In Cheetah Omni LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc., [2019-1264] (February 6, 2020) the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,522,836.

AT&T (and its supplier Ciena) moved for summary judgment that Cheetah’s infringement claim was barred by agreements settling previous litigation between Cheetah and Ciena involving U.S. Patent No. 7,339,714 the patent-in-suit’s “Aunt”.

To dispose of the previous litigation, Cheetah granted to Ciena “a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive, fully paid-up license under the Licensed Patents to make, have made (directly or indirectly and solely for Ciena or its Affiliates), use, offer to sell, sell, and import and export the Licensed Products.” “Licensed Patents” were defined as:

(i) the Patents-in-Suit, and (ii) all parents, provisionals, substitutes, renewals, continuations, continuations-in-part, divisionals, foreign counterparts, reissues, oppositions, continued examinations, reexaminations, and extensions of the Patents-in-Suit owned by, filed by, assigned to or otherwise controlled by or enforceable by Cheetah or any of its Affiliates or its or their respective successors in interest at any time as of, prior to, on or after the Effective Date, whether filed before, on or after the Effective Date.

Relying on General Protecht Group Inc. v. Leviton Manufacturing Co., 651 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the district court determined that the ’836 patent was impliedly licensed as the grandchild of the expressly licensed ’925 patent of the ‘714 patent. The Federal Circuit agreed, noting that the presumption established in General Protecht provided a simple and clear resolution in the case. Because the ’925 patent was expressly licensed, the license also included an implied license to a continuation of its continuation, the ’836 patent-in-suit.

Because the licenses extend to both the ’836 patent and the accused AT&T products the district court properly granted summary judgment for AT&T and Ciena and dismissed the infringement suit.

In Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., [2019-1067, 2019-1102](December 16, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that Amgen’s U.S. Patent No. 5,856,298 was infringed and not invalid; fourteen batches of Hospira’s erythropoietin biosimilar drug product were not covered by the Safe Harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1); Amgen had proven it was entitled to $70 million in damages; denying Amgen motion for judgment as a matter of law that Amgen’s U.S. Patent No. 5,756,349 was infringed.

After substantial evidence supporting the validity and infringement of the ‘298 patent, the Federal Circuit turned to the safe harbor provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). The instruction to the jury said that “If Hospira has proved that the manufacture of a particular batch was reasonably related to developing and submitting information to the FDA in order to obtain FDA approval, Hospira’s additional underlying purposes for the manufacture and use of that batch do not remove that batch from the Safe Harbor defense.” Hospira complained that this improperly focused on Hospira’s intent for manufacturing batches of EPO.

The Federal Circuit disagreed, finding that the jury instructions properly articulated the legal principles underlying the Safe Harbor inquiry. Section 271(e)(1)’s exemption from infringement extends to all uses of patented inventions that are reasonably related to the development and submission of any information under the FDCA. The Federal Circuit said that relevant inquiry, therefore, is not how Hospira used each batch it manufactured, but whether each act of manufacture was for uses reasonably related to submitting information to the FDA.2 The jury instructions properly asked whether each act of manufacture, that is, each accused activity, was for uses reasonably related to submitting information to the FDA. The Federal Circuit added that contrary to Hospira’s contentions, the instructions struck the appropriate balance by telling the jury that Hospira’s additional underlying purposes do not matter as long as Hospira proved that the manufacture of any given batch of drug substance was reasonably related to developing information for FDA submission.

Hospira argued that no reasonable jury could find that some of the batches it made were protected by the safe harbor, while some were not. However the Federal Circuit found that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that the batches at issue were not manufactured “solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information” to the FDA. There was testimony that Hospira was not required to manufacture additional batches after it made its initial batches. There was also testimony that stability testing was not required but would be part of a “continuing program for stability that is a postapproval commitment.

On the issue of damages, Hospira argued that its Daubert motion to disqualify Amgen’s damages expert should have been granted. However, the Federal Circuit found no reversible error, noting that the district court permitted Hospira to cross-examine Amgen’s expert and to present the testimony of its own damages expert, and make the very arguments it was now raising on appeal. The Federal Circuit said it was not unreasonable for the jury to choose a damages award within the amounts proposed by each expert, and affirm the district court’s denial of Hospira’s JMOL motion.

