Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=090eb4a6-a18f-4b34-a83d-687f5ef71f12
Timestamp: 2017-09-24 07:37:47
Document Index: 392726267

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 4', '§ 12', '§ 37', '§ 1927', '§ 33', '§ 1927']

Patent Happenings, December 2007 - Part II | Robert Matthews, Jr. - JDSupra
Newsletter on case law developments in the area of U.S. patent law during the second half of the month of December, 2007.
LATIMER,MAYBERRY &MATTHEWS IP LAW, LLP (www.latimerIP.com) pHPATENT HAPPENIINGS during December 2007 (Part II) A publication by LATIMER,MAYBERRY &MATTHEWS IP LAW, LLP on judicial, legislative, and administrative developments in patent law. HIGHLIGHTS 1. Conditions specified by an “e.g.” in inventor’s lexicographic definition limited claim scope...... 1 2. Improper to read into lexicographic definition additional requirement of a singular condition.. 2 3. Use of same material to make two component parts vitiated claim limitation requiring two different materials............................................... 3 4. Product-to-product comparison and customer testimonials insufficient to prove infringement on summary judgment......................................... 3 5. Customer-suit exception did not apply to manufacturer who only supplied a noninfringing component to the accused product, even though its component was a key component................... 4 6. Patentee’s lawyers’ communications with employee of accused infringer under the guise of being an ordinary purchaser of the accused system violated ethical rules and warranted striking patentee’s technical expert .................... 4 7. Patentee’s lawyer sanctioned for asserting a baseless request for sanctions ............................ 5 8. Re-deposition ordered and accused infringer’s counsel sanctioned for improper objections that obstructed original deposition............................ 5 9. Accused infringer’s 30(b)(6) designee’s declaration that contradicted his previous deposition testimony stricken, but declaration from other fact witness offered by accused infringer admitted even though it too contradicted the 30(b)(6) deposition testimony.. 6 10. Senators Hatch and Leahy ask the Senate to work on the current patent reform bill as early as possible in the new year ................................. 6 JUDICIAL HAPPENINGS “E.g.” as Part of Lexicographic Definition Where, in a patent specification, an inventor gave an example of a parameter as part of its express definition of a disputed claim term, the Federal Circuit held that the example operated as a limitation on the scope of the claim. In Sinorgchem Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2006-1633, 2007 WL 4465270, *3-*7 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 21, 2007), the patentee asserted claims directed to a method of producing a compound, 6PPD, which acted as a rubber tire antidegradant. One of the steps of the claimed method recited reacting certain chemicals in the presence of a suitable base and a “controlled amount of protic material” to produce an intermediate compound. In the specification, the inventor stated “A ‘controlled amount’ of protic material is an amount up to that which inhibits the reaction of aniline with nitrobenzene, e.g., up to about 4% H2O based on the volume of the reaction mixture when aniline is utilized as the solvent.” The accused product used aniline as its solvent, but had at least 10 to 15% of water throughout the reaction. At the ITC, the Commission construed the term “controlled amount” to require an amount that inhibited the reaction of aniline with nitrobenzene. It thereby applied the first half of the inventor’s stated definition of “controlled amount.” But the ITC did not impose the condition following the “e.g.,” which required that if aniline was the solvent, the amount of water could not exceed “about 4%” of the volume of the reaction mixture. Instead, the ITC treated the “e.g.” as being an example of a preferred embodiment and not a claim limitation since it found the 4% limitation inconsistent with one of the examples shown in the patent. With its construction, the ITC found that the accused process literally infringed, and therefore entered a partial exclusion order. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the ITC erred in its construction of the term “controlled pHPATENT HAPPENINGSduringDecmb207(at) A publication by LATIMER, MAYBERRY & MATTHEWS IP LAW, LLP and developments HIGHLIGHTS JUDICIAL HAPPENINGS 1. Conditions specifed by an "e.g. " in inventor's "g." lexicographic defnition limited claim scope... 1 gave 2. Improper to read into lexicographic defnition a parameter its express additional requirement of a singular condition.. 2 a disputed 3. Use of same material to make two component as a limitation parts vitiated claim limitation requiring two scope of the claim. In Sinorgchem Co. v. Int'l Trade diferent materials ... 3 Comm'n, 4465270, 4. Product-to product comparison and customer 21, 2007), the patentee asserted testimonials insuficient to prove infringement a compound, on summary judgment ... 3 claimed method recited reacting certain 5. Customer-suit exception did not apply to in of suitable manufacturer who only supplied a noninfinging "controlled amount of protic material" to produce an component to the accused product, even though compound. the specification, the its component was a key component ... 4 "`amount' protic 6. Patentee's lawyers' communications with the employee of accused infringer under the guise of nitrobenzene, being an ordinary purchaser of the accused on system violated ethical rules and warranted solvent." The accused striking patentee's technical expert ... 4 7. Patentee's lawyer sanctioned for asserting a baseless request for sanctions ... 5 the ITC, the Commission construed 8. Re-deposition ordered and accused infringer's "amount" require an amount that counsel sanctioned for improper objections that of obstructed original deposition ... 5 the frst of the inventor's stated 9. Accused infringer's 30(b)(6) designee's "amount." declaration that contradicted his previous the "e.g.," which deposition testimony stricken, but declaration was from other fact witness ofered by accused "about 4%" of infringer admitted even though it too the reaction mixture. Instead, the ITC treated the contradicted the 30(b)(6) deposition testimony.. 6 "g." as Leahy, claim limitation found the as early, inconsistent one of the examples its construction, as possible in the new year ... 