The purpose of the patent system is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. It does so in two ways: First, it incentives invention by providing inventors exclusive rights to new inventions for a limited time. Second, it encourages disclosure and provides a database of information in the form of millions of technical disclosures about all sorts of topics. It is amazing what you can learn from patents, and one such fun fact appropriate for today is that the last name of Punxsutawney Phil, the hero of the day, is Sowerby! This fun fact appears in U.S. Patent No. 10296823, which in Col. 34, lines 21-30, explains the difference between connection and dependency with a Groundhog Day Example:
February is Black History Month, honoring the triumphs and struggles of African Americans throughout U.S. history. Among these triumphs are the inventions black inventors have contributed, many of which were not recognized with a patent because the Patent Acts of 1793 and 1836 barred slaves from obtaining patents because they were not considered citizens. It was not until the Patent Act of 1870 that “any person or persons” having discovered or invented any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement on any art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter could apply for and obtain a patent. The breadth and importance of inventions contributed by black inventors is one of the best examples of the value of diversity:
Dry Cleaning
Most historians agree that the first U.S. patent that issued to a black inventor was U.S. Patent No. X3306, issued to Thomas L. Jennings over two hundred years ago on March 3, 1821, on dry scouring — a method of dry cleaning.
Planter
The second patent that issued to a black inventor was U.S. Patent No. 8447X, issued to Henry Blair (inventor) – Wikipedia on a (Corn) Seed Planter. He also received U.S. Patent No. 15 on a Corn Planter.
Locomotive Lubricators
Elijah McCoy, was a prolific inventor. Among his 57 U.S. patents was U.S. Patent No. 129843 for Improvements in Lubricators for Steam-Engines, on July 28, 1872. It is reputed that his invention was so often duplicated, that people began asking for the “real McCoy.”
Uses for Peanuts
George Washington Carver was a famous scientist and prolific inventors, although he only patented two of his inventions, U.S. Patent 1,522,176, on Cosmetic and Process of Producing the Same, and U.S. Patent 1,632,365, on Process of Producing Paints and Stains.
In Nature Simulation Systems Inc. v. Autodesk, Inc., [2020-2257](January 27, 2022), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgement that U.S. Patent Nos. 10,120,961 and 10,109,105, both entitled “Method for Immediate Boolean Operations Using Geometric Facets” were not invalid for indefiniteness.
The patents are for data structures and algorithms for the claimed method, which is described as a modification of a the Watson method a Boolean operation published in 1981 for analyzing and representing three-dimensional geometric shapes. There were two claim elements that the district court determined made the claims indefinite: “searching neighboring triangles of the last triangle pair that holds the last intersection point”; and “modified Watson method.” The district court held the claims indefinite based on the “unanswered questions” that were suggested by Autodesk’s expert.
In finding the claims indefinite, the district court declined to consider information in the specification that was not included in the claims. The Federal Circuit found that the district court misperceived the function of patent claims. The Federal Circuit also found that the applicant, in consultation with the examiner, amended the claim to add the disputed language. The Federal Circuit noted that the district court gave no weight to the prosecution history showing the resolution of indefiniteness by adding the designated technologic limitations to the claims. The court did not discuss the Examiner’s Amendment, and held that since Dr. Aliaga’s questions were not answered, the claims are invalid.
The Federal Circuit said that “[a]ctions by PTO examiners are entitled to appropriate deference as official agency actions, for the examiners are deemed to be experienced in the relevant technology as well as the statutory requirements for patentability.” The Federal Circuit added “[t]he subject matter herein is an improvement on the known Watson and Delaunay methods, and partakes of known usages for established technologies. Precedent teaches that when ‘the general approach was sufficiently well established in the art and referenced in the patent’ this ‘render[ed] the claims not indefinite.’”
The Federal Circuit concluded that ‘[I]ndefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 was not established as a matter of law,” and reversed the district court.
In Evolusion Concepts, Inc. v. HOC Events, Inc., [2021-1963] (January 14, 2022) the Federal Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,756,845 on a “Method and Device for Converting Firearm with Detachable Magazine to a Firearm with Fixed Magazine,” , reversed the denial of summary judgment of direct infringement as to the independent claims 1 and 8, and remanded for further proceedings.
