Tag: Intellectual property

Unprecedented Move: Vox Populi Extends Sunrise Deadline for “.sucks” Domain Registration

In a move that is being interpreted as possible overreaching, Vox Populi, operator of the .sucks domain name, extended the period for registering .sucks during the “sunrise period” without notice. The new deadline to register the .sucks domain name is June 19. Not only is it $2,000 or more to register each .sucks domain name, there is also an annual renewal fee of $2,000.

There is online speculation that Vox’s extension is motivated by a relatively large surge in last minute registrations before the original deadline of May 29. This might indicate that Vox is extending the sunrise period for the purpose of taking additional profits from the registration of this already high priced gTLD.

What is a trademark owner to do?

  • Some businesses are defensively registering .sucks then “parking” the domain name to prevent others from using it.

  • Other trademark owners plan to proactively “own” .sucks as a way to receive and curate criticism. This is seen as a way to allow consumers to vet issues and allow companies to manage legitimate issues.

  • Some trademark owners have decided to not register the domain name.

The decision that is right for individual businesses should take into account a variety of factors uniquely associated with the business and its anticipated future use of the Internet for communicating criticism about goods and/or services.

Vox is promoting the registration of this domain name as being consumer friendly providing a “voice” for the people. Vox retained Ralph Nader and Dr. Martin Luther King (via vintage film clip) as two of their celebrity spokes people to promote .sucks as a “protest word.”

There has been significant controversy regarding the launch of the new domain name .sucks. Foremost is Vox’s pricing strategy. Vox Populi (Voice of the People) is offering the domain name to trademark owners for $2,000 for each registration during the “sunrise period.” The sunrise period is an initial brief period of time, usually about two months, during which a trademark owner has priority to register their trademark with the new gTLD. As an example: “chicagocubs.sucks” could be registered by the Chicago Cubs as the trademark owner during the sunrise period for $2,000. Most new domain names (.coffee, .wedding, .football, .media, etc.) can be registered during their sunrise period for $100 – $200. However, if the Cubs decide to not register .sucks, a party qualifying for a “Consumer Advocate Subsidized” registration (as determined by Vox) can register “chicagocubs.sucks” after the sunrise period for only $9.95.

Many trademark owners are questioning whether Vox’s pricing strategy is an impermissible windfall or free speech. Some parties have already brought this matter to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Competition Bureau Canada for consideration. Although no final decision has been reached by either agency, FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez provided a preliminary response pointedly reminding Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), acting on behalf of the concerned parties, that the FTC weighed in on these and similar issues years ago prior to the launch of the new gTLD program. While Chairwoman Ramirez cannot comment on the existence of pending investigations she left the door open for monitoring the actions of registries and taking action in appropriate cases “if we have reason to believe an entity has engaged in deceptive or unfair practices in violation of [the] consumer protection authority.” Chairwoman Ramirez urged ICANN to address these issues internally since the dramatic growth of gTLDs brought on by ICANN’s program cannot be “feasibly addressed on a case-by-case basis” by the FTC.

Over the first 30 years of the publically accessible Internet approximately 220 gTLDs, including country codes were made available. Between 2011 and 2014 ICANN initiated a program to create new gTLDs. The stated goal of these new gTLDs was to be inclusive of new interest groups, non-Latin script languages and to anticipate the expansion of the Internet. This initiative was wildly successful with 1,930 applications being received by ICANN. After significant review of the applications approximately 1,370 new gTLDs were scheduled for launch. As of May 1, 2015, the launch of these new gTLDs is approximately one quarter completed with approximately 1,000 new gTLDs still to launch.

ARTICLE BY Intellectual Property Department of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
© 2015 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Allvoice Decision Provides Roadmap For Software-based Inventions

In a refreshing break from Alice/Mayo abstract idea based 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, the Federal Circuit released a decision invalidating certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,799,273 as not being directed to one of the four statutory categories of inventions (see Allvoice Developments US, LLC, v. Microsoft Corp., CAFC 2014-1258, decided May 22, 2015) The matter was on appeal, by Allvoice, from a district court decision invalidating claims 60-68 as non-statutory subject matter. The decision also affirms a non-infringement decision by the district court, while interesting that that portion of the decision is not the focus of this post.

