Source: https://www.patentdocs.org/2018/10/index.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:28:06+00:00

Document:
While the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has yet to receive any patent applications describing inventions for dealing with a widespread rise of zombies (other than hi-tech "zombie" servers, virtual machines, processes, etc.), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) have taken steps to prepare for a zombie apocalypse.
The CDC website, for example, provides information on zombie preparedness. Products listed on the page include links to a Zombie Preparedness Blog and Zombie Preparedness for Educators. The CDC's Zombie Preparedness Blog advises that "[t]here are all kinds of emergencies out there that we can prepare for," including "a zombie apocalypse," and notes that "[y]ou may laugh now, but when it happens you'll be happy you read this, and hey, maybe you'll even learn a thing or two about how to prepare for a real emergency." The blog provides a brief history of zombies and includes a list of items for an emergency kit. The CDC notes that "what first began as a tongue-in-cheek campaign to engage new audiences with preparedness messages has proven to be a very effective platform," and therefore, the CDC continues "to reach and engage a wide variety of audiences on all hazards preparedness via 'zombie preparedness'." The CDC even provides a graphic novel, entitled "Preparedness 101: Zombie Pandemic," which demonstrates the importance of being prepared before disaster (actual rather than fictional) strikes.
During the summers of 2009 and 2010, while training augmentees from a local training squadron about the JOPP [Joint Operation Planning Process], members of a USSTRATCOM [U.S. Strategic Command] component found out (by accident) that the hyperbole involved in writing a "zombie survival plan" actually provided a very useful and effective training tool. Planners who attended JPME II at the Joint Combined Warfighting School also realized that training examples for plans must accommodate the political fallout that occurs if the general public mistakenly believes that a fictional training scenario is actually a real plan. Rather than risk such an outcome by teaching our augmentees using the fictional "Tunisia" or "Nigeria" scenarios used at JCWS, we elected to use a completely-impossible scenario that could never be mistaken as a real plan.
Although the zombie apocalypse is confined to the small and big screens, both the CDC and DOD have found ways to use the extremely popular zombie genre to prepare people for real-life disasters and explore the basic concepts of plan and order development.
On Friday, October 26, 2018, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, in order to answer the question whether the government can bring post-grant review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or AIA. Specifically, the Supreme Court agreed to review whether the government is a "person" under the AIA, as is required to file a petition seeking the institution of AIA review proceedings.
The case began with Return Mail seeking to license its patent to the Postal Service as early as 2006. Return Mail is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,826,548, which claims methods, computer programs, and systems for processing undeliverable or returned mail. Claim 1 covers using encoded data (essentially, a bar code) that is added to the item before mailing to identify the intended recipient and notify the sender with new recipient information to allow the sender to update its records. Instead of licensing the '548 patent, the Postal Service filed a petition for ex parte reexamination with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The USPTO instituted the reexamination proceeding, but eventually confirmed the validity of the patent. Return Mail then filed a complaint against the Postal Service in the Court of Federal Claims.
Return Mail's complaint against the Postal Service was based on the government's unlicensed use of the invention covered by the '548 patent, but it technically was not a patent infringement suit. Rather, claims against the government seeking compensation are brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), an eminent domain statute. While that action was pending, the Postal Service filed a petition seeking the institution of covered business method ("CBM") review of the '548 patent.
Return Mail opposed the institution of the CBM review​ on both substantive and procedural grounds, including that the Postal Service lacked standing to file a CBM petition. Standing in administrative proceedings, like the USPTO's AIA proceedings, is different from the requirement for standing in a court. Rather than requiring a case or controversy, it requires meeting statutory requirements. Under § 18(a)(1)(B) of the AIA, for CBM proceedings, "[a] person may not file a petition for a transitional proceeding with respect to a covered business method patent unless the person or the person's real party-in-interest or privy has been sued for infringement of the patent or has been charged with infringement under that patent." Return Mail challenged the Postal Service's standing on two points: first, that the government is not a "person" under the AIA; and, second, that the Postal Service had been (or could be) "sued for infringement of the patent" or "charged with infringement of that patent."
The petitioner in a transitional proceeding that results in a final written decision under Section 328(a) of title 35, United States Code, with respect to a claim in a covered business method patent, or the petitioner's real party in interest, may not assert, either in a civil action arising in whole or in part under section 1338 of title 28, United States Code, or in a proceeding before the International Trade Commission under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337), that the claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised during that transitional proceeding.
