Source: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/08/index.html
Timestamp: 2013-05-22 06:24:30
Document Index: 768298836

Matched Legal Cases: ['§103', '§102', '§102', '§112', '§112', '§112', '§112', '§112', '§102', '§102', '§102', '§102', '§102', '§103', '§102', 'art 60', '§ 112']

First, I’m happy to report that one of my favorite patent blogs, the 271 Patent Blog by Peter Zura is back in business. Welcome back Peter. I’ve been covering the TiVo v. EchoStar case here. Peter has information about the companion case EchoStar v. TiVo here. In the first case TiVo sued EchoStar for patent infringement, and in the second, EchoStar sued TiVo for patent infringement. This is great fodder for an antitrust article (or blog post). We have what may be a market duopoly with each side holding potentially essential intellectual property rights. The take-home for patent attorneys involves the second case — the one filed by EchoStar. That case was recently stayed pending the outcome of an inter partes reexamination filed by TiVo. In its decision to stay, the magistrate judge gave a good amount of weight to the fact that the reexam was inter partes — thus giving both sides an opportunity to continue the litigation in another form — as well as the statutory litigation estoppel effect against TiVo if the validity EchoStar’s patents are reaffirmed in the reexamination process. In other words, the fact that the reexam is inter partes made the court more likely to stay the litigation. Peter Zura’s Analysis of the stay.
Posted on Aug 31, 2006 at 12:11 AM in Patent Cases 2006 | Permalink
Ormco v. Align Technology (Fed. Cir. 2006). Align owns a couple of patents covering a system of using a series of sequential orthodontic retainers. Each retainer in the series is used to shift the teeth a bit. Claim 1 is typical and, according to the CAFC: essentially requires (a) three or more appliances with geometries selected to progressively reposition teeth; (b) instructions regarding order of use; and (c) provision of the appliances in a single package to the patient. On summary judgment, the patent was found not invalid and infringed. The defendant appealed on obviousness and won. The opinion is interesting because the court gives only lip-service to the requirement of proof of motivation to modify the the teaching of prior art to achieve the claimed invention. The prior art reference taught the progressive retainers, but did not teach the single package provisioning limitation. The only motivation modify provided by the court is as follows: Under these circumstances, we do not think that the single package limitation makes the device of the ‘611 patent claims patentably distinct. Providing the devices to the patient in one package, as opposed to two packages or three packages is not a novel or patentable feature in the light of the well-known practice of packaging items in the manner most convenient to the purchaser.
statutes and regulations promulgated under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA") generally require instructions for medical devices. Whether or not these regulations apply to the specific orthodontic devices involved here, they supply ample evidence of a motivation to provide instructions as to how to use the devices. Note: The timing of this case is exceptional. As the respondent and oppositional amici in KSR are preparing their briefs, this decision appears showing the flexibility of the modification test and its ability to allow the court to bend over backwards to achieve the right results. . . . Posted on Aug 30, 2006 at 01:33 PM in Patent Cases 2006 | Permalink
Lets hear from Experienced PTO Examiners: Are you willing to move? Serious engineers and scientists don’t necessarily fit well in the policy-wonk culture of DC. Rumor has it that the whole Potomac area is a bit of a revolving door with the transient politico-intelligencia moving in-and-out as politics shift and families grow. The USPTO is no different, and it is no secret that the agency is having trouble hiring qualified patent examiners as well as retaining those who are there and doing a great job. One serious solution floated in the newest “Strategic Plan” calls for establishing regional offices, perhaps in Denver or Chicago, that could take some of the load. For these regional offices to be successful, a cadre of experienced examiners would need to make the move to server as leaders in the new officers. If you are an examiner, would you be willing to move west to the Windy City or Ski country? Comments are open.
