Category: Intellectual Property

Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., Final Written Decision IPR2013-00532

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP a leading law firm with a national footprint

Takeaway: Where neither party provides an interpretation of a term that provides additional clarity, the Board will give the term its plain and ordinary meaning.

In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that all challenged claims (claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 15-17) of the ’531 patent are unpatentable. The ’531 patent “relates to a garment worn during different stages of pregnancy and different stages of postpartum body changes.”

The Board addressed claim construction, stating that claims in an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent. The Board first analyzed the term “just beneath the wearer’s breast area.” Patent Owner argued that the term means “beneath the location of the breasts by a very small margin.” However, the term “very small margin” does not provide any further clarity. The Board determined that because neither party offered a construction that provides additional clarity, the plain and ordinary meaning will be given. Also, the Board determined that the term is a term of approximation and that a garment may satisfy claim 1 for one wearer but not another because of differences in the wearers’ body types.

The Board then analyzed the term “different body types” used in claims 2 and 17. Although Patent Owner did not propose constructions for this limitation, its patentability arguments advance an implicit construction of “different body types” that requires an unspecified amount of difference between said body types. The Board determined that the broadest reasonable construction of “different body types” means “two or more body types that are not identical.”

The Board then analyzed the term “an elastic fabric that is contractible elastically to cover an abdomen during different stages of postpartum body changes” from claim 5. Although Patent Owner did not propose constructions for this limitation, the Board determined that its patentability arguments advanced an implicit construction that claim 5 requires a specific, yet unspecified, minimum amount of contractability. However, the specification does not specify any minimum amount of contractability and does not describe or identify any stages of postpartum body changes. Accordingly, the Board determined that the broadest reasonable construction of “during different stages of postpartum body changes” means “during any postpartum body change of any wearer,” which means that the fabric does not have to contract to cover postpartum body changes of every potential wearer or to cover all postpartum body changes of any wearer.

The Board next addressed the asserted grounds of unpatentability. Addressing anticipation based on a JC Penney catalog for fold-over panel jeans, the Board disagreed with Patent Owner’s assertion that the product shown in the catalog did not disclose a panel extending “high enough on the wearer’s body.” The Board found that the JC Penney catalog disclosed a panel substantially covering the belly region and noted that it was the belly region, and not the panel, that the claims require to extend to just beneath the wearer’s breast area. Thus, the Board was persuaded that claim 1 was anticipated by the JC Penney reference. Also, the Board disagreed with Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner has failed to prove that the panel of the JCP fold-over panel jeans stretches or expands enough to conform to different body types, because the claims do not require any quantified amount of stretching or expansion and the term “different body types” includes any two or more body types that are not identical. The Board was also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the panel of the JCP fold-over panel jeans is not described as being contractible as allegedly recited in claim 5. The Board indicated that contraction is always present where there is contraction, and the claims did not require any specific amount of contraction.

With respect to dependent claims 6, 11, 15, and 16, Petitioner asserted obviousness based on the JC Penney catalog applied to claim 1 in view of JC Penney Bootcut jeans. Patent Owner alleged nonobviousness based on the secondary consideration of commercial success. However, Patent Owner failed to link the alleged commercial success of the products to the inventions of claims 6, 11, 15, and 16. Specifically, Patent Owner’s witness conceded that the commercial success of Patent Owner’s products had nothing to do with the unique characteristics of claims 6 and 11, which add limitations directed exclusively to features of the garment lower portion.

Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., IPR2013-00532
Paper 76: Final Written Decision
Dated: February 12, 2015
Patent: RE43,531 E
Before: Jennifer S. Bisk, Michael J. Fitzpatrick, and Mitchell G. Weatherly
Written by: Fitzpatrick
Related Proceedings: Destination Maternity Corp. v. Target Corp., Case No. 2:12-cv-05680-AB (E.D. Pa.); IPR2013-00531; IPR2014-00508; IPR2013-00530; IPR2013-00533; IPR2014-00509

ARTICLE BY

Carrie A. Beyer
OF
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Life Sciences: Protecting the Crown Jewels

Sills Cummis & Gross P.C

An innovator or owner of patent rights or other technology in the life sciences arena is often unable, because of lack of financial or other resources, to develop or commercialize a pharmaceutical product covered by such intellectual property rights. In these cases, the innovator/owner (the licensor) will frequently out-license the invention to a third party (the licensee) for development and commercialization by such licensee. The resulting license agreement can be a complicated document. In this article, I will address some of the important licensing considerations that a licensor should take into account before executing a license agreement.