The estoppel was viewed as a cornerstone of the CBM process (and other AIA proceedings) and was intended to prevent CBM petitioners from getting more than one bite at the same apple in litigation. But by its own language, this estoppel does not apply to a proceeding under § 1498 in the Court of Claims.
Both the PTAB and the majority of the Federal Circuit panel found that the Postal Service satisfied both the requirement that it be a "person" and that it be "sued for infringement of the patent" or "charged with infringement of that patent." With regard to requirement that the petitioner be a "person," even the Postal Service noted the oddity of it not being subject to estoppel. However, the panel majority believed that it would be better to assume that the Postal Service was a "person" and allow Congress to fix the estoppel problem, if it so desired. The majority addressed two further points. First, it noted that the parties had not discussed the issue in any detail, which would have constituted a waiver if the issue was waivable. Second, assuming the issue was unwaivable, the majority found that the AIA as a whole suggested that the term should include the government because otherwise the government would not benefit from intervening rights with regard to patents amended during IPRs.
Judge Newman dissented on the issue of government personalty. First, she asserted that standing -- as an aspect of subject matter jurisdiction -- cannot be waived. She then noted that it was the Court's obligation to ascertain and confirm jurisdiction, which required it to look at the definitions in the statute. In doing so, she relied on the longstanding rule that, absent an indication otherwise, the presumption has been that the government does not fall within the definition of a "person." That applies both when the government would benefit from being a "person" and when it would be harmed by fitting in the definition. And here, where the Federal government (albeit not the Postal Service) argued strongly for the estoppel provision to apply as the AIA was being considered by Congress, the statutory history suggests applying the presumption against government personalty rather than abandoning it.
In its petition for certiorari, Return Mail challenged both the finding that the Postal Service was a "person" and that it had been sued for patent infringement when Return Mail brought its § 1498 action in the Court of Claims. With regard to the definition of "person," Return Mail argued that the Federal Circuit's chosen meaning, based on the lack of express Congressional guidance, conflicted with Supreme Court precedent presuming that statutes presumptively exclude the government from the scope of this term. That is especially true when the construction would be awkward, as Return Mail asserted it was in light of the conflict between the Federal Circuit's construction and the overall intent of the statutory scheme. In addition, Return Mail asserted that the statutory scheme indicated an intent to exclude the government from the definition of "person." Finally, Return Mail pointed out that the Federal government already had a role in CBM review, specifically the PTO sitting in judgment over the review.
The Federal government responded by arguing, first, that Return Mail had not raised the issue below and therefore the dispute had not been fully fleshed out. Second, even though it acknowledged that the general rule is that the government is not a "person," the government argued that the context of the AIA and the CBM review provision reinforced that the government should be considered a "person" in these circumstances. The government's argument relied on the fact that the Patent Statute permits the government to obtain patents, yet other sections (such as § 102) limit when "a person shall be entitled to a patent." Third, the government argued that allowing it to bring CBM petitions was consistent with the statutory intent to allow streamlined review of suspect patents. Finally, the government argued that this case was a poor vehicle for deciding this issue because the Postal Service was fundamentally different from other Federal agencies because it is more like a business than other agencies.
In its reply, Return Mail pointed out that this situation is important to patent owners, and has been a recurring issue. The issue of whether the government is "person" extends to all AIA proceedings, and several have been brought by the Federal government. In addition, Return Mail pointed out (as had one of the amici that filed a brief in support of Return Mail's petition) that the government was seeking to act as both a sovereign power and a private party in the same proceeding.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari only on the first issue identified by Return Mail, whether the government is a "person" in the context of the AIA's CBM proceeding. Thus, by the middle of next year, we should know whether government agencies are "persons," permitted to bring AIA proceedings.
A petitioner may not file with the Office a petition to institute a covered business method patent review of the patent unless the petitioner, the petitioner's real party-in-interest, or a privy of the petitioner has been sued for infringement of the patent or has been charged with infringement under that patent. Charged with infringement means a real and substantial controversy regarding infringement of a covered business method patent exists such that the petitioner would have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action in Federal court.
