Make Patents Great Again (or at least Make them STRONGER)

Posted on by

Senators Coons, Cotton, Durbin, and Hirono have introduced the STRONGER Patents Act of 2017, proposing a large number of improvements to U.S. patent law.  While the Bill does a lot to improve patents from an inventor’s perspective, the Bill does leave undone at least a few critical issues:

  1.  The Bill does not fix the abstract idea issue under §101 created by Alice.
  2. The Bill does not fix the ambiguity in the definition of patentable subject matter under §102 recently brought to light in Helsinn.
  3. The Bill does not fix the requirement that a successful appellant still must reimburse the USPTO for unsuccessfully defending a rejection in district court, as recently explained in Nantkwest.

As shown in the summary below, what the bill primary does is bring balance to IPR/PGR proceedings.

Sections 102(a)/103(a) – Elimination of BRI

Sections 102(a)/103(a) amend 35 USC 316(a)/326(a) to construe claims in an IPR/PGR according to their ordinary and customary meaning, and considering any prior construction by a court.  The current application of “broadest reasonable interpretation” makes claims more vulnerable in an IPR/PGR.

Sections 102(b)/103(b) Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard

Sections 102(b)/103(b) amends 35 USC 316(e)/326(e) to require proof of invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.  The current burden of proof of “preponderance of evidence” makes claims more vulnerable in IPR/PGR than in a court where the burden is by clear and convincing evidence.

Sections 102(c)/103(c) Requires Standing to Initiate

Sections 102(c)/103(c) amends 35 USC 311(d)/321(d) to require that a Petitioner have standing, i.e., have been charged with infringement.  Currently anyone can bring an IPR/PGR, regardless of whether they have been charged with infringement; this section restricts who can initiate a proceeding.

Sections 102(d)/103(d) One Challenge Per Claim

Sections 102(d)/103(d) amend Amends 35 USC 314(a)/324(a) to add a subsection (2) that bars review of a claim if there has been a previously instituted IPR/PGR on that claim. This allows only one IPR or PGR on each claim.  It is not limited to the same petitioner, and is triggered by institution, not a final written decision.

Sections 102(e)/103(e) Interlocutory Appeal of Institution Decisions

Sections 102(e)/103(3) amend 35 USC 314(d)/324(c) and add 314(e)/314(f) allowing certain appeals of institution decisions.
New sections 314(e)/324(f) would permit appeals of institution decisions in procedural grounds, but not as to the substantive patent law determination of unpatentability.

Sections 102(f)/103(f) One Challenge Per Patent

Section 102(f)/103(f) amend 35 USC 315/325 to prevent a petitioner from filing a second IPR/PGR unless the patent owner has charged petitioner with infringement of additional claims. This limitation together with the new limitation in 314(a) of one IPR per claim, restricts multiple IPRs on a single patent.

Sections 102(f) Improved Estoppel in IPR’s

Section 102(f) amends 35 USC 315 to bar a petitioner after an institution decision from raising any 102 or 103 grounds in a court or ITC proceeding, unless based public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public. This substantially strengthens estoppel, but it still leaves a gap allowing the use of non-documentary prior art that corresponds to documentary prior art,.  There is no parallel estoppel provision for PGRs.

Sections 102(g)/103(g) Defines Real Party in Interest

Sections 102(g)/103(g) amend 35 USC 315(f).325(g) to define real party in interest as anyone who directly or indirectly makes a financial contributes to the petition. This expands definition of real party in interest to anyone who funds the proceedings.

Sections 102(g)/103(g) Provides Discovery of Real Party in Interest

Sections 102(g)/103(g) amends 35 USC 316(a)(5)/326(a)(5) to add subpart (B) providing for discovery about the real parties in interest.
Expands discovery relating to real party in interest.

Sections 102(h)/103(h) Bars Institution after Final Court Decision

Sections 102(h)/103(h) amend 35 USC 315/325 by adding new subpart (c)(1) that bars institution of an IPR after final judgment by the ITC or a court as to the validity of the claim under 102 or 103.
Once the ITC or a court has ruled on the validity of a claim, no one can challenge the claim in an  IPR.  However, (c)(1) only bars institution, not maintenance of the IPR/PGR, and (c)(2) only requires termination if a validity determination is affirmed on appeal.  A losing litigant might be able to get a second shot at the patent by waiving appeal, and continuing an already instituted IPR.