The claims of the ‘273 Patent at issue were directed towards a speech-recognition “interface,” see claim 60 reproduced below. Both the CAFC and the district court interpreted, probably correctly, the claimed interface as software without any tangible form (e.g., not interpreted as instructions on a computer-readable medium or as part of a tangible system).

60.  A universal speech-recognition interface that enables operative coupling of a speech-recognition engine to at least any one of a plurality of different computer-related applications, the universal speech-recognition interface comprising:

input means for receiving speech-recognition data including recognised words;

output means for outputting the recognised words into at least any one of the plurality of different computer-related applications to allow processing of the recognised words as input text; and

audio playback means for playing audio data associated with the recognised words. ’273 Patent, col. 29 ll. 22–34.

Allvoice essentially reinforces the Court’s interpretation by asserting that the claimed speech-recognition interfaces are described in the specification as “interface applications,” and thus the claims are limited to software. Allvoice attempts to clarify their position by further asserting that the claims should be interpreted as reciting “software instructions,” and further asserting that the instructions must necessarily be in a machine readable, physical state, in order to exist. It is interesting to consider whether the decision in this case might have been different if Allvoice had been able to argue an interpretation of the “means” elements as including hardware components of a system. Unfortunately, such an interpretation was either not supported by the specification, or not pursued for other reasons by the litigation team.

The Court dismisses Allvoice’s assertions regarding the implied physical form, stating “this Court has recognized, instructions, data, or information alone, absent a tangible medium, is not a manufacture.” (Citing Digitech Image Techs.,758 F.3d at 1349–50 (rejecting a patentee’s attempt to argue that the disputed claims

were subject matter eligible because the claim language did not describe “any tangible embodiment of this information (i.e., in physical memory or other medium) or claim any tangible part of the digital processing system”).) Earlier in the decision, the Court had already determined that the claims were clearly not directed to a process. Thus, because the claims were not directed to a tangible article and were not process claims, the district court’s invalidity holding was upheld.

The good news from this case is that the Court provides a fairly clear roadmap for claiming software-based inventions – software must be claimed as a process (method) or as instructions on a machine-readable medium (tangible manufacture), at least outside of a system claim. While this case does not seem to cover any “new” ground per se, it does clearly reinforce that claims directed to pure software, such as the recited speech-recognition interfaces, and not fashioned as a process or machine-readable medium are not likely to find favor in the courts.

ARTICLE BY Gregory M. Stark of Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
© 2015 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

BMI Wins Summary Judgment of Copyright Infringement After Restaurant Owner Fails to Respond to Requests for Admission

Plaintiff Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”), a music rights management organization that offers licenses to a massive catalogue of popular songs on behalf of copyright owners, brought suit for copyright infringement against the owners of the La Roue Elayne restaurant for unlicensed performance of live cover versions of eight songs in a single evening. This suit was part of a series of suits brought by BMI for copyright infringement against restaurants in Connecticut. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of BMI for copyright infringement, permanently enjoining further copyright infringement and awarding $6,000 in statutory damages and an additional unspecified amount for attorneys’ fees.

Drew Friedman, the only defendant who appeared in the case, had opposed summary judgment on the grounds that a fact issue remained as to whether he had sufficient control over the restaurant and the cover band to support vicarious liability for copyright infringement. Mr. Friedman claimed to have been cut out of the management and control of La Roue Elayne before the night in question. Interestingly, his failure to object or respond to BMI’s Requests For Admission (RFAs) doomed his opposition. Mr. Friedman never responded to RFAs asking him to admit or deny that he hired the offending cover band and that he had the right to supervise persons employed by the restaurant.

In fact, Mr. Friedman’s opposition failed to address the issue of the ignored RFAs and he never moved for leave to provide untimely responses. On that basis, the Court held that the RFAs must be deemed admitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. The Court appeared reluctant to deem the RFAs admitted, but indicated that after a diligent search it failed to find any precedent for a sua sponte withdrawal of a represented party’s response to RFAs where the party failed to even acknowledge the existence of the request.

The case is Broadcast Music, Inc. v. The Hub at Cobb’s Mill, LLC. A copy of the Court’s Order is available here.