Consider the Exclusivity v. Non-exclusivity of the License Grant

An initial consideration in a license agreement is whether the license grant will be exclusive or non-exclusive to the licensee. If the license grant is exclusive, then the licensor typically agrees not to grant a license to any third party. If the license grant is non-exclusive, then the licensor typically is permitted to grant further licenses to third parties. Even in an exclusive license, however, the licensor may want to retain certain rights for itself. For instance, the licensor may want to preserve for itself the right to enter into certain geographical markets or fields of use. The parties should be very clear in the license agreement as to whether or not the licensor is permitted to exercise any R&D, commercialization or other rights during the term of the license agreement.

Whether a license is exclusive or nonexclusive will set the tone for the associated rights and obligations of the parties set forth in the remainder of the license agreement. For example, an exclusive licensee is usually subject to “diligence” obligations, requiring it to exploit the licensed technology in order to maintain the license grant; a non-exclusive licensee is usually subject to limited or no such obligations. Also, an exclusive licensee usually has more rights than a non-exclusive licensee with respect to the prosecution, maintenance, defense and enforcement of patent rights.

Also Consider the Scope of the “Field of Use” and “Territory”

Other important initial considerations in the license agreement are the scope of the licensed field of use and the scope of the licensed territory. A “field of use” defines the field in which the licensee may exercise the licensed rights and may take one of many forms. For example, the field of use may be all encompassing (“any and all fields and applications”), may be limited to only therapeutic or only diagnostic products, may be limited to only biologics or only small molecule products, or may be limited to a specific medical indication (e.g., cardiac indications). Especially in the case of an exclusive license (and based on the nature of the licensee), it is sometimes better for the licensor to limit the field of use. Then the licensor would be permitted to grant subsequent rights to other parties in the non-licensed fields. Alternatively, if the field of use is broad, the licensor should require that the licensee actually exercise its rights in certain specified fields in order to maintain such rights. If the licensee fails to exercise its rights in a specified field of use within a certain period of time, the licensor’s remedies could include the right to terminate the license agreement in its entirety, the right to terminate the license agreement with respect to one or more specific fields and/or the right to convert an exclusive license grant in such field to a non-exclusive grant.

Considerations regarding the “territory” are very similar to the considerations regarding the field of use. Often, in order to maintain an exclusive worldwide territory grant, the licensee is required to exploit the licensed technology in specified countries. For example, the licensee may be required to develop and commercialize a product covered by the licensed technology (licensed products) in the United States and at least one other “major market country” (e.g., Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom). Again, the licensor’s remedies for the licensee’s failure to satisfy this obligation could be similar to the remedies set forth above for field of use.

Maximize the Royalty Payments

Pursuant to the terms of the license agreement, the licensee will most likely be required to pay to the licensor a royalty based on sales of licensed products. Although the determination of the amount of royalty is in large part a business decision and takes into consideration, among other things, the scope and strength of the licensed patent and other intellectual property rights, the breadth of the field of use and territory, whether the licensed product is a therapeutic product (typically a higher royalty rate) or a diagnostic product, and whether the license grant is exclusive or non-exclusive, there are many important legal nuances that the licensee could and should consider. One such nuance is the calculation of “net sales.”

The amount of royalty owed by the licensee is normally calculated by multiplying the royalty rate by the amount of sales of the licensed products. The royalty rate does not need to be a flat rate and could be graduated, for example, with a rate change as sales increase. In determining the “sales” portion of the royalty calculation, it is more advantageous to the licensor that sales be based on amounts invoiced (as opposed to amounts received) by the licensee, thus keeping the risk of bad debt (i.e., a sales amount is invoiced but not actually received by the licensee) with the licensee. Also, although “net sales” (as opposed to “gross sales”) is the usual royalty base, the licensor should restrict the deductions taken into account to determine such net sales. For example, although the “net sales” calculation frequently includes deductions from gross sales for governmental taxes and charges, customer credits and rebates, and transportation, storage and insurance expenses, the licensor should avoid less typical deductions such as sales commissions owed by the licensee or a catch-all deduction for “other reasonable deductions.”

Ensure That the Inventions Are Fully Exploited

Once a licensor licenses its invention to a third party in an exclusive license arrangement, the licensor will lose much control over the day-to-day use of the technology. It is imperative that the licensor requires the licensee to actually exploit the technology in a timely manner and devote sufficient time, money and resource to such exploitation. Almost all exclusive patent or technology license agreements contain a “diligence” provision requiring the licensee to employ certain efforts with respect to the research, development and commercialization of licensed products. Generally, the diligence requirement provides that the licensee must use “commercially reasonable efforts” to advance the product through the pipeline and sale process. However, the meaning of “commercially reasonable efforts” is not precise and the two parties to the contract could interpret the phrase, and the corresponding diligence requirement, quite differently.

