United States patent law to foreign markets and puts United States software companies at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis their foreign competitors in foreign markets.”

The Government argues that the extraterritorial nature of U.S. patents should be narrowly construed and that if someone wants rights to stop foreign infringement, then they should get foreign patents.

Respondent’s remedy lies in obtaining and enforcing foreign patents, not in attempting to extend United States patent law to overseas activities.

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);
• 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’).

Documents:

• 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

Notes:

• SCOTUS blog has more here.

Zoltek Patent Takings Rehearing Denied: No Fifth Amendment Protection

Zoltek v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. 2006, en banc denied).

Just last week, Patently-O highlighted Professor Mossoff’s historical analysis of patent-takings jurisprudence.  That article took the CAFC to task for its continuation of the untrue myth that “patents were never secured as constitutional private property in the nineteenth century.”  In fact, argues Mossoff, “nineteenth-century courts applied the Takings Clause to patents, securing these intangible property rights as constitutional private property.” “It is time to set the historical record straight.”

Mossoff’s article was prompted by the April 2006 decision in Zoltek v. U.S. In that case, the CAFC found itself bound by the 1894 case of Schillinger v. United States where the Supreme Court ruled that a patent holder could not sue the government for patent infringement as a Fifth Amendment taking.

In Schillinger v. United States, 155 U.S. 163 (1894), the Supreme Court rejected an argument that a patentee could sue the government for patent infringement as a Fifth Amendment taking under the Tucker Act. Schillinger remains the law.

 With a petition for rehearing, Zoltek gave the CAFC another shot.

Without opinion (as is usual in denials), the petition for rehearing was denied.  However, two opinions were released.  Judges Dyk and Gajarsa filed a concurring opinion arguing first that there is no need for a taking claim because private parties already have a right to sue the government for unauthorized patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. Second, the two judges argue that because patent rights are created by relatively recent federal statute, it is difficult to characterize limitations of those rights as a “taking of established property rights.”  

In dissent, Judge Newman laid out the holding in simple terms:

The panel majority holds that there is no jurisdiction [in any court] of a Takings claim for compensation for unauthorized use by the government of a patented invention. This ruling is contrary to decision, statute, policy, and constitutional right. I must, respectfully, dissent from the court's endorsement of this ruling.

 Judge Newman finds that the majority decision only makes sense if we reject the premise that patents are property.

Supreme Court Next: Judge Newman’s set this case up nicely for Supreme Court review on the issue of takings and more broadly what is meant by intellectual property.

Notes:

• Document: En Banc Denial with Opinions
• Document: Panel Decision
• SSRN: Mossoff Article (87 Boston University Law Review ___ (2007)).  
• Patently-O: Discussing Original Decision
• Patently-O: Discussing Mossoff Article
• Patent Hawk: Discussing En Banc Denial
• How Appealing: Discusses Dissent
• Professor Barros: Introduces Case
• Journal of IP Law & Practice (Oxford): Patents holders are not protected from US Government infringement by the Fifth Amendment
• Foley Attorneys: Explain how to avoid being trapped by Zoltek

Inequitable Conduct: Ferring Asks for Supreme Court Review

Ferring v. Barr (on petition for certiorari).

In February 2006, the CAFC affirmed a lower court ruling that Ferring’s patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.  During prosecution some 15 years earlier, Ferring had submitted several non-inventor declarations to support patentability, but did not disclose to the PTO that the some of the declarants had been paid consultants for the patentee in the past. Of course, this information was not requested by the PTO. Nonetheless, the CAFC found that the patentee’s non-disclosure created a material potential for bias because the “witness’s interest is always pertinent to his credibility” and that the intent could be inferred from the negligence in failing to disclose.

Judge Newman penned a strong dissent in the case, arguing that the decision revives “reviving the culture of attack on inventor rights and attorney reputations based on inference and innuendo.”

My colleagues, endorsing several novel and unsupportable presumptions of wrongdoing, do injury to the reasonable practice of patent solicitation, even as they defy the rules of summary judgment.

Now, Ferring (along with its co-plaintiff Aventis) has filed a petition for certiorari, requesting that the Supreme Court hear the case — asking whether the CAFC improperly lowered the standards for materiality and intent in its finding of inequitable conduct.

Supreme Court: MedImmune v. Genentech

The CAFC has held on a number of occasions that a current licensee has no standing to sue for declaratory judgment because there is no immediate threat of being sued for patent infringement.  However, this conclusion pushes against the Supreme Court’s 1969 decision in Lear v. Adkins which held that a public policy interest in invalidating bad patents was strong enough to warrant a limitations on a licensee’s ability to give up its right to challenge a patent’s validity.  After MedImmune, a licensee, is appealing the dismissal of its DJ action and has presented the following question to the Supreme Court for review:

Does Article III’s grant of jurisdiction of "all Cases . . . arising under . . . the Laws of the United States," implemented in the "actual controversy" requirement of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), require a patent licensee to refuse to pay royalties and commit material breach of the license agreement before suing to declare the patent invalid, unenforceable or not infringed?

Briefs are all in and oral arguments are scheduled for October 4, 2006.

The potential impact of this case should not be underestimated. A license agreement is generally thought of as a settlement of a dispute.  If MedImmune is right, however, an ongoing license agreement could actually be a litigation ticket.

DDC's Two comments:

• Although I didn't file a brief, I agree with much of the analysis of the two law professor briefs in support of the Respondent (Hricik & Cotter).  In general, however, what's wrong with Professor Epstein's free-market approach -- allowing validity challenges be a negotiated contract term.  Although the public has a strong interest in mooting invalid patents, it is rare a licensed patent has only one potential licensee and we now have a number of public interest organizations that are becoming experts of challenging bad patents through reexamination and litigation.
• Post Lear decisions are a mess. Hopefully the Court will at least use this case as a vehicle for clarifying the law.