Posted on Aug 30, 2006 at 08:54 AM in USPTO News | Permalink
In 1977, noted economist F.M. Scherer wrote a monograph entitled “The Economic Effects of Compulsory Patent Licensing.” At that time, there was pending legislation on compulsory licensing of nuclear technology. In some ways, Scherer’s analysis thirty years ago can serve as the starting-point for determining whether to issue an injunction in our post-eBay environment. Specifically, Scherer argues that compulsory licensing should not be favored when any of the following are true:
Posted on Aug 29, 2006 at 06:42 AM in Articles and Publications | Permalink
Doesn’t anyone think that debates over “combinations of references” are outdated? I usually only use one reference — Google. Occasionally I combine Google with a directed PTO search — although even that will likely become more rare as Google continues to digest and index the history of written word. We are information rich, and arguments that exclude certain bits of knowledge from “prior art” based on inaccessibility do not make sense when that information was freely available online and indexed by Google. On another note, in the current regime, where the Internet is not a single reference, couldn’t a showing that two references would have both been retrieved with a single Google search serve as evidence of a motivation to combine the two? Of course, these teasers suggest a new business model: Archiving of Google search results for later use during litigation. Posted on Aug 28, 2006 at 07:28 PM | Permalink
PTO's Strategic Plan
The PTO has released a draft “strategic plan” for the next five years. (2007–2012). I have not had a chance to review the draft yet except to note that the PTO continues to see human resources as its greatest challenge. One interesting bit may foreshadow future changes: An open question that the USPTO will address [is whether] there is some combination of examination processes and patent products that will better allow applicants to choose what determinations and results they need and what are the most efficient processes to pursue those results and at the same time provide a more efficient use of the examination resources of the USPTO by only providing the level of examination required by the applicant. Anyone in practice will agree that patents on biotech and pharmaceutical inventions are pursued in a much different fashion than are most mechanical or electrical type applications. An upcoming academic conference at Michigan will focus on this “diversity in innovation” and will focus on whether our current unified system should remain so. As with many of the trends in patent law today, Mark Lemley is out in front on this one as well. Besides diversity across areas of technology, there is also a diversity amongst what patent owners want from the patent system. A so-called “gold plated” system was proposed by Lemley, Doug Lichtman, and Bhaven Sampat earlier this year. The PTO is asking for comments and will hold a public forum on September 26, 2006 at the Office. Documents: Strategic Plan
Posted on Aug 27, 2006 at 10:14 PM in USPTO News | Permalink
Continue reading "KSR v. Teleflex: Rethinking Obviousness" »
CAFC Condones District Court Preliminary Injunction Jurisdiction Despite Ongoing ITC Exclusion Order
Fuji Photo Film v. Benun (Fed. Cir. 2006). Fuji’s disposable camera patent litigation against Jazz Photo and Benun (Jazz’s owner) is ongoing. (See, e.g., here and here). The lower court granted a preliminary injunction stopping Benun from importing any otherwise infringing disposable cameras that did not originate from camera shells that were first sold in the U.S. Because the ITC has an ongoing Exclusion Order for these products, the defendants challenged the district court’s jurisdiction to enjoin the activity. Benun tied its jurisdiction argument to the ITC’s grant of jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C., 1581(a), the ITC has “exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced to contest the denial of a protest, in whole or in part, under section 515 of the Tariff Act of 1930.” As the CAFC aptly found, however, the statute does not “even vaguely suggest[] that the statutory scheme for protesting a seizure . . . divests a district court of jurisdiction to consider an injunction on goods subject to a general exclusion order.” According to the CAFC, this distinction makes sense because of the major differences between a general exclusion order and a preliminary injunction to stop patent infringement. Specifically, a general exclusion order is a government action that merely excludes goods from entry. The district court infringement case, however, can lead to damages and attorney fees as well as potential contempt proceedings for violation of a preliminary injunction.
