Source: https://www.mwe.com/de/insights/ip-update-july-2016/
Timestamp: 2020-07-09 04:20:42
Document Index: 700999320

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§102', '§112', '§ 512']

IP Update, Vol. 19, No. 7 - McDermott Will & Emery
IPR Institution Decisions Not Appealable, Broadest Reas...
Indirect Patent Infringement Can Be Based on Willful Bl...
The Whole Claim Is More Inventive Than the Sum of Its G...
Prior Art References Introduced After IPR Institution A...
Opportunity for Response when Claim Construction Change...
Federal Circuit Rubberstamps 50-Year-Old Practice to Sa...
Physical Combinability of References Not Necessarily Re...
Claim Terms with No Specialized Meaning in the Art Alwa...
Arm’s Length Royalty Rates Save Medtronic from $1.36 ...
In First Set of Post-Grant Review Decisions, PTAB Strik...
PTAB Denies Priority Claim, Has No Affinity for “Anti...
Not What the Doctor Ordered: Injunction Ruled Too Narro...
Kirtsaeng II: Fees in Copyright Cases Depend on Reasona...
Burning Man Bus Not a Protected Work of Visual Art Unde...
DMCA Safe Harbor Protection Includes Pre-1972 Recording...
The Federal Circuit stated that Commil, like the Supreme Court’s prior decision in Global-Tech, held that proof of induced infringement requires not “only knowledge of the patent” but also “proof the defendant knew the [induced] acts were infringing.” The Federal Circuit reasoned that Commil, in reaffirming Global-Tech, “also necessarily reaffirmed that willful blindness can satisfy the knowledge requirement for active inducement under § 271(b) (and for contributory infringement under 271 (c)), even in the absence of actual knowledge.”
Additional Note: Although the Federal Circuit views Commil as not changing the standards for a finding of indirect infringement set forth in Global-Tech, this case does not address the change in law under Commil—accused indirect infringers can no longer rely on a good faith belief of patent invalidity to avoid the intent requirement of indirect infringement after Commil.
In this case, the Federal Circuit found the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user, to be an inventive concept. The Federal Circuit also explained that the claims did not merely recite the abstract idea of filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on a set of generic computer components. Because the claims carve out a specific location for the filtering system, they do not preempt the use of the abstract idea of filtering content on the internet or generic computer components performing conventional activities. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit concluded that the ordered combination of claim limitations transformed the abstract idea of filtering content into a particular, practical application of that abstract idea.
Addressing issues related to introducing additional prior art references after institution of an inter partes review (IPR), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) invalidity ruling, concluding that the opposing party was given proper notice of references not originally cited in the PTAB’s institution decisions. Genzyme Therapeutic Products Ltd. v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc., Case Nos. 15-1720; -1721 (Fed. Cir., June 14, 2016) (Bryson, J).
Genzyme sued Biomarin alleging infringement of two patents directed to treating Pompe disease with injections of human acid α-glucosidase. Biomarin filed petitions requesting IPR of the two patents, and Genzyme filed responses to both IPRs. Biomarin filed a reply to the patent owner responses, citing two in vivo studies of enzyme replacement therapy for Pompe disease. The PTAB held the disputed claims of the two patents to be unpatentable as obvious. In its final written decisions, the PTAB referred to the state of the art in the two in vivo studies to conclude that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success” at the time of invention to achieve the results recited in the disputed claims. Genzyme appealed the invalidity rulings by the PTAB.
On appeal, Genzyme argued that the PTAB violated the notice requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Federal Circuit disagreed, noting that the provisions imposed by the APA have been interpreted to mean that an agency may not change theories in midstream without giving respondents reasonable notice of the change and the opportunity to present argument under the new theory. (See discussion of SAS v. ComplementSoft in this issue of IP Update). The Federal Circuit found no evidence that the PTAB changed theories midstream in this case, and explained that the grounds on which the PTAB invalidated the disputed claims in its final written decisions were the same as those in its institution decisions.
The Federal Circuit explained that “[t]he purpose of the trial in an inter partes review proceeding is to give the parties an opportunity to build a record by introducing evidence—not simply to weigh evidence of which the Board is already aware.” Therefore the institution decision need not refer to every piece of evidence on which the PTAB relies in its final written decision. Here, Genzyme was denied neither notice nor an opportunity to respond to the in vivo studies. Indeed, Genzyme addressed the studies’ relevance in its responses to the petitions, and also failed to exercise its available procedural options to respond to Biomarin’s arguments or to try to exclude the studies. The Federal Circuit also agreed that the therapy strategy disclosed in the studies supported the PTAB’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the grounds set forth in the institution decisions. The Federal Circuit therefore affirmed the PTAB’s final written decisions.
