Source: http://techlawjournal.com/home/newsbriefs/2005/08d.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:08:15+00:00

Document:
TLJ News: August 16-20, 2005.
8/19. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its opinion [9 pages in PDF] in Broadcast Innovation v. Charter Communications, a patent infringement case involving the issue of determining the priority date, for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 120, of patents originating from foreign applications. The technology involved in this case is a distributed database system with applicability to data broadcasting and data casting communications media. The District Court held that the patent in suit is invalid for having been anticipated by an earlier foreign application. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court used the wrong date for priority, and reversed. The case will now continue in the District Court.
IO Research Pty Ltd., an Australian company, is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,076,094, titled "Distributed database system and database received therefor". Broadcast Innovation LLC is the exclusive licensee of this patent in the US.
IO had previously disclosed this technology in patent applications in Australia, which were later consolidated into a single international application (PCT), filed on November 26, 1993. This became a national stage application in the United States on July 18, 1995, as No. 08/436,336.
Broadcast Innovation filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DColo) against Charter Communications and Comcast alleging infringement of this patent. IO later joined the litigation. Comcast has settled with the plaintiffs.
The District Court granted summary judgment of invalidity to Charter on the basis that its earliest priority date, July 18, 1995, falls more than one year after its publication of the same technology.
The Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that the District Court court improperly determined the patent’s priority date. It held that the correct date is November 26, 1993, the PCT filing date, notwithstanding the fact that the patent in suit, '094, states that is was "filed Jul. 18, 1995", and "does not include a specific reference to the PCT application on its cover or in its specification".
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) provides, in part, that "A person shall be entitled to a patent unless ... (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States".
The Court of Appeals summarized the history. "The ’336 application eventually matured into U.S. Patent No. 5,737,595 (the ’595 patent). Before issuance of the ’595 patent, the applicant filed a continuation application as 09/054,896 (the ’896 application). The ’896 application, in turn, matured into U.S. Patent No. 5,999,934 (the ’934 patent). Again before issuance of the ’934 patent, the applicant filed a divisional application 09/316,164 (the ’164 application). This divisional matured into the ’094 patent which is at issue in the present case."
The Court continued that "The ’094 patent includes a specific reference to its predecessors, the ’934 patent and the ’595 patent, but does not include a specific reference to the PCT application on its cover or in its specification. Thus, the issue before this court is purely a question of law – namely, what is the priority date of the ’094 patent in the absence of a specific reference to the PCT application?"
The Court of Appeals held that even though Section 120 uses the term "specific reference to the earlier filed application", since the patent in suit, '094, refers to the '595 and '934 patents, reference to the PCT application is not required, and the patentee is entitled to the priority date of the filing of the PCT.
And since this date is not more than one year after disclosure, the patent is not invalid under Section 102(b).
The Court of Appeals did not address the claim construction issue. It remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.
This case is Broadcast Innovation LLC and IO Research Pty Ltd. v. Charter Communications, Inc. and Comcast Corporation, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. No. 05-1008, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, D.C. No. 03-WY-2223-AJ (BNB), Judge Alan Johnson presiding. Judge Rader wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Dyk and Randolph joined.
8/19. The World Trade Organization (WTO) released an order [31 pages in PDF] of the Arbitrator, Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, in the WTO proceeding regarding whether various state and federal laws affecting internet gambling violate the treaty obligations of the US. The order provides that the US must implement the April 20, 2005 order by April 3, 2006.
On November 10, 2004, a Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) of the WTO released its report [287 pages in PDF] on Antigua and Barbuda's complaint against the US. It held that various federal laws, including the Wire Act, and various state laws, violate the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). See, story titled "WTO Panel Instructs Congress to Amend Wire Act to Legalize Internet Gambling" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert 1,016, November 11, 2004.
However, on April 7, 2005, the WTO's Appellate Body issued its report [146 pages in PDF] that reversed key parts of the DRP's findings. The report of the Appellate Body "finds that the Wire Act, the Travel Act, and the Illegal Gambling Business Act are ``measures ... necessary to protect public morals or to maintain public order´´" and therefore do not violate treaty obligations. The report of the Appellate Body also reversed the panel's findings regarding the state gambling laws. However, it let stand some parts of the November 10, 2004 DRP report. See also, story titled "WTO Appellate Body Upholds U.S. Laws Affecting Internet Gambling" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,111, April 8, 2005.
