Source: https://www.wintechblog.com/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:06:36+00:00

Document:
“Rather than rest our decision on formalities, our focus is on what makes our on-sale bar jurisprudence coherent: preventing inventors from filing for patents a year or more after the invention has been commercially marketed, whether marketed by the inventor himself or a third party.” The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., No. 2014-1469, slip op. at 25 (Fed. Cir. July 11, 2016).
An invention cannot be patented in the United States if the invention “was on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States”. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA). Any patent claims to a product that was on-sale prior to this one-year date are invalid and the right to exclude others from making, using and selling the product is lost.
The Court concluded that to be “on-sale” “a product must be the subject of a commercial sale or offer for sale, and that a commercial sale is one that bears the general hallmarks of a sale pursuant to Section 2-106 of the of the Uniform Commercial Code.” The Medicines, at 3. When “no actual sale is present ‘[o]nly an offer which the other party could make into a binding contract by simple acceptance (assuming consideration)’ triggers the on-sale bar.” Id. at 27 (quoting Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc. 254 F.2d 1041, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
This case involved product-by-process claims and a supply contract for a third-party to produce three batches of the drug using the claimed processes. The Federal Circuit held that the supply contract was for performing services and not a commercial sale. “[A] contract manufacturer’s sale to the inventor of manufacturing services where neither the title to the embodiments nor the right to market the same passes to the supplier does not constitute an invalidating sale under § 102(b).” Id.at 33.
What the Court makes coherent is that the “on-sale” bar is based on activities that constitute a commercial sale or offer for sale and not merely pre-commercial activities in preparation for future sales. “The on-sale bar is triggered by actual commercial marketing of the invention, not preparation for potential or eventual marketing.” Id. at 26.
What the Court also makes coherent is that the best course of action is to file an application for patent as soon as the invention is ready for patenting.
Next up is Helsinn v. Teva and whether on-sale activity under the AIA includes secret sales or is limited to public sales only.
Regardless of the June 23, 2016 vote on Brexit, all owners of European patents, and all applicants seeking patents in Europe, will have both new options, and a new set of important decisions to make. Most commentators anticipate that the Unitary Patents (UPs) and the Unified Patent Court (UPC) will come into effect and patentees will still need to make decisions about their granted EPs and applications. Owners of European patents (EPs) likely will need to make decisions about their portfolios by the end of 2016. The following is based on materials provided by our colleagues at HGF, and with thanks especially to Andy Camenisch, acamenisch@hgf.com.
Current predictions are that by Q2 2017 patentees will be able to opt for a UP, a single patent covering up to 26 participating member states of the EU. The UPC, a central court that will for patent litigation in the EU should also open at or about the same time. It is time now to review and prepare existing patent portfolios anticipating these changes, as there may be as little as 6 months’ notice of the UPC going live.
At this early stage, the initial review and decisions will be focused on whether to opt patents out of the jurisdiction of the UPC.
When the UPC opens for business, unless they are opted-out, granted EPs will be subject to the jurisdiction of the UPC as well as the relevant national courts. This will mean that a patent holder will be able to enforce EPs in a single action across all Member States that have ratified the UPC and for which the patent is validated.
It will also mean that an EP can be revoked in a single action brought before the UPC’s Central Division. In contrast to the current position where an EP is a bundle of national rights, each of which must be revoked in separate actions in the national courts. The Rules of Procedure allow for a sunrise period in order for patentees to opt-out their existing EPs from the UPCs jurisdiction before the court opens its doors. For a transitional period of 7 years there will be an opt-out to take existing, pending and future EPs out of the jurisdiction of UPC for the lifetime of those patents. The opt-out allows patentees to keep any litigation before the relevant national court.
The opt-out decision will depend on many factors, and will not be appropriate across all patents in a portfolio of any size. In a given case there may be advantages to keeping some patents within the jurisdiction of the UPC, or to strategize for each patent. The Rules and Procedures for the UPC system are still evolving, resulting in patentees considering a nuanced approach to the opt-out (or remaining subject to the UPC’s jurisdiction) for their patent portfolio.
potential for a pan-EU injunction throughout the participating Member States in a single infringement action before the UPC.
12 month target timeline for resolution of first instance proceedings within the UPC is significantly better than proceedings before many other national Courts (and equivalent to English, Dutch and German Courts).
