Tag: patent

U.S. Bancorp CBM Results in Cancellation of Retirement Capital Access Management Co.’s Patent Claims

Schwegman Lundberg Woessner

In 2011, U.S. Patent 6,625,582, entitled Method And System For Converting A Designated Portion of Future Social Security And Other Retirement Payments To Current Benefits, was assigned to Retirement Capital Access Management Company LLC.  Benefit Funding Systems LLC asserted the ’582 patent against U.S. Bancorp in June of 2012.  Benefit Funding Systems LLC v. U.S. Bancorp, Case No. 1:12-cv-803-LPS (D. Del. filed June 22, 2012).  In response, U.S. Bancorp filed a CBM petition requesting review of claims 1, 13, 14, 18, 30, and 31 of the ’582 patent on March 29, 2013.  U.S. Bancorp asserted that the ’582 patent qualified for CBM review under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and Sec. 18(a) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011), and that these claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

U.S. Bancorp’s CBM Petition states:

The specification states that “[t]he present invention relates generally to a system and method which provides a mechanism for a [beneficiary] of Social Security payments, or of other retirement payments, to access present value of a designated portion of its future retirement payments . . . . [W]ithout encumbering the beneficiary’s rights to its future retirement benefits.” See U.S. Bancorp Ex.1003 (‘582 patent), Col. 1:10-22.

The ‘582 patent explains that “retirement age individuals” are finding retirement benefits or the anticipated timing of those benefits “to be somewhat inadequate to meet their present and future financial needs, expectations, and objectives.” See U.S. Bancorp Ex.1003, Col. 1: 23-29. The ‘582 patent further states that such retirement benefits “have not generally been seen as an adequate source of current capital, particularly to support financing based upon future receipts” due to “the current legislated proscriptions . . . against assigning or otherwise alienating future retirement benefits.” U.S. Bancorp Ex.1003, Col. 1:35- 43. Therefore, the ‘582 patent purports to provide a financial program that allows a beneficiary to access the present value of future retirement payments while complying with U.S. laws restricting alienation of future retirement benefits. U.S. Bancorp Ex.1003, Col. 1:43-49. Curiously though, the ‘582 specification does not explain – and claims do not recite any limitations regarding – how the patented financial scheme complies with U.S. laws. Instead, each independent claim merely includes the limitation that monetary benefits are provided “without violating legislated proscriptions in the United States against alienation of future retirement funds.” See, e.g., U.S. Bancorp Ex.1003, Col. 9:8-9 (claim 1).

(CBM Petition at pp. 4-5.)

Claim 1, which is representative of the subject matter, recites:

1.  A computerized method for creating a source of funds based on present value of future retirement payments, comprising the steps of:

a. designating an account in a depository for a beneficiary to receive future retirement payments payable to said beneficiary from a source of said retirement payments for a preselected period of time;

b. designating a benefit provider for providing a monetary benefit to said beneficiary;

c. authorizing said depository to periodically disburse a predetermined portion of said retirement payments deposited in said account to said benefit provider during said preselected period of time;

d. providing said monetary benefit to said beneficiary from said benefit provider based at least in part on present value of a designated portion of said future retirement payments without encumbering said beneficiary’s right to said future retirement payments and without violating legislated proscriptions in the United States against alienation of future retirement benefits;

e. causing said future retirement payments to be deposited into said account throughout said preselected period of time;

f. causing said depository to transfer a portion of said retirement payments deposited into said account to said benefit provider during said preselected period of time; and

g. reimbursing said benefit provider from resources other than said future retirement payments if said transfer of a portion of said retirement payments from said depository to said benefit provider are curtailed prior to said end of said preselected period of time, and making said retirement payments available for the exclusive use of said beneficiary.

The CBM Petition concluded:

Importantly, none of the claim steps is limited to performance on, or by, any specific device or computer. Indeed, no device or computer is needed at all, as all of the steps can be performed by a human.

(CBM Petition at p. 9.)

The Patent Owner (Retirement Capital Access Management Co. LLC) filed a Preliminary Response on July 2, 2013, arguing that the Petitioner failed to carry its burden of showing that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’582 patent is unpatentable under § 101, at least in part because:

 

  • the Petitioner cannot show “that, in practice, the claims cover the abstract concept itself”; and

  • the use of a computer as part of the specialized electronic funds transfer is not merely convenient, or done for the purpose of expediting calculations.