 The Federal Circuit found that a § 1498 action was similar enough to a patent infringement action to give rise to standing, even though it clearly is not a patent infringement action and does not permit certain remedies (such as injunctive relief, treble damages, and attorneys' fees for an exception case). In doing so, the unanimous panel found that "infringement" did not necessarily mean an action brought solely on the basis of the Patent Act.
• What is the likely impact of AIA estoppel at the PTAB and in the district courts?
-- Is Shaw still alive after SAS?
-- What's the likely impact of SAS on the scope of estoppel?
-- How does the Maxlinear decision change the potential scope of estoppel?
• How should the terms "skilled searcher," "diligent search," and "reasonably could have been expected to discover" be interpreted for estoppel purposes?
• How should non-documentary prior art be handled in a district court, even if it relates to publications used in an IPR?
• When and how should the estoppel defense be raised at the PTAB? In a district court?
J A Kemp will be offering a webinar entitled "When Patents Go Wrong . . . And What To Do About It" on November 1, 2018 from 3:30 to 4:30 pm (Greenwich Mean Time). Andy Bentham of J A Kemp will look at grace periods worldwide in relation to inventor disclosures, restoration of priority, late national phase entry and other "restoration" situations relating to missed renewal fee payments and other deadlines, and also consider how to adapt your filing strategy to account for different scenarios that may arise as a result of missed deadlines.
Those wishing to register can do so here.
• How broadly can the applicant claim? How much support is needed on a filing?
• What are the differences between U.S. requirements and EPO requirements?
• What is a sufficient description of a genus? Can functional language be included?
* When can post-filing data be used?
Nobel Biocare Services AG appealed from the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review (IPR) holding claims 1–5 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,714,977 invalid based on an ABT Catalog. Many issues were presented, and here, we review the opinion with respect to whether the ABT Catalog qualifies as a prior art printed publication under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
This case started on October 27, 2014, by Nobel filing a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) for investigation of Instradent USA, Inc.'s Drive CM dental implants as allegedly violating 19 U.S.C. § 1337 by reason of importation of an implant product that infringes the '977 patent and U.S. Patent No. 8,764,443. The ITC found claims of the '977 patent anticipated by an ABT "Product Catalog" with the date "March 2003" on the cover. However, later, the ITC issued a Commission Opinion which determined that Instradent had failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the ABT Catalog is prior art under § 102(b).
In the interim, on August 20, 2015, Instradent petitioned for IPR of claims 1–7, 9, and 13–20 of the '977 patent with invalidity challenges based on the ABT Catalog. The Board determined that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the ABT Catalog qualifies as a prior art printed publication under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and ultimately found the claims invalid.
Thus, the appeal largely turns on whether the ABT Catalog is prior art under § 102(b).
In or about the early 1990s, named inventor Fromovich founded Alpha-Bio Tech Ltd. ("ABT"), which sold dental implants and related goods. He also served as ABT's CEO. In his capacity at ABT, Fromovich conducted dentist trainings and attended industry trade shows and conferences, including the International Dental Show (IDS) Conference held in Cologne, Germany. At the IDS Conference, dental manufacturers would showcase their products and distribute written materials describing their products. Nobel acquired ABT and its intellectual property rights in 2008.
The ABT Catalog included a data of March 2003 on its cover and discloses dental implant screws and other details of implants as claimed in the '977 patent. The ABT Catalog was produced by Instradent and alleged to be prior art to the '977 patent.
Fromovich testified about the ABT Catalog during the ITC proceedings. When asked why the catalog says "March 2003" on the cover, Fromovich indicated that he "estimated" it was because it was created in the end of March 2003 for the IDS in Cologne, Germany. Fromovich testified that ABT had a small booth and he attended the March 2003 IDS Conference. According to Fromovich, the IDS Conference is "one of the biggest for distribution in Europe" with possibly a thousand attendees. He further testified that he did not recall if he brought the ABT Catalog to the conference, but that it was "unlikely." He explained that if he brought the ABT Catalog, it would have been a "small amount" of catalogs because it would have been a first version of a 62-page document, and ABT did not send a shipment so it would have had to fit in his luggage.
Fromovich also testified that the ABT Catalog was used in connection with training courses and provided to attendees without requiring them to sign a confidentiality agreement.
The parties dispute whether the ABT Catalog qualifies as a "printed publication" under pre-AIA § 102(b). Whether a reference qualifies as a "printed publication" is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual findings, and the underlying factual findings include whether a reference was publicly accessible. The case law indicates that a reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence can locate it.