6 literally and therefore partial Circuit its construction the term "controlled LATIMER, MAYBERRY & MATTHEWS IP LAW, Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=090eb4a6-a18f-4b34-a83d-687f5ef71f12Patent Happenings Page 2 of 7 December 2007, Part II LATIMER,MAYBERRY &MATTHEWS IP LAW, LLP (www.latimerIP.com) amount,” with respect to accused processes that use aniline as the solvent. Noting that when an inventor defines a claim term in the specification “the patentee must be bound by the express definition,” the court held that the clause following the “e.g.” in the definition had to be given effect. Id. at *4.1 Rejecting the ITC’s reliance on portions of the specification vaguely intimating that a concentration of water greater then 4% could be used where aniline was the solvent, the Federal Circuit stated that the “vague language [in the specification] cannot override the express definitional language.” Id. at *5. It stated further that “[w]hen the specification explains and defines a term used in the claims, without ambiguity or incompleteness, there is no need to search further for the meaning of the term. When aniline is used as the solvent, the express definition is neither ambiguous nor incomplete – the ‘controlled amount’ is ‘up to about 4% H2O based on the volume of the reaction mixture’ – and we need look no further for its meaning.” Id. The Federal Circuit also rejected the ITC’s reliance on one of the examples in the specification that allegedly showed the use of an amount of water exceeding the 4% upper bound as supporting a broad construction. The Federal Circuit noted that the example was but one out of twenty-one other examples in the patent. Noting that where “multiple embodiments are disclosed, [the court has] previously interpreted claims to exclude embodiments where those embodiments are inconsistent with unambiguous language in the patent’s specification or prosecution history,” the Federal Circuit ruled that “the fact that the calculated amount of water in Example 10 exceeds 4% where aniline is used as the solvent is entitled to little weight, and cannot override the clear definitional language set forth in the specification.” Id. at *6-*7. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit held that in situations where aniline was used as the solvent the term “controlled amount” had to be construed to mean no more than “about 4% of water.” Since the accused product was made by a process using aniline as the solvent and with at least 10% of water, the Federal Circuit ruled there could be no literal infringement. It vacated the exclusion order and remanded for the ITC to consider whether the accused process infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. Id. at *8. Judge Newman dissented. In her view the panel 1 See generally, Robert A. Matthews, Jr., 1 ANNOTATED PATENT DIGEST § 4:28 General Aspects of Inventors Acting as Their Own Lexicographer [hereinafter APD]. erred in applying “the number that is described for one condition, to a limit under all conditions, contrary to the specification.” Id. at *10. She criticized the majority for making erroneous appellate findings of scientific fact, which she viewed as being directly contrary to the Commission’s fact findings, to support its claim construction. Id. at *11. Improper to Read In Singular Condition Several days after handing down Sinorgchem, supra, the Federal Circuit again addressed an inventor acting as his own lexicographer in Hyperphrase Tech., LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 2007-1176, 2007 WL 4509047, *3-*5 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 26, 2007) (nonprecedential). In that case, the Federal Circuit held that a district court erred by reading into a claim term defined in the specification a requirement of singularity which was not contained in the inventor’s express definition for the claim term but allegedly evident from other parts of the specification. At issue was the proper construction of the term “data reference,” as used in claims directed to an invention for contextually linking related computerized records. The patent described the invention as reading a web page and finding unique tokens (“data references”) on the page, such as a tracking number of a shipped product, and then locating and retrieving a record from another web site based on the value of the token. Regarding the construction of the disputed claim term “data reference,” the inventor had stated in the specification that a “data reference” “is a unique phrase or word which may be used in a record to refer to another record or record segment.” The district court adopted this definition for its claim construction. But the district court added an additional requirement that the data reference (e.g., token) could only refer to one and only one possible record. Because the accused product used the token from the first web page to reference multiple different web pages, the district court granted the accused infringer summary judgment of no infringement since the token was not linked to one and only one other record. The Federal Circuit agreed that the inventor had acted as his own lexicographer and defined the term “data reference” in the specification to mean “a unique phrase or word which may be used in a record to refer to another record or record segment.” It disagreed, however, that the claim had to be limited to linking the reference to one and only one other record (or web page). Noting that the use of the term “a” with open claim language generally does not limit a claim to a amount," respect to accused processes use "the number Noting that when an under all conditions, contrary specifcation "the patentee specification." at the express definition," making erroneous fndings the clause the "e.g." in the scientifc fact, which she viewed as being directly be given effect. Id. *4.I Rejecting contrary to the Commission's fact findings, to support ITC's reliance portions the specifcation Id. at * vaguely intimating that a concentration of water greater "handing down Sinorgchem, specifcation] cannot override the express again addressed language." Id. at *It stated acting as his own lexicographer in Hperphrase Tech., "[w]hen the specifcation explains and v. Google, Inc., No. in the claims, without ambiguity or there is to further that case, Federal When aniline is used as definition the specification requirement the `controlled amount' `about inventor's on the volume mixture' definition for term but allegedly look no further for its meaning." of the specifcation. issue ITC's the proper construction the term "data reference," in the examples the specifcation that contextually linking related computerized records. the use of amount water ("data references") the a shipped one the patent. that where "multiple [exclude embodiments where "data reference," language in the patent's specification or prosecution specifcation that a "data reference" "is a unique phrase history," "the record 10 exceeds record or record segment." the solvent is entitled to this defnition cannot clear definitional court added requirement set forth in the specification." 