Read the decision. Posted on Aug 23, 2006 at 08:05 PM in Patent Cases 2006 | Permalink
Interesting sideline results from some empirical work that I’m doing: In 2001, the PTO began publishing patent applications 18 months after filing unless the applicant filed a nonpublication request. To date, more than 1.2 million pending applications have been published. Of the first 100 published applications, 73 applications have issued as patents and 27 were abandoned. None of the originally filed applications are still pending, and only one of the abandoned application still has a pending continuation. 19 of the abandoned applications have at least one family-member that is an issued patent. Thus, leaving only 8 that are “fully dead” (i.e., with no known issued patents or pending family members). Posted on Aug 23, 2006 at 09:10 AM | Permalink
Litigation Misconduct and Enhanced Damages
z4 v. Microsoft (E.D. Tex. 2006). The Eastern District of Texas has been busy leading the post-eBay anti-injunction craze. z4’s motion for injunctive relief against Microsoft was denied (see z4), but the small holding company was still awarded $115,000,000 in damages against the software giant. Now, the court has added another $25,000,000 in enhanced willfulness damages and $2.3 million in costs and attorneys’ fees. z4 and its owner David Colvin successfully played the underdog: [T]here is ample circumstantial evidence that to Microsoft[,] Colvin and his patent rights were insignificant because Microsoft never thought Colvin would be able to pursue his rights against it. The evidence presented at trial suggests that Microsoft considered z4 a small and irrelevant company that was not worthy of Microsoft’s time and attention, even if Microsoft was potentially infringing its patents.
In economics literature, this potential for "underenforcement" is a classic justification of punitive damages. The court then went through a laundry list of examples of Microsoft’s litigation misconduct that formed the basis for the finding of an exceptional case as well as a partial basis for the enhanced willfulness damages. Some of these are listed below:
Microsoft is expected to appeal this decision. z4 will likely cross-appeal the denial of injunction. Continue reading "Litigation Misconduct and Enhanced Damages" »
Posted on Aug 22, 2006 at 09:00 AM in Patent Cases 2006 | Permalink
<?xml:namespace prefix ="" o />ED: The following note was submitted for anonymous publication by a practicing patent attorney:
For all the public debate over controversial broad objectives in the various pending patent reform bills, there has been remarkably little published academic or other attention to whether or not the extensive new specific draft language in these bills will accomplish those objectives without drafting errors creating unintended ambiguities in judicial interpretations. This note will particularly question, an example that seems to be in common to the pending bills, the draft language for the crucial definition of the “effective date” of an application or patent. The seriousness of current patent reform legislative efforts has been more than adequately demonstrated over the past two years. There have been a number of Congressional hearings, other public debates and IPL association activities over the [evolving] versions of H.R. 2795 in 2005, the Berman/Boucher H.R. 5299 in 2004, major FTC and other studies and reports on patent reform, etc. Now, on <?xml:namespace prefix ="" st1 />August 4, 2006 Senators Hatch and Leahy have introduced “their own” Bill, S. 3818, the “Patent Reform Act of 2006”( for which there will be a House equivalent). Although there will be considerable further debate into the next term of Congress, passage of some form of major new patent legislation next year seems quite likely. Many of these patent reform proposals are not that controversial. In particular, clarifications of “willful infringement,” §103(c), inter partes reexaminations, assignee filing, restoration of the prior patent venue statute, an “opposition system” of some kind, elimination of most interferences (and other “secret prior art” business investment uncertainties) with some form of “first inventor to file” plus some form of associated changes in §102 and “prior user” defenses, etc. Thus, there are highly likely to be a number of major changes in the present patent statute even if the most controversial provisions end up removed or amended in the final legislation. This note is not about any controversial issues. Rather, the intent here is simply to encourage better reviewing, by both the patent bar and academia, of specific drafting language issues that might present serious future ambiguities or unintended legal consequences, which seems to be getting insufficient attention. Whatever version of any of these draft bills is enacted, it will generate a great deal of new statutory language for which there will be no legal precedents. This new language will at best only be eventually interpreted in "cases of first impression" by individual panels of the Federal Circuit. That should give readers pause to consider that some Federal Circuit interpretations of even relatively old patent law language have been quite controversial, and some have even been unanimously overruled by the Supreme Court. This in turn should strongly suggest that very careful attention be paid to completely new and untested statutory language to insure that it is as completely unambiguous and as completely free of possible unintended interpretations as possible. All members of the patent bar and their clients will be greatly affected by any of the pending “patent reform” bills. No