Source: http://ipduck.blogspot.com/2011/04/
Timestamp: 2017-06-22 14:08:46
Document Index: 760953377

Matched Legal Cases: ['§282', '§282', '§282', '§282', '§282', '§282', '§282', '§282']

IPDuck: April 2011
"Want Better Brains? Party!"
Here's the video: Sartre Wars!
Read this cartoon.
As has been widely reported, MGA won the retrial in the long-running lawsuit filed by Mattel over MGA's "Bratz" line of toy dolls. The jury said that MGA is the answer to Judge Kozinski's question, "Who owns Bratz?" The verdict form is here.
Today the Federal Circuit released an en banc opinion in Tivo v. Echostar. This case deals with the standards for contempt proceedings after trial and entry of a permanent injunction. As such, the issue doesn't come up very often, but the Federal Circuit took the case en banc to clarify -- and overrule -- some of its earlier precedent. Rejecting the application of the previous "colorably different" test, the court held: Thus, the party seeking to enforce the injunction must prove both that the newly accused product is not more than colorably different from the product found to infringe and that the newly accused product actually infringes. We have stated the test for colorable differences as one that requires determining whether “substantial open issues with respect to infringement to be tried” exist. KSM, 776 F.2d at 1532. In some cases, that has misled district courts to focus solely on infringement by the newly accused devices in deciding contempt. That is the case here. Today, we reject that infringement-based understanding of the colorably different test. Instead of focusing solely on infringement, the contempt analysis must focus initially on the differences between the features relied upon to establish infringement and the modified features of the newly accused products. The primary question on contempt should be whether the newly accused product is so different from the product previously found to infringe that it raises “a fair ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct.” Cal. Artificial Stone Paving Co., 113 U.S. at 618. The analysis must focus not on differences between randomly chosen features of the product found to infringe in the earlier infringement trial and the newly accused product, Additive Controls, 154 F.3d at 1350, but on those aspects of the accused product that were previously alleged to be, and were a basis for, the prior finding of infringement, and the modified features of the newly accused product. Specifically, one should focus on those elements of the adjudged infringing products that the patentee previously contended, and proved, satisfy specific limitations of the asserted claims. Where one or more of those elements previously found to infringe has been modified, or removed, the court must make an inquiry into whether that modification is significant. If those differences between the old and new elements are significant, the newly accused product as a whole shall be deemed more than colorably different from the adjudged infringing one, and the inquiry into whether the newly accused product actually infringes is irrelevant. Contempt is then inappropriate. Arbek Mfg., Inc. v. Moazzam, 55 F.3d 1567, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[T]he modifying party generally deserves the opportunity to litigate the infringement questions at a new trial.”).There is more going on in this opinion, including a separate section on a provision requiring Echostar to disable certain products already sold, but the above holding is of greatest interest.
YouTube has a new video: "YouTube Copyright School." I think this is serious, but I'll label it under both "Copyright" and "Humor" to be sure.
(Note to the creator of this video, if you need it: my DMCA contact information is available in the lower right.)
UPDATE: Here are comments by EFF, Joe Mullin and Techdirt. And here's a post by The Onion, thus validating my initial decision to label this under both "Copyright" and "Humor."
FURTHER UPDATE: Public Knowledge has started a contest to create a better video than YouTube's. The winner gets a $1,000 prize. Posted by
Today, Facebook won an appeal against the Winklevoss brothers. The film "The Social Network" featured the lawsuit the Winklevosses filed against Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg, claiming that they and not Zuckerberg invented the concept for Facebook. The parties settled the case for a reported $65 million in cash and stock. However, the Winklevosses claimed the settlement was invalid. Facebook asked the courts to confirm the settlement, which a trial court did awhile ago and which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did today. Here's the opinion. Of course, the stock is worth even more now, so don't feel too sorry for the Winklevosses.
It's International "Louie Louie" Day!
On April 6, 2011, Kent Walker, Google's Senior VP and General Counsel, testified before the Google's Testimony Before the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet. This was at a hearing on “Promoting Investment and Protecting Commerce Online: Legitimate Sites v. Parasites, Part II.” (Any chance that the use of the word "Parasites" in the title of the hearing showed some bias?) Anyway, Mr. Walker's written testimony can be found here. Techdirt has an article about the hearing here. A few highlights of the written testimony:
Want to see how much easier the Exodus would have been in 2011? Watch this video. Hit the "pause" button frequently to catch all the subtle humor. (Here's a YouTube link.)
Some Thoughts About the Upcoming Oral Argument in Microsoft v. i4i
On April 18, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Microsoft v. i4i. As I explained in previous posts on the subject, this cases involves the standard of proof for the difficulty of invalidating a patent. Microsoft is asking the Court to lower the standard of proof from clear and convincing evidence to a preponderance of the evidence -- at least when the prior art was not considered by the Patent Office (PTO).
i4i filed its opposition brief on March 11, and a number of amicus briefs supporting i4i were filed the following week. i4i has helpfully prepared a web page linking to all the briefs -- thanks, i4i!
The amicus briefs supporting i4i -- and the higher standard of proof -- can be grouped into several categories:
As expected, several large biotechnology companies or organizations supported i4i, such as Genentech and Bayer.
Certain "non-practicing entities," such as Intellectual Ventures.
Several bar associations, such as the San Diego IPLA.