 

Despite these arguments, the Board granted institution of CBM review on September 20, 2013.  (CBM2013-00014, Paper 12, Sep. 20, 2013.)  A Patent Owner Response dated November 20, 2013 was filed that set forth the arguments from the Preliminary Response and provided an argument that § 101 is not a proper ground upon which a covered business method review may be maintained.  (Patent Owner Retirement Capital Access Management Company LLC’s Response, Paper 19, p. 37, Nov. 20, 2013.)  A Reply was filed by the Petitioner and an Oral Hearing was held on April 1, 2014.  No depositions were taken, based on the record in PRPS.

The Board issued a final written decision, dated Aug. 22, 2014, canceling each of the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  The Board dismissed Patent Owner’s assertion that CBM review cannot be premised on § 101, stating that the AIA allows for CBM reviews to include certain grounds of invalidity based on conditions for patentability, including § 101:

As recognized by the Supreme Court, § 101 is a condition for patentability. In Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 12 (1966), the Supreme Court stated that the 1952 Patent Act “sets out the conditions of patentability in three sections,” citing 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103. The Supreme Court has also addressed invalidity under § 101 when it was raised as a defense to an infringement claim under § 282. See Mayo Collaboration Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012).

(Decision at p. 9.)

What is also notable about this proceeding is that the CBM review didn’t include:

 

  • anticipation or obviousness grounds (and the necessary submissions of prior art),

  • an assertion of indefiniteness,

  • an expert declaration to support the CBM Petition, and

  • depositions of experts by either side.

 

Indeed, at 36 pages in length, the CBM Petition is roughly half the length allotted by the Board’s rules.  Thus, a relatively short record was produced in this CBM.  However, as covered in a previous post, this is not the only Petitioner to take advantage of this approach (See a similar approach in LinkedIn Corporation v. AvMarkets, Inc., CBM2013-00025.)

ARTICLE BY
Timothy Bianchi

OF
Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.

Facebook, Inc. v. Rembrandt Social Media, L.P., Granting Request for Rehearing IPR2014-00415

Drinker Biddle Law Firm

Takeaway: Compliance with Section 42.105(b) regarding service by electronic means or EXPRESS MAIL is not required under Section 42.106(a)(2) in order for a filing date to be accorded to a petition.

In its Decision, the Board granted Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing, but only to revisit the Board’s earlier statement regarding compliance with the requirements for service of a petition.

In its Decision on Institution, the Board had stated that “mailing via FedEx after the cut-off time on Thursday without electing Saturday delivery failed to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(b).” Patent Owner contended that the Board “misapprehend[ed] the regulatory nature of an alleged error in service of the Petition in this case,” and that the Board misapprehended “whether a failure to effect service on February 6, 2014, was ‘harmless.’”

The Board found Patent Owner’s arguments not persuasive but granted the Request for Rehearing to address the service of the Petition in this case. The Board determined that service of the Petition in this case complied with 37 C.F.R. § 42.106, which states that a filing date will not be accorded until “service of the petition on the correspondence address of record as provided in [§] 42.105(a).”  The Board stated that “Section 42.106(a)(2) does not require compliance with § 42.105(b) for a filing date to be accorded,” and that the Petition was properly accorded a February 6, 2014 filing date in this case.

Facebook, Inc. v. Rembrandt Social Media, L.P., IPR2014-00415
Paper 14:  Decision on Request for Rehearing
Dated: July 31, 2014
Patent: 6,415,316
Before: Phillip J. Kauffman, Jennifer S. Bisk, and Matthew R. Clements
Written by: Clements

ARTICLE BY

Intellectual Property Litigation Drinker Biddle
OF
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

First Written Decision Pertaining to Pharmaceuticals

ArmstrongTeasdale logo

Practitioners monitoring the use of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings to challenge pharmaceutical patents may want to note what appears to be a pair of first-time events.  The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently issued the first Final Written Decision in an IPR proceeding involving a pharmaceutical-related patent. In addition, the first petition for covered business method review challenging an Orange Book-listed patent for a marketed drug was recently filed.

On June 20, 2014, the PTAB issued Final Written Decisions in four related IPR proceedings (IPR2013-00116; IPR2013-00117; IPR2013-118; and IPR2013-00119)  involving U.S. Patent Nos.  5,997,915; 6,011,040; 6,673,381; and 7,172,778, respectively. The patents generally disclose compositions for supplementing dietary folate and the challenged claims were directed to compositions comprising natural isomers of reduced folates and corresponding methods of using such compositions.  Petitioner Gnosis SpA initiated the IPR proceedings after it was sued for infringement of the patents by a group of plaintiffs including Merck KGaA (licensee of three of the patents) and Merck & Cie (owner of the remaining patent).  The decision to challenge the patents in an IPR proceeding was a successful one for Gnosis as the PTAB found all of the challenged claims to be unpatentable, holding that certain claims were anticipated and the remaining claims were obvious.

