Source: https://www.patentdocs.org/2019/05/
Timestamp: 2020-06-02 04:45:27
Document Index: 739638980

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 285', '§ 101', '§ 285', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101']

Last week, in Tangelo IP, LLC v. Tupperware Brands Corp., District Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied a motion for exceptional case filed by Defendant Tupperware Brands Corp., finding that Tupperware Brands had failed to establish that the case was exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Plaintiff Tangelo IP, LLC had filed suit against Tupperware Brands, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,429,005. Tupperware Brands responded by filing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the '005 patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The District Court granted the motion, and Tupperware Brands then moved for a finding of exceptional case and requested attorneys' fees under § 285.
In determining that the case was not exceptional, the District Court noted that although it had found the '005 patent to be invalid under § 101, "that does not mean Plaintiff's contrary position was unreasonable." In support, the Court cited SFA Sys., LLC v. Newegg Inc., 793 F.3d 1344, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015), for the proposition that "it is the substantive strength of the party's litigating position that is relevant to an exceptional case determination, not the correctness or eventual success of that position" (emphasis in opinion).
In response to Tupperware Brands' argument that Tangelo had "ignored substantial precedent dismissing analogous claims directed to concepts long-practiced in society," the Court noted that Tupperware Brands had "identifie[d] no precedent addressing claims analogous to those in the '005 patent, at least beyond the broad category of claims directed to 'concepts long-practiced in society.'" Judge Andrews also noted that he had not identified any cases in which analogous claims had been found to be patent ineligible.
Judge Andrews concluded the opinion by distinguishing the instant case from his decision in Finnavations LLC v. Payoneer, Inc., 2019 WL 1236358 (D. Del. Mar. 18, 2019). In Finnavations, Judge Andrews had granted motions for exceptional case and attorneys' fees based on claims that were "plainly directed at a patent ineligible concept," where there was "no question" that the patent at issue was invalid because the claims were analogous to those struck down in Alice. Judge Andrews found the instant case to be "clearly a different situation," explaining that while he ultimately agreed with Tupperware Brands regarding the validity of the '005 patent, "there is room for argument." Judge Andrews also pointed out that he was not aware of any precedent that leaves "no question" as to the validity of the '005 patent, "particularly in view of the somewhat opaque nature of § 101." The Court therefore denied Tupperware Brands' motion for a finding of exceptional case.
Posted at 11:39 PM in Damages, District Court, Patentable Subject Matter | Permalink | Comments (0)
Posted at 10:37 PM in International IP, Patentable Subject Matter | Permalink | Comments (0)
Posted at 10:54 PM in Food and Drug Administration, Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)
May 30, 2019 - "Reasonable Measures to Protect Trade Secrets: Lessons for Litigators and In-House Counsel" (Intellectual Property Owners Association) - 2:00 to 3:00 pm (ET)
June 3-6, 2019 - BIO International Convention (Biotechnology Innovation Organization) - Philadelphia, PA
IPO Webinar on Protection of Trade Secrets
The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) will offer a one-hour webinar entitled "Reasonable Measures to Protect Trade Secrets: Lessons for Litigators and In-House Counsel" on May 30, 2019 from 2:00 to 3:00 pm (ET). Kenneth Corsello of IBM, David Morrison of Goldberg Kohn, and Shannon Murphy of Winston & Strawn LLP will analyze specific cases where plaintiff companies could not point to specific protective steps they had taken to protect their trade secrets, and in which defendants prevailed via a motion to dismiss, summary judgment, or at trial. The panel will outline ways a company, in order to overcome threshold challenges to the assertion of trade secret theft claims, can articulate, with specificity, the measures it undertook to protect its trade secrets, such as:
• Differentiating protective measures for the alleged proprietary trade secrets from those imposed on other corporate information
• Showing optimal terms in a confidentiality agreement
• Having procedures to limit access for departing employees
The panel will discuss how these measures are weighed and/or required by courts.
Posted at 11:59 PM in Patent Legislation | Permalink | Comments (7)
Posted at 09:11 PM in Patent Legislation | Permalink | Comments (4)
Posted at 11:58 PM in Federal Circuit, Inventorship, Trade Secrets | Permalink | Comments (2)
In October 2017, Hyper Search brought a patent infringement action against Facebook in the District of Delaware, asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 6,085,219, 6,271,840, and 6,792,412. Facebook sought to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), alleging that all asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. While all three patents suffered a similar fate, the '412 patent and the Court's reasoning regarding this patent is of particular interest because the claims thereof specifically address machine learning.
Machine learning is a subset of artificial intelligence in which a data set -- usually a large one -- is used to train a computational model. This model is then applied to new instances of data to provide a result in line with the training. In this fashion, software can be used to classify and/or predict outcomes often with greater accuracy than can be expected from human performance or programs developed in a more traditional manner. Notably, the exact algorithm and rules used by the model are not explicitly provided by the programmer -- instead, the process of training the model develops these rules from the training data. Machine learning has been applied with success to various technological fields, such as speech recognition, image classification, supply chain management, drug efficacy, genetic similarity, and information technology services, just to name a few.
The patent eligibility of artificial intelligence, machine learning in particular, is an open issue. There have been no substantive Supreme Court or Federal Circuit § 101 cases to date, and just a handful in the district courts. But this handful has not been representative of how machine learning claims are now drafted (or should be drafted), and the machine learning content therein was often tangentially related to the actual claim language. Thus, any proceeding that can provide insight on the nuances of how machine learning inventions are being viewed by the courts is potentially helpful.