doubt those authoring the specific legislative language consider that it does not have any possible ambiguities or misinterpretations, to them. However, legal and Congressional history is full of such surprises. The frequent necessity for subsequent “technical corrections” legislation is evidence enough. For example, it took several years for passage of technical correction legislation to fix an unintended problem created by the 1999 AIPA legislation’s amendment of 35 USC §102(e). Patent law is a specialized legal area of uniquely semantically clever lawyers, who unfortunately rarely apply themselves to legislation in advance. Furthermore Congressional staff members, no matter how brilliant, are highly unlikely to have sufficient patent law practice background to be able to anticipate all of the possible interrelated consequences of major changes in patent statutory language. Thus, there should logically be a much broader participation by the patent bar in careful and critical reading of draft legislation and providing thoughtful comments on specific wording in time to fix it. That is, not just depending on brief summaries of the intentions or alleged effects of this legislation by proponents or opponents. Especially from lobbyists who have never practiced patent law, “planted” newspaper and magazine articles, and other very incomplete and unreliable sources. More advance consideration is needed by those who can actually understand this legislation, the legal problems it is addressing, and the full ramifications of the specific legislative language. In many cases this may be merely to suggest minor wording changes. Even if the legislation itself is not changed, the legislative history might be improved in some cases. This would also seem to be a far more meaningful activity for law school professors than non-pending legislative proposals which no one with any influence is supporting. To pick just one example in this draft legislation language, consider the critical S. 3818 definition of the term “effective filing date of a claimed invention,” which is identical or similar to that of other patent reform Bills. All competent patent attorneys are familiar with this date and its criticality. It is even more crucial for the proposed “first to file” system. Under long established current case law it means the filing date of a patent application having full 35 USC §112 support for what is being presently claimed (in its subsequent patent or in any other pending applications claiming priority date benefit therefrom). It has not ever meant the filing date of an application containing a bare unsupported claim with no §112 enablement of any kind. So, let us consider the actual language of S. 3818 “SEC. 3” on p. 2. It contains in subsections (h)(1) and (2) a new definition of the “effective filing date of a claimed invention.” It states that the “effective filing date of a claimed invention” is: “(1) the filing date of the patent or the application for patent containing the claim to the invention; or (2) if the patent or application for patent is entitled to a right of priority of any other application under .. or an earlier filing date in the United States under .., the filing date of the earliest such application in which the claimed invention is disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112.” [Emphasis supplied]
First, note that SEC.3 (h) subsections (1) and (2) are defined in the alternative - “or”. Note that the first alternative, (h)(1), has no §112 requirement at all. It would literally provide an “effective filing date” for an application or patent merely “containing the claim” irrespective of whether or not it ever had any §112 enablement support as of its filing date, incongruously unlike the alternative (h)(2). [As all patent attorneys know, a §112 enablement attempted to be added after the filing date is illegal “new matter.”] Thus a literal reading of Sec. 3 (h)(1), especially as read in contrast to alternative (h)(2) (normal statutory interpretation) would give an “effective filing date” to a patent application filed with a bare claim to an invention even if there was no enablement example or description whatsoever for that claimed invention! That is, granting a “first inventor to file” date for a bare concept suggestion with no teaching of any way to make or use it. Yet, if that same application or patent had a foreign or U.S. priority claim it would not get that date benefit, because then (h)(2) would apply instead, appropriately requiring that “the claimed invention is disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112.” Furthermore, would not applicants filing a continuation or divisional also lose this literally defined (h)(1) original effective filing date by thereby converting the application and its ultimate patent from (h)(1) to (h)(2)? It someone can clearly explain why a normal judge would not read this proposed statute this way if it is enacted, this reader would gratefully appreciate the enlightenment. Now, confusing this reader further, please note that on page 5 of this Bill you will find in a new §102(b)((3) another, different, and not cross-referenced definition [why?] of the same critical term for when a patent or application is “effectively filed,” but here only “under subsection (a)(2).” This effective filing date definition is only with respect to “subject matter described in the patent or application -”..”as of the filing date ..” [emphasis supplied] There is also a subparagraph Sec. 3 (h)(2)(i) on page 3 stating that:
“(i) The term “claimed invention” means the subject matter defined by a claim in a patent or an application for a patent.”