ARTICLE BY Anthony Cataldo of Proskauer Rose LLP
© 2015 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Amicus Briefs On Biosimilar Patent Litigation

Foley and Lardner LLP

Amgen has appealed the district court decision denying its motion for a preliminary injunction to keep Sandoz’ biosimilar version of Neupogen® off the market. The appeal is on an expedited briefing schedule at the Federal Circuit, and three amicus briefs have been filed. All of the amicus briefs argue for reversal of at least some of the district court’s decision regarding the biosimilar patent litigation framework of the BPCIA.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization

The Biotechnology Industry Organization filed an amicus brief arguing that the BPCIA should be interpreted as requiring “notice to the reference product sponsor of the initial submission of the biosimilar application” and “notice of potential commercial marketing upon approval.” BIO argues that these procedures must be mandatory in order for the patent dispute resolution provisions of the law to achieve their purpose of “provid[ing] a significant and real opportunity to resolve patent issues prior to the launch of the biosimilar.”

Abbvie Inc.

AbbVie Inc. filed an amicus brief arguing that “the notice-and-exchange provisions are mandatory” and that a biosimilar applicant’s “failure to comply with the statute is unlawful.” According to AbbVie, if the district court decision is upheld “the entire biosimilar litigation process would become a free-for-all, where biosimilar companies would utilize the data and work of innovator companies but refuse to provide basic information about their products … leaving innovators to blindly guess as to which patents they should sue on and when.”

AbbVie also argues that the BPCIA does not preempt Amgen’s state law claims of unfair competition.

Janssen Biotech, Inc.

Janssen Biotech, Inc. filed an amicus brief asking the Federal Circuit to “clarify that the statutory patent dispute resolution procedures are intended to be followed as written, and are not merely optional choices or empty formalities.” Janssen criticizes the district court decision for “transforming [the BPCIA’s patent provisions] from a carefully orchestrated dispute resolution process into a series of strategic options existing for the sole benefit of the biosimilar applicant.”

Janssen also urges the Federal Circuit to decide that the notice of commercial marketing required by the BPCIA may not be provided before a biosimilar product is licensed by the FDA. One argument Janssen makes on this point is that the notice of commercial marketing gives the reference product sponsor the right to seek a preliminary injunction based on alleged patent infringement, but a preliminary injunction cannot be granted unless commercial launch is imminent, and commercial launch is not possible until the biosimilar has been licensed by the FDA.

The Expedited Appeal Schedule 

Amgen filed its opening brief on April 3. Sandoz filed its brief on April 21. Oral arguments are scheduled for June 3.

ARTICLE BY

Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff
Foley & Lardner LLP

B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.: Trademark Litigation Might Get Simpler

Vedder Price

Trademark litigation includes two similar types of proceedings. First, and most common, issues of trademark infringement and cancellation of a mark may be raised in a trial (i.e., a traditional fight in either State Court or Federal District Court before a judge or jury involving oral testimony). Second, and less common, issues of trademark registration may be raised in a trademark opposition or cancellation proceeding before the Trademark Office. These proceedings are primarily conducted in writing and are governed by administrative rules published in the Federal Register based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While a trial may result in monetary damages or an injunction preventing a party from using a mark, the Trademark Office merely has the authority to grant or cancel federal trademark registrations.

Since the Trademark Office’s process does not allow for litigants to receive monetary awards, injunctions, or even a determination of infringement, entering the Trademark Office for a cancellation or opposition simplifies the proceedings to focus on a limited number of key issues, such as whether a likelihood of confusion exists between a registered mark and another mark. Along with their limited focus and less formal nature, litigants often found comfort in a the lower costs involved in proceedings before the Trademark Office. Generally, once a trademark registration was cancelled, the owner of the mark that was cancelled would understand that a claim for infringement in court was not likely to succeed and would stop using the mark.

In B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., the United States Supreme Court was faced with the question of “[w]hether the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (the “TTAB” or the “Board”) finding of a likelihood of confusion precludes Hargis from relitigating that issue in infringement litigation, in which likelihood of confusion is an element.” The long-standing dispute (almost 20 years) between the parties involved in the decision regarded the trademarks SEALTIGHT and SEALTITE. In 1996, Hargis applied for registration of its mark, SEALTITE. B&B opposed the registration based on an alleged likelihood of confusion of Hargis’s trademark with B&B’s own federally registered mark, SEALTIGHT. After applying the standard multi-factor likelihood of confusion test, the TTAB decided in favor of B&B and held that a likelihood of confusion existed between the marks.