7. (e.g., token) could the situations one possible Because the accused solvent term the from web page "amount" be construed mean multiple pages, "water." Since the accused infringer process infringement least water, the Federal be no literal infringement. agreed had for defned consider whether the accused process "reference" "of Newman dissented. the panel another segment." It disagreed, claim to be limited i See Matthews, Jr., 1ANNOTATED to web § 4:28 General Aspects of Inventors Acting Noting that "a" open generally does not limit LATIMER, MAYBERRY & MATTHEWS IP LAW, Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=090eb4a6-a18f-4b34-a83d-687f5ef71f12Patent Happenings Page 3 of 7 December 2007, Part II LATIMER,MAYBERRY &MATTHEWS IP LAW, LLP (www.latimerIP.com) singular meaning, 2 the Federal Circuit found that the recitation in the claim to “a reference to a second data record” did not support reading in the requirement that the data reference had to be linked to one and only one other record. Id. at *4. The court also found that the specification and prosecution history did not show that the inventor intended to limit the term “data reference” to one and only one other record. While the specification disclosed some embodiments of the invention with a data reference linking to one and only one other reference, the specification also disclosed other embodiments with the data reference linking to more than one other record. After noting that “[a] claim construction that excludes an embodiment of the relevant claim(s) is typically incorrect,” the Federal Circuit held that “while many of the embodiments do indeed illustrate data references referring to single records, the district court’s adoption of that limitation here constituted an improper importation of that limitation from the specification into the claims, especially given that other embodiments refute that limitation.” Id. at *5. Use of Same Material Vitiated Claim Limitation The Federal Circuit applied the vitiation doctrine to affirm a summary judgment of no infringement in Wleklinski v. Targus, Inc., No. 2007-1273, 2007 WL 4460620 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 19, 2007) (nonprecedential).3 There, the claims at issue covered a shoulder strap assembly having an “auxiliary strap means.” The claims further recited that the “auxiliary strap means” had “first and second separate end sections made of a relatively non-stretchable material, and also including a separate center section made of material which is longitudinally stretchable.” (emphasis added) Agreeing with the district court, the Federal Circuit construed this term to require that the strap be formed from two separate and different materials. It explained “[i]n our view, the plain meaning of the claim language requires that the center and end sections be composed of different materials. The limitation refers to the end sections being ‘made of a relatively non-stretchable material’ and the center section being ‘made of material which is longitudinally stretchable.’ At the same time, the center and end sections are both 2 See generally, APD § 4:59 “A” or “An” Generally Construed as Meaning “At Least One.” 3 See generally APD § 13:20 Theory of Equivalence too Broad and Reads Out Limitation. described as being ‘separate’ from each other. The most persuasive reading of the claim language is that the center and end sections are constructed of different materials.” Id. at *3 (emphasis in original). The “auxiliary strap” of the accused product consisted of a unitary strap made from a stretchable material. The end portions of the strap had two plies of the material stitched together to make the end portions nonstretchable. The center portion had only one ply of the material. Given its affirmance of the claim construction requiring that the strap be made from two different materials and that the strap in the accused product was made from only one material, the Federal Circuit affirmed the summary judgment of no literal infringement. It then rejected the patentee’s contention that infringement could exist under the doctrine of equivalents. According to the Federal Circuit, the use of a single unitary material made of the same fabric in the accused product “is the fundamental opposite of the claimed invention.” Id. at *4. Thus, it ruled that a “finding equivalence with a single strap lacking separate sections and different materials would impermissibly vitiate” the claim limitation.4 Id. Accordingly, the court affirmed the summary judgment of no infringement Improper Infringement Proof An improper product comparison and reliance on customer testimonials failed to meet a patentee’s burden to prove infringement on summary judgment according to the district court in Mannatech, Inc. v. Glycobiotics Int’l, Inc., 2007 WL 4386244 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2007). Mannatech involved claims directed to a dietary supplement that provided “nutritionally effective amounts” of isolated and purified saccharides. The patent defined “nutritionally effective amounts” to mean “that amount which will provide a beneficial nutritional effect or response in a mammal.” To show that the accused product met the “nutritionally effective amount” limitation, the patentee proffered testimony from its expert who had developed his own similar dietary supplement. The expert compared the ingredients in the supplement he developed with the ingredients in the accused product and based on that product comparison opined that the accused product provided a beneficial nutritional effect, and therefore 4 For further cases on vitiation see APD § 13:21 Cases Finding Theory of Equivalence Vitiated Claim Limitation and § 13:22 Cases Finding Theory of Equivalence did Not Vitiate Claim Limitation. as being `separate' from each other. the