Documents:

Merits:

• Party Briefs:
  • MedImmune Brief
  • Genentech Response
  • City of Hope Response

  • MedImmune Reply

• Amici in Support of Petitioner
  • Solicitor General
  • Law Professors (Dratler, Oddi)
  • Generic Pharma Assn
  • Medtronic
  • NRDC
• Amici in Support of Neither Party
  • Licensing Executives Society
• Amici in Support of Respondent
  • PhRMA
  • Licensing Professionals (Epstein)
  • Law Professors (Hricik)
  • Law Professors (Cotter)
  • Qualcomm Interdigital
  • Stanford_Columbia
  • AIPLA
  • 3M, GE, du Pont
  • BPLA
  • NYIPLA
• Petitions Stage
  • Genentech:
    • MedImmune’s Genentech Petition (6509 KB)
    • Genentech's opposition to certiori
    • MedImmune's Genetech Reply
  • Centocor: (Same Issue, cert denied)
    • MedImmune’s Centocor Petition
    • Centocor’s opposition to certiori
    • MedImmune’s Centocor reply

Links:

• 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.

KSR v. Teleflex: Rethinking Obviousness

KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2006).

By Dennis Crouch

The first round of briefs have now been filed in the much anticipated KSR case that will address fundamental questions of patentability. [Copies of briefs are found below] The doctrine of nonobviousness ensures that patent rights are not granted on inventions that are simply throw-away modifications of prior technology.  Questions of obviousness are at play in virtually every patent case, in both proceedings before the USPTO and during infringement litigation.

Obviousness has always been a “squishy” term, but over the past twenty-five years, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has developed a somewhat objective nonobviousness doctrine using a teaching/suggestion/motivation (TSM) test. According to the test, when various pieces of prior art each contain elements of an invention, the prior art can be combined together to invalidate a patent on the invention only when there is some motivation, suggestion, or teaching to combine the prior art.

KSR has asked the Supreme Court to rethink that approach and take a fresh look at the obviousness standard for patentability. The petition questions whether obviousness should require any proof of some suggestion or motivation to combine prior art references.

Question Presented: Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a claimed invention cannot be held "obvious," and thus unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. sec. 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"?

Interestingly, the Supreme Court has not heard an obviousness since well before the founding of the Federal Circuit. In that case (Sakraida 1976), the Court held that a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions is precluded from patentability under 103(a).  Under the Sakraida standard, the Teleflex patent is arguably obvious.  In an article several years ago, Professor John Duffy identified this obviousness issue as one that should attract the Supreme Court’s attention.

[The Federal Circuit’s suggestion] test, which tends to make even seemingly trivial developments patentable, is entirely the Federal Circuit’s product.  It has no basis in the Supreme Court’s case law and may, in fact, be inconsistent with the Court’s most recent pronouncement on the subject (though that precedent is now more than a quarter century old).

Duffy, The Festo Decision and the Return of the Supreme Court to the Bar of Patents, 2002 S.Ct. Rev. 273, 340-41 (2003).  Now, Duffy, a former clerk of Justice Scalia, is part of the KSR team that is trying to change the rule of law.

The case itself concerns a patent covering a gas pedal for an automobile. KSR makes pedals for GM & Chevy trucks and was sued for infringement of the Teleflex patent.

Crouch’s notes: In my view, the question is not correctly presented because it focuses on the aspect of “proof.” Of course any decision on obviousness should be based on some sort of proof. I expect that the Court will, as they often do, ignore this particular question and instead answer the broader question of how “a court should go about deciding whether matter claimed in a patent should be deemed ‘non-obvious' subject matter.”  In fact, in its merits brief, KSR implicitly recognizes this more fundamental question in its summary of the case.

It is very likely that the Federal Circuit’s home-grown TSM test will be eliminated.  This leaves us with a gaping hole — the most likely successor is a return to Sakraida that would require a showing of some functional-shift caused by a combination of old elements. 

Petitioner KSR and a group of amici have recently filed their briefs on the merits.  Looking at the Amici thus far, you can see that KSR’s supporters are primarily law professors and large companies likely to get sued for patent infringement.  They are hoping to lower the obviousness standard — making it easier to invalidate a patent during litigation.  It is not clear, however, that the Sakraida standard is actually a higher patentability bar — that all depends on the meaning of a “functional-shift.”  That said, many of the potential defendants will be happy if the law becomes more unsettled — the result at least gives them more reason to appeal and would thus increase the plaintiff’s litigation costs (marginally lowering the number of infringement suits filed).  Notably, none of the major bar associations support the petitioner.

What follows is a brief review of those documents. The original documents themselves are accessible through links at the bottom of the article.

Petitioner KSR’s Brief

KSR’s strongest case is that the way the courts determine obviousness today (the TSM test) is not based on any statutory language nor is it based on any Supreme Court jurisprudence. Rather, the CAFC has created the TSM test out of whole cloth and crafted it in a way that inappropriately rejects Supreme Court precedent.  The extremely well researched and written brief traces the history of obviousness jurisdiction and uses that history as the primary basis for its conclusions.

One interesting argument is KSR’s position that provides 103(a) a condition for patentability rather than a condition for challenging patentability.  This appears to be an argument directed primarily to patent prosecution — that the applicant should be the one making an up-front showing of non-obviousness to satisfy section 103(a) rather than the PTO being forced to open with its rejection.   

Finally, KSR makes clear that the TSM test sets the patentability bar too low and allows too many technically trivial inventions to receive patent protection.

The only thing lacking here is any strong guidance for what obviousness test should arise to replace the soon to be displaced TSM test. KSR argues for little more than “adherence to [the Court’s] precedents.”  The result will certainly be a number of years of turmoil — especially on the side of patent prosecution.

Bush Administration in Support of Petitioner

The Government argues that the CAFC has “inappropriately broadens the category of nonobvious and therefore patentable inventions” by limiting the obviousness determination to a single rigid test. Rather, the Government would return to the rules of Graham v. John Deere, that try to determine “whether the claimed invention manifests the extraordinary level of innovation, beyond the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art, that warrants the award of a patent.”