Several days later, on June 24, 2014, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., and Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (Petitioners) filed a petition for covered business method of a patent listed in the Food and Drug Administration’s Orange Book for the prescription drug product Xyrem®, which is marketed by Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,895,059, generally discloses methods for controlling the distribution of, and access to, hazardous or abuse-prone drugs and the challenged claims are directed to “[a] computerized method of distributing a prescription drug under the exclusive control of an exclusive central pharmacy.”

Each of the Petitioners had previously filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application with the Food and Drug Administration seeking approval of a generic version of Xylem and been sued by Jazz for infringement of several Orange Book-listed patents including U.S. Patent No. 7,895,059. In their petition for covered business method review, the Petitioners asserted that the challenged method claims involve the verification of an insurance payment for the drug and therefore are related to a “financial product or service” (a requirement for covered business method review). Should the PTAB accept this argument and grant the petition, that determination could potentially encourage others to file petitions for covered business method review of additional Orange Book-listed patents containing similar “Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS)”-type claims.

Article By:

B. Scott Eidson
Of:
Armstrong Teasdale

Alice v. CLS Bank: Supreme Court Continues to Grope in Dark for Contours of Abstract Idea Exception

Schwegman Lundberg Woessner

In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (2014), the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the one-paragraph per curium opinion of the en banc Federal Circuit, which found all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,970,479, 6,912,510, 7,149,720, and 7,725,375 invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea.

The Court based its affirmance on an application of a two-step process outlined in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs, 566 U.S. ___ (2012). The first step is the determination of whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept such as a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. This step implicitly includes the identification of the concept at issue. The second step is to determine if the claims recite “an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.”

The Court avoided providing “the precise contours of the ‘abstract ideas’ category” by relying on the similarity between Alice’s claims for intermediated settlement and Bilski’s claims for hedging. The Court characterized the Bilski claims as “a method of organizing human activity.” Accordingly, while only three justices signed Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence, stating that “any claim that merely describes a method of doing business does not qualify as a ‘process’ under §101,” the unanimous decision does implicate business methods as likely directed to abstract ideas.

At the Federal Circuit, the splintered opinion included a four-judge dissent that argued that the system claims should be patent-eligible even though the method claims were not. The Supreme Court disagreed with this view, finding that if the system claims were treated differently under §101, “an applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social sciences by reciting a computer system configured to implement the relevant concept” which would “make the determination of patent eligibility depend simply on the draftsman’s art.” To convey patent-eligibility, the claims at issue must be “significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea … using some unspecified, generic computer.”

In my previous post regarding the oral argument before the Supreme Court, I noted that the Court seemed to be looking for reasonable and clear rules regarding the limits of the abstract idea exception to patentable subject matter, but did not get such a rule from any party. Perhaps as a result, this case was decided purely on its similarity to Bilski, and without providing much guidance as to the scope of the exception.

My thanks to Domenico Ippolito for this posting.

© 2014 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

Article By:

Steven Lundberg
Of:
Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.

Apple Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Dynamic Advances, LLC, Decision Denying Institution

DrinkerBiddle

Takeaway: A voluntary dismissal of a litigation without prejudice will not nullify service of a complaint for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) if that litigation is immediately continued in a consolidated case.

In its Decision, the Board denied institution of the Inter Partes Review as time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because it was not filed within the statutory period of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).  The date of service of two different complaints was an issue of primary focus by the Board.

In a first patent litigation, Patent Owner (Dynamic Advances) filed a complaint on October 19, 2012. Dynamic Advances, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 1:12-cv-01579-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y.)(Dynamic I).  The complaint for the first litigation was served on Petitioner (Apple) on October 23, 2012.  In a second patent litigation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Dynamic Advances jointly filed a complaint on June 3, 2013. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. & Dynamic Advances, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00633-DNH-DEP (N.D.N.Y.)(Dynamic II).  The complaint for the second litigation was served on Petitioner (Apple) on June 6, 2013.