to "a reference to a second reading of record" not support constructed of to materials." Id. at *3 (emphasis in original). "auxiliary strap" of the accused product found that the specification and of strap made a stretchable history did the inventor The two plies of the term "data reference" one one other record. the specifcation portion only one ply of embodiments of the invention with material. affrmance the claim linking to one other from specification disclosed other strap in the accused with linking one the other record. Afer noting "[claim affrmed the summary that of the It then rejected the patentee's s) incorrect," the Federal "while many of the embodiments to the Federal the use single the district court's of product "an that invention." Id. Thus, it ruled that the specifcation into the claims, "equivalence with single strap lacking other embodiments sections and materials would limitation." Id. at *5. vitiate" claim limitation.4 affrmed the summary of Same Material Vitiated Claim Limitation doctrine a summary improper product comparison 3 testimonials failed meet a patentee's issue covered a shoulder strap summary judgment having an "auxiliary means." The to Mannatech, v. "strap means" Int'l, Inc., 2007 4386244 "and second Dec. 14, 2007). Mannatech involved claims directed non-stretchable a dietary supplement "center section made of amounts" purifed saccharides. stretchable." added) defined "amounts" court, the Federal "which will benefcial in a mammal." and different materials. the accused product met the "nutritionally "[i]n our view, the plain meaning of the claim language amount" the patentee proffered center and end sections expert had The limitation refers to the The expert compared `a relatively non-stretchable material' the center section being `accused stretchable.' the the accused center end sections both effect, and therefore 2See generally, APD § 4:59 "A" "An" Generally Construed as 4For "One." Equivalence Limitation and 3See generally APD Finding Theory of did Not Claim Out Limitation. LATIMER, MAYBERRY & MATTHEWS IP LAW, Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=090eb4a6-a18f-4b34-a83d-687f5ef71f12Patent Happenings Page 4 of 7 December 2007, Part II LATIMER,MAYBERRY &MATTHEWS IP LAW, LLP (www.latimerIP.com) met that “nutritionally effective amount” limitation. Relying on the well-settled principle that an infringement analysis must compare the accused product to the claims of the patent, and not to another product,5 the district court held that it could not accept the expert’s testimony as evidence that the accused product met the “nutritionally effective amount” claim limitation. Id. at *3. The court noted that it was “improper” for the expert to base his “infringement determination on a comparison of the two products rather than evidence that the accused product contains each limitation of the asserted claim.” Id. The court also rejected the expert’s reliance on testimonials from the accused infringer’s customers as to the positive effect they allegedly felt upon taking the accused product as evidence that the accused product met the “nutritionally effective” limitation. The court ruled that the testimonials were “wholly unreliable” and “wholly insufficient” to support the patentee’s proof burden on summary judgment, especially given the disclaimers placed on the website by the accused infringer regarding the testimonials. Id. at *4-*5. Customer-Suit Exception and Component Parts The “customer-suit” exception generally permits a declaratory judgment action filed by a manufacturer after the patentee has filed a suit against the manufacturer’s customer to take precedence over the patentee’s infringement action.6 Judge Clark from the Eastern District of Texas held in Microsoft Corp. v. Commonwealth Scientific and Indus. Research Organisation, 2007 WL 4376104, *3 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2007), that where the “manufacturer” only supplies a component of the accused product, and that component does not directly infringe the asserted patent by itself, the “customer-suit” exception does not apply to give precedence to the component manufacturer’s later-filed suit. In Microsoft, a chip manufacturer moved to intervene in a declaratory judgment action filed by one of its customers against the patentee and to stay that portion of the customer’s action that related to the component parts the chip manufacturer supplied. The court denied the motion to stay on two grounds. First, the court found that the chip manufacturer’s action would not completely resolve the infringement issues in the action involving the customer. The court noted that since “[i]t is a cardinal rule that in the absence of 5 See APD § 12:2 Comparisons with Commercial Embodiments. 6 See generally APD § 37:87 Customer-Suit Exception. direct infringement, there can be no indirect infringement,” that factor weighed in favor of not staying the customer’s action which would resolve the issue of direct infringement. Second, undue delay by the chip manufacturer further supported denying the request for the partial stay. The chip manufacturer had waited for over two years before attempting to intervene and request the partial stay. The district court noted that “[s]itting on the sidelines for two years does not promote efficiency or judicial economy; this fact alone weighs heavily against granting the partial stay.” The district court also rejected the chip manufacturer’s attempt to disqualify the patentee’s trial counsel based on an asserted conflict of interest arising from patent-prosecution work that the patentee’s trial counsel had previously done for the chip manufacturer. The court found that by waiting two years to assert the alleged conflict, the chip manufacturer had waived any conflict that might have existed. The court also found that the conflict was “thrust upon” the patentee’s trial counsel in view of the chip manufacturer’s failure to inform the patentee’s trial counsel during its relationship with that counsel of the existence of indemnity agreements it had entered into that allegedly created the conflict of interest. Given that the conflict was “thrust upon” the patentee’s counsel, the court held that the counsel was permitted to drop the chip manufacture as a client as a way of resolving the apparent conflict. Id. at *6-*9. Expert Struck for Lawyer’s Ethical Violation Lawyers for a patentee violated the ethical rule prohibiting a lawyer from communicating about the subject matter