Dear Santa . . .

Posted on by

Dear Santa:

I’ve been a good patent lawyer this year, and always comply with Rule 56.  For all of the inventors we represent, I was hoping that this Christmas you would bring:

  1. A new 35 USC §101.  The Supreme Court broke the one we had.  We need a law that protects all inventions, and doesn’t exclude a whole class of inventions merely because they can be reduced to a simple-sounding concept.  A method that includes at least one non-mental step is not abstract.  It may not be novel, it may not be non-obvious, but it is not abstract.  Likewise, a product or machine is never abstract.
  2. A new  35 USC §102.  Although  the one we have is just a few years old, it never worked right.  The most fundamental concept of any patent system is prior art, yet we don’t have clarity about what is or what is not prior art.  Does a sale or use have to be disclosing or is the fact that the sale or use is known enough?  Does “secret” prior art apply to obviousness?  These are things we need to know.
  3. A new 35 USC §311 that is more fair to patent owners.  Inter Partes Review may be here to stay, but the process can be unfair to patent owners.  There is no standing requirement — a petition can be filed even if the patent owner has not asserted or even threatened to assert the patent.  A patent owner can be subjected to multiple proceeding, sometimes simultaneously, and even if the patent owner wins there is essentially no estoppel against relitigating validity in the courts.  Even after litigation is started, an accused infringer can use Inter Partes Review to change the claim construction (BRI) and the burden of proof (preponderance).  What happened to the presumption of validity.  You and your elves have a lot of work to fix this.
  4. If it fits in your bag, how about a presumption in favor of an injunction? The Constitution promised exclusive rights, but the Supreme Court seems to think otherwise.  How about limiting claims to what is disclosed and enabled in their accompanying specification, instead of invalidating claims to important inventions under §112?

Thanks, Santa, and Merry Christmas!

Whether Third Party Acts are Attributable to Infringer in a Divided Infringement Situation is Question of Fact

Posted on by

Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, [2016-2386, 2016-2387, 2016-2714, 2017-1025] (December 19, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated summary judgment of non-infringement, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Travel Sentry directs or controls the performance of certain steps of the claimed methods.

The case involved U.S. Patent Nos. 7,021,537 and 7,036,728 directed to
methods of improving airline luggage inspection through the use of dual-access locks.  The infringement claim hinged on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Travel Sentry in the TSA.  The district court found that this did not evidence sufficient control by Travel Sentry to constitute infringement.

The Federal Circuit noted that in Akamai V, it affirmed the principle that “[d]irect infringement under § 271(a) occurs where all steps of a claimed method are performed by or attributable to a single entity,” and held that an entity is responsible for others’ performance of method steps where
that entity directs or controls others’ performance or where the actors form a joint enterprise.  The Federal Circuit further noted that liability under § 271(a) could be found when an alleged infringer ‘conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a
patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance.

The Federal Circuit said that the district court reasoned that summary judgment was appropriately awarded to Travel Sentry and its licensees
because there was simply no evidence that Travel Sentry had any influence whatsoever on the third and fourth steps of the method carried out by the TSA, let alone that it masterminded the entire patented process.  In so doing the district court incorrectly found that Akamai V did not expand the scope of direct infringement under § 271(a), and did “not disturb the BMC Res./Muniauction test.”

The Federal Circuit reiterated that under Akamai V, “liability under § 271(a) can also be found when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that  performance,”  and reiterated that whether a single actor directed or controlled the acts of one or more third parties is a question of fact.

The Federal Circuit pointed to its recent application of § 271(a)  in Eli Lilly v. Teva Parenteral Medicines.  Based upon the reasoning in Akamai V and Eli Lilly, the Federal Circuit said that a reasonable jury could conclude that TSA’s performance of the final two claim steps is attributable to Travel
Sentry such that Travel Sentry is liable for direct infringement under § 271(a).  The Federal Circuit found that the district erred in three respects:

First, it misidentified the relevant “activity” at issue, broadly defining it as “the luggage screening mandated by Congress,” rather than more specifically as “screening luggage that TSA knows can be opened
with the passkeys provided by Travel Sentry.”  Second, the district court misapprehended what types of “benefits” can satisfy Akamai V’s first prong, noting that the jury could find that the ability to open identifiable luggage using a master key, which would obviate the need to break open the lock, was a sufficient benefit.  Third, the court mischaracterized what is required for one to “condition” a third party’s participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit on the third party’s performance of one or more claim steps.