Sections 102(h)/103(h) Stays Proceedings Pending Court Appeal

Sections 102(h)/103(h) amend 35 USC 315/325 by adding new subpart (c)(2) which requires that the USPTO stay any IPR after the ITC or Court has entered a final judgment, while an appeal is possible or pending.  During concurrent IPR and litigation, if the ITC or Court gets to final judgment first, the IPR must be stayed pending appeal.

Sections 102(i)/103(i) Create Expedited Reexamination

Sections 102(i)/103(i) add a new 35 USC 316A/326A with a subpart (a)(3) that gives the patent owner the option to have a reasonable number of substitute claims examined in a new expedited IPR/PGR reexamination.

Sections 102(i)/103(i) Ease Burden of Amending Claims

Sections 102(i)/103(i) add new 35 USC 316A(c)(1)/326A(c)(1) defining amendment practice before the PTAB, and provides that the patent owner need only show that the amendment addresses the unpatentability on an instituted ground, meets the written description requirement, and does not enlarge the scope of the claims. New sections 316A(c)/326A(c) would relieve patent owners of the some of the burdens imposed by the PTAB in Idle Free Sys. v. Berstrom, Inc.

Sections 102(i)/103(i) Add Structure to Amendment Process

Sections 102(i)/103(i) add new 35 USC 316A(c)(2)/316A(c)(2)/  allowing petitioners to present new evidence to respond to amendments proposed by the patent owner, and allowing patent owner an opportunity to respond to new evidence submitted by petitioner.

Sections 102(i)/103(i) add new 35 USC 316A(c)(3)/326A(c)(3) allowing the PTAB to obtain an expedited patentability report.  Any party can respond to the report and the ordering of the report constitutes good cause for extending the proceeding beyond one year.

Sections 102(i)/103(i) also add new 35 USC 316A(c)(3) allowing the PTAB to order expedited reexamination on a claim in lieu of making a Final Written Decision on that claim.

Finally Sections 102(i)/103(i) also add new 35 USC 316A(d)/326A(d) allowing the patent owner to move for expedited reexamination in lieu of continuing the proceeding.  If granted, the patent owner must replace all of the instituted claims.  The petitioner has no right of appeal.

Section 104 Separates Institution and Final Written Decisions 

Section 104 amends 35 USC 6 to add subsection (c)(2) to provide that no board member who participates in an institution decision can also participate in hearing the review.  This eliminates the potential for confirmation bias, where a Board member who decided to institute also decides whether that institution decision was correct.

Section 105 Eliminates of Anonymous Reexaminations

Section 105 amends 35 USC 302(a) to require disclosure of the real party in interest in filing a request for reexamination.  This eliminates anonymous reexaminations.

Section 105 Restricts Reexaminations bu Defendants

Section 105 amends 35 USC 302 to add a subsection (d) barring reexamination more than a year after the requester is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.

Section 106 Creates Presumption in Favor of Injunctions

Section 106 amends 35 USC 283 to provide a presumption that the patent owner is entitled to an injunction.  Gives effect the Constitutional mandate of exclusive rights to authors and inventors.

Section 107 Eliminates Fee Diversion

Section 107 Eliminates the diversion of USPTO user fees from the Office.

Section 108 Eliminates Knowledge of Patent from Inducement

Section 108 Amends 35 USC 271 to define inducement in subsection (b) as causing the actions that constitute infringement regardless of knowledge of the patent.

Section 108 Expands Inducement

Section 108 amends 35 USC 271(f) to add subsection (3)(A) to make inducement by the provision of an infringing design an act of infringement.

Section 108 also amends 35 USC 271(f) to add subsection (3)(B) to make inducement by the provision of an infringing specification an act of infringement.

Section 108 also amends 35 USC 271 to add section (j) eliminating the requirement for inducement or contributory infringement that the steps be performed by a single entity.