of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter when the lawyers purchased an accused system and engaged in conversations with the accused infringer’s technician who installed the system in the lawyers’ office. In Microsoft Corp. v. Alcatel Business Sys., 2007 WL 4480632 (D. Del. Dec. 18, 2007), two lawyers representing the patentee purchased an accused system on the open market several months after commencing the infringement lawsuit. The lawyers arranged to have the system installed in one of their offices. The technician who installed the system was one of only a few technicians having the necessary knowledge to install the system. He was employed by one of the defendants originally named by the patentee in the suit, but dropped from the suit shortly before the lawyers purchased the accused system. The dropped "nutritionally effective amount" limitation. infringement, there can be no indirect on the well-settled principle that an infringement," that factor weighed in not compare the accused customer's resolve the patent, another Second, undue product,' could not accept manufacturer supported expert's testimony as evidence that the accused The chip manufacturer "amount" over two years before attempting to Id. at was intervene and request the partial stay. The district "improper" the expert to base his "infringement "[slitting on the years on two products efficiency economy; accused limitation of claim." Id. The stay." expert's district court also rejected the chip infringer's positive manufacturer's patentee's allegedly upon taking the accused on an asserted confict patent-patentee's "effective" The court ruled testimonials "unreliable" and two years to assert "insufficient" to support the patentee's confict, the chip manufacturer The placed on website the accused "thrust upon" the patentee's testimonials. in the chip manufacturer's the patentee's trial counsel during its "suit" with the existence judgment action fled by a manufacturer the conflict of interest. the confict patentee a suit against the "upon" the patentee's counsel, manufacturer's precedence patentee's action.6 as a client as resolving the District of held in Mcrosof Corp. v. apparent conflict. Id. at *6-*9. Commonwealth Scientifc and Indus. Research (E.Dec. Lawyer's 13, 2007), that where the "manufacturer" only supplies a patentee component the accused product, and that lawyer from communicating about the does not infringe the asserted a person "customer-suit" exception be represented apply to give precedence to the component when the lawyers purchased an accused manufacturer's in the accused In Microsoft, a chip manufacturer moved to infringer's technician judgment action fled lawyers' office. In Mcrosoft Corp. v. Alcatel Business its customers Dec. the customer's the representing patentee purchased an the chip supplied. system on several months motion the lawsuit. The found that the chip manufacturer's action system installed in of not completely resolve the infringement issues offces. The technician who installed the system the The court noted technicians having the necessary "[t is a cardinal rule that in the absence named by the patentee APD with 6See generally system. dropped LATIMER, MAYBERRY & MATTHEWS IP LAW, Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=090eb4a6-a18f-4b34-a83d-687f5ef71f12Patent Happenings Page 5 of 7 December 2007, Part II LATIMER,MAYBERRY &MATTHEWS IP LAW, LLP (www.latimerIP.com) defendant appears to have been a corporate subsidiary to one of the remaining defendants. During the installation of the system, the patentee’s lawyers directed the technician to provide them with training on the administration, use and configuration of the accused system, and further engaged the technician in ongoing conversations on these subjects. Judge Robinson found that the lawyers violated Model Rule 4.2, since they effectively forced the technician to engage in communications with them regarding the accused system and the technician’s position within the company made it a possibility that his statements could bind the accused infringer. Id. at * 1. Alternatively, the court found that the lawyers’ conduct also violated Model Rules 4.1(a), 4.3 and 8.4(c) since the lawyers were “neither forthright nor disinterested” when they “consciously put [the technician], without the benefit of legal representation, in the unwitting position of being directed to engage in conduct that has direct consequences vis a vis his employer and the subject matter of this litigation.” Id. at *1 n.5 Addressing the appropriate sanction for the violation, the court noted that the patentee did not gain any confidential information from the technician and that the patentee merely obtained “objective information about the accused products, without the glaze of litigation stratagems that usually accompanies the discovery process.” Id. at *2. Nonetheless, the court held that deterrence required some sanction for the improper conduct. Accordingly, the court ordered as a sanction that the patentee could not use the fruits of the violating lawyers’ conduct. Id. To implement this sanction, the court ordered that the patentee’s retained expert, who presumably was given information about the installation, could not serve as a consultant or an expert witness in the litigation. Additionally, the lawyers who communicated with the technician could not be involved in the litigation, nor could any information obtained from the installation be given to any witness for use in the case. Id. Requesting Sanctions Leads to Sanctions Showing the dangers of asserting a questionable motion seeking sanctions against an adversary, the district court in Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. infoUSA, Inc., 2007 WL 4414819, *3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2007), after denying a patentee’s motion for sanctions against the accused infringer, granted the accused infringer’s request for sanctions against the patentee’s trial counsel under § 1927 for bringing the original sanction motion.7 During the proceedings the accused infringer’s trial counsel had identified the accused infringer’s corporate president as a relevant fact witness to support a motion to transfer venue to Nebraska. After the court denied the transfer motion, the patentee sought to depose the corporate president. The accused infringer’s counsel informed the patentee’s counsel that while it would make the president available in Nebraska, the president did not have much knowledge