Under the second Akamai prong, the Federal Circuit also found that, drawing all justifiable inferences in Tropp’s favor, a reasonable jury could find that Travel Sentry has established the manner or timing of TSA’s performance.

Federal Circuit Affirms Board on Claim Construction, No Anticipation, and Nonobviousness

Posted on by

In HTC Corp. v. Cellular Communications Equipment, LLC [2016-1880] (December 18, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s Final Written Decision, finding no error in the Board’s claim construction, and that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that the challenged claims were not invalid.

The IPR involved U.S. Patent No. 7,941,174, which is directed to
methods and apparatuses for a radio communications system where a subscriber station, i.e., a mobile device, is assigned a plurality of codes for transmitting messages.

The Board did not expressly construe the term “message,” nor did HTC did not seek construction of the term.  However, the Federal Circuit found that Board findings establishing the scope of the patented subject matter may fall within the ambit of claim construction, reviewable on appeal.  However the Federal Circuit found HTC’s arguments unpersuasive and inconsistent.

On the asserted anticipation grounds, the Federal Circuit found that substantial evidence supported the Board’s conclusion, and rejected arguments presented by HTC for the first time on appeal.  On the asserted obviousness grounds, the Federal Circuit agreed with the Board’s reading of the prior art, and found that HTC did not point to any evidence in the record that would undermine the Board’s findings on the scope and content of the prior art.

 

No Need to be your Own Lexicographer

Posted on by

The word of the day for December 14 from  Wordsmith.org is ensiform, meaning sword-shaped, which is a potentially useful work for patent prosecutors, and in fact has been useful to at least a few:

U.S. Patent No. 9,061,129:Col. 15: 21-25.  U.S. Patent No. 5,489,406:

Col. 3, lns. 36-47.  Lastly, U.S. Patent No. 5,460,842:

Col. 8, lns. 7-18 is a virtual thesaurus for words describing stabby things.  The English language is so rich in descriptive words that patent drafters don’t always have to make up their own.

 

 

Is Patent Infringement a High Crime or Misdemeanor?

Posted on by

In addition to all the other wild accusations against him, Donald J. Trump has been accused of patent infringement.  In a suit filed on December 12 in the Norther District of California, Lathan Lycurgus Smith alleges President Trump and the Secret Service and the entire country of patent infringement.  Apparently Mr. Smith is some sort of polymath, with inventions ranging from automobiles to toilet paper.   Mr. Smith’s prayer for relief goes a little beyond 35 USC §§ 283-284, seeking:

  • issuance of all of his patents
  • all the money made from the patents (they must be design patents)
  • an exemption from taxes “for the rest of time”
  • an injunction against making “anything that the Patents are on or involved with”
  • a “full body massage the rest of my life dayly [sic].”

Today’s question is: Is patent infringement a high crime or misdemeanor?

Patent Owner Has Burden to Prove Marking Once Infringer Identifies Unmarked Products

Posted on by

In Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., [2017-1475] (December 8, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirme the district court’s denial
of judgment as a matter of law as to obviousness, the
jury’s royalty rate, willfulness, treble damages, and award of an ongoing
royalty to Arctic Cat, but vacated the court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law as to marking and remand for further consideration limited to that issue.

The case involved U.S. Patent Nos. 6,568,969 and 6,793,545 directed to thrust steering systems for personal watercraft.  At trial, the jury found both patents not invalid, awarded a royalty for past infringement of $102.54 per unit, and based upon the jury’s finding of willful infringement, the district court trebled damages.  The district court also awarded an ongoing royalty of $205.08 per unit.

On the obviousness finding the Federal Circuit said that it presumes the jury found that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine the prior art as appellant proposed, and that if
such a fact finding is supported by substantial evidence, it cannot not reverse it. The Federal Circuit noted that appellant devoted much of its argument to re-litigating its case and its evidence rather than addressing the evidence that could have supported the jury’s finding of no motivation to combine. The Federal Circuit said that it does not reweigh the evidence and reach its own factual determination regarding motivation. The question on appeal is only whether substantial
evidence supports the jury’s presumed finding, and the Federal Circuit found substantial evidence did support the finding.