A prudent licensor defines the diligence requirement more exactly. Ideally, the diligence requirement would be accompanied by diligence milestones, contractually obligating the licensee to reach certain developmental, regulatory or sales milestones by certain target dates or to spend a certain dollar amount on the licensed product in a given time period. Additionally, different diligence standards could apply with respect to different jurisdictions. If the licensee fails to meet its target, the licensor would be entitled to one or more remedies such as a financial payment from the licensee or a right of termination.

Maintain Control over Patent Prosecution

In an exclusive patent license arrangement, the licensee usually pays for the costs associated with patent prosecution and maintenance. Even in a non-exclusive arrangement, the licensee could be required to pay for a portion of such amounts. Though the licensor bears some or all of the patent prosecution and maintenance expenses, the licensor should ensure that it ultimately has control. Ideally, the license agreement should provide that the licensor controls the prosecution and maintenance, perhaps with counsel reasonably acceptable to the licensee. The licensor could allow the licensee to provide input into where (which jurisdictions) the licensor will prosecute and maintain the patents. However, the licensor should have the final say as to the scope and jurisdiction of the patent filings. In order to address a licensee’s concern that it would be required to pay for expenses in jurisdictions where the licensee does not deem patent coverage to be necessary or desirable, the license agreement could provide that the licensee may notify the licensor that the licensee will not pay the patent costs in a particular jurisdiction – in which case the licensee would probably lose its license rights (or at least its exclusivity, in the case of an exclusive license grant) with respect to such jurisdiction.

Carefully Consider Termination Provisions

A license agreement includes customary termination provisions. For example, each party usually has the right to terminate the agreement in the case of an uncured material breach by the other party. Additionally, the licensee typically has the right to terminate the license agreement for convenience (without cause) following some notice period (e.g., 90 days). Following termination of the license agreement, the licensor may want to either resume R&D or commercialization efforts on its own or re-license the technology to another suitable third party. In order to avoid the need to duplicate efforts (and expenditures) of the first licensee, the licensor should give careful consideration to the termination provisions in the license agreement. Ideally, if the licensee terminates the license agreement for convenience (i.e., the licensee walks away from the technology) or the licensor terminates the license agreement because of an uncured material breach by the licensee, the licensee would be required to automatically assign to the licensor, for no additional consideration or for some agreed upon payment, all of the results, know-how and intellectual property generated by or on behalf of the licensee under the license agreement and all regulatory files, regulatory approvals and other rights related to the licensed product. Thus, the licensor or its new licensee would be able to capitalize on the past work performed by the licensee, expedite timelines and reduce expense.

All or some of the points described above could be very important to a licensor. Although the interrelation of these and various other provisions in a license agreement are complex, by understanding the unique issues and concerns that arise when analyzing and negotiating a license agreement, the licensor is better able to protect its invention and ultimately increase its profit.

ARTICLE BY

Lori M. Waldron
OF
Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

This article appeared in the February 2015 issue of The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel.  The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.   Copyright © 2015 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.  All rights reserved.”

Target Wins Rehearing of IPR Joinder Decision with Expanded Panel

Schwegman Lundberg Woessner

Last fall, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) interpreted the IPR joinder provision, 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), to require joinder requests by a non-party to an ongoing proceeding.  (Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., IPR2014-00508 and IPR2014-00509.)  Prior to that decision,  the Board had interpreted § 315(c) to allow for issue joinder by the petitioner of the original proceeding (see, for example Microsoft v. Proxyconn, IPR2013- 00109).  Of course, joinder was decided on a case-by-case basis, but had not previously been denied because the request was made by the petitioner of the original proceeding.

Target Corp. filed rehearing requests in both affected IPR proceedings in an effort to have the Board reconsider its interpretation of  35 U.S.C. § 315(c) with an expanded panel.  Target’s arguments are quite clearly stated in its Motion for Rehearing.  The Board granted Target’s rehearing request.  In a 4:3 decision,  the majority agreed that § 315(c) had been overly narrowly interpreted in the prior decision:

Turning now to the merits of the Request for Rehearing, the contention at the heart of Petitioner’s request for rehearing is that the denial of its Motion for Joinder was “based on an erroneously narrow interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).” Paper 22, 1. We agree with Petitioner.

The majority read § 315(c)’s reference to “any person who properly files a petition under section 311” in conjunction with § 311′s requirement that the petition filer not be the patent owner, to broadly interpret § 315(c) to include any person except the patent owner.  This interpretation is at odds with the dissent’s analysis, which reads § 315(c)’s reference to “may join as a party” to literally require a new party for joinder:

The statute under which Petitioner seeks relief provides:

(c) JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314.

35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (emphasis added). The statute does not refer to the joining of a petition or new patentability challenges presented therein. Rather, it refers to the joining of a petitioner (i.e., “any person who properly files a petition”). Id. Further, it refers to the joining of that petitioner “as a party to [the instituted] inter partes review.” Id. Because Target is already a party to the proceeding in IPR2013-00531, Target cannot be joinedto IPR2013-00531.