Why is patent-eligibility an issue for machine learning inventions? This is because the validity of software patents as a whole has been subject to an additional layer of scrutiny for the last five years.
Considering machine learning from one viewpoint, it is no more than abstract mathematics enabled by generic computing devices and applied to data; therefore, it is inherently ineligible under § 101. From the other end of the spectrum, machine learning can be thought of as solving complex problems by creating new algorithms that in practice can only be used by computers; thus, it is inherently technical. Most uses of machine learning lie between these two extremes. Applying a vanilla model to any data -- even new data -- is probably not eligible and may even be obvious as well. On the other hand, most practical uses of machine learning require at least some innovative model design, training techniques, data preparation, mapping of the prepared data to the model, and post-processing of model output. Any of one or more of these latter mechanisms may be enough to lift a claim over the § 101 hurdle.
In any event, claim language and the problem being solved matters in the § 101 inquiry, as Hyper Search found out the hard way. Claim 1 of the '412 patent recites:
A system for controlling information output based on user feedback about the information comprising:
In a nutshell, the invention uses a neural network (which is a type of machine learning model) to determine how to provide information from particular sources to particular output objects. The neural network periodically re-evaluates the weights based on ratings from the objects.
Facebook contended that this claim "is directed to the abstract idea of providing information based on feedback from recipients." Hyper Search countered that its invention is "an improvement in computer capability because the system controls information output based on user feedback about the information itself" and "that this is a specific process that is new, performed by a computer, iterative, and adaptive."
The Court appeared to adopt Facebook's interpretation of the claim, finding that "[c]laims directed to providing information based on feedback have previously been held patent-ineligible by this court" due to their being abstract. The Court further asserted that the "claims of the '412 patent implement a generic computer system to obtain functional results of providing information based on feedback from recipients" and that "Hyper Search does not show how the system of claim 1 is an improvement in computer capability." The Court further criticized the breadth and vagueness of the asserted claims, stating that this "sets the [them] apart from the claim language deemed sufficient to establish patent eligibility in the Federal Circuit's recent decisions, such as [Enfish v. Microsoft]."
Finding claim 1 abstract, the Court moved on to the second part of the Alice test. The Court noted that the claim "recites generic computer functionality such as a 'neural network module' and a 'server.'" Hyper Search's specification worked against it, as "[t]he specification states that neural networks were well-known in the art, and the inventors stated that the alleged invention is not limited to neural networks but rather to 'any artificial intelligence agent.'"
Hyper Search attempted to rely on BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC to establish that its claimed arrangement of elements provides a technical improvement. But the Court was not convinced since "Hyper Search does not identify any such example in the specifications in the patents-in-suit, and does not show how any of the prior elements are particularly arranged in the claimed inventions such that they improve the performance of the computer itself." Further, "Hyper Search does not identify any concrete improvements to specific computer functionality or solutions rooted in problems that only existed on computers, but instead generally asserts that each of the asserted claims is directed to solving a computer-related problem."
Consequently, the Court concluded that the asserted claims were invalid under § 101 and that the case should be dismissed.
Not unlike previous cases where the patent-eligibility of machine learning inventions was considered, the patentee here was hobbled by overly broad and non-specific claims that did not focus on exactly how the model operated or was trained. Additionally, there was no particular detail in the claim of how this model's input or output was processed. As a result, the facts of this case are so skewed against finding the claims eligible that it is a not a great data point. Thus, it would be a mistake to conclude that the outcome here does anything more than reiterate that generic claims with sweeping language are likely to have difficulties under § 101.
Ways to avoid or at least mitigate patent-eligibility challenges for machine learning inventions have been discussed previously and still apply. Until a claim written in accordance with these techniques is subject of a § 101 challenge, the eligibility landscape of machine learning inventions will remain largely unmapped.
Posted at 11:14 PM in District Court, Patentable Subject Matter | Permalink | Comments (2)
Posted at 11:09 PM in Damages, District Court, Patentable Subject Matter | Permalink | Comments (3)
May 21, 2019 - "Protecting Your Canna-IP: What You Should Know, Now" (McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP) - 10:00 am to 11:15 am (CT)
May 21, 2019 - "Structuring Patent Licensing Agreements: Avoiding Litigation, Allocating Risk and Maximizing Patent Value" (Strafford) - 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EDT)
May 23, 2019 - "PTAB Discretion: Exploring the New Metes and Boundaries" (Intellectual Property Owners Association) - 2:00 to 3:00 pm (ET)
The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) will offer a one-hour webinar entitled "PTAB Discretion: Exploring the New Metes and Boundaries" on May 23, 2019 from 2:00 to 3:00 pm (ET). Orion Armon of Cooley LLP, Kirby Lee of Ecolab, and Vice Chief Judge Scott Weidenfeller of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board will explore the scope and impact of recent important PTAB precedential opinions, as well as the decisions that have been designated "informative." Topics to be addressed by the panel will include:
• Now binding cases regarding follow-on petitions, where the same patent is challenged multiple times by the same petitioner or by a series of petitioners
• PTAB discretion regarding first-filed petitions
• Same party issue joinder and real-party-in-interest issues as articulated in Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC
• PTAB discretion to deny institution
• Details on Revised Standard Operating Procedure 2 ("SOP2") changes to procedures