Section 109 Clarifies that Institutions of Higher Learning are Microentities

Section 109 amends 35 USC 123(d) to clarify that institutions of higher learning and their related patent foundations and other entities are microentities.  Nothing is done about their sovereign immunity in challenges to the patent.

Section 110 Expedites Infringement Actions by Small Business

Section 110 Creates a Patent Pilot program for expediting infringement cases involving small businesses.
110

Section 110 Makes Search Information More Widely Available

Section 110 amends Section 41(i) to required that the USPTO make freely available the patent and trademark information available at its Public Search Facilities.

Sections 201-203 Regulates Rogue and Opaque Letters

Sections 201-203 empower the FTC to take action against the bad faith assertion of patent rights.

Section 204 Preempts State Anti-Troll Laws

Section 204 preempts state laws on patent demand letters, but allows the states to enforce the federal prohibition of rogue and opaque letters

Independence Day Patents

Posted on by

Inventors are constantly working, and holidays are no exception.  In fact holidays seem to be a source of inspiration for many inventors, and Independence Day is no exception:

What says Independence Day better than the patriotic grill cover in U.S. Patent No. D49032?Perhaps the centennial medal of U.S. Patent No. D9103?Perhaps the centennial watch charm from U.S. Patent No. D7164:

 

 

 

Written Description Must Support Claims; Not Exclude Alternatives

Posted on by

In The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. The Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2015-2011] (June 27, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s determination in an interference that Stanford’s claims were unpatentable for lack of written description, because the Board relied on improper evidence to support its key
findings and did not cite to other substantial evidence to support its findings.

Whether a patent claim satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 1, depends on whether the description clearly allows persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor
invented what is claimed.  Substantial evidence supports a finding that the specification satisfies the written description requirement when the essence of the original disclosure conveys the necessary information—regardless of how it conveys such information, and even when the disclosure’s words are open to different interpretations.

The Board determined that Stanford’s patent does not disclose the random massively parallel sequencing of nucleic acid sequences claimed in the later-added claims such that a person of skill in the art would have concluded that the Quake inventors were in possession of the method
claimed.  The Board concluded from the language of the specification that the specification referred to targeted, rather than the claimed random sequencing.  The specification specifically mentioned an Illumina sequencer, but in evaluating the specification, the Board relied upon information about a Roche sequencer.  Further the Board’s finding that the language did not exclude targeted sequencing ignores the fact the description might support both random and targeted sequencing.

The Federal Circuit said that the Board’s task was to determine whether the specification’s description discloses random sequencing, as recited
by the later-added claims, not whether the description does not preclude targeted MPS sequencing. The Federal Circuit said that the Board’s
error on this issue is compounded by its failure to explain the meaning of key sentences and phrases in the specification’s discussion of the sequencing process, and its failure to compare these statements to the claim limitations.

For these reasons the Federal Circuit vacated the interference decisions and remanded for the Board to reconsider whether Quake’s relevant patents and applications satisfy the written description requirement.  The Federal Circuit specifically instructed the Board to examine whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known, as of the priority date, that the specification’s reference to Illumina products meant random sequencing as recited in the claims, by examining the record evidence as
to pre-filing date art-related facts on Illumina products.  The Federal Circuit said that the Board may include an analysis of whether the record contains testimony or evidence, relevant to this written description analysis, showing that any post-filing date publications contain art-related facts on random sequencing or Illumina products existing on the filing date.

 

A §145 Action May Not Be As Appealing as a Trip to the Federal Circuit

Posted on by

In Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal, [2016-1794] (June 23, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the denial of attorneys fees to the USPTO in successfully defending civil action under 35 USC §145 brought by a patent applicant.  The statute provides that the applicant must pay “[a]ll of the expenses of the proceeding . . . regardless of the outcome.” The district court held that “expenses” did not include attorneys fees.

The Federal Circuit found that the ordinary meaning of “expenses” as defined in dictionaries and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of this term lend significant weight to the conclusion that when Congress used the phrase “all expenses,” it meant to include attorneys’ fees.  Accordingly, the Federal Circuit held “[a]ll expenses of the proceedings”
under § 145 includes the pro-rata share of the attorneys’ fees the USPTO incurred to defend applicant’s appeal.