As to objective indicia of non-obviousness, the patent owner argued the claimed invention received industry praise and satisfied a long-felt need. The Federal Circuit again presumed the jury found in favor of patentee, and the Federal Circuit cannot reverse these presumed findings if they are supported by substantial evidence, which the Federal Circuit found they were.

As to the marking issue,  the Federal Circuit said that the patent owner patentee bears the burden of pleading and proving it complied with § 287(a)’s marking requirement, because if a patentee who makes, sells, offers for sale, or imports the patented articles has not given notice of its right”by marking the articles pursuant to the marking statute, it is not entitled to damages before the date of actual notice.  A patentee’s licensees must also comply with §287, because the statute extends to persons making or selling any patented article for or under the patentee.  The Federal Circuit add that recognizing that it may be difficult for a patentee to ensure his licensees’ compliance with the
marking provisions, its has held that where third parties are involved, courts may consider whether the patentee made reasonable efforts to ensure compliance with the marking requirements.

In the present case, the patent owner Arctic Cat licensed patents to Honda, and the agreement specifically stated Honda “shall have no obligation or requirement to mark” its licensed products.  However, While Honda sold products in the U.S. without marking them, Arctic Cat contended they were not covered by the patent and thus should not have been marked.

Arctic Cat and Bombardier disputed whether the products Honda sold were patented articles that were required to be marked, as well as who had the burden of proof.  There was a split in the Circuits on the burden of proof, which the Federal Circuit resolved by holding that an alleged infringer who challenges the patentee’s compliance with § 287 bears an initial burden of production to articulate the products it believes are unmarked “patented articles” subject to § 287. The Federal Circuit said that this was a low bar, and that the alleged infringer need only put the
patentee on notice that it or its authorized licensees sold specific unmarked products which the alleged infringer believes practice the patent. The Federal Circuit said that the alleged infringer’s burden is a burden of production, not one of persuasion or proof.  The Federal Circuit said that  once the alleged infringer meets its burden of production, however, the patentee bears the burden to prove the products identified do not practice the patented invention.

The Federal Circuit declined to determine the minimum showing
needed to meet the initial burden of production, but found that it was satisfied.  The Federal Circuit did say that alleged infringer need not produce claim charts to meet its initial burden of identifying products, because it is the patentee who bears the burden of proving that it satisfied the marking requirements and thus the patentee who would have to prove that the unmarked products identified by the infringer do not fall within the patent claims. The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court erred in placing this burden upon BRP and vacated and remanded on the issue of marking.

On the pre-judgment and post-judgment royalty rates, the Federal Circuit found no error, noting that a difference in the rates may be justified by the change in the parties’ legal relationship and other factors.  Finally the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court on the issue of willfulness and enhanced damages.

 

 

Alice Changed the Law; Patent Plaintiff Should have Reassessed its Claim

Posted on by

In Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., [2016-2442] (December 8, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s award of fees on the grounds that following the Alice decision, patent owner’s claims were objectively without merit.

The district court awarded BBB its attorneys’ fees beginning from the date of the Alice decision, including fees incurred during the § 101 appeal. The district court determined that the case was exceptional
based solely on the weakness of IH’s post-Alice patent-eligibility arguments and the need to deter future “wasteful litigation” on similarly weak arguments.

The Federal Circuit, reviewing for abuse of discretion,  found that the district court acted within the scope of its discretion in finding the case to be exceptional based on the weakness of IH’s § 101 arguments and the need to deter similarly weak arguments in the future.  The Federal Circuit said that under Alice, the claims of the patent were manifestly
directed to an abstract idea, which the district court accurately described as “local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods.”  The
idea that a customer may pay for items ordered from a remote seller at a third-party’s local establishment is the type of fundamental business practice that, when implemented using generic computer technology, is not patent eligible under Alice. The Federal Circuit continued noting that under Alice’s second step, the only components disclosed
in the specification for implementing the asserted method claims are unambiguously described as “conventional.” These components do not supply an inventive concept.