On April 20, 2005, the DRP issued an order that adopted the Appellate Body's report. The US and Antigua and Barbuda have not reached agreement regarding the deadline for the US to implement those portions of the DRP's original report that were not overturned on appeal. The just released order sets a deadline of April 3, 2006.
8/19. Microsoft and Artemis Solutions Group (ASG) announced that they "have reached a confidential settlement agreement resolving a trademark infringement action filed by ASG regarding its registered trademark, BioCert". They further stated that "As part of the settlement, ASG will retain its trademark rights and will dismiss its action against Microsoft". See, Microsoft release and ASG release.
8/18. The U.S. Court of Appeals (10thCir) issued its amended opinion [15 pages in PDF] in Pritchett v. Office Depot, another case involving interpretation of the removal provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
Earlier this year, the Congress enacted the CAFA in response to the large number of meritless class action lawsuits being brought in class action friendly state courts. It allows certain cases, that are "commenced" after February 18, 2005, to be removed to federal court. See, S 5, the "Class Action Fairness Act of 2005", which is now Public Law No. 109-2. See also, story titled "Bush Signs Class Action Reform Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,080, February 18, 2005.
The present case is a class action, filed in state court in Colorado, in 2003, against Office Depot, alleging violation of Colorado law regarding payment of overtime wages. After February 18, 2005, and just before the beginning of the trial in state court, Office Depot removed the action to the U.S. District Court (DColo). This appeal addresses whether the District Court does have removal jurisdiction under the CAFA.
Office Depot advanced the imaginative argument that its removal of the action commenced an action in the federal court, and that this constitutes an action "commenced" after February 18, 2005, within the meaning of the CAFA. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument.
Office Depot's argument is contrary to the understanding of members of Congress who drafted and voted for the CAFA. Also, this argument, if adopted by the courts, would render the statutory cut off date meaningless. Finally, allowing removal of cases that have advanced to the trial stage, such as this one, would result in litigation chaos.
This case is Romia Pritchett v. Office Depot, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 05-0501, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Judge Ebel wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges O'Brien and McConnell joined.
8/18. John Doll was named Commissioner for Patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). He has been acting Commissioner for Patents since April of 2005. He has worked for the USPTO since 1974. Doll was previously Deputy Commissioner for Patent Resources and Planning directing information processing and technology, and budget formulation and execution for patent operations. Before that, he was Special Assistant to the Under Secretary. The USPTO stated in a release that he was "a group director from 1995-2005 in the technology center responsible for examination of biotechnology, organic chemistry, and pharmaceutical patent applications. He was an integral part of the team responsible for last year's implementation of the Image File Wrapper (IFW), the USPTO’s electronic patent application processing system."
8/18. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), which regulates exports, announced that it fined The McFarland Cascade Pole and Lumber Company $454,000, and fined The Oeser Company $83,200, for exporting lumber to Canada in violation of the BIS's Export Administration Regulations (EARs). See, BIS release. Specifically, the two companies exported Western Red Cedar (Thuja Plicata), a softwood of exceptional beauty and durability that is used for making furniture, patio decks, and wall, ceiling and sauna paneling. Section 754.4 of the EARs pertains to Western Red Cedar. The authority for the EAR is the expired Export Administration Act of 1979. The Act's primary purpose was to regulate exports to protect national security. The BIS also regulates the export of computers, software, encryption products, and other information technology products.
8/17. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued an order [PDF] in Integra LifeScience v. Merck. On June 13, 2005, the Supreme Court issued its opinion [17 pages in PDF] vacating the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir). This is a case regarding the limited statutory exemption to patent infringement, codified at 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), for research using DNA and genetic manipulation techniques.
The Supreme Court issued a short opinion that merely construed the statute, without engaging in any discussion of the common law research exemption, or the policy implications of allowing research exemptions.
"(1) The mandate is hereby recalled and the appeal is reinstated.
(2) The case is returned to the original merits panel.
(3) New briefs shall be filed, with particular attention paid to the Supreme Court decision.
(4) The appellants' principal brief shall be due within 60 days of the date of filing of this order. The dates for filing the remaining briefs shall be in accordance with Fed. Cir. R. 31(a). An original and 22 copies of all briefs shall be filed, and two copies shall be served on opposing counsel. The court sua sponte allows amicus briefs."
See also, story titled "Supreme Court Rules on Research Exemption to Patent Infringement" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,153, June 14, 2005, and story titled "Supreme Court Takes Case Involving Research Exemption to Patent Infringement" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,053, January 11, 2005.