The Federal Circuit remanded the case for the district court to enter an additional award of $78,592.50 in favor of the Director.

Although it may seem unfair that an applicant losing an appeal has to pay the Office’s cost in successfully defending the appeal of a rejection, as the Federal Circuit pointed out, this is how Congress chose to allocate the cost of an appeal to the district court.  What is unfair, however, is that this is how Congress chose to allocate the cost of an applicant’s successful appeal of an improper rejection as well.  Thus, an applicant faced with an improper rejection who brings an action under §145 and wins, is still on the hook for the Patent Office’s attorneys fees.  This unfair result alone might suggest that Congress did not intent to include attorneys’ fees in “expenses,” otherwise Congress is putting a high price on justice.

So why would an applicant chose to take a PTAB decision to district court, rather than appeal to the Federal Circuit?  The principal reason is that the PTAB may have pointed out an evidentiary defect in the applicant’s case.  If the applicant appeals to the Federal Circuit the record is fixed, and if the PTAB was correct about the defect, the Federal Circuit will simply affirm the PTAB.  However, in an action under §145 the applicant can introduce additional evidence, for example a declaration by the inventor, or by an expert, or perhaps even evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness.  This could allow the applicant to obtain a patent, when an appeal would otherwise be futile.  Depending upon the importance of the invention, this might well be worth an additional $78,000 or so.

However is a §145 action the only way to obtain this result?  Perhaps not.  One might assume that if you do not appeal the PTAB decision that it becomes final and res judicata will prevent the application from ever getting the claims that the were the subject of the appeal. This would be a good reason to pursue the §145 action.  However, the underlying assumption may be wrong.  In In re Donohue, 226 USPQ 619 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Office should not apply res judicata where the applicant made a different record, for example by supplying a new affidavit or declaration:

Appellant has made a record different from that in Donohue I by submitting the Fields affidavit. This new record presents a new issue of patentability with respect to whether the previously sustained anticipation rejection can still be maintained. In view of this new issue, the PTO properly declined to make a formal res judicata rejection . . .

226 USPQ 621.  As long as Donohue remains good law, a patent applicant can file an RCE or even a continuation, supplement its records, and continue to prosecute claims whose rejection was affirmed by the PTAB (and not have to spend $80,000 on the the USPTO’s expenses in a §145 action.

It is still unfair that a successful applicant in a §145 action has to pay for the unsuccessful efforts of the USPTO in defending an improper rejection, but at least the applicant has an alternative route to continue to pursue the claims after an unsuccessful appeal to the PTAB.

Lack of Enablement in Provisional Application Results in Loss of Priority

Posted on by

In Storer v. Clark, [2015-1802] (June 21, 2017) the Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB’s decision awarding priority in an interference to Clark, on the grounds that Storer’s provisional application did not enable the interference subject matter.

The subject matter in dispute involved methods of treating hepatitis C by administering compounds having a specific chemical and stereochemical structure.  Storer was issued U.S. Patent No. 7,608,600, and Clark challenged priority of invention and moved to deny Storer the priority date of its provisional application.  Clark argued that the application did not enable the claimed compound, while Storer argued that the compounds were readily obtained based on the provisional application and the prior art.

Enablement was relevant for validity and to the issue of whether the provisional application was a constructive reduction to practice.  It is a question of law, and is reviewed without deference, although the factual underpinnings of enablement are reviewed for substantial evidence.

Analyzing the disclosure under the factors set forth in In re Wands, the Board determined that undue experimentation would be required to produced the claim compounds from the provisional application’s disclosure.

The Federal Circuit began its analysis noting that the boundary between a teaching sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the field, and the need for undue experimentation, varies with the complexity of the
science.   While the specification need not recite textbook science, it must be more than an invitation for further research.  Further, while the application need not disclose what is well-known in the art, it is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement.

The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that the synthetic schemes in Storer’s provisional application did not enable a person of ordinary skill to produce the target compounds without undue experimentation.

 

Oh, No, Toto An Interactive Website Won’t Bring You to Kansas

Posted on by

In Nexlearn, LLC v. Allen Interactions, Inc., [2016-2170, 2016-2221](June 19, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a complaint for patent infringement for lack of personal jurisdiction.