Also, in the beginning, it is anticipated that not all of the 26 Member States who have signed the UPC Agreement will have ratified the Agreement so validations of EPs in those countries will be treated in the same way as they are under the current system, leading to multiple jurisdictional enforcement combinations.
a single action before the UPC’s Central Division could lead to the revocation of the patent, in all Member States. If a patentee might opted-out the “crown jewels” of their patent portfolio, patents would have to be revoked in the national courts separately.
if EPs are opted-out, only the national courts have jurisdiction; you maintain the status quo.
the UPC will be an unknown and untested forum, with about the quality and consistency of the judgments across all Local, Regional and Central Divisions.
there is no fee for opting-out your patents but there are likely to be administration costs in terms of considering strategy and ensuring that the opt-out is validly implemented across a portfolio.
assuming no ongoing national litigation, an opt-out can be withdrawn at a future date (although a subsequent second opt-out will not be possible).
for patents that are jointly owned or licensed into or out of the business – who has the right to exercise the opt-out of the EPs (and any associated SPC)?
Ideally these reviews and decisions should be done before the launch of the UPC to allow time to execute any opt-out during the sunrise period.
Not also that if the decision is made to opt-out, the correct party or parties must exercise that opt-out to ensure that it is validly executed. Failure to validly opt-out creates risk that competitors might seek to revoke the patent centrally at the UPC.
The treatment of functional features in design patents was discussed in the recent Federal Circuit case for Sport Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Company, Inc., Case No. 15-1553 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Court rejected the district court’s claim construction, which completely removed functional features.
As noted by the Court, “[a] design patent cannot claim a purely functional design—a design patent is invalid if its overall appearance is ‘dictated by’ its function. But as long as the design is not primarily functional, ‘the design claim is not invalid, even if certain elements have functional purposes.'” Id, at 5. “Where a design contains both functional and nonfunctional elements, the scope of the claim must be construed in order to identify the non-functional aspects of the design as shown in the patent.” Id, at 6.
United States Design Patent No. D623,714 (Id, at 2).
Competitor’s Design (Id, at 3).
Under the Patent Act, one can patent “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” Common exceptions to what can be patented include laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. In Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. (Sequenom), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a patent covering methods of detecting cell-free fetal DNA is not eligible for patenting because it pertains to nothing more than a natural phenomenon. The patent at issue in Sequenom pertained to a method of detecting cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA), a non-cellular DNA that floats freely in the blood stream of pregnant women. The detection methods involved amplifying segments of the cffDNA by various methods, such as the polymerase chain reaction.
Many have identified a lack of clarity on the aforementioned issue as a “crisis of patent law and medical innovation.” Moreover, different opinions exist on when an application of a natural phenomenon can be eligible for patenting. For instance, in its Petition, Sequenom has asserted that “new methods assembled by combining previously known techniques even when those methods are motivated by or incorporate new insights into nature and its laws” are still eligible for patenting. Therefore, if the Supreme Court grants Sequenom’s Petition, the Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling could provide more clarity on the above issue.
Under the patent marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), notice can be actual, or constructive notice. Actual notice occurs when the alleged infringer is directly informed that its product infringes the patent. Constructive notice can be achieved by affixing a product with the word “patent” or abbreviation “pat.” along with the patent number. There are potentially significant consequences for not marking products. If a patented product is not marked with the patent number, damages for infringement will be limited to the time period after the patentee gives actual notice to an alleged infringer.
To recover damages under the marking statute, the patentee’s marking must be “substantially consistent and continuous.” Generally speaking, a patentee fails to meet this standard if it doesn’t mark some of the manufactured articles covered by the patent or stops marking such articles altogether for some period of time. There are penalties for false marking so patentees who utilize marking must be careful to properly identify the patent numbers marked on their products.
Since the enactment of the America Invents Act in 2011, patentees have been able to “virtually” mark products instead of having to substantially, consistently and physically mark products with the number of each patent the patentee holds that covers the product or its various components. The goal of providing this means of marking was to use the wide spread reach of the Internet to inform the public which patents attach to what product, at the same time as providing the benefit of minimal time and expense for patentees to create and update to keep current their product marking.
As required by the statute, the USPTO published a report in 2014 of the effect of this new procedure, finding that it had probably met its goals of reducing manufacturing costs and facilitating public notice, but also revealing that it was seriously underutilized. Even now, 5 years after enactment, the procedure has not been adopted as widely as expected, for reasons that are not clear, but generally proposed to be lack of knowledge of the availability of virtual marking, lack of interest, or uncertainty of how to comply based on the lack of guidelines or case law.