The Petition in the instant proceeding was filed on January 3, 2014.  Thus, the service date of October 23, 2012 for the first litigation (Dynamic I) was more than 12 months prior to the filing of the Petition, whereas the service date of June 6, 2013 for the second litigation (Dynamic II) was less than 12 months prior to the filing date of the Petition.  The Board found that service of the first complaint on October 23, 2012, rather than service of the second complaint on June 6, 2013, controlled for purposes of determining whether the requested inter partes review was time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).  Because the service date of October 23, 2012 for the first litigation (Dynamic I) was more than 12 months prior to the filing of the Petition, the Board found that the Petition was not filed within the statutory period of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).

The Board’s rationale in reaching this conclusion related to the fact that on July 22, 2013, the court ordered consolidation of Dynamic I and Dynamic II under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42.  In doing so, the court ordered that pursuant to a joint stipulation of the parties, Dynamic I was “dismissed without prejudice and the parties would proceed to litigate their claims and defenses in [Dynamic II].”

Petitioner argued that under the decision in Macauto U.S.A. v. BOS GmbH & KG, IPR2012-0004 (“holding that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice nullified service of the complaint for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)”), service of the first complaint on October 23, 2012 was not effective.  According to Petitioner, as in Macauto, the facts of the present case have the effect of leaving the parties as if the first action had never been brought.

The Board disagreed, finding that “Dynamic I cannot be treated as if that case had never been filed under the rationale of Macauto.”  Instead, the Board found that it was “persuaded that the circumstances in the instant case weigh in favor of close scrutiny of the effect of the dismissal of Dynamic I, because that cause of action, although dismissed, was continued immediately in Dynamic II.”

This proceeding was the third time that Petitioner had petitioned for inter partes review against the ‘798 patent.  In IPR2014-00077, institution was denied.  IPR2014-00320 was filed concurrently with the petition for this proceeding.

Apple Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Dynamic Advances, LLC,IPR2014-00319
Paper 12: Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
Dated: June 12, 2014
Patent 7,177,798 B2
Before: Josiah C. Cocks, Bryan F. Moore, and Miriam L. Quinn
Written by: Moore
Related proceedings: IPR2014-00077; IPR2014-00320; Dynamic Advances, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 1:12-cv-01579-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y.); Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. & Dynamic Advances, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00633-DNH-DEP (N.D.N.Y.)

Article By:

Christopher Bruenjes
Of:
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Federal Circuit Issues Decision Affirming Obviousness of a Molecule Patent Claim

Katten Muchin

On June 12, 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming the obviousness of a patent claim directed to a drug molecule. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (2014). This is an example of the Federal Circuit holding a molecule patent invalid for obviousness.

The Federal Circuit upheld US District Court for the District of Delaware Magistrate Judge Christopher Burke’s opinion that held claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 5,206,244 invalid in light of a structurally similar molecule. Claim 8 covers the entecavir molecule, which is the active ingredient in BMS’ Baraclude® tablets, which are designed to treat hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Teva successfully argued that one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to make an anti-HBV drug in October 1990 would have selected a prior art compound called 2′-CDG as a “lead compound” and would have modified it by adding a methylene (i.e. carbon-carbon double bond) group as indicated in the diagram to the right, below.

Lead Compound

Relying on testimony from both parties’ experts and prior art publications, the Federal Circuit saw no error in the district court’s finding that 2′-CDG was a proper lead compound. There was sufficient evidence that one of ordinary skill would have studied carbocyclic nucleosides generally, and 2′-CDG specifically, as antiviral drugs, especially because BMS’ expert admitted that “medicinal chemists . . . were actually treating and using 2′-CDG as a lead compound” in the search for new antivirals. Slip. Op. at 9-10. BMS argued that 2′-CDG would not be a lead compound because it was discovered to be toxic after the filing date of the patent. Id. at 10. The Federal Circuit (and the district court) rejected BMS’ argument because in October 1990 (i.e. the date of the proper inquiry), “2′-CDG was not yet known to have high toxicity” and BMS’ expert agreed that researchers thought 2′-CDG was a promising compound at that time. Id. at 10.

Motivation to Modify

The Federal Circuit also found that the record amply supported the district court’s conclusion on motivation to modify 2′-CDG to make the patented compound, entecavir. Slip Op. at 11-14. For example, both parties’ experts agreed that chemists were making changes on the carbocyclic ring in the prior art, and Teva’s expert stated that such changes resulted in greater activity than changes elsewhere on the molecule. Id. at 12. Unrefuted expert testimony also explained that the modification would take place at the 2′ or 5′ position on the carbocyclic ring because small changes could easily be made only at these positions. Id. at 12. The experts also agreed that the skilled artisan would focus on the smallest elements for the substitution, and BMS’ expert stated that he would “rule out everything but the carbon.” Id.The Federal Circuit found no clear error in the district court’s finding that the modification required was a minor one based on the testimony of both parties’ experts and a prior art article teaching improved antiviral activity by addition of a methylene group to a carbocyclic nucleoside. Id. at 12-13.