Why is this Sec. 3 (h)(2)(i) definition presented only as a subparagraph of (h)(2), thus by normal statutory interpretation only defining the term “claimed invention” just in (h)(2)? As noted above, the same term “claimed invention” also appears in (h) itself prior to both (h)(1) and (h)(2). Was this deliberate for some reason? Further as to the vital question of what would still be prior art, or not, this p. 3 et sec S. 3818 version of a whole new 35 USC §102 definition of prior art seems shorter and simpler than that of prior bills. That may be desirable, but it should also trigger patent attorney and client interest in what is being left out of the present statute and all its case law, and how situations will be handled if this Bill becomes law. For example, the present and very important “on sale” bar defense would be eliminated in this and other pending legislation. However, the prior pending H.R. 2795 §102 had been revised to make it clear that software in one’s own sold products would remain prior art to later attempts of others to patent it. That was widely considered vital to avoid judicial debates over whether or not that internal software would be considered “publicly known,” since that would be the only other §102 defense left for this now-common situation under this new §102 . Yet S. 3818 seems to have left out that vital provision. Finally, just for a couple of other drafting examples, the S. 3818 amendment of §103 in (c)(1)(A) on page 6 restores an undisputed typographical error previously caught and corrected in the amended version of H.R. 2795. Namely, “through” instead of “though” in: “A patent for the claimed invention may not be obtained through [sic] the claimed invention;..” Also, what does the last line of S. 3818 Sec. 5 (b)(2) on p. 20 mean by “..such claim, the infringer.”? In conclusion, there are undoubtedly other potential unintended interpretations or drafting errors subject to unpredictable D.C. and Federal Circuit de novo interpretations in all this new language that ought to be under a lot more academic and other public discussion. Especially those relating to 35 USC §102 and other extremely important statutory sections affecting all aspects of patent law practice. The introductory remarks for S. 3818 by Senator Hatch have welcomed further useful input on this draft legislation. Careful and timely review and correction of specific language ought to be provided by all those in a position to do so. Cite as NOTE, “Patent Reform Bills: Do Not Forget the Details”, Patently-O, available at http://patentlyo.com/patent/2006/08/patent_reform_b.html. Posted on Aug 21, 2006 at 07:38 PM in Patent Legislation | Permalink
Specific Exclusion Exception to the Doctrine of Equivalence Cook Biotech v. ACell (Fed. Cir. 2006). Cook’s claims were directed to a urinary bladder submucosa derived tissue graft composition that is entirely delaminated from "the luminal portion of the tunica mucosa." The graft can be implanted to support damaged tissues. A number of claim construction and inventorship issues were raised. However, an interesting aspect of the case is the court’s further development of the specific exclusion exception to the doctrine of equivalents. The specific exclusion exception can be considered part of the “all limitations rule” and operates to exclude from the doctrine of equivalents, any elements “specifically excluded by a claim limitation.”
A claim that specifically excludes an element cannot through a theory of equivalence be used to capture a composition that contains that expressly excluded element without violating the "all limitations rule." Here, the accused infringing product contains at least a portion of the luminal portion of the tunica mucosa. ACell argued, and the CAFC agreed, that the DOE cannot be extended to the accused product without rendering the delamination requirement meaningless.