of the specifics of the accused product and suggested that the patentee would be better off deposing others in the corporation. Thereafter, the patentee asserted that the accused infringer acted in bad faith in identifying the president as a relevant fact witness to support the transfer motion. The district court disagreed. It did not find any inconsistency in the accused infringer’s conduct and to the contrary viewed the accused infringer as trying to streamline the discovery process. Accordingly, it denied the patentee’s request for sanctions. It further found that the patentee’s sanction motion was baseless, and that it “unreasonably and vexatiously increased costs of this action to Defendant.” Accordingly, the court ordered the patentee to pay to the accused infringer the costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred by the accused infringer in responding to the patentee’s motion. Counsel Sanctioned for Deposition Objections A lawyer’s conduct in making improper objections during a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition led to sanctions in Promos Tech., Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., No. 06-788-JJF,(D. Del. Dec. 20, 2007). Specifically, the court found that during a 30(b)(6) deposition of an accused infringer, the accused infringer’s counsel “obstructed the questioning of [the deponent] by the improper assertion of work product privilege and interposing numerous objections unsupported by the rules of evidence.” Slip opn. at 2. The court found that “the inappropriateness of the objections [wa]s plain from a reading of the deposition transcript.” Id. As a consequence, the court ordered the accused infringer to produce the deponent for a second deposition on the topics set forth in the 30(b)(6) notice at a time and place designated by the patentee. Additionally, the court sanctioned the accused infringer’s counsel, personally, by ordering the counsel to pay “all costs and attorney’s fees” incurred by the patentee in the 7 See generally APD § 33:63 addressing sanctions for attorney misconduct under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. original sanction motion.' During the proceedings the one of the remaining defendants. During the infringer's trial identifed the the system, the patentee's lawyers infringer's relevant to transfer venue administration, confguration the the court denied the transfer system, and further the the patentee sought to depose the corporate president. conversations these subjects. accused infringer's counsel informed the patentee's counsel that while it would make the forced the technician in regarding the the accused system and the technician's position within that statements in Thereafer, infringer. 1. that the infringer the lawyers' conduct also violated identifying the president as Model Rules 4.1(a), 4.3 and 8.4(c) since the lawyers the motion. "nor disinterested" not find any inconsistency "beneft infringer's the contrary legal representation, in infringer engage conduct has process. denied the vis a vis subject patentee's request for sanctions. litigation." Id. at * patentee's Addressing the appropriate sanction for the "the court noted Defendant." Accordingly, the court ordered the technician and accused the costs, the patentee merely obtained "objective and attorneys' accused responding the patentee's stratagems that usually accompanies motion. the discovery process." Id. at *2. Nonetheless, the for deterrence lawyer's conduct making improper the court ordered sanctions could Promos Tech., Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., lawyers' conduct. To implement D. Del. Dec. 20, 2007). Specifcally, sanction, court ordered that the patentee's expert, who presumably was given infringer, accused infringer's counsel not serve "of or the litigation. the lawyers communicated of product privilege and could not involved evidence." "inappropriateness objections from a reading of the deposition transcript." Id. As a the court infringer dangers asserting a questionable second seeking sanctions adversary, the and district court in Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. by the the 4414819, 3 (S.D. Dec. sanctioned accused infringer's counsel, 14, 2007), after denying a patentee's motion for "costs attorney's fees" the patentee infringer's sanctions against patentee's trial 7See attorney LATIMER, MAYBERRY & MATTHEWS IP LAW, Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=090eb4a6-a18f-4b34-a83d-687f5ef71f12Patent Happenings Page 6 of 7 December 2007, Part II LATIMER,MAYBERRY &MATTHEWS IP LAW, LLP (www.latimerIP.com) original deposition and in the re-deposition. Id. at 3. Declarations Contrary to 30(b)(6) Testimony In Orthoarm, Inc. v. Forestadent USA, Inc., 2007 WL 4457409 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 14, 2007), the district court granted a patentee’s motion to strike a declaration submitted by an accused infringer’s 30(b)(6) designee as to the characteristics of the accused product because the declaration was directly contrary to the designee’s prior 30(b)(6) deposition testimony and the court concluded that the declaration was a sham. The designee had acknowledged in his 30(b)(6) deposition that he was the accused infringer’s corporate representative authorized to testify as to the characteristics of the accused product and that he knew “quite a lot” about the product. In the 30(b)(6) deposition, the designee testified that in the accused product a clip contacted a bracket. Yet five months later, in opposing the patentee’s motion for summary judgment, which relied on the 30(b)(6) deposition testimony, the accused infringer submitted a declaration from the designee stating that the clip did not contact the bracket, thereby directly contradicting the prior testimony. In an attempt to justify the changed testimony, the designee stated in his declaration that he “had never really thought of the question whether the clip came into contact with the tab because whether it did nor didn’t come into contact was irrelevant to the operation of the bracket.” He also claimed that his training and responsibility were for sales and marketing, and that he did “not get involved in the technical design, manufacture or development of our products.” Noting the general rule “that an affidavit filed in opposition to a motion for summary judgment that directly contradicts the affiant’s previous deposition testimony is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact under Rule 56,” the