Reasonable Expectation of Success

Based on the prior art and the structural similarity of 2′-CDG and entecavir, the Federal Circuit found no error in the district court’s finding of “reasonable expectation of success.” Id. at 14. In doing so, the Federal Circuit rejected a bright-line rule regarding reasonable expectation of success in new chemical entities proposed by BMS. Specifically, BMS had argued that the existence of unexpected properties forecloses a finding of a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 14. Citing its en banc In re Dillon decision, the Federal Circuit held that “unexpected results do not per se defeat, or prevent, the finding that a modification to a lead compound will yield expected, beneficial properties.” Id. at 15. Instead, the court found that unexpected results should be analyzed as secondary considerations of nonobviousness. Id.

Secondary Considerations

The Federal Circuit found no reversible errors in the district court’s analysis of secondary considerations of nonobviousness.[1] The Federal Circuit was deferential to the lower court’s factual findings regarding evidence of secondary considerations, including unexpected results. Id. at 18. The district court found that the results regarding entecavir’s high potency and large therapeutic window were not entirely unexpected because it was known in the prior art that 2′-CDG was effective against HBV and had a good therapeutic window. Id. They were differences of degree, not kind. Id. While the district court credited entecavir’s high barrier to resistance as an unexpected property, the three properties taken together were not sufficient to support nonobviousness. Id. at 17-18.

Article By:

Robert B. Breisblatt
Christopher B. Ferenc
Jeffrey A. Finn
Samson Helfgott
Martin S. Masar III, PhD
Hassan Abbas Shakir
Of:
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

[1] The Federal Circuit found that the district court made two legal errors (albeit harmless ones) in assessing unexpected results because it: (1) compared entecavir to another HBV drug on the market and not the closest prior art, 2′-CDG, and (2) looked at what the inventor knew, not a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 18-19. The Federal Circuit also found no error in the lower court’s findings on commercial success and long-felt need. Id. at 19.

U.S. Supreme Court Makes It Easier To Avoid Method Patents Requiring Multiple Actors

Neal Gerber

On June 2, 2014, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that a defendant was not liable for inducing infringement of a patented method where there is no direct infringement because the method steps are “divided” between the defendant and its customers. See Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., No. 12–786. The Court was reviewing a 6-5 en banc decision from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that held a party might be liable for inducing infringement under 35 USC 271(b) where a defendant carried out some steps and encouraged others (such as its customers) to carry out the remaining steps. In other words, the performance of the method steps was divided between a party and its customers, so the party could be liable for inducing the performance of the remaining steps it did not perform itself.  The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment against Limelight, reasoning that there could be no liability for inducing infringement if no party directly infringed.

The Supreme Court relied on a prior decision by the Federal Circuit that there is no direct infringement of a method claim unless a single party performs every step of a claimed method or exercises “control or direction” over the entire process such that every step is attributable to that party. See Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Muniauction held that there was no direct infringement of a patented method when its distinct steps were performed by “mere arms-length cooperation” between parties. In Limelight, the Supreme Court “assumed” that Muniauction’s holding was correct but observed that the Federal Circuit could revisit it when the Limelight decision was remanded.

Both Limelight and Muniauction involved client-server scenarios for web-based businesses and cloud-based application services, but this decision has broad implications across a variety of fields, such as personalized or precision medicine.  For example, a patented method directed to diagnosing and treating a disease would not be infringed where a laboratory provides the diagnosis and the treating physician does not exercise “control or direction” over the steps performed by the laboratory.

Until Muniauction is further defined, the Court has returned the law to its state prior to the Federal Circuit’s Akamai holding, where liability turned on whether a single infringer exhibited sufficient “control or direction” over steps performed by others; if not, no one is liable for patent infringement.  For would-be infringers, this potentially provides a useful defense.  For patent applicants, it is a reminder to draft method claims in a manner such that all actions can be taken by a single entity.