At the same time as the proceedings before the TTAB, B&B sued Hargis for trademark infringement in Federal District Court. After receiving a favorable outcome in the proceeding before the TTAB, B&B argued in District Court that Hargis could not contest the TTAB’s determination that a likelihood of confusion existed due to the preclusive effect of the TTAB’s decision. The District Court disagreed with B&B and allowed the jury to hear the evidence and decide on the issue of confusion. The jury returned a verdict for Hargis, finding that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks. The parties appealed the verdict, including the issue of the preclusive effect of the TTAB decision. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court. The parties then petitioned for, and were granted, certiorari on the issue by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Eighth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that as long as the ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met and the usages of the marks are materially the same, a finding that a likelihood of confusion exists by the TTAB should have preclusive effect in District Court proceedings.

The doctrine of “res judicata” or “issue preclusion” states that litigants should not get two bites at the same apple, or two chances to argue over the same issue. Thus, if the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board found overlap (i.e., likelihood of confusion) between two marks (despite using the simplified tools involved in proceedings before the Trademark Office), then a District Court should honor the TTAB’s determination and not force the parties to relitigate the issue.

Prior to this decision, if a case was simultaneously pending in District Court and before the TTAB, the TTAB would readily stay its determination until the litigation in District Court was resolved. Because of this, any time one of the parties to an opposition or cancellation proceeding became agitated, they would file a concurrent action before a District Court. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, it is unclear if the TTAB will continue to grant this courtesy.

Trademark oppositions and cancellations must now be taken very seriously. While the TTAB cannot award damages or find infringement, its decisions could now be used as grounds for finding infringement in District Court. For example, a party who defaults in a cancellation proceeding may well lose the right to defend itself properly in District Court if a subsequent action is filed. Going forward, mark owners with proceedings before the TTAB must consider whether to intentionally abandon a trademark application or registration in order to avoid an adverse decision that could have far-reaching effects.

ARTICLE BY

John E. Munro
Alain Villeneuve
Vedder Price

B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.: Trademark Litigation Might Get Simpler

Vedder Price

Trademark litigation includes two similar types of proceedings. First, and most common, issues of trademark infringement and cancellation of a mark may be raised in a trial (i.e., a traditional fight in either State Court or Federal District Court before a judge or jury involving oral testimony). Second, and less common, issues of trademark registration may be raised in a trademark opposition or cancellation proceeding before the Trademark Office. These proceedings are primarily conducted in writing and are governed by administrative rules published in the Federal Register based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While a trial may result in monetary damages or an injunction preventing a party from using a mark, the Trademark Office merely has the authority to grant or cancel federal trademark registrations.

Since the Trademark Office’s process does not allow for litigants to receive monetary awards, injunctions, or even a determination of infringement, entering the Trademark Office for a cancellation or opposition simplifies the proceedings to focus on a limited number of key issues, such as whether a likelihood of confusion exists between a registered mark and another mark. Along with their limited focus and less formal nature, litigants often found comfort in a the lower costs involved in proceedings before the Trademark Office. Generally, once a trademark registration was cancelled, the owner of the mark that was cancelled would understand that a claim for infringement in court was not likely to succeed and would stop using the mark.

In B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., the United States Supreme Court was faced with the question of “[w]hether the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (the “TTAB” or the “Board”) finding of a likelihood of confusion precludes Hargis from relitigating that issue in infringement litigation, in which likelihood of confusion is an element.” The long-standing dispute (almost 20 years) between the parties involved in the decision regarded the trademarks SEALTIGHT and SEALTITE. In 1996, Hargis applied for registration of its mark, SEALTITE. B&B opposed the registration based on an alleged likelihood of confusion of Hargis’s trademark with B&B’s own federally registered mark, SEALTIGHT. After applying the standard multi-factor likelihood of confusion test, the TTAB decided in favor of B&B and held that a likelihood of confusion existed between the marks.

At the same time as the proceedings before the TTAB, B&B sued Hargis for trademark infringement in Federal District Court. After receiving a favorable outcome in the proceeding before the TTAB, B&B argued in District Court that Hargis could not contest the TTAB’s determination that a likelihood of confusion existed due to the preclusive effect of the TTAB’s decision. The District Court disagreed with B&B and allowed the jury to hear the evidence and decide on the issue of confusion. The jury returned a verdict for Hargis, finding that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks. The parties appealed the verdict, including the issue of the preclusive effect of the TTAB decision. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court. The parties then petitioned for, and were granted, certiorari on the issue by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Eighth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that as long as the ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met and the usages of the marks are materially the same, a finding that a likelihood of confusion exists by the TTAB should have preclusive effect in District Court proceedings.