In particular, the brief points out that the TSM test is not wrong.  Rather, the problem is that the TSM test should not be the only test available to determine whether an invention is obvious. For instance, the Government argues that PTO Examiners should be able to reject claims based on their “basic knowledge” or “common sense.”

Law and History Professors (Sarnoff) in Support of Petitioner

Professor Sarnoff along with six other professors add to the debate by recognizing that the Supreme Court’s precedent, although “sound,” needs to be clarified: The professors

suggest [as a clarification to Graham] that the Court hold that the obviousness inquiry is designed to prohibit patents on inventions that could have been made by those skilled in the art within a reasonable period of time (following the time that the invention at issue was actually made) and within reasonable budgetary constraints.

The professors also suggest several modifications (clarifications) of the burdens of proof of patentability.  Their first suggestion would be to remove the evidentiary burden on the PTO (or challenger in litigation) to satisfy the TSM test. Thus, even if the TSM test remains in effect, the initial burden would presumably be shifted to the patentee to prove that the test is not satisfied.

Another clarification would relate to the presumption of validity.

[T]he Court should clarify that a clear and convincing burden of proof should not apply to issues for which the relevant evidence was not previously considered by the Patent Office.

Progress and Freedom Foundation in Support of Petitioner

PFF is a think tank that supports free markets and usually strong property rights. (Richard Epstein and John Duffy are both members of PFF advisory counsel).  A strong property regime in the patent system means that issued patents should be valid and should clearly show their scope of coverage.  PFF’s contribution is to explore how improper hindsight can be avoided even without strict evidentiary requirements:

But adopting the correct standard does not require that USPTO or the courts give in to subjective whim, because there are administrative mechanisms that can be used to make the exercise of subjective judgment fair and reasonably consistent over time.

For example, USPTO could adopt the current Federal Circuit test as a first cut, because it does indeed represent a crucial benchmark. Any invention which fails the “teaching-suggestion-motivation” test is clearly not patentable. But this need not end the inquiry. If the examiner thinks he/she has a special case in which this test does not capture the reality of the situation, perhaps the matter could be referred to a multiperson review committee, thus eliminating the influence of a single examiner’s whim. Or perhaps boards of outside experts could be established, or community peer review processes conducted over the Internet.

KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2006).

By Dennis Crouch

The first round of briefs have now been filed in the much anticipated KSR case that will address fundamental questions of patentability. [Copies of briefs are found below] The doctrine of nonobviousness ensures that patent rights are not granted on inventions that are simply throw-away modifications of prior technology.  Questions of obviousness are at play in virtually every patent case, in both proceedings before the USPTO and during infringement litigation.

Obviousness has always been a “squishy” term, but over the past twenty-five years, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has developed a somewhat objective nonobviousness doctrine using a teaching/suggestion/motivation (TSM) test. According to the test, when various pieces of prior art each contain elements of an invention, the prior art can be combined together to invalidate a patent on the invention only when there is some motivation, suggestion, or teaching to combine the prior art.

KSR has asked the Supreme Court to rethink that approach and take a fresh look at the obviousness standard for patentability. The petition questions whether obviousness should require any proof of some suggestion or motivation to combine prior art references.

Question Presented: Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a claimed invention cannot be held "obvious," and thus unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. sec. 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"?

Interestingly, the Supreme Court has not heard an obviousness since well before the founding of the Federal Circuit. In that case (Sakraida 1976), the Court held that a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions is precluded from patentability under 103(a).  Under the Sakraida standard, the Teleflex patent is arguably obvious.  In an article several years ago, Professor John Duffy identified this obviousness issue as one that should attract the Supreme Court’s attention.

[The Federal Circuit’s suggestion] test, which tends to make even seemingly trivial developments patentable, is entirely the Federal Circuit’s product.  It has no basis in the Supreme Court’s case law and may, in fact, be inconsistent with the Court’s most recent pronouncement on the subject (though that precedent is now more than a quarter century old).

Duffy, The Festo Decision and the Return of the Supreme Court to the Bar of Patents, 2002 S.Ct. Rev. 273, 340-41 (2003).  Now, Duffy, a former clerk of Justice Scalia, is part of the KSR team that is trying to change the rule of law.

The case itself concerns a patent covering a gas pedal for an automobile. KSR makes pedals for GM & Chevy trucks and was sued for infringement of the Teleflex patent.

Crouch’s notes: In my view, the question is not correctly presented because it focuses on the aspect of “proof.” Of course any decision on obviousness should be based on some sort of proof. I expect that the Court will, as they often do, ignore this particular question and instead answer the broader question of how “a court should go about deciding whether matter claimed in a patent should be deemed ‘non-obvious' subject matter.”  In fact, in its merits brief, KSR implicitly recognizes this more fundamental question in its summary of the case.

It is very likely that the Federal Circuit’s home-grown TSM test will be eliminated.  This leaves us with a gaping hole — the most likely successor is a return to Sakraida that would require a showing of some functional-shift caused by a combination of old elements. 

Petitioner KSR and a group of amici have recently filed their briefs on the merits.  Looking at the Amici thus far, you can see that KSR’s supporters are primarily law professors and large companies likely to get sued for patent infringement.  They are hoping to lower the obviousness standard — making it easier to invalidate a patent during litigation.  It is not clear, however, that the Sakraida standard is actually a higher patentability bar — that all depends on the meaning of a “functional-shift.”  That said, many of the potential defendants will be happy if the law becomes more unsettled — the result at least gives them more reason to appeal and would thus increase the plaintiff’s litigation costs (marginally lowering the number of infringement suits filed).  Notably, none of the major bar associations support the petitioner.

What follows is a brief review of those documents. The original documents themselves are accessible through links at the bottom of the article.