NexLearn sued Allen Interactions in the District of Kansas alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,522 and breach of contract.  Allen Interactions, a Minnesota corporation, moved to dismiss NexLearn’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Allen Interactions argued it was not subject to specific or general jurisdiction in Kansas due to its limited contacts with the forum, which it argued amounted to a single sale unrelated to the accused product that represented less than 1% of its revenue over the past five years.

NexLearn did not argue general jurisdiction in its briefing, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of NexLearn, the district court held that NexLearn failed to allege that Allen Interactions had sufficient contacts with Kansas to permit the exercise of specific jurisdiction.

On appeal the Federal Circuit applied a three-part test, in which it determines whether: (1) the defendant purposefully directed its activities to the forum State; (2) the claims arise out of or relate to those activities (collectively, the minimum contacts prong); and (3) the assertion of jurisdiction is reasonable and fair.

The Federal Circuit discounted Allen Interactions’ activities prior to the patent issuance as irrelevant to patent infringement.  The Federal Circuit also agreed that forum selection provisions in an expired NDA and EULA agreement unrelated to the infringement, likewise did not subject Allen Interactions to specific jurisdiction in Kansas.

The Federal Circuit then considered Allen Interaction’s website. NexLearn argued that the fact that “Kansas” was in a drop down menu for billing address showed that Allen Interaction was targeting Kansas.  However the Federal Circuit found that Allen Interaction’s address selector may indicate its amenability to selling the accused product to Kansas residents, but it does not establish minimum contacts
arising out of or related to the infringement claim. The Federal Circuit said that while a Kansas resident could purchase the accused product from the Allen’s website, what was missing was any evidence that such
a sale has taken place, or that any Kansas resident ever even accessed the website.  The Federal Circuit explained that the website:

is conceptually no different than operating an out-of-state store. That a store would accept payment from a hypothetical out-of-state resident and ship its product there does not create a substantial connection for an infringement claim between the store and the hypothetical resident’s forum State. The store’s willingness to enter future transactions with out-of-state residents does not, without more, show purposeful availment of each State in which it would, but has not yet, provided or even offered a sale.

The Federal Circuit said that something more is needed—whether it be actual sales, targeted advertising, or contractual relationships—to
connect the defendant’s infringing acts of making, using, offering, or selling its product with the forum State. While what is sufficient may vary from case to case, the Federal Circuit said that it cannot be that the mere existence of an interactive website, like the existence of an out-of-state store, is suit-related conduct creating a substantial connection with the forum state.

The Federal Circuit also found that Allen Interaction’s email to a NexLearn employee regarding new features of the accused software product, and an offer to a NexLearn employees of a free trial of the accused software product were insufficient.  However the Federal Circuit rejected the district court’s rationale that this was because it was unilateral conduct on NexLearn’s part.  Instead, the Federal Circuit found that the email was a mass-email advertisement that did not show that that Kansas was a target market.  The mailing of one advertisement to
all of its nationwide subscribers did not create a substantial connection with Kansas.

Similarly with respect to the offer of a free trial, the Federal Circuit disagreed that this was irrelevant, but simply that single offer of a
free trial is too attenuated to establish minimum contacts with Kansas.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the patent infringement claim, and the supplemental claim for breach of contract as well.

 

 

The Board can Rely on a Party’s Arguments in an IPR, as Long as it Explains Why

Posted on by

In Outdry Technologies Corp. v. Geox S.P.A., [2016-1769] (June 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s determination that claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,855,171 would have been obvious over a combination of prior art.

The ‘171 patents claims methods of waterproofing leather, particularly for the manufacture of shoes, clothes, or leather accessories by lining the interior surface of the leather with a semipermeable membrane.  The Board found that one reference showed all of the elements of the claimed method except for the size and density of the adhesive dots, and that the other references taught the size and density of the adhesive dots.

The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board’s construction of “directly pressing” as to mean “applying pressure without any intervening
materials or layers other than the recited adhesive.”  The Federal Circuit also discounted the “process for waterproofing leather” language of the claim, because it was in the preamble and was “simply a statement of intended use, not a separate claim limitation.”