Article By:

Michael B. Harlin
James P. Muraff
Kevin A. O’Connor Ph.D.
Mike R. Turner
Of:
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP

Supreme Court Nixes "Amorphous" Federal Circuit Indefiniteness Standard

ArmstrongTeasdale logo

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday reversed long-standing Federal Circuit precedent, replacing the test used to determine whether a patent is indefinite with a new reasonable certainty standard (NAUTILUS, INC. v. BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS, INC., No. 13–369 (S. Ct. June 2, 2014).

The new reasonable certainty test raises the bar on the “clarity and precision” with whichpatents must be written. As a consequence, the burden on accused infringers attempting to invalidate patents based on ambiguous language is lowered. This new standard will prove especially helpful in the ongoing battle against patent trolls, who often wield portfolios of ambiguous or overly broad patents in an attempt to extract licensing fees. Tech companies, including Google, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc., which are frequent targets of patent trolls, urged the Supreme Court to adopt the “reasonable certainty” standard.

The new standard will also require more precision in drafting and prosecuting patent applications. Exactly how precise language will need to be remains to be seen, but the Court explained that the old standard incentivized patent applicants and practitioners to “inject ambiguity” into their claims. The new standard was established, in part, to eliminate this incentive. The Court commented that patent practitioners are in the best position to resolve ambiguity in patent claims. In light of the Supreme Court’s admonition, patent applicants and practitioners seeking broad coverage of their inventions should use language no broader than necessary to adequately cover their inventions.

The Supreme Court’s decision stemmed from a dispute between Biosig Instruments and Nautilus, Inc. Biosig sued Nautilus for infringement of a patented heart monitor for exercise machines, which registered electrical waves to estimate a user’s heart rate. Nautilus convinced the trial court that Biosig’s patent was invalid as indefinite. Applying its “insolubly ambiguous” test, the Federal Circuit found the patent valid. Biosig sought review by the Supreme Court.

Justice Ginsberg delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. As embodied in the Patent Act, a patent must include “one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant claims as his invention.”

This notice requirement is satisfied, the Court held, where the claims of the patent, read in light of the specification and prosecution history, informs with reasonable certainty those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Like any property right, the boundaries of the patent monopoly should be clear. The failure to afford the public clear notice of what is claimed, “thereby appris[ing] the public of what is still open to them,” chills innovation by creating a risk of infringement in “zones of uncertainty.”

The High Court remanded the case with instructions that the Federal Circuit should no longer employ the “insolubly ambiguous” or “amenable to construction” tests of patent claim indefiniteness under 35 USC § 112, ¶ 2. These words can “leave courts and the patent bar at sea without a reliable compass.” While noting that the Supreme Court does not “micromanage the Federal Circuit’s particular word choice” in applying patent-law doctrines, Justice Ginsberg wrote, “we must ensure that the Federal Circuit’s test is at least ‘probative of the essential inquiry.’”

The Federal Circuit test, according to the High Court, “invoked a standard more amorphous than the statutory definiteness requirement allows.” In addition to breeding lower court confusion, the discredited “insolubly ambiguous” standard tolerated “some ambiguous claims but not others….” The Court’s new reasonable certainty standard requires more definite claim language.

Article By:

David W. Harlan
Jessica M. Mendez
Patrick Coyle
Samir R. Mehta
Of:
Armstrong Teasdale

Supreme Court Makes Landmark Rulings on Attorney Fees in Patent Cases

Andrews Kurth

On April 29th,  the U.S. Supreme Court made it much easier to recover attorney fees in patent lawsuits, issuing two unanimous landmark decisions overruling Federal Circuit precedent. The statute at issue, 35 U.S.C. §285, allows for the court to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in “exceptional cases.” Since its decision in Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Int’l, Inc., 393 F. 3d 1378, 1381 (2005), the  Federal Circuit has held that exceptional cases are those cases which are proven by clear and convincing evidence to be both “objectively baseless” and “brought in subjective bad faith.” Also, in the past several years, the Federal Circuit has reviewed the objectively baseless element of its test for exceptional cases de novo without deference to the district courts. Today’s decisions have rejected all these principles. In doing so, the two decisions continue the Supreme Court’s series of cases overturning Federal Circuit principles in patent cases that may be viewed as at odds with principles applied in analogous circumstances in non-patent cases. These decisions also undoubtedly will compel litigants to re-consider their exposure to fee awards and how to approach requests for fee awards.