While the majority decision does align with panel decisions on joinder prior to Target, one must ask whether this issue is finally resolved by this expanded panel decision.  For example, what happens if another panel does not follow this interpretation § 315(c)?  Or suppose this decision is appealed; would the Federal Circuit reverse a Board decision on joinder as it relates to institution given its recent interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies? (“We conclude that § 314(d) prohibits review of the decision to institute IPR even after a final decision. . . . Section 314(d) provides that the decision is both ‘nonappealable’ and ‘final,’ i.e., not subject to further review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).”)  Would a Federal Circuit appeal have to be in the form of a petition for writ of mandamus?  If so, how would that square with the mandamus decisions in In re Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC, 749 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(mandamus relief not available to challenge the denial of a petition for IPR) and in In re Proctor & Gamble Co., 749 F.3d 1376, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(mandamus relief not available to provide immediate review of a decision to institute IPR)?

ARTICLE BY

Timothy Bianchi
OF
Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.

“Google It”: The Search Engine’s Trademark May Be a Verb, But It’s Not Generic

Katten Muchin Law Firm

Google defeated a claim that its GOOGLE trademark was generic, in Elliot v. Google Inc., a recent case from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

In 2012, Google filed a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Complaint against the owner of several hundred domain names that included the word “google.” The UDRP’s Administrative Panel ruled in favor of Google and ordered that the domain names be transferred to Google.

The domain name owner responded by suing Google in the Arizona district court, seeking cancellation of two of Google’s US Trademark Registrations covering search engines.

The domain name owner argued that “google” has become a generic term and is therefore not a protectable trademark. Google filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the domain name owner’s claims.

A generic term is one that identifies a general category of goods or services, while a trademark identifies the specific source of those goods or services. A trademark may become generic if the public ceases to associate the mark with a particular source of a good or service, but instead believes the term to refer to a general category of goods or services. Examples of trademarks that have become generic terms include “aspirin,” “escalator” and “videotape.”

In Elliot v. Google, the domain name owner tried to establish that the GOOGLE trademark had become a generic term for search engines. However, the domain name owner did not argue that the majority of the public understands the term “google” to refer to search engines in general. Instead, it based its genericness argument on the public’s use of the term “google” as a verb, contending that “verbs, as a matter of law, are incapable of distinguishing one service from another, and can only refer to a category of services.” The domain name owner offered media and survey evidence to support its genericness claim, but focused mostly on the public’s use of the term “google” as a verb. As a result, the court found that the evidence failed to create a genuine dispute about whether “the primary significance of the word ‘google’ to a majority of the public who utilize Internet search engines is a designation of the Google search engine.”

The court rejected the domain name owner’s genericness argument, holding that the use of a trademark as a verb does not, alone, prevent it from identifying a product or its source.

The court found the domain name owner’s reliance on verb usage as a basis for genericness “misplaced”; even if a majority of the public uses “google” as a verb to refer to the act of searching on the Internet, such usage does not make the term generic because the public still uses “GOOGLE” as a trademark to refer to Google’s search engine. Accordingly, the court granted Google’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that the GOOGLE mark is not generic. In reaching its decision, the court also noted specific steps taken by Google to prevent its GOOGLE mark from becoming generic, including using the mark to identify the Google search engine in national advertising campaigns, establishing standards for third-party use of the mark, and engaging in a pattern of enforcement measures.

The court’s decision highlights the risk that a trademark may become generic and reminds brand owners of steps they can take to prevent generic use of their marks. Brand owners can monitor both authorized and unauthorized uses of their trademarks to ensure their marks continue to function as source identifiers.

ARTICLE BY

Karen Artz Ash
Bret J. Danow
OF
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Practice Considerations Post Teva v. Sandoz

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. - Attorneys at Law

In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, slip op. 574 U.S. __ (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that underlying factual issues resolved while formally construing a disputed patent claim term at the district court level are subject to a clear error standard of review as opposed to a de novo standard.