The Federal Circuit held that Alice was a significant change in
the law as applied to the facts of this particular case, noting that prior to Alice, the state of the law for computer implemented business transaction inventions was less than clear.   While as a general matter
was and is sometimes difficult to analyze patent eligibility under the framework prescribed by the Supreme Court in Mayo, the Federal Circuit said there was no uncertainty or difficulty in applying the principles set out in Alice to reach the conclusion that the ’582 patent’s claims are ineligible. The Federal Circuit said that it was IH’s responsibility to reassess its case in view of new controlling law.

Because the district court did not abuse its discretion
in awarding attorney fees under § 285, the district court’s
decision was affirmed.

Obviousness v. Anticipation: That Which Doesn’t Disclose Still Could Teach

Posted on by

In CRFD Research, Inc., v. Matal, [2016-2198] (December 5, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed two Final Written Decisions invaliding claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,191,233 on user-directed transfer of an on-going software-based session from one device to another device, and reversed one Final Written Decision that the claims were not obvious.

What is interesting about this case beyond the fact that a patent owner should have to simultaneously defend three IPR attacks on its patent, the loss of any one of which would be fatal, is the Federal Circuit’s reversal of the Board’s determination that Hulu had not shown the challenged claims to have been obvious.  The Federal Circuit said “the Board erred, both in how it performed its obviousness analysis and in the merits of its determination of nonobviousness.”

The Board concluded that the Bates reference did not anticipate certain challenged claims because it did not meet the claim requirement of “transmission of session history after discontinuation.”  Hulu complained, and the Federal Circuit agreed that the Board improperly
relied on its finding that Bates did not anticipate various asserted claims to support its finding of nonobviousness without considering whether Bates suggests transmission of session history after
discontinuation.  The Federal Circuit said that “Even if a reference’s
teachings are insufficient to find anticipation, that same reference’s teachings may be used to find obviousness.”

Hulu further argued that it would have been obvious, based on Bates, to
transmit session history after session discontinuation.  Hulu argued the obviousness of the claims based upon Bates, but the Board declined to institute on grounds of redundancy.  The Federal Circuit noted that Hulu expressly incorporated this argument as part of other grounds of unpatentability on which the Board instituted trial.  The Federal Circuit found that:

To bar Hulu from pressing an argument it raised in a ground the Board found “redundant” and that it expressly incorporated into other proposed grounds of unpatentability on which the Board instituted would not only unfairly prejudice Hulu, but would also raise questions about the propriety of the Board’s redundancy  decision.

Of course, even if it does “raise questions about the propriety of the Board’s redundancy decision,” that should not be a concern of the Federal Circuit because according to Cuozzo institution decisions are not reviewable.  The Federal Circuit went on to find that Bates did in fact sufficiently teach what it did not exprsessly disclose, and reversed the Board’s determination that the claims were not shown to be obvious.

This case illustrates that some of the mischief that arises from a Board’s finding of redundancy.  The petitioner is allowed to use the arguments in the non-instituted redundant ground to support its position in the instituted grounds — at least if they are sufficiently “incorporated.”  Another problem with redundancy is that the estoppel effect is unclear.  The Federal Circuit has indicated that estoppel does not apply to grounds that are not instituted.  HP Inc. v. MPHJ Tech. Inv., LLC, 817 F.3d 1339, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2016).  If this interpretation applies to grounds denied for redundancy, it means that a patent owner could prevail in the IPR, and later face a challenge based upon the redundant ground — one found by the Board to indistinguishable from the ground on which the patent owner prevailed.

Intervening Rights Apply When There Is a Product that Infringes the Original Claim that Does Not Infringe the Amended Claim

Posted on by

Presidio Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp., [2016-2607, 2016-2650] (November 21, 2017) the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holdings that the claims are not indefinite and that ATC is entitled to absolute intervening rights because a substantive amendment was made during reexamination, but reversed the award of lost profits and remanded for determination of a reasonable royalty.
The case involved U.S. Patent No. 6,816,356 on a multilayer capacitor.