In Octane Fitness LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness Inc., case number 12-1184, the Court overruled Federal Circuit precedent that “[a] case may be deemed exceptional” under §285 only in two limited circumstances: “when there has been some material inappropriate conduct,” or when the litigation is both “brought in subjective bad faith” and “objectively baseless.”  Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc., v. Dutailier Int’l, Inc., 393 F. 3d 1378, 1381 (2005). The Supreme Court pointed out that, in the five decades following the adoption of §285, both before and after the creation of the Federal Circuit, the courts had applied the statute “in a discretionary manner, assessing various factors to determine whether a given case was sufficiently “exceptional” to warrant a fee award.” It found that since the Brooks Furniture case in 2005, the Federal Circuit “abandoned that holistic, equitable approach in favor of a more rigid and mechanical formulation.” Continuing its tradition of mining copyright cases for analogous principles (and mining patent cases similarly in copyright cases), the Supreme Court pointed to its decision in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 114 S.Ct. 1023 (1994) and to dictionary definitions of the word “exceptional,” the Supreme Court held that:

an “exceptional” case is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated. District courts may determine whether a case is “exceptional” in the case-by-case exercise of their discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances. As in the comparable context of the Copyright Act, “[t]here is no precise rule or formula for making these determinations,’ but instead equitable discretion should be exercised ‘in light of the considerations we have identified.” (quoting Fogerty).

The Supreme Court also rejected the “clear and convincing” evidentiary hurdle established by the Federal Circuit to recovering fees under §285. In doing so, the Court stated:

We have not interpreted comparable fee-shifting statutes to require proof of entitlement to fees by clear and convincing evidence.…And nothing in § 285 justifies such a high standard of proof. Section 285 demands a simple discretionary inquiry; it imposes no specific evidentiary burden, much less such a high one. Indeed, patent-infringement litigation has always been governed by a preponderance of the evidence standard….

In the companion case of Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems Inc., case number 12-1163, the Court also dealt with attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. Again, the Court rejected Federal Circuit precedent and held that decisions to award attorneys’ fees are not reviewed de novo by the Federal Circuit. In doing so, the Court stated “that an appellate court should apply an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing all aspects of a district court’s §285 determination.” Here again, the Supreme Court pointed to principles that other non-patent cases had applied in similar situations:

Traditionally, decisions on “questions of law” are “reviewable de novo,” decisions on “questions of fact” are “reviewable for clear error,” and decisions on “matters of discretion” are “reviewable for abuse of discretion.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 558, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988). For reasons we explain inOctane, the determination whether a case is “exceptional” under § 285 is a matter of discretion. And as in our prior cases involving similar determinations, the exceptional-case determination is to be reviewed only for abuse of discretion…As in Pierce, the text of the statute “emphasizes the fact that the determination is for the district court,” which “suggests some deference to the district court upon appeal,”….As in Pierce, “as a matter of the sound administration of justice,” the district court “is better positioned” to decide whether a case is exceptional…because it lives with the case over a prolonged period of time. And as in Pierce, the question is “multifarious and novel,” not susceptible to “useful generalization” of the sort that de novo review provides, and “likely to profit from the experience that an abuse-of-discretion rule will permit to develop.

Over the past several years, the Supreme Court has overturned Federal Circuit precedent that applied idiosyncratic rules in patent cases when other non-patent cases dealing with similar matters have generally applied other rules. These two cases continue in the same vein, sending a clear message that patent cases are not so exceptional, at least as to common procedural matters, as to warrant special rules.

It is uncertain what impact these decisions will have on the number of patent cases being brought or on the types of patent cases brought. It is also uncertain how many more cases will be the subject of attorney fee awards. Nonetheless, today’s decisions should provide district court judges with confidence that fees awarded in the proper circumstances will be upheld on appeal.

It also remains to be seen what impact these decisions will have on legislation aimed squarely at non-practicing entities (“NPEs”) that is currently making its way through Congress. The Innovation Act, which has been passed by the House, specifically provides for fee shifting through which a court may force the losing party to pay the winning party’s attorney’s fees and/or costs. Such a change would represent a fundamental shift in the U.S. litigation principle that each side ordinarily pays its own fees and costs. Perhaps the Senate, which is debating a reduced version of the Innovation Act, will consider the Supreme Court’s decisions as sufficiently empowering the district courts to address abusive patent-litigation practices and will drop fee shifting from the Innovation Act. Click here for more information about the Innovation Act.