The Patent at Issue

The litigated patent claimed a method for manufacturing Copaxone, Teva’s multi-billion dollar a year drug used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Sandoz, as a generic pharmaceutical challenger under the Hatch-Waxman Act, attacked the patent as indefinite because it contained claim language describing an active pharmaceutical ingredient having a “molecular weight of 5 to 9 kilodaltons.” Although three accepted definitions1 exist in the relevant art to calculate “molecular weight,” the method of calculation to be used was not described in the claim, the patent specification, or the prosecution history. The district court took evidence on this issue, namely through extrinsic expert testimony, and ruled that “molecular weight” would have been calculated by determining the “peak average molecular weight.” Accordingly, the district court held the phrase to be definite and accepted the understanding advanced by Teva’s expert. The Federal Circuit, however, reversed and held that the claim was indefinite after reviewing the district court claim construction de novo.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

In the majority opinion, authored by Justice Breyer, the Court explained that claim construction may involve both legal and factual elements that could necessitate differing levels of appellate scrutiny. Specifically, if a patent claim term is construed based upon the intrinsic evidence alone (i.e., patent claims, specification, and prosecution history), the determination is exclusively one of law, subject to de novo review. However, if the intrinsic evidence is not dispositive of the meaning of a claim term, then extrinsic evidence can be consulted (e.g., expert testimony, technical dictionary definitions, etc.) to better understand the meaning of the term. It is these underlying “facts” relating to extrinsic evidence that are reviewed according to the clear error standard. The Court reasoned that the District Judge, having presided over the entire proceeding, has a comparatively greater familiarity with the “specific scientific problems and principles” than the appellate court and should be afforded deference on factual findings. While the new scheme announced by the Court changes the standard of review for subsidiary factual matters, the ultimate issue of claim interpretation will still be reviewed de novo.

What is the Significance of Teva v. Sandoz?

The holding in Teva could have broad-ranging implications for clients in the procurement and enforcement of their patent rights. Below are a few examples of how the decision could impact current patent practice.

As an initial matter, patent owners should pay particular attention to the sufficiency of the disclosure with regard to key elements of the claims and consider specifically defining these elements in the specification through, for example, the use of a glossary. Such a strategy could help avoid protracted battles of the experts that could result in claim terms being redefined in ways never intended by the patent owner. While this approach has the potential to narrow claim scope, and may require additional time and expense during patent prosecution, it could result in a stronger, more effective patent less susceptible to post-Teva based challenges.

In the context of litigation, the Teva decision could provide motivation for litigants to create “factual issues” that are determinative of claim construction. Patentees, for example, may be tempted to try and broaden the scope of their claims by creating ambiguities in claim language in order to advance constructions that were never originally intended but may now be supported by extrinsic evidence. Alternatively, accused infringers may attempt to create as many factual disputes as possible with regard to the meaning of a claim in an effort to lock the patent owner into an unfavorable finding. Regardless of the motivations of the parties, district courts will likely become more attentive to these issues knowing their claim construction determinations could be afforded a higher standard of review. It is possible that the Teva decision could even result in broader acceptance among district court judges of “trial-like” Markman hearings with submission of expert testimony and extrinsic evidence at the claim construction stage.

Finally, in light of the changing claim construction standard of review in federal courts, parties (petitioners) should consider how this will impact the use and significance of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. For example, IPR proceedings provide petitioners with a “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard for claim construction, while also allowing petitioners to submit an expert declaration in support. Since patent owners are typically not given an opportunity to submit a rebuttal expert declaration before the Board institutes trial, this can provide a preliminary advantage for petitioners attempting to secure a favorable construction, as an initial finding on claim construction is usually made as part of the institution process. Moreover, the patent owner may find it difficult to overturn the initial claim construction inertia, whether during the postinstitution phase or on appeal after a final decision on the merits has been made by the Board.

Many questions remain in the wake of Teva, as patent owners and challengers alike will be faced with new claim construction strategy scenarios relying on extrinsic evidence.

ARTICLE BY

Daniel E. Yonan
Jon E. Boljesic
OF
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

 1 The three accepted definitions to determine “molecular weight” included a (1) peak average molecular weight; (2) number average molecular weight; or (3) weight average molecular weight.

US Supreme Court Holds that Juries Should Decide the Issue of Trademark Tacking

Mintz Levin Law Firm

In the first substantive trademark decision it has issued in a decade, the US Supreme Court, in  Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, case number 13-1211 (January 21, 2015), affirmed the Ninth Circuit by holding that whether two marks may be tacked for purposes of determining priority is a question for the jury.

The case involved two organizations providing financial services to individuals in the United States. The Respondent Hana Bank had been operating under that name in Korea since 1991, and first began to advertise its services to Korean expatriates in the US in 1994. Advertisements for those services in the US first appeared in Korean and in English under the name “Hana Overseas Korean Club,” and included the name “Hana Bank” in Korean. In 2000, it changed the name of “Hana Overseas Korean Club” to “Hana World Center,” and in 2002 began operating a bank in the United States under the name “Hana Bank.” This latter enterprise was its first physical presence in the United States.

Petitioner Hana Financial was established in 1994 as a California corporation and began using that name and an associated trademark in 1995. In 1996, it obtained a federal trademark registration for a logo design incorporating the name “Hana Financial” for use in connection with financial services.