Permitting appellees to assert such a theory of equivalence would effectively remove the requirement that the urinary bladder submucosa be delaminated from "the luminal portion of the tunica mucosa." Although the CAFC does not use the term “vitiation” here, the specific exclusion exception is essentially the same concept. As the court held in the 2005 Freedman Seating case, an element of an accused product or process is not, as a matter of law, equivalent to a limitation of the claimed invention if such a finding would entirely vitiate the limitation. Documents:
Posted on Aug 21, 2006 at 07:03 PM | Permalink
Injunction Granted to TiVo; Injunction Denied in Favor of Toyota. TiVo v. EchoStar (E.D.Tex. 2006)
Posted on Aug 18, 2006 at 05:44 PM in Patent Cases 2006 | Permalink
Monsanto's Roundup Ready Patents Survive Appeal
Monsanto v. Scruggs (Fed. Cir. 2006). Back in 2000, Monsanto sued Scruggs for infringement of its patents covering Roundup Ready (R) soybeans and cotton. Scruggs, a Mississippi farmer, had allegedly replanted seeds that he had grown on his farm. Monsanto won the infringement case on summary judgment and an injunction issued. First Sale Doctrine: On appeal, Scruggs argued that because he purchased the seeds in an unrestricted sale, he was entitled to use those seeds in an unencumbered fashion under the doctrine of patent exhaustion. Scruggs’ first sale argument failed for two reasons. First, although Scruggs never obtained a license to use the seeds, he was supposed to under Monsanto policy — therefore the sale was not “unrestricted.” Second, as the CAFC held in McFarling, rights to second generation seeds are lost by unencombered sale of first generation seeds. The fact that a patented technology can replicate itself does not give a purchaser the right to use replicated copies of the technology. Applying the first sale doctrine to subsequent generations of self-replicating technology would eviscerate the rights of the patent holder. Antitrust Counterclaims: As a countermeasure, Scruggs asserted that Monsanto was misusing its patents and violating antitrust laws through its licensing requirements that include “an exclusivity provision, a no replant policy, a no research policy, . . . the payment of a technology fee,” and use of Roundup brand herbicide (with certain limitations). The CAFC made quick-work of these arguments — many of which were previously decided in the 2004 MacFarling case. By rearguing the previously decided in MacFarling, Scruggs appears to be set-up for a petition for certiorari based on those general principles.
In dissent from the antitrust conclusion, Judge Dyk argued Monsanto’s Roundup requirement to be unlawful tying. More particularly, the requirement to use Roundup branded herbicide should be considered unlawful tying even if not other manufactuer had regulatory approval because that license term would chill activity of competitors in seeking their own regulatory approval. A potential herbicide competitor thus would be concerned that, even if it secured government approval of its product, use of the approved herbicide would still be barred under the contracts. The elimination of such potential competition is not permissible under the antitrust laws. Interestingly, neither the majority nor the dissent questioned the “no research” requirement of the license that prohibited research and/or experimentation on the seeds. In fact, all three judges explicity agreed that restriction is a legitimate “field of use” restriction. (Perhaps legitimizing a contract-based anti-circumvention requirement à la DMCA.). The CAFC appears to have also ignored the State of Mississippi’s amicus brief arguing, inter alia, Permanent Injunction: The lower court had issued a permanent injunction based on the CAFC’s “traditional rule.” Based on eBay, the CAFC vacated the permanent injunction and remaneded for a full reconsideration of that final issue. Continue reading "Monsanto's Roundup Ready Patents Survive Appeal" »
Posted on Aug 18, 2006 at 05:57 AM in Patent Cases 2006 | Permalink
"Consisting Of" Claim Transition Does Not Exclude Unclaimed Impurities
Conoco’s asserted claims were directed to drag reducing agents for gas pipelines. EEI lost a bench trial and appealed on claim construction. One claim in particular included the transition “consisting of” rather than the more open-ended “comprising.” First, the CAFC refused to review the construction de novo because it had not been properly objected to at trial. Reviewing for clear error (substantial evidence) the appellate panel easily found that certain impurities found in the accused product did not allow EEI to escape infringement even though the closed “consisting of” language was used. [I]mpurities that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would ordinarily associate with a component on the "consisting of" list do not exclude the accused product or process from infringement. Affirmed. Posted on Aug 17, 2006 at 09:43 PM in Patent Cases 2006 | Permalink
Serio-US v. Plastic Recovery Tech (Fed. Cir. 2006). The jury found that PRT did not infringe Serio's patents on automatic trash dumpster locks. Post-Trial Practice: After the jury's finding, the plaintiff did not move for JMOL or a new trial -- thus forclosing an appeal on the question of infringement except for prejudicial error (which was not found). In addition, the plaintiff did not object to the jury instructions which included the court’s claim interpretations -- without an objection these instructions cannot be overtuned unless they are a "miscarriage of justice." No miscarriage was found. Exceptional case: The lower court did not find this to be an exceptional case -- a finding affirmed on appeal: Exceptional cases usually feature some material, inappropriate conduct related to the matter in litigation, such as willful infringement, fraud or inequitable conduct in procuring the patent, misconduct during litigation, vexatious or unjustified litigation, conduct that violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, or like infractions. . . . Absent misconduct in the litigation or in securing the patent, a trial court may only sanction the patentee if both the litigation is brought in subjective bad faith and the litigation is objectively baseless. Because there was evidence that the case was not brought in bad faith, the refusal to award attorney fees was justified. Notes: Read the case
Posted on Aug 14, 2006 at 07:15 AM in Patent Cases 2006 | Permalink
Noonan's Corner Office: Amgen v. HMR
By Kevin Noonan. The peripatetic case of Amgen v. HMR has once again been reviewed by the Federal Circuit. No. 05-1157, decided August 3, 2006. Once again the Court has failed to lay the several issues in the case to rest. While affirming infringement and validity of two of the patents in suit, the court has remanded the matter once again to the district court in view of its de novo claim construction, and perhaps predictably disagreed with the lower court and reversed a determination of infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents.