The district court held that the term “magazine catch bar” in the asserted claims of the ’845 patent excludes a factory installed magazine catch bar. Claim 15 requires removing “the factory installed magazine catch bar” and then installing “a magazine catch bar.” From this, the district the court concluded that the magazine catch bar that is installed must be “separate and distinct from the factory-installed magazine catch bar”; otherwise, “factory-installed” would be superfluous. Because a term that appears in multiple claims should be given the same meaning in all those claims, the court held that the term “magazine catch bar” in claims 1 and 8 similarly must exclude a factory-installed magazine catch bar. This claim construction precluded literal infringement because Juggernaut’s products use the factory-installed magazine catch bar. The court also determined that Juggernaut does not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents.
The Federal Circuit noted that the principle that the same phrase in different claims of the same patent should have the same meaning is a strong one, overcome only if it is clear that the same phrase has different meanings in different claims. The Federal Circuit noted that while claim 15 was directed to a method, claims 1 and 8 claimed a firearm and a device, respectively. The Federal Circuit said that nothing in the language of claims 1 and 8 limits the scope of the generic term “magazine catch bar” to exclude one that was factory installed—specifically, as Juggernaut asserts, factory installed as part of an original firearm with a detachable magazine.
The Federal Circuit said that Juggernaut was correct that the meaning of the term in claims 1 and 8 could well be informed by a meaning of the term made sufficiently clear in claim 15, but Juggernaut was incorrect that the use of “magazine catch bar” in claim 15 narrows the meaning of the term to support the urged exclusion of factory-installed magazine catch bars. The Federal Circuit agreed that claim 15 required removing a factory installed magazine catch but it did not require discarding that catch bar, or installing a different catch bar. The Federal Circuit concluded that the specification supports the ordinary-meaning interpretation of “magazine catch bar.” The Federal Circuit said the specification nowhere limits the scope of a “magazine catch bar” to exclude factory-installed ones from the assembly that achieves the fixed-magazine goal.
Juggernaut argued that the disclosed embodiments do not illustrate OEM magazine catch bars, but the Federal Circuit said that cannot make a difference in this case. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that “it is not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation to limit claims beyond their plain meaning.” The Federal Circuit thus construe the term “magazine catch bar” according to its ordinary meaning, which includes a factory installed magazine catch bar.
In Novaritis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., [2021-1070](January 3, 2021) the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405 on a treatment for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (“RRMS”), is not invalid and that HEC’s Abbreviated New Drug Application infringes.
The’405 patent claimed a daily dosage of fingolimod “absent an immediately preceding loading dose,” which HEC challenged as lacking written description. The district court found sufficient written description in the EAE model and the Prophetic Trial, neither of which recited a loading dose.
On appeal, HEC attacked the expert testimony underlying the district court’s determination that the EAE experiment describes a 0.5 mg daily human dose as “undisclosed mathematical sleights of hand.” The Federal Circuit disagreed, noting a disclosure need not recite the claimed invention in haec verba. The disclosure need only clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed. The Federal Circuit said that to accept HEC’s argument would require it to ignore the perspective of the person of ordinary skill in the art and require literal description of every limitation, in violation of our precedent. The Federal Circuit found no clear error in the district court’s reliance on expert testimony in finding description of the 0.5 mg daily human dose in the EAE experiment results.
The Federal Circuit also rejected HEC’s challenge to the negative limitation “absent an immediately preceding loading dose.” The Federal Circuit began by noting that it was well established that there is no “new and heightened standard for negative claim limitations.” Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Court said that negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Adding that a specification that describes a reason to exclude the relevant negative limitation is but one way in which the written description requirement may be met. The Federal Circuit said that the written description requirement is satisfied where the essence of the original disclosure conveys the necessary information—regardless of how it conveys such information, and regardless of whether the disclosure’s words are open to different interpretations.