Petitioner KSR’s Brief

KSR’s strongest case is that the way the courts determine obviousness today (the TSM test) is not based on any statutory language nor is it based on any Supreme Court jurisprudence. Rather, the CAFC has created the TSM test out of whole cloth and crafted it in a way that inappropriately rejects Supreme Court precedent.  The extremely well researched and written brief traces the history of obviousness jurisdiction and uses that history as the primary basis for its conclusions.

One interesting argument is KSR’s position that provides 103(a) a condition for patentability rather than a condition for challenging patentability.  This appears to be an argument directed primarily to patent prosecution — that the applicant should be the one making an up-front showing of non-obviousness to satisfy section 103(a) rather than the PTO being forced to open with its rejection.   

Finally, KSR makes clear that the TSM test sets the patentability bar too low and allows too many technically trivial inventions to receive patent protection.

The only thing lacking here is any strong guidance for what obviousness test should arise to replace the soon to be displaced TSM test. KSR argues for little more than “adherence to [the Court’s] precedents.”  The result will certainly be a number of years of turmoil — especially on the side of patent prosecution.

Bush Administration in Support of Petitioner

The Government argues that the CAFC has “inappropriately broadens the category of nonobvious and therefore patentable inventions” by limiting the obviousness determination to a single rigid test. Rather, the Government would return to the rules of Graham v. John Deere, that try to determine “whether the claimed invention manifests the extraordinary level of innovation, beyond the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art, that warrants the award of a patent.”

In particular, the brief points out that the TSM test is not wrong.  Rather, the problem is that the TSM test should not be the only test available to determine whether an invention is obvious. For instance, the Government argues that PTO Examiners should be able to reject claims based on their “basic knowledge” or “common sense.”

Law and History Professors (Sarnoff) in Support of Petitioner

Professor Sarnoff along with six other professors add to the debate by recognizing that the Supreme Court’s precedent, although “sound,” needs to be clarified: The professors

The professors also suggest several modifications (clarifications) of the burdens of proof of patentability.  Their first suggestion would be to remove the evidentiary burden on the PTO (or challenger in litigation) to satisfy the TSM test. Thus, even if the TSM test remains in effect, the initial burden would presumably be shifted to the patentee to prove that the test is not satisfied.

Another clarification would relate to the presumption of validity.

Supreme Court: Challenging a Patent During the License Term

MedImmune v. Genentech (Supreme Court 2006).

In MedImmune, the Supreme Court will answer the question of whether a licensee in good standing can challenge the validity of the patents it has licensed.  A hidden issue within this case is whether a licensee has the freedom to contract-away its right to challenge the validity of the patents during the license. 

In Lear v. Adkins, The Supreme Court gave the boot to the doctrine of “licensee estoppel” and allowed a licensee to challenge the validity of a licensed patent after termination of the license. Based on Lear, license terms that bar a licensee from later challenging the patent’s validity are (usually) unenforceable. Those decisions, however, are based on cases arising after termination of a license agreement. 

Danger for Cross-License Agreements: The reality is that many license agreements are based on the desire for “patent peace” between the parties.  Often two companies will cross-license their patents and forgo any hopes of a cash payout in favor of the certainty afforded by the agreement.  Those companies are willing and ready to give-up their rights to challenge the patents in district court (during the license term).  If MedImmune has its way, however, those license agreements would actually open the door to litigation rather than achieve the hoped security. 

The potential inability to fully settle lawsuits as they arise also has interesting implications for the sale of patent rights.  Any purchase review (due diligence) will need to look much more closely at ongoing license agreements associated with the patent to determine the extent that the license gives the licensee a right to sue.

Briefing at the Supreme Court will continue this summer to prepare for oral arguments in the October 2006 term.

Links:

• Discussion of the Supreme Court briefs;
• 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.

Documents:

• Merits Stage:
  • Party Briefs:
    • MedImmune Brief
  • Amici in Support of Petitioner
    • Solicitor General
    • Law Professors (Dratler Oddi)
    • Generic Pharma Assn
    • Medtronic
    • NRDC
  • Amici in Support of Neither Party
    • Licensing Executives Society
• Petitions Stage
  • Genentech:
    • MedImmune’s Genentech Petition (6509 KB)
    • Genentech's opposition to certiori
    • MedImmune's Genetech Reply
  • Centocor:
    • MedImmune’s Centocor Petition
    • Centocor’s opposition to certiori
    • MedImmune’s Centocor reply

Injunctive Relief and the "Working" Standard

eBay v. MercExchange is such a short decision, but we are having an exciting time unwrapping the tidy package. Look at the following quote from the decision involving the question of “working” the invention.

[S]ome patent holders, such as university researchers or self-made inventors, might reasonably prefer to license their patents, rather than undertake efforts to secure the financing necessary to bring their works to market themselves. Such patent holders may be able to satisfy the traditional four-factor test, and we see no basis for categorically denying them the opportunity to do so.

This quote invokes division of labor ideals.  Certain entities simply don’t have the ways, means, or inclination to manufacture, market, and/or sell their inventions.  For those entities, the Supreme Court says that there is no requirement to work the invention. But what about other entities — those with they ways, means, and inclination to work similar inventions?  Doesn’t the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion imply that there is a basis for denying injunctions to large manufacturers who do not actually practice the inventions in the patents that they assert? 

More notes on the eBay case:

• Patent Validity as a Factor in Determining Injunctive Relief?
• Practice Tip?: Very Good Infringers Avoid Injunctions.
• Patently-O General Discussion of the eBay Decision.
• Patently-O on the Radio.
• Professor Randy Picker on the “unanimous” decision.

Supreme Court: Time to Rethink Obviousness

KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2006).

The Supreme Court has granted KSR’s writ of certiorari and now will address fundamental questions of patentability that have been raised. The doctrine of nonobviousness ensures that patent rights are not granted on inventions that are simply throw-away modifications of prior technology.  Questions of obviousness are at play in virtually every patent case, in both proceedings before the USPTO and during infringement litigation.