The United States, represented by the Solictor General's office, filed a brief that argued that the higher standard was justified as a way of showing deference to the PTO, a governmental agency. (Discussions about the USA's brief are here and here.)
A mix of several other organizations, individuals, and companies, such as a group of former PTO Commissioners.
Now that the briefs are all in, here are some points to watch out for during the oral argument. (A transcript of the oral argument will be available within a day or two after April 18.)
1. The patent statute in question, 35 U.S.C. §282, says that the party challenging validity (usually the defendant) has the burden of proving invalidity. However, specifying which side has to prove an issue isn’t the same thing as quantifying the quantum of proof (standard of proof) on the issue. Normally in a civil case, the plaintiff has to prove all the elements of its claims. So but for §282, a patent plaintiff would otherwise have to prove ownership of the patent, validity, infringement, and damages.
Because Congress felt that the PTO’s issuance of a patent is entitled to at least some degree of deference, §282 reverses the ordinary allocation of proof and requires the defendant to prove invalidity. But that allocation alone (1) shows deference to the PTO, and (2) doesn’t by its wording mean that the deference has to be by clear and convincing evidence. A presumption that a patent is valid doesn’t necessarily require that the proof to invalidate the patent must be clear and convincing. In this case, §282 is silent on the standard of proof.
The Internet Retailers’ brief contained a 40-page appendix of federal statutes that explicitly require “clear and convincing” proof. Since §282 doesn’t contain such a standard, the plain inference is that Congress didn’t intend §282 to require clear and convincing evidence. i4i counters with its own list of statutes that specify a preponderance standard, see i4i Brief at 1a-7a. At most, that means we should look to ordinary rules of statutory interpretation to figure out §282’s standard of proof.
2. The ordinary rules for deciding standards of proof are set out in two Supreme Court non-patent cases called Grogan and Huddleston. (In past situations where the Court has reviewed a patent case, it has applied its ordinary rules of law, something the Federal Circuit hasn't always done.) If you hear some of the Justices asking about Grogan and Huddleston, that means they are interested in applying that law in this case. Interestingly, although briefs of Microsoft and its amici discussed those cases at length, i4i's brief hardly did at all. Only one of i4i's amici, the Pharma Research brief, did so in detail. There is probably a good reason why Microsft and its amici discussed Grogan and Huddleston, and i4i and its amici probably didn't: the cases strongly favor Microsoft. The cases say that the usual rule is that the burden of proof in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence, and the clear-and-convincing standard only applies where "particularly important" interests are involved. These are usually things like proceedings to terminate parental rights or involuntary commitments. This wouldn't seem to apply to patent cases.
i4i did argue that promoting innovation is "particularly important," so patents should enjoy a strong presumption of validity. The problem with this argument is that promoting innovation isn't the end of the story with the grant of patents. The patent system reflects a balance between promoting innovation and avoiding monopolies that stifle innovation. Improperly granted patents that are invalid can harm innovation by removing existing knowledge from the public's use. i4i relied on part of a Supreme Court case called Bonito Boats for the proposition that patents promote innovation -- but i4i ignores Bonito Boats’ point about balancing innovation against the harm to competition caused by improperly-granted monopolies. Bonito Boats has language about a “carefully crafted bargain” in the patent system that i4i partially quotes in its brief -- but after i4i quotes the part it likes, Bonito Boats then goes on to explain what that “bargain” means:
“The attractiveness of such a bargain, and its effectiveness in inducing creative effort and disclosure of the results of that effort, depend almost entirely on a backdrop of free competition in the exploitation of unpatented designs and innovations. The novelty and nonobviousness requirements of patentability embody a congressional understanding, implicit in the Patent Clause itself, that free exploitation of ideas will be the rule, to which the protection of a federal patent is the exception.” 489 U.S. at 151 (italics added).
If you hear the Justices asking about Grogan, Huddleston and Bonito Boats at the oral argument, that's a good sign for Microsoft, and a bad sign for i4i.
3. i4i and its amici are left to argue that court precedent has always set a "uniform" rule of clear-and-convincing proof, so all §282 did was codify that uniform rule. i4i relies on a case called RCA, or Radio Corp., that supposedly established clear-and-convincing proof as the standard in all cases. There is a big debate in the briefs over whether RCA really established an absolute rule in all circumstances. (See, for example, EFF's brief at 30-31.) If the Justices discuss RCA, listen carefully to what they think it means.
4. In any event, it's doubtful that RCA either established a "uniform" rule, or even a clear rule that the Courts of Appeals understood to be uniform. Both before and after the 1952 Patent Act, and before the Federal Circuit was created in 1982, many other Courts of Appeals didn't hold that the standard of proof was always clear-and-convincing. Rather, many such courts held that if the prior art asserted in the lawsuit hadn't been considered by the PTO, the presumption of validity was weakened, or lowered to just a preponderance of the evidence. Click here for a list of such cases. 5. i4i and its amici argue that the existing standard of proof should be kept because of "settled expectations" by the public. Given the large number of pre-Federal Circuit courts that didn't rely on the clear and convincing standard -- at least where the PTO had not considered the prior art -- it's not clear how "settled" those expectations should have been. In any event, that same argument was made and rejected in the 2007 case of KSR v. Teleflex, where the Supreme Court made it easier to find a patent obvious, overturning two decades of Federal Circuit precedent in the process.
I'll post a link to the transcript of oral argument as soon as it is available.