The Federal Circuit pointed to expert testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the examples to exclude a loading does, so the specification’s apparent silence provided adequate written description of the negative limitation. The Court concluded that written description in this case, as in all cases, is a factual issue. In deciding that the district court did not clearly err in finding written description for the negative limitation in the ’405 patent, the court said that it was not establishing a new legal standard that silence is disclosure. The Federal Circuit said that it was merely holding that on the record before it, the district court did not clearly err in finding that a skilled artisan would read the ’405 patent’s disclosure to describe the “absent an immediately preceding loading dose” negative limitation.
In Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., [2020-1664] (December 28, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed the final written decision of the originally challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,229,043, but vacated and remanded as to the substitute claims.
The Federal Circuit addressed first considered the phrase “radio frequency input signal” in ’043 patent claims 17, 19, and 21. Intel argued that the term should be given its ordinary meaning, while Qualcomm argued for a more specific construction. The Federal Circuit noted that ‘[e]ven without considering the surrounding claim language or the rest of the patent document, . . .it is not always appropriate to break down a phrase and give it an interpretation that is merely the sum of its parts.” The Federal Circuit said that the surrounding language points in favor of Qualcomm’s construction, adopted by the Board. The Federal Circuit said the linguistic clues suggested that “radio frequency input signal,” to the relevant audience, refers to the signal entering the device as a whole, not (as Intel proposes) to any radio frequency signal entering any component. The Federal Circuit said that the specification provides further support for the Board’s reading.
The Federal Circuit concluded that in sum, while Intel’s interpretation may have superficial appeal, Qualcomm’s better reflects the usage of “radio frequency input signal” in the intrinsic record, and affirmed it.
On the question of obviousness, the Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s determination that a skilled artisan would have lacked reason to combine the prior art to achieve substitute claims 27, 28, and 31. The Federal Circuit rejected the Board’s rationale for determining that it would not have been obvious to combine the references. The Federal Circuit noted that a rationale is not inherently suspect merely because it’s generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal.
Merry Christmas, and warm wishes that you can celebrate safely and happily with your friends and family, Celebrating Christmas is a long standing tradition, and the U.S. patent collection documents a steady stream of inventive effort to make Christmas happier and safer. Once of the earliest references to Chistmas in the patent collection is this patent from 1867 on a candllestick for a Christmas tree:
A few years later, an improved Candle Holder was patented with a more patriotic bent:
The fascination with open flames continued, and later that same year, a patent issued on a candle-powered Rotating Christmas Tree:
By 1872, someone finally came up with the idea of at least enclosing the flame in a Wax-Lantern, no doubt saving many trees (and Christmases):
However, candles remained in use and efforts continued to improve them in the 1870’s and 1880’s:
It wasn’t until 1891, when its was proposed to apply electric lighting to Christmas trees:
Best wishes to all for a happy holiday season, and an innovative 2022.
The patent collection is an underused resource for solutions, and yes, it contains a solution to the biggest problem of the day. Back in 1980, Lucy Barmby invented a solution to overeating on Thanksgiving (and every other day):
Lucy Barmby’s U.S. Patent No. 4,344,424 on an Anti-Eating Face Mask.
Lucy may have solved the problem of turkey and pecan pie, but it looks as if gravy is still a threat. Beware, and have a happy holiday with family and friends.
In Indivior UK Limited v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A., [2020-2073, 2020-2142] (November 24, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision in an IPR that claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 are unpatentable, and that DRL failed to demonstrate unpatentability of claim 8.
The ’454 patent, which generally describes orally dissolvable films containing therapeutic agents. The ’454 patent issued as the fifth continuation of U.S. Patent Application 12/537,571, which was filed on August 7, 2009. This appeal involves the question whether Indivior can get the benefit of that 2009 filing date for the claims of the ‘454 patent, and in particular support for the claimed ranges:
Claims
Range
Claim 1
about 40 wt % to about 60 wt %
Claim 7
about 48.2 wt % to about 58.6 wt %
Claim 8
about 48.2 wt %
Claim 12
about 48.2 wt % to about 58.6 wt %
Invidior pointed out that Tables 1 and 5 of the ‘571 application disclose formulations with 48.2 wt % and 58.6 wt % polymer, and discloses that “the film composition contains a film forming polymer in an amount of at least 25% by weight of the composition.” Indivior argued that the combination of these disclosures encompasses the claimed ranges, and therefore provides a written description of them. DRL contended that a skilled artisan would not have discerned the claimed ranges because the ’571 application does not disclose any bounded range, only a lower endpoint and some exemplary formulations. DRL contended that a skilled artisan would not have discerned any upper range endpoint.