In 2007, Hana Financial sued Hana Bank alleging trademark infringement. Hana Bank denied infringement by claiming that under the tacking doctrine it had priority of use of the mark “Hana” for financial services in the United States. The trial jury found in favor of Hana Bank and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision on appeal. Since there was a split among the federal circuit courts as to whether tacking should be decided by juries or judges, the Supreme Court granted Hana Financial’s writ of certiorari.

So what is “tacking”? The general rule is that use of two marks may be “tacked together” for purposes of establishing priority of use when the original mark and the revised mark are “legal equivalents.” Marks are “legal equivalents” when they “create the same, continuing commercial impression” so that consumers “consider both as the same mark.” There is no dispute that the commercial impression that a mark conveys must be viewed through the eyes of the consumer. Thus, Justice Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Court, stated that pursuant to long recognized doctrine, “when the relevant question is how an ordinary person or community would make an assessment, the jury is generally the decisionmaker that ought to provide the fact-intensive answer.” Accordingly, the Court held that when the facts do not warrant entry of summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law on the question of tacking, the question of whether tacking is warranted must be decided by a jury.

The lesson here for trademark owners is to ensure that archival records of your use of your marks over time are diligently maintained. This will help ensure that in the event the mark is changed in any way for purposes of modernization or otherwise, you have sufficient evidence to prove your earliest date of first use of the “legally equivalent” mark to defend against claims of infringement.

ARTICLE BY

Susan Neuberger Weller
OF
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

The “Top Ten” Intellectual Property Stories of 2014 (Most “Definitely”)

Schwegman Lundberg Woessner

I don’t think I can recall a more action-packed year for intellectual property law in my career, much less during the almost six years that I have been writing this blog. I am trying to write this while in transit, so there will be few footnotes or cites, but they are easy enough to find in my past posts, or online. I am not even sure that I outlined ten stories before I started typing, but here goes — in no particular order.

1,2,3 and 4. Mayo meet Alice meet Myriad – The Tortuous Path of s.101.

Although only Alice was decided in 2014, the excitement really started with the unexpected release of the PTO “Life Sciences” Guidelines in March (No. 1 Story). The draft Guidelines directed Examiners to reject claims to products of nature unless they were significantly different in structure from the products in their natural states, and declared that simple “If A, then B” diagnostic claims were patent-ineligible as attempts to patent natural phenomena.

The Guidelines were continuously criticized as based on a misreading of the earlier Mayo and Myriad S.Ct. decisions and were released in a revised form in December (No. 2 Story) via publication for comment in the Fed. Reg. The revised Guidelines recognized that the standards for claiming diagnostic tests were in flux but permitted consideration of functional differences in resolving the PE of natural products.

However, only a few days later, in U. of Utah Res. Fndn v. Ambry, (No. 3 Story) the Fed. Cir. held that primers could not be patented if not structurally changed from their natural sequence. Judge Dyk, writing for the panel, simply misread Myriad as holding that no isolated product of nature — as opposed to no naturally occurring DNA — could be patented unless it was markedly different than in its natural state. This decision followed the earlier invalidation of the claims to Dolly the cloned sheep in In re Roslin in which Judge Dyk, declared that no naturally-occurring living organism is patentable. The Utah panel also held that claims to comparing a subject’s DNA sequence to a reference sequence, wherein the claim also recited PCR amplification or probing, did not escape the Mayo requirement for an additional inventive concept in additional to the abstract idea of comparing sequences. This decision is ripe for rehearing en banc, if only to correct Judge Dyk’s manifest misreading of Myriad (and to keep the PTO Guidelines under some judicial control).

The title of this “news story” is meant to point up the tsunami-like “abstract idea” judicial exception to s. 101 patent-eligibility (PE). The Mayo v. Prometheus decision only mentions “abstract idea” once, and it is to cite to an earlier decision. The S. Ct. in Mayo reversed the Fed. Cir., holding that a claim reciting a natural phenomenon was required to recite some further inventive concept in order to be “significantly more” than a claim preempting use of the phenomenon. In Bilski, the Fed. Cir. fashioned the “machine or transformation test”. Judge Rader’s dissenting argument that a claim to hedging commodity risk was no more than an attempt to claim an abstract idea. The S. Ct. agreed with Judge Rader.

In Alice Bank, (No. 4 Story) the S. Ct. managed to marry the Mayo “test” for PE to the abstract idea exception of Bilski. The Court applied a two-step test. First, decide if a claim involves an abstract idea and then examine the claim to see if it contains significantly more than elements that are conventional and routine in the relevant art. Now, enter Utah Res. Foundation (Myriad) v. Ambry. While Ambry argued that the diagnostic claims were no more than an attempt to claim a natural phenomenon (mutations in DNA), the Fed. Cir. took a different tack and looked to itsMyriad decision for guidance.