district court examined the circumstances surrounding the contradictory declaration, including the designee’s alleged justifications, and concluded that the accused infringer had “offered an insufficient explanation to justify permitting [the designee] to directly contradict his Rule 30(b)(6) testimony.” Id. at *2-*3. The court found that i) the accused infringer was responsible under Rule 30(b)(6) to provide a witness who was informed and prepared to testify on the exact issue of whether the clip contacted the bracket; ii) that the accused infringer represented that the designee was prepared to testify as to the matters listed in the 30(b)(6) Notice; iii) that the designee testified unequivocally in the Rule 30(b)(6) testimony; and iv) that the designee’s testimony demonstrated no confusion or uncertainty on the issue of whether the clip contacted the bracket. The court further noted that it found “suspicious that the . . . Declaration was submitted . . . months after the 30(b)(6) deposition, and only in response to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.” Id. Accounting for these circumstances, the court concluded that the declaration was “a sham affidavit which should not be considered on summary judgment.” Id. The accused infringer had also submitted a second declaration from another fact witness testifying that the clip in the accused product did not contact the bracket. The patentee sought to have this declaration stricken for being contrary to the 30(b)(6) testimony. The court denied the request to strike. While noting that the accused infringer was bound by the 30(b)(6) testimony, the court ruled that since the deposition of the second witness was consistent with his declaration, and that the patentee had notice of the position of this witness before it filed its summary judgment motion, it would not strike the second witness’s declaration even though the declaration conflicted with the 30(b)(6) testimony. Id. at *4. LEGISLATIVE HAPPENINGS returns from its recess on January 22, 2008, the Senate is expected to take up “as early in the new year as possible” Senate Bill S. 1145, the Patent Reform Act of 2007. In statements made on the Senate floor on December 18, 2007 Senators Leahy and Hatch spoke on the “urgent need to modernize our patent laws.” Congressional Record – Senate at S15898 (Dec. 18, 2007). Senator Leahy stated that the efforts by the courts to deal with the changing needs of both science and the economy by interpreting the patent law “in ways that make sense in light of the change” has been a “piecemeal process” that “has left many areas unclear” and left other areas of the law “out of balance.” Accordingly, “action by the Congress is needed, and needed urgently.” Id. at S15899. Senator Leahy identified the areas of “ensuring compensation for infringement is fair and adequate; clarifying the rules on venue; and improving the ability of parties to challenge the validity of granted patents through administrative process” as the main issues of concern. Id. Adding to this list, Senator Hatch stated that there is also a “need to make further reforms to the inequitable conduct defense . . . to change the use of this defense as an unfair litigation tactic.” Id. original deposition and in the re-deposition. Id. at 3. the designee's testimony demonstrated no whether In Orthoarm, Inc. v. Forestadent USA, Inc., 2007 4457409 Dec. found "suspicious the was granted patentee's motion to strike a ... months afer the 30(b)(6) deposition, submitted by an accused infringer's response plaintiffs' motion for summary as the characteristics the judgment." Id. Accounting for these circumstances, product the declaration "sham contrary to the designee's prior 30(b)(6) deposition which should not be considered judgment." Id. The designee a second infringer's authorized to the accused contact the "lot" about the product. In the testifed the accused a bracket. fve months the request to strike. noting that the infringer later, in opposing the patentee's motion for summary the second the deposition declaration, accused infringer submitted a had notice of witness stating that the clip fled its summary witness's In an attempt to justify the conficted the 30(b)(6) testimony. testimony, the stated in his that "the the clip LEGISLATIVE HAPPENINGS whether it did nor didn't When it returns from its recess on January 22, bracket." is to take up "new year as possible" Senate Bill S. 1145, the Patent and marketing, and that he did "Reform Act of 2007. In statements made on the Senate of floor on December 18, 2007 Senators Leahy and Hatch products." "urgent need modernize patent rule "an affidavit laws." Congressional Record Senate at S15898 opposition to a motion for summary judgment that (Dec. 18, 2007). Senator Leahy stated that the efforts contradicts affiant's previous deposition the changing create science and the economy by interpreting the patent law under Rule 56," the district court "ways that make of the change" has the circumstances surrounding the "process" that "lef many areas the designee's unclear" and left of "of justifcations, and concluded that the accused balance." Accordingly, "action by the Congress "offered an insufficient explanation needed, and needed urgently." Id. at S15899. Senator permitting [the designee] contradict identifed the areas of "ensuring compensation his Rule 30(b)(6) testimony." Id. at *2-*3. The court infringement fair and adequate; the i) the accused infringer was responsible improving 6) provide a witness who was the of granted patents through to process" issues concern. contacted ii) the Adding to this list, Senator Hatch stated that there represented designee was also a "need to make further reforms to the to the matters the defense ... change 6) Notice; iii) that the designee testifed defense unfair litigation tactic." LATIMER, MAYBERRY & MATTHEWS IP LAW, Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=090eb4a6-a18f-4b34-a83d-687f5ef71f12Patent Happenings Page 7 of 7 December 2007, Part II LATIMER,MAYBERRY &MATTHEWS IP LAW, LLP (www.latimerIP.com) Focusing on the need to protect new drug innovators from inequitable conduct challenges by generic drug manufacturers, Senator Hatch stated that “[u]nless we promote and protect a structure that fosters a strong and vibrant environment for innovators, there will be fewer and fewer drugs for the generics to manufacture—and all, including patients, will suffer.” Id. Warning that a “do nothing” approach to patent reform would