Over the past twenty-five years, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has developed its nonobviousness doctrine using a motivation/suggestion/teaching test. According to the test, when various pieces of prior art each contain elements of an invention, the prior art can be combined together to invalidate a patent on the invention only when there is some motivation, suggestion, or teaching to combine the prior art.

KSR has asked the Supreme Court to rethink that approach and take a fresh look at the obviousness standard for patentability. The petition questions whether obviousness should require any proof of some suggestion or motivation to combine prior art references.

Question Presented: Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a claimed invention cannot be held "obvious," and thus unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. sec. 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"?

Interestingly, the Supreme Court has not heard an obviousness since well before the founding of the Federal Circuit. In that case (Sakraida 1976), the High Court held that a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions is precluded from patentability under 103(a).  Under the Sakraida standard, the Teleflex patent is arguably obvious.

Professor John Duffy has done a masterful job of shepherding this case through the system.  In an article several years ago, Duffy predicted the current rise of Supreme Court interest in patent case.  In fact, at that time he announced that the very issue now being debated in KSR was ripe for adjudication:

One very good candidate for [Supreme Court] review is the law governing whether an invention is not ‘‘obvious’’ at the time of invention. . . . [The Federal Circuit’s suggestion] test, which tends to make even seemingly trivial developments patentable, is entirely the Federal Circuit’s product.  It has no basis in the Supreme Court’s case law and may, in fact, be inconsistent with the Court’s most recent pronouncement on the subject (though that precedent is now more than a quarter century old). . . . None of this is to say that the Court will necessarily reject the doctrine developed by the Federal Circuit; it is only to suggest the Court is likely to end its long absence from this doctrinal area soon.

The Festo Decision and the Return of the Supreme Court to the Bar of Patents, 2002 S.Ct. Rev. 273, 340-41 (2003).  Robert Brauneis another GWU law professor led a group of 24 law professors in support of the petition. Although he did not file a brief (to my knowledge) Richmond Professor Christopher Cotropia argues that (1) recently, the CAFC has removed some rigidity from the obviousness determination and (2) the requirement for proof of a suggestion to combine should be thought of as a rule of evidence. [link].

According to Professor Duffy, the preliminary amici briefing schedule is as follows:

• Amici supporting petitioner or neither side: August 10, 2006 (45 days after cert granted).
• Amici supporting respondent: September 14, 2006 or 35 days after petitioner brief is filed — whichever is less.

Crouch’s Commentary: For those of you concerned about the potential impact of this case — It is very likely that the CAFC’s motivation test will be changed and briefs simply requesting “no change” are unlikely to to be given much weight.  Proposed solutions, including analogies to other areas of law (and foreign law) may be helpful.  In this case, I also believe that would be useful to provide the Court with a number of real-world examples of how the system works or how it should work.

Documents:

• 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.
• Amicus Briefs
  • 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 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;
• Prof Miller: KSR Liftoff!
• Prof Miller: Discussion of Gov’t Brief;
• Patent Hawk: Becoming Less Obvious.
• Buchanan: "[O]nce again, patent reform has left the Capitol and walked across First Street to the Supreme Court." [Link]

Exhale: Supreme Court Dismisses Metabolite Controversy

Patent holders are breathing a sigh of relief with today's dismissal of LabCorp v. Metabolite -- a case pending before the Supreme Court.  That case had the potential of dramatically altering the landscape of patentable subject matter -- especially relating to method patents.  The case was dismissed as improvidently granted (DIG). In the IPO Amicus brief, we made this argument (as well as others) [IPO Brief]

Dissent: Three justices, led by Justice Breyer would have heard the case and would have found the patent invalid:

There can be little doubt that the correlation between homocysteine and vitamin deficiency set forth in claim 13 is a "natural phenomenon." . . . [The claimed] process instructs the user to (1)obtain test results and (2) think about them. . . . At most, respondents have simply described the natural law at issue in the abstract patent language of a "process." But they cannot avoid the fact that the process is no more than an instruction to read some numbers in light of medical knowledge.

The dissent also took shots at the State Street decision that started the business method craze.

Neither does the Federal Circuit’s decision in State Street Bank help respondents. That case does say that a process is patentable if it produces a "useful, concrete, and tangible result." But this Court has never made such a statement and, if taken literally, thestatement would cover instances where this Court has held the contrary. The Court, for example, has invalidated a claim to the use of electromagnetic current for transmitting messages over long distances even though it producesa result that seems "useful, concrete, and tangible." Morse. Similarly the Court has invalidated apatent setting forth a system for triggering alarm limits inconnection with catalytic conversion despite a similarutility, concreteness, and tangibility. Flook. And the Court has invalidated a patent setting forth a process that transforms, for computer-programming purposes,decimal figures into binary figures—even though theresult would seem useful, concrete, and at least arguably (within the computer’s wiring system) tangible. Gottschalk.

Documents:

• Read the LabCorp v. Metabolite Dissent 04-607.pdf
• NYTimes Article by Andrew Pollack

KSR v. Teleflex -- Certiorari Appears Likely

At the end of May, the Solicitor General filed an invited amicus brief supporting KSR's petition that asks the Supreme Court to take a fresh look at the obviousness standard for patentability.  The petition questions whether obviousness should require proof of some suggestion or motivation to combine prior art references.

Tom Goldstein, attorney for respondents (and SCOTUS Blog proprietor) has filed a response to the SG.  In the response, Teleflex argues that CAFC precedent continues to evolve and extensively discusses the recent Kahn decision that detailed the full scope of CAFC obviousness treatment.

In Kahn, the court affirmed the PTO’s finding of obviousness, explaining at great length that a "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" can be found "implicitly" based on precisely the factors that the Solicitor General says are relevant: "what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." 441 F.3d 987. In Cross Medical, the court of appeals applied the "implicit" obviousness standard to reverse a district court ruling that a patent was not obvious, explaining that obviousness could be found on the basis of a "problem [that] was within the general knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art," 424 F.3d 1322, even if the patent is not directed at "the identical problem addressed in [the] prior art," id. No fair distinction can be drawn between the rule proposed by the Solicitor General and the flexible standard articulated by the Federal Circuit in these more recent decisions and adhered to in this case.