And, lo and behold, at the Fed. Cir. level, Judge Lourie wrote that the DNA comparison claims were not PE, since they were directed to an abstract idea(!) So the Fed. Cir., simply applied the Mayo test as articulated in Alice and invalidated the method claims asserted by Myriad as attempts to claim an abstract idea, albeit with a bit of window dressing (PCR and probing). In the coming year, I can only hope that the PE of a simple “If A, then B” diagnostic claim will be resolved. And I also hope that Judge Breyer is not writing for the majority.

5. Kimble v. Marvel. The S. Ct. granted cert. to revisit the question of whether or not a requirement that a licensee pay post-expiration date royalties for a patent license is per se illegal (as it is presently).

6. Nautilus v. Biosig. While the S. Ct. tried to raise the bar for meeting s. 112(b) by requiring that claim elements be defined with “reasonable certainty,” rather than by the Fed. Cir.’s requirement that the meaning of the element not be “insolubly ambiguous” or “amenable to construction.” It is not at all clear where the new bar has been set.

7. Teva v. Sandoz. The S. Ct. granted cert. to resolve the question of whether or not it is proper for the Fed. Cir. to conduct de novo review of the district courts’ factual findings during claim construction. By the way, what is a mixed question of law and fact and how is a court to review them separately? Appeal to the Fed. Cir. and find out!

8. American Calcar v. American Honda Motors. This convoluted case stands for the observation that the inequitable conduct defense has risen from the grave of legal doctrines, to which it had been consigned by many commentators. Still, to prevail on this defense, a defendant is greatly assisted by the presence of a single (or perhaps two) “bad actors” who do things like try to patent a competitor’s drug — which, remarkably was the factual posture of two cases before the Fed. Cir. last year. You can advocate with vigor; just don’t lie.

9. Commil v. Cisco. Although the question present in the granted petition for cert. seems narrow (To what extent can evidence of a good faith belief in non-infringement negate the element of intent required to induce infringement?), this appeal is evidence that the S. Ct. is not yet tired of the challenges posed by Title 35.

10. Progress in Regulations Affecting Bringing Biosimilars to Market. In August, the FDA released its “Purple Book” listing approved reference products and actually accepted an application for a biosimilar “generic”. While some commentators feel that it will be more effective to re-conduct phase III trials than to try to navigate the hostile regulatory hurdles thrown up by the agency, the availability of biosimilar drugs seems inevitable.

ARTICLE BY

Warren Woessner
OF
Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.

The USPTO’s New Guidance Simplifies Prosecution by Clarifying Subject-Matter Eligibility of Patents

Armstrong Teasdale Law firm

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued new guidance on Dec. 8, 2015 that provides improved clarity to those prosecuting patent applications in the computer-implemented and biochemical arts. Although many questions remain on the issue of subject matter eligibility, this guidance will be a useful tool to move prosecution of such applications past rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It is available here.

The Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (the “Guidance”) will be available to examiners for prosecution immediately. This long-awaited document aims to provide better clarity on the subject matter eligibility of computer-implemented patents and patents in the biological, chemical and biochemical arts. For the past several months, navigating the eligibility of such patent applications has been difficult, in part due to unclear PTO rules and procedures following the Supreme Court decisions of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) and Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).

The Guidance primarily focuses on adding details to the two-step subject matter eligibility test of Alice Corp. and Mayo. The first step of this test is to “determine whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea.” Here, the Guidance affirms the PTO’s broad power to find claims pending before the office as being directed to such judicially created exceptions.

Although the Guidance provides several examples of abstract ideas and natural phenomenon, it is clear that these examples are non-limiting. As such, the Guidance confirms the substantial discretion that has been used by examiners, courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to find that claims are directed to abstract ideas or laws of nature. In light of this broad discretion, applicants should avoid only arguing that their claims are not directed to such exceptions. Such arguments will likely fail, therefore applicants should not rely solely on this approach.

The second step is to “determine whether any element, or combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.” The Guidance provides applicants with new methods of showing “significantly more” than previously provided.

First, the Guidance re-affirms the validity of the “machine or transformation” test. Specifically, “applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine” and “effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing” both can constitute “significantly more” than the abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. Second, the Guidance states that “adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application” may also constitute “significantly more”.  This language appears to give PTO examiners significant latitude to overcome rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The Guidance also clarifies that “extrasolution activity” and “linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” will not constitute “significantly more”, resolving an open question since Alice Corp. It also specifies that when a claim recites “a plurality of exceptions,” failing to find “significantly more” for any one of those exceptions will cause the claim to fail subject matter eligibility.

Additionally, the Guidance provides a new option for applicants with claims that “clearly do not seek to tie up any judicial exception such that others cannot practice it.” Though the meaning of this statement is unclear, the PTO has offered an option of “streamlined eligibility analysis” for such claims.