The Federal Circuit rejected the patent owner’s argument that the Board failed to provide adequate motivation to combine the references.  After reviewing cases (Rovalma, Van Os, Arendi, Cutsforth, NuVasive, and Icon Health) where the Board did fail to provide adequate motivation, the Federal Circuit found that the Boards decision did not suffer from similar deficiencies.  The Federal Circuit said that the Board clearly articulated Petitioner’s arguments for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the process of adhering dots to create waterproof and breathable leather with the secondary references disclosed glue patterns.  The Federal Circuit concluded that the Board engaged in reasoned decision making and sufficiently articulated its analysis in its opinion to permit review.

The Federal Circuit found that the Board’s reliance on petitioner’s arguments did not undermine its otherwise adequate explanation for finding a motivation to combine. The Federal Circuit noted that the Board did not reject the patent owner’s positions without clarity as to why it found petitioner’s arguments persuasive. It did not merely incorporate petitioner’s petition by reference, leaving uncertainty as to which positions the Board was adopting as its own. Nor was it other unclear what evidence the Board may or may not have relied
on to find a motivation to combine. The Federal Circuit said that the Board is “permitted to credit a party’s argument as part of its reasoned explanation of its factual findings”; it simply must “explain why it accepts the prevailing argument.”

 

Providing a Service Alone is not Contributory Infringement

Posted on by

In the Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, [2016-1766](June 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,223,552, 7,459,286, and 8,349,581 are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter, and that Cleveland Clinic failed to state a claim of contributory or induced infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,170,260.

The patents were all directed to methods for detecting the risk of cardiovascular disease in a patient.  The district court next found the three testing patents patent ineligible under the two-step framework for analyzing patent subject matter eligibility under §101 articulated in Alice.  More specifically, the district court found that the testing patents’ claims were directed to a law of nature under Alice step one because the claims were directed to the correlation between MPO in the blood and the risk of cardiovascular disease.  Under Alice step two, the district court found there was no saving inventive concept, employing well-known methods to detect MPO, comparing MPO levels with a control value in what could be a bare mental process, and ultimately, instructing a user to apply a natural law.

The district court further found that True Health’s testing service was not a “material or apparatus” that could form the basis for a contributory infringement claim.  The district court further found that the Cleveland Clinic did not allege facts sufficient to show the specific intent to induce third parties to infringe.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the propriety of deciding §101 rejections at the motion to dismiss stage, before claim construction or significant
discovery has commenced.  On the merits, the Federal Circuit agreed that the claims of the testing patents were directed to multistep methods for observing the law of nature that MPO correlates to cardiovascular disease.  Because this relationship exists in principle apart from human action, the claims are directed to a patent ineligible law of nature.  The Federal Circuit found the case similar to Ariosa.  At step two of the Alice inquiry, the Federal Circuit agreed that the practice of the method claims
does not result in an inventive concept that transforms the natural phenomena of MPO being associated with cardiovascular risk into a patentable invention.

On the issue of contributory infringement, the Federal Circuit said that a party that provides a service, but no “material or apparatus,” cannot be liable for contributory infringement.  Because the defendant was merely providing testing services, the Federal Circuit agreed that the claim should be dismissed.  On the issue of inducement, the Federal Circuit observed that the mere knowledge of possible infringement by others does not amount to inducement; and that specific intent and action to induce infringement must be proven. The Federal Circuit found that merely providing test reports to physicians falls short of showing the specific intent and action to induce infringement of the ’260 patent.

 

General Statements in Petition and Institution Decision Did Not Give Patent Owner Fair Notice of the Grounds of Invalidity in the Final Written Decision

Posted on by

In Emerachem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., [2016-1984] (June 15, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision that claims 1–2, 4–14, and 17–19 of U.S. Patent No. 5,599,758 were obvious, and vacated and remand as to claims 3, 16, and 20.

The ‘558 patent claims methods for regenerating a catalyst/absorber that has absorbed and oxidized nitrates and nitrites from the combustion gases of an engine.  The regeneration can be carried out in situ, without
removing and replacing the catalyst with a fresh, unreacted one.