Teleflex's arguments regarding "implicit" motivation is an attempt to show that the CAFC has softened its approach to nonobviousness.  The "implicit" argument is also an attempt to subtly shift the conversation -- The question before the court is whether any "proof" of a motivation should be required. Of course, the proof could take the form of explicit or implicit evidence.

SG Support = Certiorari: A recent (unreleased) study by a patent law professor looked at all invited amici petition briefs filed by the solicitor general for the past five terms. The SG gave an unqualified recommendation for certiorari (as in KSR) in 15 cases. In all 15 cases, the Supreme Court then granted certiorari. 

Patent Validity as a Factor in Determining Injunctive Relief?

Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in eBay included a number of striking comments including the following:

The potential vagueness and suspect validity of some of these patents may affect the calculus under the four-factor test.

If I understand them, the four justices are telling lower courts to reevaluate a patent’s validity and enforceability at the injunction stage — even after those issues have been decided in the patentee’s favor.  If you remember, the question of an injunction only arises after the patent has been found valid, enforceable, and infringed.

Perhaps there are parallels between Kennedy’s position and the sentencing of a convicted criminal.  At the sentencing stage, the sitting judge has a rather free hand to consider the evidence at hand in mitigating the prison time — even if the jury made opposite conclusions.  Here, even if the jury found that the patent was valid and infringed, Kennedy would allow the court to deny an injunction based on the patent’s “suspect validity.”

Of course this approach is wrong, but if you are a cautious patent attorney the solution is simply to not write vague or questionable patent applications.

Links:

• Patently-O General Discussion of the eBay Decision.
• Patently-O on the Radio.
• Professor Randy Picker on the “unanimous” decision. 

Debate on Obviousness Standard Reaches New Level

KSR International v. Teleflex (On Petition for Certiorari)

Like that little blue engine, KSR’s case continues to move forward despite significant obstacles. Now, the Solicitor General has filed its brief on behalf of the U.S. government supporting KSR’s petition for certiorari.

This case takes a direct assault on the Federal Circuit’s longstanding obviousness jurisprudence that requires some explicit reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to combine two or more references to solve a particular problem.  The question presented reads as follows:

Whether a claimed invention can be “obvious,” and therefore unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), without proof of some “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to modify or combine the prior art in the manner claimed.

The statute in question, 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is not so specific.  Rather, the statute requires that a patent be denied 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.

35 U.S.C. 103(a).  The Solicitor General’s brief, filed last week, sees the disjunct between the CAFC rule, Section 103(a), and prior Supreme Court decisions such as Graham.  In a blunt rebuke, the SG argues that “the Federal Circuit’s teaching-suggestion-motivation test extends patent protection to non-innovative combinations of familiar elements.”  Rather, the SG argues for a return to the broad factors outlined in Graham for determining the level of one of ordinary skill in the art: “the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.”

The SG’s support for certiorari is rare in patent cases and is often the most cherished of a petitioner’s amici.

Notes: Of course, most inventions involve “a combination of old elements” where each element is found somewhere in the prior art.  (In re Kahn).  After the teaching-suggestion-motivation test is gone, what standard will a patent examiner use to decide whether a new combination is non-obvious? To be sure, the current test is formalistic and has been both under– and over-inclusive.  However, has anyone proposed a better test — one that can be carried out by the PTO even in light of the high-turnover and young workforce in the agency’s examining corps? A patent attorney e-mailed his fear that a less formal test will give examiner’s permission to make the dreaded “because I say so” conclusory argument.

The EPO also has a rather formalistic approach known as the "problem-solution" test. That test also has its detractors, but is seen by many as a superior approach. In the UK, the “Windsurfing” test takes its name from the case of Windsurfing Int’l v. Tabur Marine. In that case, the court looked to whether, when viewed without knowledge of the alleged invention, the differences between what is known to a “skilled but unimaginative technician” and the alleged invention constitute steps that would have been obvious to the technician or whether they require any degree of invention. The hypothetical technician does not consider the commercial consequences which might follow if the step or process in question were found in practice to achieve or assist the objective which he had in view.

Another e-mail that I received focused on the low-tech nature of this case. 

Like sectional couches with remote controls in the arm rest (recall that nightmare?), the technology [here] is so simple that everyone believes they understand it once it is laid out for them.  The technology most [patent attorneys] deal with on a day to day basis is not this simple - drugs, catalysts, biotechnology, automation, software.  The risk of a result-driven declaration of the law on obviousness is keeping me awake at night.

These comments at least have anecdotal weight — in the recent eBay oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts was heard to quip that even he could have invented invention in question (or at least created the software flow-charts).

Documents:

• 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)
• Amicus Briefs
  • 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:

• Patently-O Discussion of Microsoft’s Amicus Brief
• Patently-O Discussion of the CAFC decision;
• Patently-O Discussion of Law Professors Brief;
• Patently-O Discussion of In re Kahn;

Internet Radio: eBay v. MercExchange

The Supreme Court recently turned the injunction pendulum — giving district courts a looser hand to determine whether to issue an injunction.  Intel’s GC Bruce Sewell says this:

There will now be a greater willingness to take cases to trial . . . [since] if you lose a case there is a potential you can compensate the plaintiff in dollars rather than having your whole company shut down

I was recently part of an online radio program discussing the eBay case.  The “Coast-to-Coast” discussion included Rachel Krevans from MoFo and the Legal Talk Network show was hosted by attorneys J. Craig Williams and Robert Ambrogi.

• Coast-to-Coast Show link.
• MP3 download.
• Windows Media stream.
• Craig Williams’ Blog: May it Please the Court.
• Robert Ambrogi’s Blog: LawSites.