be detrimental to the nation, the senators promised an “open and deliberative process” to gain favorable Senate action on the bill “as early as the floor schedule permits.” Id. ADMINISTRATIVE HAPPENINGS Effective January 4, 2008, the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) between the USPTO and the Japan Office will on a full time basis. in after either office that at least in an application is patentable may request the other office to “fast track” the examination of corresponding claims in corresponding applications. As a result, the USPTO predicts that applicants can expect to obtain patents in both offices faster. The USPTO also stated that it will soon make available updated requirements for the PPH. FIRM HAPPENINGS On March 25, 2008, Robert A. Matthews, Jr., will speak on the topic of “Willful Infringement after In re Seagate” at the IP Law & Business’s Annual IP Counsel Forum in San Jose, CA. Information regarding the conference can be found on the organizer’s website at www.almevents.com. To accommodate the firm’s growth, we moved our Herndon, VA office to a new office suite within the same building on Park Center Road. Matthew Latimer and Timothy Donaldson man the Herndon office. The new address for the Herndon office is 13878 Park Center Road, Suite 106, Herndon, VA 20171. Our Herndon office phone numbers remain the same. MAYBERRY & MATTHEWS IP LAW, LLP, an “AV®” rated law firm, provides legal services to corporations and infringement litigation; patent application and prosecution services; investigation, analysis, and opinions of counsel for issues of patent infringement, validity, and enforceability; and patent licensing and portfolio Our attorneys have years of dedicated experience in patent litigation and procurement, authored offices in Blacksburg, VA and Herndon, VA, but assist clients nationally. For questions regarding our patent litigation consulting services or content Patent Happenings Annotated contact Robert Matthews, matthews@latimerIP.com). For further details on website www.com the following lawyers: Matthew Latimer (703.463.3072), Michele Mayberry (540.953.7075), or Timothy Donaldson (703.463.3073). This newsletter is for informational purposes only and is a marketing publication of LATIMER, MAYBERRY & MATTHEWS IP LAW, LLP. It is intended to alert the recipients to developments in the law and does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended as general information only. This newsletter may be copied by and/or transmitted to others freely by its recipients, but only in its entirety so as to include proper recognition of the authors. The information presented in this newsletter is, to the best of our knowledge, accurate as of publication. However, we take no responsibility for inaccuracies or other errors present in this newsletter. The information in this newsletter does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the firm, its lawyers or its clients. This newsletter may be considered ADVERTISING MATERIAL in some jurisdictions. “AV®” peer-reviewed rating given by Martindale-Hubbell. According to Martindale-Hubbell: “An AV rating is a significant accomplishment — a testament to the fact that a lawyer's peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence.” “Martindale-Hubbell is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the confidential opinions of members of the Bar and the Judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell Ratings fall into two categories — legal ability and general ethical standards.” “CV, BV and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies.” Focusing on the need to protect new drug innovators inequitable USPTO predicts that applicants can expect to obtain Hatch that "[in The USPTO also stated will soon make available updated requirements will and fewer drugs for the generics to manufacture and including will suffer." FIRM HAPPENINGS Id. Warning that a "do nothing" approach to patent A. Jr., will be detrimental to the nation, the senators on the topic of "Willful afer "process" Seagate" at the IP Law & Business's Annual IP action on the bill "the foor Forum in San Jose, CA. schedule permits." Id. the can be the organizer's almevents.ADMINISTRATIVE HAPPENINGS the firm's Effective January 4, 2008, the Patent Prosecution VA offce suite the Highway (PPH) between the USPTO and the Japan building Center Road. Patent Office will be implemented on a full time basis. man the Herndon offce. Applicants participating in the PPH, afer receiving a for ruling from either patent offce that at least one claim VA an application is patentable request phone numbers remain the same. "fast track" the examination corresponding LATIMER, MAYBERRY & MATTHEWS IP LAW, LLP, an "AV®" rated law firm, provides legal services to corporations and law firms in the area of U.S. patent law including: consulting services for patent infringement litigation; patent application and prosecution services; investigation, counsel issues of patent infringement, validity, and enforceability; patent licensing and portfolio management. Our attorneys have years of dedicated experience in patent litigation and procurement, and have authored numerous articles and publications on the subject, including the seven-volume patent-law treatise Annotated Patent Digest, available on Westlaw. We maintain For questions regarding the content of Patent Happenings or the Annotated Patent Digest, please contact Robert A. Matthews, Jr. (434.525.1141; robert.matthews@latimerlP.com). For further details on the firm, please visit our website at www.latimerIP.com or contact any of the Matthew (703.463.3073). is for informational purposes only and is a marketing publication of LATIMER, MAYBERRY & MATTHEWS IP LAW, LLP. It is intended The contents are intended This newsletter may be copied and/of The information However, This newsletter may "" rating given by Martindale-Hubbell. According to Martindale-Hubbell: An AV rating is a significant accomplishment -a testament highest professional excellence." "Martindale-Hubbell the facilitator a peer review rating process. opinions of members of the Bar and the Judiciary. Hubbell Ratings fall into two categories -legal ability and standards." "CV, BV and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell policies." LMMLATIMER,YBRY & MATTHEWS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, LLP LATIMER, MAYBERRY & MATTHEWS IP LAW, Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=090eb4a6-a18f-4b34-a83d-687f5ef71f12