Regarding claim 1, the Federal Circuit agreed with the Board that there was no written description support in the ’571 application for the range of “about 40 wt % to about 60 wt %,” noting that the range was not expressly claimed in the ’571 application; and that the values of “40 wt %” and “60 wt %” are not stated in the ’571 application.
Regarding claims 7 and 12, the Federal Circuit also agreed with the Board that there is no written description support for the range of “about 48.2 wt % to about 58.6 wt %” in the ’571 application, noting that this range also does not appear in the ’571 application. While the endpoints of this “range” could be discerned from the Tables, the Federal Circuit said that constructing a range from this data “amounts to cobbling together numbers after the fact.” The Federal Circuit said that Indivior failed to provide persuasive evidence demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill would have understood from reading the ’571 application that it disclosed an invention with a range of 48.2 wt % to 58.6 wt %.
Because Indivior did not contest that the claims would be anticipated without the benefit of the 2009 filing date the court affirmed the invaldity of the challenged claims, except claim 8, whose single data point was supported by the disclosure of the ‘571 patent.
This result is of course concerning to chemical practitioners who have or may one day fine the need to construct a range from disclosed datapoints. The Federal Circuit’s assurances that each case is fact specific is of little comfort if one find themselves in this predicament. The bottom line is if ranges are intended, ranges should be mentioned. It is unlikely that Invidior ever contemplated that the invention only worked at selected points, and not in between, Invidior apparently needed to make explicit what it thought was implicit. The issue in Invidior is not a problem in claiming ranges, but a problem in making clear that you are claiming ranges.
In Rohm Semiconductor USA LLC v. Maxpower Semiconductor, Inc., [2021-1709] (November 12, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision compelling arbitration and dismissing ROHM USA’s declaratory judgment action without prejudice.
In 2007, ROHM Japan and MaxPower entered into a technology license agreement (“TLA”). Under the TLA, ROHM Japan and its subsidiaries (collectively “ROHM”) were permitted “to use certain power [metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistors (‘MOSFET’)]-related technologies of” MaxPower (“Licensor”) developed under a Development and Stock Purchase Agreement in exchange for royalties paid to MaxPower. The TLA, as amended in 2011, includes an agreement to arbitrate “[a]ny dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of or in relation to this Agreement or at law, or the breach, termination, or validity thereof.” The arbitration agreement provides that arbitration is to be conducted “in accordance with the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure” (“CCCP”).
In 2019, a dispute arose between ROHM Japan and MaxPower concerning whether the TLA covers ROHM’s silicon carbide MOSFET products. In September 2020, MaxPower notified ROHM Japan of its intent to initiate arbitration. Shortly thereafter, on September 23, 2020, ROHM USA, a subsidiary of ROHM Japan, filed suit.
Rohm USA argued that the CCCP is ambiguous, containing two apparently conflicting provisions regarding who determines arbitrability, but the district court found, and the Federal Circuit agreed, that the provisions were not in conflict, and the provision allowing the arbitrator to determine arbitribility controlled.
Rohm USA further argued that even if §1297.161 applies, it states that “[t]he arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction,” which Rohm USA says it merely allows the parties to agree to waive a court determination, which ROHM USA does not want to do. The Federal Circuit disagreed, noting that while Rohm USA is correct that “may” is generally a permissive verb, “may” as used in §1297.161 does not mean “may also,” as ROHM USA urges. MaxPower’s interpretation of the permissive “may” as “may, if arbitrability is disputed,” makes much more sense in this context.
Thus the court concluded that the Arbitrator should determine whether the dispute was arbitrable.