Inherent Anticipation at the Supreme Court

SmithKline Beecham v. Apotex (on petition for writ of certiorari)

The Supreme Court is contemplating hearing this case that questions the standards for inherent anticipation of a patent. The drug in question is Paxil, and the case history has more twists than a Hazzard County road. But, the question now before the Court is simple:

Whether a compound that is inevitably produced by the prior art is inherently anticipated by the prior art, and thus not novel under 35 U.S.C. 102.

Another way to focus on the particular question is whether any human recognition of the inherency is required.

Here, Paxil (a PHC hemihydrate) is inevitably produced by a PHC anhydrate, and PHC anhydrate (A.K.A. Ferrosan) was well known before the Paxil patent.

Judge Posner (sitting by designation) determined that Paxil was not inherently anticipated because its inevitable production from Ferrosan was not a “scientific []certainty.” On appeal, the CAFC reversed that particular decision — finding that the patent was inherently anticipated because PHC hemihydrate “inevitably results from production of” PHC anhydrate.

Now, the Solicitor General has provided the government’s views on the case, and supported the CAFC decision:

The court of appeals correctly held that the patent claim is invalid because PHC hemihydrate was inherently anticipated by the prior art that inevitably produced it. . . . a characteristic of a pre-existing product is not patentable even if no one had previously recognized that characteristic.

Because the Gov’t fully supports the CAFC decision, it also recommended against hearing the case.

• Discussion of the original panel opinion: Part I, Part II, Part III, and part IV.
• Discussion of the en banc order and new appellate opinion: Part V, Part VI.
• My premature conclusion: Part VII.
• Solicitor General’s Brief
• Aaron Barkoff’s Orange Book Blog

MedImmune v. Genentech -- Licensee's Right To Challenge Patent Validity (Briefs on the Merits)

MedImmune v. Genentech (Supreme Court 2006).

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court granted MedImmune’s petition for certiorari to determine when a patent licensee can challenge the validity of a patent.  The CAFC has held on a number of occasions that a licensee in good standing has no standing to sue for declaratory judgment because it is not under threat of being sued for patent infringement.  However, this conclusion pushes against the Supreme Court’s 1969 decision in Lear v. Adkins which held that a public policy interest in invalidating bad patents was strong enough to warrant a limitations on a licensee’s ability to give up its right to challenge a patent’s validity. 

The specific question presented is as follows:

Does Article III’s grant of jurisdiction of "all Cases . . . arising under . . . the Laws of the United States," implemented in the "actual controversy" requirement of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), require a patent licensee to refuse to pay royalties and commit material breach of the license agreement before suing to declare the patent invalid, unenforceable or not infringed?

MedImmune’s brief and the first batch of amicus briefs have been filed and are reviewed below.

MedImmune’s Argument is quite simple — neither the Declaratory Judgment Act nor the Constitution exclude patent licensees from the scope of DJ jurisdiction, and such a per se rule is wrong because there are situations where an actual case or controversy exists between the licensee and licensor.  The linchpin of MedImmune’s case is their argument that “apprehension of suit is not a necessary condition [of establishing a concrete legal controversy], and this Court has never suggested such a thing.”

U.S. Government filed its brief and presents a number of interesting arguments. Specifically, the SG argues that the CAFC “has erected an unwarranted obstacle to declaratory relief in patent cases” that “cannot be justified by considerations of patent policy.”

[The CAFC’s] limitation on the availability of declaratory relief cannot be squared with this Court’s cases or with the congressional purposes underlying the Act. As demonstrated by decisions of this Court involving pre-enforcement challenges to statutes, it is sufficient for a declaratory judgment plaintiff to demonstrate a genuine risk of enforcement and a reasonable likelihood that he would engage in the proscribed conduct if the threat were removed. A declaratory judgment plaintiff need not run the risks entailed in actually violating the law in order to make out an “actual controversy.” See, e.g., Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459, 475 (1974). Indeed, this Court has already rejected the proposition that a licensee’s ongoing payment of patent royalties negates any justiciable dispute over the validity of the patent. Altvater v. Freeman, 319 U.S. 359 (1943). Yet the Federal Circuit’s insistence on compliance with its two-part test requires a patent licensee to commit a material breach of its license agreement in order to create an “actual controversy.” That result is contrary to the congressional purposes behind the Act, which was adopted to free parties of the requirement that they act at their peril on their own interpretation of their rights before being able to obtain a judicial construction of those rights.

When the Petitioner and Government briefs are examined together, you will see that they have presented a strong attack on the CAFC’s decision, and might just change the face of the licensor-licensee relationship.

Professor Brief (Dratler & Oddi) argue that DJ jurisdiction should extend “up to the constitutional limits. Indeed, it would begin and end with those limits.”  Licensee’s should fall within this standard.

The Generic Pharmaceutical Association discusses the CAFC’s requirement of an “actual controversy” and argues that “Article III controversies arise even when the patentee is not about to commence an action.  This argument is even more focused in the recent briefs in the Apotex v. Pfizer case.

Medtronic discusses the importance of DJ actions in patent cases. The case is especially compelling in areas where dozens of patents are licensed in a single agreement that sweeps together both the good and the bad.

National Resources Defense Counsel is not interested in patent issues, but believes that this case could have some effect on its ability to bring certain environmental litigation.  NRDC presents three requisites of an Article III case or controversy: injury in fact, causation, and redressability.  Here, MedImmune satisfies those requisites because it is paying a license fee under protest, the causation is the allegedly invalid patent, and the redress is to declare the patent invalid.

The Licensing Executive Society (LES) directly addresses Lear v. Adkins, arguing that case “held that licensees could not be precluded from challenging the validity of a licensed patent under the doctrine of licensee estoppel.” However, because of inconsistent application of the Lear doctrine, licensees today have difficulty in known when or even if they can challenge the validity of their licensed patent. “The Court is now in a position to resolve uncertainty in this area by issuing a ruling that clarifies and explains the continuing validity and scope of the Lear doctrine. LES urges the Court to provide such clarity.”