8/17. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Public Notice [27 pages in PDF] that requests public comments regarding four proposals (which are attached to the Public Notice) submitted to the FCC by members and staff of the FCC's Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service regarding universal service subsidies for rural carriers. One of these proposals also proposes expanding the services that are taxed to support universal service subsidies.
He added that "The dramatic decrease in traditional long distance wireline traffic and the increase in the use of VoIP and the deployment of IP networks has changed the dynamics of USF so irrevocably that immediate attention to the issue is required. Consideration of the expansion of contributions is necessary to continue to provide the support contemplated in the rest of the HIP".
Deadline to submit initial comments is September 16, 2005. The deadline to submit reply comments is October 3, 2005. This Public Notice is FCC 05J-1 in CC Docket No. 96-45.
8/16. The U.S. Court of Appeals (8thCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in American Boat Company v. Unknown Sunken Barge. The underlying action pleads negligence by the U.S. in maintaining navigable rivers. The appeal issue concerns the consequences of incompetence of the District Court in fulfilling its duties to serve papers by e-mail or regular mail. The plaintiff missed the deadline to file an appeal because the District Court neglected to serve its final order on the plaintiff's attorneys. The District Court then denied a motion to extend time. The Court of Appeals reversed.
This case involves a dispute about liability for damage to a barge on the Mississippi River cause by a submerged sunken barge. American Boat Company sued the United States for failure to maintain the navigable channel of the lower Mississippi River. The District Court entered judgment for the U.S. However, the present appeal has nothing to do with collisions with sunken barges. It is about the consequences of the District Court's failure to provide notice by e-mail, or by paper mail, to the parties.
The District Court operates an electronic case filing and case management system. Litigants can register to receive e-mail notice of case filings, in which case they are not entitled to service of paper copies. Alternatively, litigants can receive paper copies. At the relevant time, American Boat's trial counsel had not registered to receive e-mail notice. However, its local counsel, and his secretary, had registered to receive e-mail notice. Counsel for the U.S. were similarly split, with some not electing to receive e-mail service, but some electing the e-mail method.
None of the attorneys for American Boat, or the U.S., who elected to receive paper service, actually received service of the key order. With the one exception of the local U.S. Attorney, the Attorneys for American Boat, and the U.S., who elected to receive e-mail service, did not receive service. That is, the defense counsel, who are adverse to American Boat, corroborated the testimony of the attorneys for American Boat.
Since no one at American Boat knew of the District Court's final order, it did not file a notice of appeal within the 60 day time limit set by Rule 4(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRCP) [66 pages in PDF].
When it learned of the final order, from PACER, it filed a motion to reopen the time to file an appeal, which the District Court denied. It then filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court also denied. During the pendency of this motion, some of the attorneys for American Boat registered to receive e-mail service, but still did not receive notices from the District Court. American Boat filed a second motion to reconsider. The evidence in support of these motions included affidavits from attorneys, law office staff, a computer technician, and a network operations director for an internet service provider. The Court received no sworn testimony from the office of the clerk of the court. The Court denied a request for an evidentiary hearing.
The District Court relied solely upon a clerk's docket entries. It held that there is a presumption of delivery if the docket entries say so. It held that American Boat is not entitled to an extension of time under Rule 4(a)(6).
However, the docket entries, even if true, did not state that service has been made. Rather, the docket stated that "Notice will be electronically mailed to", and then listed four e-mail addresses. It also stated that "Notice will not be electronically mailed to”, and then listed four names. Both of these entries are written in the future tense. They state that service "will" be made, not that service has been made.
American Boat appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, and remanded to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing.
The Court of Appeals wrote that "We agree with the district court that a presumption of delivery should apply to e-mails." However, it held that "the appellants have made a sufficient showing to at least be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether they have adequately rebutted the presumption."
The Court noted that proving a negative, such as non-service, is difficult. It wrote that "In cases involving lack of notice, there is often little a party can do except swear he or she did not receive the communication. Here, where several intended recipients, most of whom are officers of the court, all said they did not receive notice, there is enough evidence to warrant an evidentiary hearing on the rebuttal of the presumption of delivery and receipt."
This case is American Boat Company, Inc., et al. v. Unknown Sunken Barge et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 04-3388, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, D.C. No. 1:01-cv-21. Judge Melloy wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Bright and Murphy joined.
8/16. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) announced that they are seeking someone to fill the position of Division Chief for the Computer Security Division (CSD). See, notice.
Go to News from August 11-15, 2005.

References: v. 
 § 102
 § 120
 § 102
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 271
 v. 
 v.