In addressing public accessibility of the ABT Catalog, the Board considered evidence that had been presented to the ITC, including Fromovich's testimony, and new evidence not considered by the ITC, including the declarations and deposition testimony of Yechiam Hantman and Zvi Chakir. In March 2003, Hantman and Chakir coowned Chakir Implants, Ltd., a dental supply distributor located in Israel. Hantman was unable to attend the conference, and he requested that Chakir collect catalogs from competitors at the 2003 IDS Conference and give them to him upon his return. Hantman's declaration stated: "Based upon my review of the attached materials and my specific recollections of conversations with customer [sic] in later 2002 and early 2003, and examination of the 2003 [ABT] Catalog after receiving it after the IDS trade show, I am certain that the 2003 [ABT] Catalog was publically accessible to the dental industry, including competitors, in March 2003, after the IDS show that year."
Chakir's declaration stated that he collected catalogs and other materials from competitors, including ABT at the 2003 IDS Conference and gave the materials relating to dental implants to Mr. Hantman.
The Federal Circuit found that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that the ABT Catalog was publicly accessible prior to the critical date. The Federal Circuit credited Chakir and Hantman's testimony that Chakir obtained a copy of the ABT Catalog at the March 2003 IDS Conference and that Hantman retained that copy in his records thereafter. Hantman's declaration included excerpts of his copy of the ABT Catalog taken from his files. The Board found that Hantman's copy of the ABT Catalog and the copy offered as prior art by Instradent in the IPR had identical pages except for some handwriting on the cover of Hantman's copy. Nobel did not dispute this finding.
Additionally, the ABT Catalog has the date "March 2003" on its cover. Although the ABT Catalog's date is not dispositive of the date of public accessibility, its date is relevant evidence that supports the Board's finding of public accessibility at the March 2003 IDS Conference.
Moreover, the Board found, and Nobel did not dispute on appeal, that the ABT Catalog is the type of document normally intended for public dissemination. It is undisputed on appeal that the ABT Catalog is the type of document intended for public dissemination, and it bears no designations, such as "draft" or "confidential," that might suggest that it was not intended for public distribution.
The Federal Circuit gave much weight to Chakir's testimony regarding his habitual practice in obtaining product literature, including brochures, at the IDS Conference. Nobel's suggestion that Chakir could have obtained the ABT Catalog confidentially or under other circumstances that would not legally constitute public accessibility lacked any evidentiary basis.
Additionally, Nobel pointed to no evidence that ABT ever distributed the ABT Catalog with an expectation that it would be kept confidential or not disseminated.
The Federal Circuit addressed the sufficiency of the corroboration of the testimony and found the testimony of Messrs. Hantman and Chakir not only to be corroborated by each other, but also by a) the actual copy of the ABT Catalog, dated March 2003, submitted as evidence and b) Dr. Fromovich's testimony that ABT operated a booth at the March 2003 IDS conference.
The fact that Hantman had a copy of the ABT Catalog in his files further corroborates his testimony that he obtained a copy of the same document asserted to be prior art in the IPR.
Thus, although much of the evidence relied upon was based on testimony of biased witnesses regarding events that took place over 10-15 years ago, the Federal Circuit found no reason that the testimony was problematic. As a result, the ABT Catalog was found to be prior art.
• How have recent Federal Circuit decisions impacted application of the obviousness standard?
• What level of "unexpected results" is needed to demonstrate patentability?
• How can practitioners leverage recent decisions in which the Federal Circuit has insisted upon more thorough, reasoned explanations of the PTO's obviousness conclusions?
• What strategies should patentees and petitioners employ to prevail on obviousness assertions in an IPR proceeding, and how will those strategies fare at the Federal Circuit?
D Young & Co will be offering its next European biotech patent law update on October 30, 2018. The webinar will be offered at three times: 5:00 am, 8:00 am, and 1:00 pm (EDT). D Young & Co European Patent Attorneys Simon O'Brien and Matthew Caines will provide an essential update and live Q&A on EPO biotechnology case law.
While there is no fee to participate, attendees must register in advance. Those wishing to register can do so here.

References: v. 
 § 1498
 § 18
 § 1337
 § 1498
 § 1498
 § 102
 § 1498
 § 102
 § 1337
 § 102
 § 102
 § 102
 § 102