The Federal Circuit also noted that the introduction of new evidence after IPR institution is permissible as long as the opposing party has notice and an opportunity to respond to such new evidence irrespective of whether that evidence was cited in the PTAB’s institution decision.
Practice Note: A prior art reference introduced into the proceedings after IPR institution can serve as notice to the opposing party of reliance on that prior art, and therefore, unless procedural options are exercised to limit the final written decision to references cited in the institution decision, the newly introduced prior art reference can become part of the grounds on which the PTAB can issue a final written decision.
SAS also argued that the PTAB’s final written decision was deficient for failing to address the patentability of all claims challenged in the IPR petition, including those claims for which the PTAB did not institute IPR. The Court found this argument foreclosed by the recent decision in Synopsis (IP Update, Vol. 19, No. 3).
In dissent, Judge Newman argued that the written decision should address the patentability of all of the challenged claims, contending that the PTAB’s practice of deciding the validity of only some of the challenged claims negates the intended legislative purpose of the America Invents Act.
PATENTS / CONTINUATION APPLICATION PRIORITY
Allied owns a patent directed to an interchangeable tool system that includes a jaw set couplable to a universal body. Allied’s claims require a jaw set having a pair of moveable blades pivoted together about a main pivot pin that is encased by a housing, wherein the blades are moveable relative to the housing. To decouple the jaw set, the housing can be removed from the universal body without disassembly of the pivot pin. Genesis filed a request for inter partes reexamination of Allied’s patent, arguing that it is obvious over two references, Caterpillar and Ogawa. The PTAB agreed, and Allied appealed to the Federal Circuit.
At the Federal Circuit, the issue was whether it would have been obvious to modify Caterpillar to make both blades movable as taught by Ogawa, while retaining Caterpillar’s quick-change functionality. Allied presented two distinct arguments in support of its position that the combination was not proper. First, Allied challenged the PTAB’s finding of any motivation to combine Caterpillar and Ogawa, arguing that making the proposed combination requires “a massive, nonobvious reconstruction of the device that not only changes its principle of operation, but renders the device inoperable as a result.” Second, Allied argued that Caterpillar teaches away from a combination with Ogawa.
With respect to the first argument, the Federal Circuit agreed with the PTAB’s reasoning, explaining that the test for obviousness is whether the claimed invention is rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole, not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. As such, even though modifying Caterpillar’s movable blades “may impede the quick change functionality disclosed by Caterpillar,” the Federal Circuit stated that “[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.“
As for the second argument, the Court concluded that Caterpillar does not expressly teach away from Ogawa. “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In this case, although Caterpillar criticizes a specific structure disclosed by Ogawa (the use of two separate hydraulic chambers), the criticized structure is extraneous to the proposed combination. Because Caterpillar does not criticize the actual portions used in the combination (the pivot pin attachment mechanism and two movable jaws), Alliance’s argument is not persuasive.
PATENTS / AIA / IPR / REVIEW PROCEDURES
Judge Newman dissented, stating that the plain text of the AIA expressly divides IPR into two distinct phases, to be heard by two distinct entities. First the director makes a threshold institution determination. Then the PTAB conducts a merits trial. Judge Newman noted that independence of the two decision-makers “is crucial to achieving the statutory purpose” and protecting patentees by ensuring that the threshold decision to institute does not pre-ordain or prejudice the later decision on the merits. She also cited practitioners who have criticized the practice of allowing the same PTAB panel to both institute and make a final decision on the merits because of the potential bias against the patent owner. Newman concluded by voicing her concern that the US Patent and Trademark Office’s practice of assigning the same PTAB panel to both institute and conduct a merits trial “is not only contrary to the statute, but has devastating consequences for the public confidence in post-grant proceedings and the patent system as a whole.”
The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to review a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding active inducement infringement under 35 USC § 271(f)(1) in a case important to US manufacturers that supply components of patented inventions for use abroad. Life Technologies Corporation v. Promega Corporation, Case No. 14-1583 (US, June 27, 2016) (decision on cert.)