Article By:

Jeff C. Dodd
Gregory L. Porter
Sean S. Wooden
Of:
Andrews Kurth

PTO Litigation Center Report – April 11, 2014

Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox

Listed below are all new filings before PTAB of requests for inter partes review (IPR) and covered business methods review (CBM).  Also listed are any newly-posted requests for ex parte reexamination at the USPTO.  This listing is current as of 9:45 AM on Friday, April 11, 2014.

New IPR Requests

Trial Number – IPR2014-00604
Filing Date – 4/10/2014
Patent # – 6,896,775
Title – HIGH-POWER PULSED MAGNETICALLY ENHANCED PLASMA PROCESSING
Assignee –  ZOND, INC.
Petitioner – THE GILLETTE COMPANY
Status – Pending
Tech Center – 1700

Trial Number – IPR2014-00605
Filing Date – 4/10/2014
Patent # – 7,348,723
Title – EMISSION DEVICE, SURFACE LIGHT SOURCE DEVICE, DISPLAY AND LIGHT FLUX CONTROL MEMBER
Assignee –  ENPLAS CORPORATION
Petitioner – Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd.
Status – Pending
Tech Center – 2800

Trial Number – IPR2014-00606
Filing Date – 4/10/2014
Patent # – 6,833,404
Title – HOT MELTS UTILIZING A HIGH GLASS TRANSITION TEMPERATURE SUBSTANTIALLY ALIPHATIC TACKIFYING RESIN
Assignee –  H.B. FULLER COMPANY
Petitioner – HENKEL CORPORATION
Status – Pending
Tech Center – 1700

Trial Number – IPR2014-00607
Filing Date – 4/10/2014
Patent # – 7,870,249
Title – NETWORKED SYSTEM FOR INTERACTIVE COMMUNICATION AND REMOTE MONITORING OF INDIVIDUALS
Assignee –  ROBERT BOSCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.
Petitioner – Medtronic, Inc.
Status – Pending
Tech Center – 2400

Trial Number – IPR2014-00610
Filing Date – 4/10/2014
Patent # – 7,490,151
Title – ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECURE COMMUNICATION LINK BASED ON A DOMAIN NAME SERVICE (DNS) REQUEST
Assignee –  VIRNETX INC.
Petitioner – Microsoft Corporation
Status – Pending
Tech Center – 2100

New CBM Review Requests

Trial Number – CBM2014-00115
Filing Date – 4/10/2014
Patent # – 7,970,674
Title – AUTOMATICALLY DETERMINING A CURRENT VALUE FOR A REAL ESTATE PROPERTY, SUCH AS A HOME, THAT IS TAILORED TO INPUT FROM A HUMAN USER, SUCH AS ITS OWNER
Assignee –  ZILLOW, INC.
Petitioner – TRULIA, INC.
Status – Pending
Tech Center – 3600

Newly-Posted Reexam Requests

Control # – 90/013,207
Date – 4/10/2014
Patent # – 7,489,423
Inventor –  Nachman, Marvin J. et al.
Assignee –  INFINITY COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC.
Title – INTERFACE CIRCUIT FOR UTILIZING A FACSIMILE MACHINE COUPLED TO A PC AS A SCANNER OR PRINTER
Co-pending Litigation – Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-06796-LDD (E.D. Pa.) and 11 other litigations.

Control # – 90/013,208
Date – 4/10/2014
Patent # – 6,894,811
Inventor –  Nachman, Bruce G. et al.
Assignee –  INFINITY COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC.
Title – INTERFACE CIRCUIT FOR UTILIZING A FACSIMILE COUPLED TO A PC AS A SCANNER OR PRINTER
Co-pending Litigation – Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-06796-LDD (E.D. Pa.) and 11 other litigations.

Control # – 90/013,209
Date – 4/10/2014
Patent # – 8,040,574
Inventor –  Nachman, Bruce G. et al.
Assignee –  INFINITY COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC.
Title – INTERFACE CIRCUIT FOR UTILIZING A FACSIMILE MACHINE TO A PC AS A SCANNER OR PRINTER
Co-pending Litigation – Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-06796-LDD (E.D. Pa.) and 11 other litigations.

Control # – 90/013,210
Date – 4/10/2014
Patent # – 8,294,915
Inventor –  Nachman, Bruce G. et al.
Assignee –  INFINITY COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC.
Title – INTERFACE CIRCUIT FOR UTILIZING A FACSIMILE MACHINE COUPLED TO A PC AS A SCANNER OR PRINTER
Co-pending Litigation – Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-06796-LDD (E.D. Pa.) and 11 other litigations.

Article By:

PTO Litigation Center
Of:
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.