Continue reading "Noonan's Corner Office: Amgen v. HMR" »
Posted on Aug 13, 2006 at 07:37 AM in Patent Cases 2006 | Permalink
Tegic sued UT in district court in the state of Washington for a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity and unenforceability. UT had previously sued dozens of Tegic’s cellular phone companies for infringement based on Tegic’s underlying predictive text software. That lawsuit is ongoing. Despite UT’s participation in similar litigation, the CAFC found that UT was protected from Tegic under 11th Amendment state immunity, and that the similar litigation did not waive such immunity. Particularly of note, the court found that (1) the suit in Texas does not waive immunity to suit in another state; (2) the “customer suit exception” cannot be used to override 11th Amendment immunity; and (3) UT’s issuance of a covenant not to sue Tegic is not a market entry. The CAFC suggested that Tegic attempt to intervene in the Texas case — of course Tegic’s reason for filing a DJ action in Washington was to get the case out of Texas. . . Pennington Seed v. Produce Exchange No. 299 and Univ. of Arkansas (Fed. Cir. 2006). Pennington sued UofA for infringement of patent No. 6,111,170, which claims a new variety of fescue grass. Pennington argued that 11th Amendment immunity here would violate due process because the state of Arkansas provided no other adequate mechanism for pursuing claims against the state. The CAFC disagreed, citing Florida Prepaid for the proposition that abrogation of state immunity requires a specific abrogation by Congress based on a finding that the available Arkansas procedures are inadequate. Congress has made no such finding. Pennington also sued university officials in their official capacity. The CAFC agreed that these persons were immune from a suit for past monetary damages based on actions in their official capacity. In addition, for an injunction to be viable, there must be a direct nexus between the officials and the alleged infringement. There was none here. Immunity affirmed. Posted on Aug 10, 2006 at 12:46 PM in Patent Cases 2006 | Permalink
On August 25, 2006, the PTO is implementing a new strict practice regarding petitions for accelerated examination (AKA “petitions to make special”). [information here]. The new requirements require, inter alia, that the patent application be filed electronically along with the petition. As a Patently-O reader recently discovered, this appears to rule-out filing a petition based on later-discovered infringement. As a prosecution tip, the way to overcome this difficulty is to electronically file a continuation application along with the petition to make special as soon as the infringement is discovered (and the appropriate search is analyzed). As has been mentioned before, the new rules and restrictions associated with accelerated examination can dramatically increase up-front costs to the client, and they have some potential for loss of rights for your client. Note: Jim Hawes and I are just now completing the August 2006 updates for Patent Application Practice (West). The book serves as a single volume daily reference guide for patent practitioners and includes the basics as well as practical tips and advice. Jim & I keep it up-to-date with twice-yearly updates. (Link).