Documents:

• Merits:
• Party Briefs:
• MedImmune Brief
• Amici in Support of Petitioner
• Solicitor General
• Law Professors (Dratler Oddi)
• Generic Pharma Assn
• Medtronic
• NRDC
• Amici in Support of Neither Party
• Licensing Executives Society
• Petitions Stage
• Genentech:
• MedImmune’s Genentech Petition (6509 KB)
• Genentech's opposition to certiori
• MedImmune's Genentec Reply
• Centocor:
• MedImmune’s Centocor Petition
• Centocor’s opposition to certiori
• MedImmune’s Centocor reply

Links:

• 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.

FTC v. Schering Plough -- DOJ Rebuffs FTC in Reverse-Payment Antitrust Litigation

The Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice have long fought over who should control and enforce antitrust laws within the U.S.  That debate continues . . .

FTC v. Schering-Plough (on petition for certiorari).

In a March 2005 decision, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals set aside an FTC order that barred Schering-Plough from settling an infringement suit with generic makers regarding the patented blood pressure drug K-Dur.  In the settlement, Schering-Plough made a “reverse payment” to the potential infringers to settle the lawsuit. The FTC had concluded that the settlement was an "unreasonable restraint of trade."  The 11th Circuit, however, disagreed, finding that payment from a patent holder to a generic competitor cannot be the sole basis of a violation of antitrust law (and thus spurring deals totaling billions of dollars). 

In its petition for certiorari, the FTC presents the question:

Whether an agreement between a pharmaceutical patent holder and a would-be generic competitor, in which the patent holder makes a substantial payment to the challenger for the purpose of delaying the challenger’s entry into the market, is an unreasonable restraint of trade.

Before considering the petition, the Court requested the Solicitor General’s views on the case — i.e., the Court asked the DOJ to comment on whether FTC’s case should be heard.  In a response made public today, the Government’s view is that the issues are important, but the FTC has not brought a good case. 

[Reverse payment] settlements may pose a risk of restricting competition in ways that are not justified by a lawful patent, to the detriment of consumers. This case, however, does not present an appropriate opportunity for this Court to determine the proper standards for distinguishing legitimate patent settlements, which further the important goals of encouraging innovation and minimizing unnecessary litigation, from illegitimate settlements that impermissibly restrain trade in violation of the antitrust laws.

The DOJ’s arguments are essentially that: (1) the particular issues were not squarely addressed by the appellate court and (2) there is no circuit split.

As Foley’s Hal Wegner has noted, the Solicitor General’s view is not controlling.  For instance, in the upcoming LabCorp v. Metabolite case, the SG unsuccessfully argued against certiorari.

Solicitor General's brief

FTC Petition for Cert (182 KB)

FTC petition for Rehearing at the 11th Circuit

Schering 11th Circuit Decision.pdf

Patent at issue, No. 4,863,743

PubPat Amicus Brief to the 11th Circuit [pdf]

Patently-O Article I

Patently-O Article II

Patently-O Article III

Patently-O Article IV

I’m sure that we’ll find more information at the Orange Book Blog.

Orange Book Declaratory Judgment Question Goes to Supreme Court

Apotex v. Pfizer (On petition for certiorari).

In 2005, the CAFC decided Teva v. Pfizer and declared that the court does not have declaratory judgment jurisdiction over a case between an ANDA filer and the patent holder unless the patent holder at least threatens suit.  Orange Book listing - on its own– does not create a reasonable apprehension of suit.

Apotex is facing the same situation in the present case.  They filed their ANDA request, Pfizer did not file suit or threaten litigation.  However, Apotex is afraid that as soon as it begins to manufacture the new drug that Pfizer will sue and potential force Apotex to pay “massive patent liability.”

Thus, Apotex has asked the Supreme Court to determine whether declaratory judgment jurisdiction can exist based on this “prospect of massive patent liability that deters generic manufacturers from entering the marketplace.”

The Supreme Court has asked the Solicitor General to present the government’s view on whether declaratory judgment jurisdiction can exist in this situation.  This request by the High Court is seen as a potential stepping stone to grant of Petitioner's request for certiorari.  The FTC made its position clear on this issue in a recent brief in the Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation (“Under the panel ruling, pharmaceutical companies are now free to pursue this anticompetitive ploy without fear of antitrust liability.”).

Notes:

• Orange Book Blog has the briefs;
• Joseph Miller’s Notes.

LabCorp v. Metabolite Decision Coming Soon

The eBay case is a major decision, but Justice Kennedy’s concurrence that derides business method patents appears to foreshadow the outcome of the pending appeal of Laboratory Corp. of America (LabCorp) v. Metabolite Laboratories (Supreme Court 2006).

In eBay, the concurrence almost begged lower courts to force compulsory licenses when the asserted patent is a “business method.”

In addition injunctive relief may have different consequences for the burgeoning number of patents over business methods, which were not of much economic and legal significance in earlier times. The potential vagueness and suspect validity of some of these patents may affect the calculus under the four-factor test.

In LabCorp, the High Court will review the question of whether a patent can claim rights to a basic scientific relationship used in medical treatment if the claim is limited to “correlating” test results.  Although the claim in question is a “medical method” it is not far afield from the much maligned “business methods.”

It appears highly likely that Justice Kennedy’s group of four (Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer) will stick together in an attempt to invalidate this patent (and potentially many others).  And, they only need one more Justice to have a majority.  On the other hand, as Professor Joseph Miller points out, the loose language of Kennedy’s concurrence might be a sign that they could not get a majority for the LabCorp decision.

I wondered though, as I read eBay, whether it was a sign the Court is not striking down the claim in LabCorp … on the theory that the Kennedy Four in eBay, knowing they had failed to muster a majority in LabCorp, were all the more determined to speak plainly, and a bit sharply, about the problems with the contemporary patent system that make automatic injunctions especially imprudent (assuming, for a moment, the merits of that critique).

Chief Justice Roberts, who led the more conservative concurrence will likely not take part in the decision because of a potential conflict of interest.