Lastly, the Federal Circuit agreed that the finding of non infringement of ‘349 patent was supported by substantial evidence.

In Peter v. Nantkwest, Inc., — US — (2019), the Supreme Court, citing the bedrock principle known as the “American Rule” that each litigant pays his own attorney’s fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides otherwise, held that the PTO could not recoup its attorneys fees under §145 from an applicant who challenges a final rejection in district court.

The decision is a relief to all applicants, because it leaves a civil action as a viable remedy to an improper final rejection. But it still leaves applicants liable for the PTO’s “expenses of the proceedings,” win or lose. It is a little galling to have to pay the PTO’s “expenses” in unsuccessfully defending an improper rejection, but that is an issue to take up with Congress, not the courts.

Resort to the courts when one believes that the government has screwed up is an important remedy that keeps the system in balance. The Supreme Court’s decision maintains that balance, preserving the availability of court challenges of incorrect decisions by the examining corps. 

The use of trademarks in patent claims was previously discussed here. Trademarks continue to be used in patent claims, despite the potential for problems, not doubt because the trademark was seen as the best way to properly claim the invention. There is of course the concern that a trademark is indefinite, because the product can be changed at any time by the trademark owner. However changing meaning is a condition that can afflict any word in a claim, not just trademarks, granted changing meaning it is more likely with a trademark because it requires the action of a single person or entity, while changing the meaning of the work requires consensus.

Here are examples of trademarks recently used in patent claims:

AEROSIL– 10,154,954 (claim 2)

Android – 10,417,998 (claim 6), 10,417,008 (claim 6), 10,331,433 (claim 4).

ARSENSA – 10,154,954  (Claim 2)

Bluetooth – 10,420,011 (claim 9), 10,419,592 (claim 1), 10,365,866 (claim 10), 10,341,313 (claim 4), 10,321,516 (claim 6), 10,285,041 (claim 2), 10,027,169 (claim 7), 10,026,018 (claim 5), 9,998,996 (claim 7, 14), 9,955,515 (claim 8), 9,930,669 (claim 1), 9,912,794 (claim 1), 10,129,431 (claim 7, 16), 10,123,333 (claim 3, 14, 28), 10,019,852 (claims 2, 9,16), 9,980,059 (claims 1, 12, 23).

EPO-TEK – 10,330,233 (claim 17)

ETHERNET – 10,303,160 (claim 3,8)

Felica – 10,126,703 (claim 13)

Inconel – 10,392,728 (claim 10)

JAVA – 9,930,201 (claim 1)

JavaScript – 10,365,868 (claim 7)

Java Virtual Machine – 9,727,374 (claim 6)

Kahoot! 10,026,331 (claim 1)

KOVAR – 10,139,700 (claim 3)

Linux – 10,417,998 (claim 5), 10,417,008 (claim 5).

MIFARE – 10,126,703 (claim 13)

Monel – 10,392,728 (claim 10)

TRITON X – 10,254,276 (claim 5)

TWEEN – 10,254,276 (claim 5)

PARLEAM – 10,154,954 (claim 2)

QR Code – 10,223,625 (claim 5), 9,940,565 (claims 7, 10).

RLSA – 10,190,217 (claim 3), 10,017,853 (claim 7, 8)

SOFTISAN – 10,154,954 (claim 2)

VELCRO – 10,151,558  (claims 4, 7)

Vespel – 10,047,863 (claim 20)

VITRALI – 10,330,233 (claim 16)

Wi-Fi – 10,244,055 (claim 11), 10,044,903 (claims 6, 18), 10,129,431 (claims 6, 8, 17).

Wi-Fi Direct – 10,416,941 (claim 8), 10,342,071 (claim 12), 9,942,759 (claim 6).

Windows – 10,275,192 (claim 9).