There are some notable limitations to the Guidance. First, the Guidance does not constitute substantive rulemaking and lacks the force of law. As a result, examiners are not formally required to follow it. (Practically, however, we anticipate it will be used by most examiners.) Second, the Guidance is not binding on or applicable to litigation proceedings or proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Third, these are truly “interim” guidelines.

We anticipate that final rules and laws are still in development and this area of law will continue to change over the coming months. More information on the Interim Guidance can be found here.

© Copyright 2014 Armstrong Teasdale LLP. All rights reserved

Post Holiday Trademark Sale!!!!!!!

Giordano Halleran Ciesla Logo

The USPTO announced that they are having a sale.  You can save $50 per class on all new trademark registration applications and $100 on all renewals.  The Final Rule issued on December 16, 2014 announced that trademark filing fees will be reduced.

Small Print:  Unfortunately, the discounts will not be effective in time for the holidays.  The new discounted fees don’t kick in until January 17, 2015.  In the good news department, the discounts will continue thereafter!

ARTICLE BY

Kurt E. Anderson
OF
Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C.

USPTO Issues New Subject Matter Eligibility Examination Interim Guidelines – Abstract Idea Guidance

Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox

On December 15, 2014, the USPTO issued Interim Guidance for examination of subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. These new guidelines largely follow the previous interim guidelines issued on June 25, 2014, in view of CLS v. Alice (2014), with some additional details. The new guidelines have also combined that earlier guidance for claims reciting abstract ideas with the March 4, 2014, guidance for claims reciting natural phenomena/laws of nature.

Under the new guidelines, the examiner will first determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four accepted statutory categories. If it does, examiners are instructed to apply the 2-part patent-eligibility analysis, as articulated by the Supreme Court in Alice. Examiners are instructed to apply the 2-part analysis to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims when analyzed as a whole. Importantly, the Guidance also confirms that “[e]very claim must be examined individually, based on the particular elements recited therein, and should not be judged to automatically stand or fall with similar claims in an application.”

Analysis for Software/Business Method Claims – Abstract Idea Guidance

To evaluate software and business method claims, the “abstract idea” analysis laid out in the Guidance will be the most relevant. To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, the 2-part Alice test is as follows: 1) determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, and if they are, then 2) determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.

Part 1

In accordance with Alice, the Interim Guidance notes that fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea ‘of itself,’ and mathematical relationships/ formulas are recognized as abstract ideas. Citing previous cases, the Interim Guidance provides examiners with specific examples of abstract ideas:

  • mitigating settlement risk (Alice);

  • hedging (Bilski);

  • creating a contractual relationship (buySAFE);

  • using advertising as an exchange of currency (Ultramercial);

  • processing information through a clearinghouse (Dealertrack);

  • comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options (SmartGene);

  • using categories to organize, store and transmit information (Cyberfone);

  • organizing information through mathematical correlations (Digitech);

  • managing a game of bingo (Planet Bingo);

  • the Arrhenius equation for calculating the cure time of rubber (Diehr);

  • a formula for updating alarm limits (Flook);

  • a mathematical formula relating to standing wave phenomena (Mackay Radio); and

  • a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another

    (Benson).

Part 2

If no abstract idea is found in Part 1, then Part 2 need not be addressed. But if Part 1 identifies an abstract idea in the claims, Part 2 is considered. The Guidance stresses the importance of considering the claim as a whole, rather than addressing individual elements on their own.

The Guidance provides examples of limitations that may be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim. These examples include:

  • improvements to another technology or technical field;

  • improvements to the functioning of the computer itself;

  • applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine;

  • effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;

    • adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; and

    • other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.

      These examples are consistent with the recent Federal Circuit Decision in DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com (DDR).

      Limitations that do not qualify as “significantly more” include:

    • adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer;

    • simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry;

    • adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea; and

    • generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.

      2-Part Analysis Not Always Necessary

      According to the Interim Guidance, examiners do not need to perform the complete 2-part analysis when eligibility is self-evident. A full analysis may not be needed where the claims clearly do not preempt the abstract idea in such a manner that others cannot practice it. For instance, the interim guidelines note that a claim directed to a complex manufactured industrial product or process that recites meaningful limitations along with an abstract idea may sufficiently limit its practical application so that a full eligibility analysis is not needed. As an example, a robotic arm assembly having a control system that operates using certain mathematical relationships is not an attempt to tie up use of the mathematical relationships and would not require the examiner to perform the full 2-part analysis to determine eligibility.

    The Interim Guidance is effective on December 16, 2014 and is not legally binding. The USPTO is seeking public comments on this Interim Guidance along with additional suggestions on claim examples by March 15, 2015.