At the district court, Life Technologies Corporation (LifeTech) acknowledged that by selling certain kits, it directly infringed the asserted patent under § 271(a). Many of those sales were made abroad, however, and LifeTech supplied only a single component of those kits from the United States—the Taq polymerase. For those sales, the district court instructed the jury on active inducement under § 271(f)(1) and, over LifeTech’s objection that it could not induce itself within the meaning of the statute, instructed the jury to include in the damage calculation kits made outside the United States where the Taq polymerase was supplied from the United States.
The jury returned a damage award based on LifeTech’s worldwide sales. Later, on LifeTech’s move for judgment as a matter of law, the district court ruled that § 271(f)(1) requires the involvement of another, unrelated party to “actively induce the combination of components” and that no other party was involved in LifeTech’s assembly of the accused kits overseas. It also found that the statutory phrase “substantial portion of the components” requires at least two components to be supplied from the United States, but that LifeTech supplied only a single component.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the ruling regarding § 271(f)(1), concluding that even a single component supplied from the United States can constitute “a substantial portion” of the components of a patented invention (IP Update, Vol. 18, No. 1).
The text of 35 USC § 271 (f)(1) reads as follows:
Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer. (Emphasis added.)
The question on which the Supreme Court granted certiorari is as follows:
Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that supplying a single, commodity component of a multi-component invention from the United States is an infringing act under 35 USC § 271(f)(1), exposing the manufacturer to liability for all worldwide sales.
In other words, the Supreme Court will decide if LifeTech’s export of the Taq polymerase was sufficient to be considered a “substantial portion of the components” under the statute, thereby exposing LifeTech to infringement damages based on its worldwide sale of the subject kits.
AIA / POST-GRANT REVIEW (PGR)
In Life Technologies, the PTAB instituted CBM review of claims to computerized methods and systems for aggregating inventory information from multiple customers in order to facilitate more economical inventory management. The claimed technology used generic computers, and the patent specification taught that several commercially available software products could be used in the invention. In the PTAB’s final written decision, it found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of inventory management. Addressing Enfish, the PTAB recognized “that the Federal Circuit recently has stated that the first step of our [Alice eligibility] analysis should not be pro forma when the claims are directed to improvements in software.” Nonetheless, the PTAB found that the claims were directed to an abstract idea because they were not directed to “a specific improvement in the way computers operate.” Because the claims also were insufficiently limited to confer eligibility under step two of the Alice test, the PTAB determined the claims patent ineligible.
In Informatica, the PTAB also struck down software-related claims as patent ineligible. The claims were drawn to a “data security system” wherein a first database stores encrypted entries and, when queried, automatically generates a call to a second database that stores “protection attributes,” such as user permissions. The system provided access to data in the first database only when the second database’s “rules” were satisfied. In its final written decision, the PTAB concluded that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “determining whether access to data should be granted based on whether one or more rules are satisfied.” Citing Enfish, the PTAB again recognized “that the first step of our [eligibility] analysis should not be pro forma when the claims are directed to improvements in software.” However, the PTAB found that the claims were not “directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” rejecting the patent owner’s argument that providing or restricting database access was a problem unique to computers. Accordingly, and because the claims were insufficiently limited to confer eligibility at Alice step two, the PTAB found the claims patent ineligible.
AIA / IPR / ENABLEMENT AND WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
The challenged patent’s claims are directed to a method of impairing osteoclast differentiation that includes administering to a subject an antibody or antigen binding fragment that specifically binds to human or murine Siglec-15. The challenged patent is a continuation in part of an earlier-filed patent. The petitioner challenged certain claims as anticipated by a single prior art reference. The patent owner did not dispute that the prior art reference disclosed the limitations of the claims, instead challenging only the availability of the reference as prior art. Thus, the question of anticipation rested on (1) whether the claims were entitled to the benefit of priority of the parent application, and (2) whether the reference could be removed as prior art under 35 USC §102(a).
With respect to the priority claim, the PTAB considered whether the parent application adequately described and enabled one of skill in the art to practice the claimed method, as required by 35 USC §112. As to the enablement issue, the PTAB considered whether one skilled in the art could practice the claimed method without undue experimentation, relying on the Wands factors for guidance. The PTAB focused on the functional properties of the claimed anti-Siglec-15 antibodies, since the claims required the antibody to have a desired therapeutic effect when administered to a subject for medical treatment.