ZIRCON – 10,240,814 (claims 1, 2, 9)

ZYLON – 10,201,999 (claim 8, 18)

Additional examples are relatively easy to find by search for the word trademark in the text of the claims, or searching for the R-in-the-circle symbol “.RTM.”

Although the meaning of a trademark can change over time, this is apparently understood by those of ordinary skill in the art, and rarely if ever is it necessary to specify that the meaning is determined “as of the filing date.”

A number of patents mention Labor Day, most of these relate to calendars or calendar-based games.

The as of last Tuesday, August 20, 2019, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent 10,390,470. That would seem to be the answer. A patent nerd would remember, however, that before patents were numbered about 9,957 patents — called the X patents — issued. A serious patent nerd would further know that as of August 20, 2019, for one reason or another, more than 48721 numbers did not correspond to issued patents. An uber patent nerd would know about factional patents, patents with fractional numbers issued between patents with whole numbers. There are at least four fractional patents in the era when patents were numbered.

So as of August 20, and until the next batch on August 27, the number may be 10,351,710.

Happy Father’s Day! Today is another important holiday celebrated in patents. See U.S. Patent No. 7,490,720:

In Quest Integrity USA, LLC v. Cokebusters USA Inc., [2017-2423] (May 21, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of invalidity as to claims 12, 24, and 33, of U.S. Patent No. 7,542,874 under the on sale bar of 102(b), reverse the judgment of invalidity as to claims 30 and 40, and remanded for further proceedings.

Cokebusters defended on the ground that the claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because there was a commercial sale of services that used the claimed methods, computer-readable media, and system more than one year before June 1, 2004, the date the application that led to the ’874 patent was filed in the United States. The basis for the on-sale bar defense was an offer by Quest itself to provide furnace tube inspection services to a client in the petrochemical industry. The district court agreed, and granted summary judgment of invalidity of claims 12, 24, and 33, and after discounting affidavits by Quest as “sham affidavits” also granted summary judgment as to claims 30 and 40.

The Federal Circuit noted that the parties agreed that the Norco Sale was “a commercial offer for sale” under § 102(b), and said that the fact that Quest did not sell its hardware or software (i.e., its method, computer-readable medium, or system) does not take Quest’s commercial activities outside the on-sale bar rule. Rather, Quest used its method, computer-readable medium, and system commercially to perform furnace inspection services and produce the Norco Reports for its customer. Sale of a product produced by performing a claimed process implicates the on sale bar. The same approach necessarily applies where a service is performed for compensation using a claimed computer-readable medium or system that generates a “product.” After concluding that all of the limitations in the claims were in fact met by the pre-critical date commercial activity, the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment with respect to claims
12, 24, and 33.

However as to claims 30 and 40, there was an additional limitation that the district court relied upon the testimony of a co-inventor to find was also present in the pre-critical date commercial activities. However Quest argued that there was a genuine issue of material fact that precluded summary judgment because there was also contrary evidence in the form of declarations by the same inventor, and a co-inventor contradicting the earlier deposition testimony, and explaining why the inventor Lorenzo had made an error. The district court rejected Quest’s arguments, concluding that the declarations were “sham affidavits” because they contradicted the earlier deposition testimony.

The Federal Circuit concluded that the declarations of cannot be dismissed as sham affidavits. First, the second co-inventor’s declaration did not contradict any earlier testimony that he gave. The general rule is that the sham affidavit doctrine allows a court to disregard an offsetting affidavit that is submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when the affidavit contradicts the affiant’s prior deposition testimony, not another witness’s prior deposition testimony. The Federal Circuit also determined that it was error to disregard the first co-inventor’s declaration because it offered a detailed declaration in which he provided a “plausible explanation” why his deposition testimony was incorrect. (The co-inventor was shown only a portion of the source code that did not contain dated comments from after the critical date, indicating that the version he testified about was not in use prior to the critical date, and further the displays were inconsistent with the use of the code he was shown.).

The Federal Circuit said that the detailed explanation in the declaration and corroborating evidence took the declaration out of the sham affidavit doctrine. The Federal Circuit reversed summary judgment as to claims 30 and 40, and remanded.