In addition to company run and managed virtual marking sites such as those referenced above, there are also commercial patent virtual marking subscription services. A patent holder’s decision of whether to create and operate such a site in house, or to subscribe to a service will be based on the size of the patent portfolio, the IT know how or resources available to the patentee, resources available for maintaining the system, in view of the outside services available and cost.
At a minimum subscription services should probably include a high number of patent numbers and/or patent application numbers per registered article, automatic patent term calculation, patent expiration and abandonment alerts, and product/patent disassociation when a patent expires or an application is abandoned.
Adoption of the virtual patent marking procedures has been slower than expected, especially in contrast to the acceleration usually associated with internet based systems. The increasing number of company virtual marking web sites, and the existence of commercial subscription services appear to be signs that virtual marking is becoming more widely known and appreciated.
The consultant Dr. Lotan claimed an inventive contribution arose from his work in connection with the development of the AngioSculpt catheters in 2003, which was allegedly reflected in the AngioScore patents.
In particular, before the May 1, 2003, effective date, Dr. Lotan performed a single-day study testing AngioSculpt prototypes.
Lotan also provided a memorandum highlighting the retraction issue and providing recommendations, as well as conducted two follow-up meetings with AngioScore where he provided design recommendations to address the retraction issue.
Several years later in 2014, Dr. Lotan granted TriReme, a competitor of Angioscore, an exclusive license to “any and all legal and equitable rights” he held in the AngioScore patents.
In response, AngioScore asserted that it had acquired rights to all inventive work completed by Dr. Lotan under a Consulting Agreement effective May 1, 2003, particularly § 9(a) and § 9(b).
The Court stated – at most, § 9(a) of the Consulting Agreement grants AngioScore a nonexclusive license in the event that the consultant incorporates a prior invention into an AngioScore product during the term of the Consulting Agreement.
The Court remand to the district court to consider whether Dr. Lotan’s continued work on and after May 1, 2003 would constitute the type of work listed in § 9(b) of the Consulting Agreement that Dr. Lotan was obligated to assign.
Since the issuance of Alice, many lower court decisions have relied on Alice to invalidate numerous patents directed to computer-implemented inventions. Examples of these court decisions were summarized in a prior blog post.
DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Invention directed towards generating a composite web page that combined certain aspects of a host website with information from a third-party merchant was eligible for patenting because the invention addressed an important business challenge (i.e., retaining website visitors through the use of computer technology).
Inst. of Tech. v. Hughes Communs., Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM (C. D. Cal., 2014). Invention directed to a data error correction code through encoding and decoding data was held to be patent-eligible because the utilized algorithm represented an inventive application of the underlying abstract ideas.
Helios Software LLC et al v. SpectorSoft Corporation, Case No. 12-081-LPS (Del., 2014). Invention directed to the remote monitoring of computer network sessions and network access was held to be eligible for patenting because it utilized a computer to play a significant and specific role in the monitoring process.
AutoForm Engineering GmbH v. Engineering Technology Associates, Inc., Case No. 2:2010cv14141, (E.D. Mich., 2014). Invention directed to a method of designing surfaces for tools used in sheet metal formation was held to be eligible for patenting because the process was described through numerous limitations that narrowed the scope of the patent.
McRO, Inc., v. Activision Publishing, Inc case, Case No. 2:14-cv-00336 (C.D. Cal., 2014). Invention directed towards configuring animated lips based on timed phonemes were held to be eligible for patenting because it addressed a technical process of automated three-dimensional computer animation.
Smartflash LLC et al v. Apple Inc, et al., Case No. 6:13cv447-JRG-KNM (E.D. Tex. 2015). Invention relating to data storage and controlled access systems for paying for and downloading digital content was held to be eligible for patenting because it aimed to prevent piracy while allowing instantaneous access.
The aforementioned court decisions suggest that software inventions that improve the functioning of a computer may remain eligible for patent protection in some instances. The aforementioned court decisions also suggest that software inventions that improve a technical field may remain eligible for patent protection. Nonetheless, the full effect of Alice remains to be determined.
 Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ___, No. 13-298 (June 19, 2014).
U.S. Patent X000001 was granted on July 31, 1790 to Samuel Hopkins. The original document went missing for many years, only resurfacing in 1956.
The inventor named is Samuel Hopkins, but which Samuel Hopkins was much in dispute until fairly recently. For many years a small town in Vermont celebrated their local resident as the inventor of U.S. Patent X000001, marking the location with a historical marker on the Pittsville, Vermont village green. The marker stood, from 1956 until just a couple of years ago, even in the face of documentation first published in 1998 by a lawyer historian in Philadelphia, David Maxey. Maxey’s generally accepted research shows the patent was issued to an inventor Samuel Hopkins of Philadelphia.