The doctrine of “res judicata” or “issue preclusion” states that litigants should not get two bites at the same apple, or two chances to argue over the same issue. Thus, if the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board found overlap (i.e., likelihood of confusion) between two marks (despite using the simplified tools involved in proceedings before the Trademark Office), then a District Court should honor the TTAB’s determination and not force the parties to relitigate the issue.

Prior to this decision, if a case was simultaneously pending in District Court and before the TTAB, the TTAB would readily stay its determination until the litigation in District Court was resolved. Because of this, any time one of the parties to an opposition or cancellation proceeding became agitated, they would file a concurrent action before a District Court. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, it is unclear if the TTAB will continue to grant this courtesy.

Trademark oppositions and cancellations must now be taken very seriously. While the TTAB cannot award damages or find infringement, its decisions could now be used as grounds for finding infringement in District Court. For example, a party who defaults in a cancellation proceeding may well lose the right to defend itself properly in District Court if a subsequent action is filed. Going forward, mark owners with proceedings before the TTAB must consider whether to intentionally abandon a trademark application or registration in order to avoid an adverse decision that could have far-reaching effects.

ARTICLE BY

John E. Munro
Alain Villeneuve
Vedder Price

Understanding Post-AIA Power of Attorney Procedures –America Invents Act

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Applicants identified upon a U.S. patent application’s filing can impact the ownership rights to the patent application throughout prosecution.  Prior to implementation of relevant aspects of the America Invents Act (AIA) on September 16, 2012, patent application Applicants could only be Inventors.  Conversely, applications filed on or after September 16, 2012 can have Inventors or Assignees as Applicants.  The choice of Applicant – Inventors or Assignees – upon filing in post-AIA applications affects how Power of Attorney can be properly established before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Pre-AIA patent applications filed before September 16, 2012 can have Power of Attorney granted by Inventors or Assignees under Rule 32, provided that the requirements of Rule 3.73 are satisfied.  In contrast, post-AIA applications filed on or after September 16, 2012 can be filed with Inventors or Assignees as the Applicant, with Rule 32 requiring a Power of Attorney to be signed by either the “Applicant” or “Patent Owner.”  However, an Assignee only becomes the patent owner after the application issues as a patent.  Thus, in order to take over prosecution in a post-AIA application, the Assignee must either initially be listed as or later formally established to be the Applicant for Power of Attorney to be granted on behalf of the Assignee.

In circumstances where a post-AIA application’s Applicant is identified upon filing as the Assignee, the Assignee may execute a Power of Attorney, and it can be filed without the need to file any separate papers to satisfy Rule 3.71 or Rule 3.73.

When a post-AIA patent application is filed without listing the Assignee as the Applicant (i.e., because the Inventors are listed as the Applicant) or when the Assignee changes during the course of prosecution, Rule 3.71 or Rule 3.73 must be satisfied for the Assignee to establish a Power of Attorney before the USPTO.  Namely, a statement under Rule 3.73(c) and a Power of Attorney must be filed.  However, the Assignee must first be identified as an Applicant.  Currently there are two ways for an Assignee to become an Applicant when not so listed upon initial application filing.  First, an Applicant can be added to the existing list of Applicants.  Alternately, all Inventors can be removed as the Applicant and be replaced with the Assignee as the Applicant.

A change in an Applicant can be accomplished by filing a supplemental Application Data Sheet (ADS), fulfilling the Rule 3.73(c) requirements including a showing of ownership.  A chain of title can be demonstrated through executed assignment(s) and a statement specifying where documents verifying the chain of title from the original owner to the assignee are recorded in the assignment records of the USPTO by reel and frame number.  After adding the Applicant, Rule 3.71 or Rule 3.73 can be satisfied by filing a statement under Rule 3.73(c) and filing a properly executed Power of Attorney, thereby appointing the designated patent practitioner.

Accordingly, administrative burdens on the USPTO, on Assignees, and on Assignee representatives can generally be reduced by filing post-AIA applications listing the Assignee as the Applicant, should the Assignee be known at the time of filing.

Colleen Witherell also contributed content for this article.

ARTICLE BY

Christina Sperry
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

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

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.

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.