Posted on Aug 09, 2006 at 03:04 PM in Patent Prosecution, USPTO News | Permalink
CAFC reopens case for determination on fraudulent expert reports
Venture Industries v. Autoliv (Fed. Cir. 2006). At trial, damages experts relied on Venture’s financial statements when calculating damages. It turns out, however, that those statements were at least inaccurate and perhaps fraudulent. Autoliv unsuccessfully moved for relief under FRCP 60(b), then appealed. 60(b)(2): Under Rule 60(b)(2), relief may be granted when new evidence is discovered that clearly would have produced a different result. This rule rightly presents a high hurdle — requiring prejudice — to reopening a closed case. After reviewing the potential new numbers, however, the CAFC agreed that despite the original inaccurate information, the final result was not necessarily mistaken. 60(b)(3): Rule 60(b)(3) relates to fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct. Discovery Misconduct: “Failure to produce material in response to legitimate discovery requests can constitute misconduct under Rule 60(b)(3).” Even though Venture battled against every discovery request, there was no allegation that it disobeyed the Special Master or district court as would be required. Reliance on Fraudulent Financial Statements: Unlike its counterpart 60(b)(2), Rule 6(b)(3) does not require prejudice in the result. Rather, when there is fraudulent testimony, relief is appropriate where “a jury might have reached a different conclusion” without the false testimony. (6th Circuit law). Because the lower court had assumed the prejudice standard, it did not address whether the expert testimony relying upon the incorrect financial statements was, in fact, fraudulent. Thus, the CAFC vacated and remanded for a more complete finding. Notes: Read the opinion here. This case arose out of a 1995 settlement of a patent dispute that was, according to Autoliv, being breached by Venture. Posted on Aug 09, 2006 at 02:18 PM in Patent Cases 2006 | Permalink
Improper claim structure invalidates patent
Pfizer v. Ranbaxy (Fed. Cir. 2006). In an infringement suit arising from Ranbaxy's ANDA filing, Pfizer's two patents covering Lipitor (atorvastatin) were upheld as infringed and not-invalid by the district court Judge Farnan. On appeal, the CAFC affirmed on one patent (leaving Lipitor covered), but found the asserted claim of the second patent (the '995 patent) invalid under Section 112, paragraph 4 because of an improper dependent claim structure. Section 112 of the Patent Act requires, inter alia, that a dependent claim incorporates by reference all the limitations of the parent claim and also specifies a further limitation. Pfizer's asserted claim 6 depends from claim 2, which depends from claim 1. The subject matter of the claims is as follows: Claim 1: (1) atorvastatin acid; or (2) atorvastatin lactone; or (3) pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof.
Claim 2: atorvastatin acid but not atorvastatin lactone or a pharmaceutically acceptable salts.
Claim 6: the hemicalcium salt of the compound of claim 2.Thus, claim 6 fails to "specify a further limitation of the subject matter" of the parent claim (as requred by 112) because the subject matter of claim 6 is completely outside the scope of claim 2.
Consequently, based on violation of the statute, the court found that the claim was invalid. Although the district court was reluctant to find the fourth paragraph of § 112 to be an invalidating provision, doing so does not exalt form over substance. Rather, it is consistent with the overall statutory scheme that requires applicants to satisfy certain requirements before obtaining a patent, some of which are more procedural or technical than others.Reversed in part. Pfizer may be able to correct this defect through a reissue application, although there is some question as to whether the defect here falls within an identified category. Posted on Aug 06, 2006 at 11:40 PM in Patent Cases 2006 | Permalink
Injunction Denied -- Compulsory License Granted
Finisar v. DirectTV Group (E.D. Tex. 2006). A jury found willful infringement by DirectTV. However, in the post-trial hearing, the court denied Finisar's motion for injunctive relief and instead granted a compulsory license. Reasoning from the transcript: Patentee has no irreparable harm because it never made or licensed the invention and DirectTV has money to pay damages. [The court found no presumption of irreparable harm.] Because there are only two major competitors in the "market" (DirectTV and EchoStar), an injunction against DirectTV could create a de facto monopoly in EchoStar's favor. A compulsory license will adequately compensate Finisar -- "especially since Finisar never had the will nor the means to implement the patent itself." Hardship to DirectTV would be enormous. Thousands of employees out of work . . . 15 million lose the ability to watch TV . . . ripple effect . . . "some would say this is a blessing."
Kathi Lutton and Ruffin Cordell of Fish & Richardson have provided several key documents here. Posted on Aug 01, 2006 at 04:20 PM in Patent Cases 2006 | Permalink