The entirety of the patent is reproduced below. It is signed by President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph.
Demonstrating a serial entrepreneur’s bent, Hopkins took out two later patents in addition to his first patent. And less than a year after the potash patent was granted in the United States, the Quebec Parliament passed an ordinance to “reward” him for his discovery. Legal experts now consider this Canada’s first patent.
The invention is for a potash refining process, today an obscure and seemingly low tech process in light of today’s technologies, but closer review highlights this as a worthy predecessor for all of the technology to follow. As is well described in Henry M. Paynter’s INVENTION & TECHNOLOGY article (paraphrased hereafter), Patent X000001 was not only the first of its kind but also vitally linked the nation’s early economy. In fact, potash was America’s first industrial chemical. Potash was essential for making soap and glass, dyeing fabrics, baking, and making saltpeter for gunpowder.
During the fourteen-year term of Hopkins’s patent, potash sold at from two hundred to three hundred dollars a ton, and over this period more than ninety thousand tons, worth at least twenty million dollars, were exported from the United States. If were anywhere near Hopkins’s estimates, this arrangement was a bargain for the asheries as well.
The forest-based potash industry of the colonial days, with abundant hardwood forests, is now long gone, but it was essential in the early years of the nation, and Samuel Hopkins’ patent permitted it to thrive. Potassium salts continue to be invaluable industrial and agricultural chemicals, and a stream of important patents concerning them has followed Samuel Hopkins’s down to this day. Moreover, his disclosure, marketing plan, and license agreements, set worthy precedents for subsequent inventors.
Under the Patent Act, one can patent “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” Common exceptions to what can be patented include laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. In a recent decision in Ariosa Diagnostics v. Sequenom (Sequenom), The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a patent covering methods of detecting cell-free fetal DNA is not eligible for patenting because it pertains to nothing more than a natural phenomenon. Unless this decision is reversed by the Supreme Court, it could adversely affect the patentability of some biomarker detection methods.
The patent at issue in Sequenom pertained to a method of detecting cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA), a non-cellular DNA that floats freely in the blood stream of pregnant women. The detection methods involved amplifying segments of the cffDNA by various methods, such as the polymerase chain reaction.
The full impact of Sequenom remains to be determined. It is doubtful that the ruling in Sequenom will affect the patentability of all biomarker detection methods. For instance, biomarker detection methods that utilize “unconventional” detection methods may still be eligible for patenting in view of Sequenom. However, the ruling in Sequenom may affect the patentability of diagnostic methods that rely on the amplification of naturally occurring biomarkers through “conventional” and “routine” techniques. Furthermore, terms such as “unconventional”, “conventional” and “routine” may become subject to different interpretations.
An industrial design generally constitutes the ornamental or aesthetic aspects of various articles, such as the three dimensional features (e.g., shapes) or two dimensional features (e.g., patterns, lines or colors) of packages, containers, furniture, household goods, lighting equipment, jewelry, electronic devices, and textiles. Industrial designs can be protected in many countries by a design patent. For instance, an owner of a design patent can have the right to prevent others from making, selling, using or importing articles that resemble the protected design.
Since many commercial articles are sold or manufactured internationally, the procurement of design patents in multiple countries is usually desirable. However, such procurement can become costly and complex. The Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs (Hague System) can provide a more cost effective and simple approach for the attainment of design patents in multiple countries.
In general, the Hague System provides the owner of an industrial design a means of obtaining protection in several countries through the filing of a single application in one language, and with one set of fees in one currency. The international design application can either be filed with the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the patent office of a designated country. The application must contain a reproduction of the industrial design(s) to be protected. The application must also designate the countries where protection is sought. Thereafter, each of the designated countries will examine the design application in accordance with the laws of that country.
As such, the Hague System enables industrial design owners to obtain protection for their designs while minimizing formalities and expense. For instance, applicants will not be required to file separate national applications in each of the countries where they would like to seek protection.
Applicants from multiple countries can take advantage of the Hague System. Currently, over 60 countries and territories are participating in the Hague System. Beginning May 13, 2015, U.S. applicants will also be able to file international design applications through the Hague System.
 The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs:Main Features and Advantages. 2012. World Intellectual Property Organization. Pages 7-8.

References: v. 
 § 102
 v. 
 § 102
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 287
 § 9
 § 9
 § 9
 § 9
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.