1. A capacitor comprising:
a substantially monolithic dielectric body;
a conductive first plate disposed within the dielectric body;
a conductive second plate disposed within the dielectric body and forming a capacitor with the first plate;
a conductive first contact disposed externally on the dielectric body and electrically
connected to the first plate; and
a conductive second contact disposed externally on the dielectric body and electrically connected to the second plate, and
the second contact being located sufficiently close to the first contact in an edge to
edge relationship in such proximity as to form a first fringe-effect capacitance with
the first contact that is capable of being determined by measurement in terms of a
standard unit.

Regarding indefiniteness, the claim required “first fringe-effect capacitance with
the first contact that is capable of being determined by measurement in terms of a
standard unit.”  Although industry standards for insertion loss testing had not been published at the time the patent was filed, Presidio’s expert testified that insertion loss testing had been well known for many decades and that a person of ordinary skill could use insertion loss measurements to measure capacitance in terms of Farads, the standard unit of measurement for capacitance.   Presidio’s expert further testified that a person of skill in the art would know how to measure fringe-effect capacitance by using insertion loss measurements. The Federal Circuit said that a claim is not indefinite if a person of skill in the art would know how to utilize a standard measurement method, such as insertion loss, to make the necessary measurement, adding that a patent need not explicitly include information that is already well
known in the art.  The Federal Circuit noted that if a skilled person would choose an established method of measurement, that may be sufficient to defeat a claim of indefiniteness, even if that method is not set forth in haec verba in the patent itself.

On the issue of intervening rights, Presidio contested the application of absolute intervening rights.  The Federal Circuit observed that the owner of a patent that survives reexamination is not entitled to infringement damages for the time period between the date of issuance of the original claims and the date of issuance of the reexamined claims if the original and amended claims are not “substantially identical.  In other words, the Federal Circuit said, if an amendment during reexamination makes a substantive change to an original claim, the patentee is only entitled to infringement damages for the changed claim for the period following issuance of the reexamination certificate.  The Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s assessment of the scope of the original and reexamined claims de novo, and agreed that the scope had changed.  Presidio argued that the scope of the claims did not change because its stated goal in amending the claims was to adopt the district court’s construction in prior litigation.  However, the Federal Circuit said that the patentee’s intent in making the
amendment is not determinative or controlling in determining claim scope.  The relevant inquiry is whether the scope of the amended claims is actually identical to the scope of
the original claims based on normal claim construction analysis, articulated in Phillips. To determine whether an amended claim is narrower in scope, one determines whether there is any product or process that would infringe the original claim, but not infringe the amended claim. The Federal Circuit found that while the construction of the prior claim required that the fringe capacitance be determined, it did not specify it be determined by testing, as the amended claim required, so the claims did in fact have different scopes.

On the issue of lost profits, Presidio claimed lost profits for its sales of the BB capacitors, which Presidio claimed were adversely affected by the sale of ATC’s infringing 550 line of capacitors.  To recover lost profits, the Presidio had to show a reasonable probability that, “but for” infringement, it would have made the sales that were made by the infringer.  “But-for” causation can be proven using the four factor test in Panduit, which requires the patentee to show: (1) demand for the patented product; (2) an absence of acceptable, noninfringing substitutes; (3) manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit the demand; and (4) the amount of profit that would have been made.  A patentee can recover lost profits even if its product does not practice
the claimed invention, where the product directly competes with the infringing device.  Although the BB capacitor does not practice the ’356 patent, Presidio could still recover lost profits because the BB capacitor competes directly with the infringing 550
capacitors.  However the correct inquiry under Panduit is whether a non-infringing alternative would be acceptable compared to the patent owner’s product, not whether it is a substitute for the infringing product.  Thus while defendant’s 560L product was not a an adequate substitute for the accused 550 product, it might be an adequate non-infringing substitute for Presidio’s BB.  The Federal Circuit found that Presidio failed to prove that the 560L was not an acceptable substitute for its BB product, and reversed the award of lost profits, and remanded for a determination of a reasonable royalty.

The Federal Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to award increased damages despite the finding of willfulness.  The Federal Circuit also vacated the injunction in view of its reversal of the lost profits award, and remanded the case for the district court to redetermine the propriety of a permanent injunction.