The patent owner attempted to remove a reference under 102(e), with the declaration of the inventor, but the Board found the evidence insufficient.  The Federal Circuit agreed, noting that corroboration is always required of an inventor’s testimony about invention, although the level of corroboration depends upon the circumstances.

The patent owner was more successful in its argument under the APA that it was denied adequate Notice and Opportunity to Respond. Petitioner’s provided detailed claim charts, but only cited to a single reference for dependent claims 3, 16, and 20, and the Board’s institution decision only cited the same one reference as to these claims.  However the final written decision relied upon a different reference.

The Federal Circuit stated that in a formal adjudication, like an IPR, the APA imposes particular procedural requirements on the USPTO.  In particular, the agency must timely inform the patent owner of the matters of fact and law asserted, and give all interested parties the opportunity to submit and consider facts and arguments, and allow a party “to
submit rebuttal evidence as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. 5 U.S.C. §§ 554(b)–(c), 556(d).

The Federal Circuit found that the Board denied patent owner its procedural rights guaranteed by the APA by relying on a new reference for its disclosure of limitations in dependent claims 3, 16, and 20.  The Federal Circuit rejected petitioner’s arguments that the patent owner had adequate notice of the reference from general comments about obviousness in the Petition.  The Federal Circuit also rejected petitioner’s arguments that the patent owner had adequate notice from general statements in the Institution Decision.  The Federal Circuit said that given the specificity with which the petition’s claim chart and the Institution Decision’s list of claims expressly identified particular references’ disclosures for some claims and not for others, it cannot be the case that the general statements relied upon provided sufficient notice that Stiles could be applied to all claims.

The Federal Circuit distinguished Cuozzo, because the institution decision gave the patentee notice of the prior art combination that
the final decision relied upon, even though the petition did not. In the current case, neither the petition nor the Institution Decision put the patentee on notice of the reference that would be used to reject claims 3, 16, and 20.  The Federal Circuit also distinguished Genzyme because  the patent owner had the opportunity to address the relied upon by the Board.

The Federal Circuit explained that it was not holding that the Board is constricted in its final written decision to citing only the portions of a reference cited in its Institution Decision — “word-for-word parity between the institution and final written decisions” is not required.  The questions was not whether the Board cited a different passage of a reference than what it specifically cited in the Institution Decision, rather the question was whether the Board provided adequate notice and opportunity to respond to the reference being used to reject claims 3, 16, and 20, given the specificity with which the Board itemized the
challenged claims with specific grounds for rejection in the Institution Decision. On this question, the Federal Circuit said that the Board did not.

Estoppel in CBMR is Both Reviewable and Determined on a Claim by Claim Basis

Posted on by

In Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, [2016-2001](June 9, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision that Westlake was not estopped to bring a CBMR challenge to U.S. Patent No. 6,950,807, and that the challenged claims of this patent were invalid under  35 U.S.C. § 101.

On the estoppel issue Westlake petitioned for CBMR review of all of the claims fo the ‘807, but the Board instituted only as to some of the claims,.  Westlake filed a second CBMR, and Credit Acceptance argued that Westlake was estopped to petition for a second review.  However, since the first CBMR had not yet resulted in a Final Written Decision, the Board found the estoppel argument premature.  After the Final Written Decision in the first CBMR, Credit Acceptance renewed its effort to terminate the second proceeding on estoppel grounds, but the Board decided that estoppel is applied on a claim by claim business, and thus the first proceeding did not impact the second proceeding.

At the outset, the Federal Circuit rejected Westlake’s and the USPTO’s position that the decision on estoppel was akin to a institution decision that is not reviewable.  After finding the estoppel provision was reviewable, the Federal Circuit went on to agree with the Board, that estoppel is determined in on a claim by claim basis.

As to the merits of the CBMR, The Federal Circuit noted that Board determined that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “processing an application for financing a purchase,” and agreed.  The Federal Circuit said that each of the claims is directed to the abstract idea of processing an application for financing a purchase. The Court saw no meaningful distinction between this type of financial industry practice and “the concept of intermediated settlement” held to be abstract in Alice, or the “basic concept of hedging” held to be abstract in Bilski.