Turning to written description, the PTAB addressed the patent owner’s reliance on “the antibody rule,” whereby an applicant can satisfy the written description requirement for an antibody by disclosing a fully characterized antigen to which such antibody binds. In finding that the parent application lacked adequate written description of the claimed method, the PTAB noted that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has on several occasions distinguished between claims not involving functional claim language and claims that contain such language. In this case, because the claims at issue contain functional language requiring certain biological properties of the recited antibody, the disclosure of a fully characterized antigen is not sufficient to meet the written description requirement.
Finally, the PTAB considered the patent owner’s attempt to antedate the prior art reference by establishing earlier conception accompanied by diligence towards a reduction to practice. Upon examining the patent owner’s records, the PTAB concluded that, as of the critical date of the prior art document, the patent owner was still conducting trial and error experimentation to identify antibodies having the claimed functional properties. Therefore, the patent owner could not have been in possession of antibodies that worked for their intended purpose as recited in the challenged method claims.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) reiterating its determination that a single DuPont factor, such as the dissimilarity of the marks, can be dispositive in a likelihood of confusion analysis. Oakville Hills Cellar, Inc. v. Georgallis Holdings, LLC, Case No. 16-1103 (Fed. Cir., June 24, 2016) (Lourie, J).
The TTAB dismissed Oakville’s opposition to Georgallis’s MAYARI application based on Oakville’s prior registration for MAYA, both of which are for “wine.” The TTAB assessed the evidence of record and determined that the first DuPont likelihood of confusion factor (i.e., the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression) led to a finding of no likelihood of confusion and was dispositive, notwithstanding the TTAB’s conclusion that other factors (the similarity of the goods, channels of trade and conditions under which buyers make their sales decisions) tended to show a likelihood of confusion and that other factors were neutral.
Practice Note: Evidence is your best friend in a likelihood of confusion analysis, especially when attempting to show dissection of a mark.
TRADEMARKS / SCOPE OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
COPYRIGHTS / LITIGATION / FEE AWARDS
COPYRIGHTS / VARA
In her concurrence, Judge McKeown commented that the Court should adopt a different definition of “applied art,” and that that definition should examine whether aesthetic elements of an object are “subservient” to the object’s utilitarian purpose. She explained that the Court’s definition may unduly narrow the protections of artists under VARA.
A group of record and music publishing companies filed suit against Vimeo, an online video platform, alleging that Vimeo was liable for copyright infringement because of 199 videos posted on Vimeo’s website. The videos contained musical recordings for which the plaintiffs owned the rights. Vimeo requires its users to upload only material that they have either created or participated in the creation thereof. Vimeo moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was protected by the safe harbor provision under 17 USC § 512 (c).
The DMCA protects internet service providers from liability when users upload copyrighted content, while requiring such providers to remove the material if they receive notice of the infringement or otherwise become aware of the infringement.
The district court found that Vimeo was protected under the DMCA’s safe harbor provision for 153 of the videos posted on its website, but that the safe harbor provision was not applicable to recordings earlier than 1972 (the year Congress first included recordings in the scope of federal copyright law) because those recordings are protected by state law. The district court also found that Vimeo could face lawsuits over whether it had known of “red flags” that made infringement apparent. The plaintiffs and Vimeo both appealed.
The Second Circuit explained that the protection afforded by the DMCA safe harbor provision includes pre-1972 sound recordings even though those recordings are protected by state copyright law and not federal copyright law. Exempting the old tracks from the DMCA’s system would “defeat the very purpose Congress sought to achieve in passing the statute,” namely, to shield online hosts from liability if they follow the rules. “Service providers would be compelled either to incur heavy costs of monitoring every posting to be sure it did not contain infringing pre-1972 recordings, or incurring potentially crushing liabilities under state copyright laws,” which would be contrary to the purpose of the DMCA.
The Court also concluded that Vimeo was entitled to protection under the DMCA safe harbor provision even though its employees viewed and “liked” videos containing copyrighted songs and encouraged specific infringements. Once a defendant demonstrates that it qualifies for DMCA safe harbor protections, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present facts to show that the defendant had actual or red flag knowledge of the infringing activity. Here, the plaintiffs’ evidence was not enough.
COPYRIGHTS / REGULATORY / INTERNET REGULATION