Posts in USPTO

This week in Washington, D.C., the House Intellectual Property Subcommittee will explore the  impact of the Federal Circuit’s recent Arthrex decision on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) administrative patent judges on Tuesday. Other House subcommittees will look at small business contributions to smart construction projects and the National Institute of Health’s (NIH’s) efforts to improve flu vaccine innovation, while the Senate Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government will explore FCC control over the upcoming 5G wireless spectrum auction. Elsewhere in the Senate, the Energy Committee will look at several bills related to energy innovation, including an ARPA-E reauthorization bill. Off of Capitol Hill, the American Enterprise Institute will look at how the adoption of automated technologies will affect the future of employment in the U.S. Army. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), in an opinion authored by Judge Chen, on Friday November 15 reversed a ruling of the District Court for the District of Delaware holding Koninklijke KPN N.V.’s (KPN’s) U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662 (the ‘662 patent) ineligible under Section 101. The patent covers a method that varies “check data” to reduce systematic errors in electronic transmissions. KPN sued Gemalto M2M GMBH (Gemalto) in the district court and Gemalto moved under Rule 12(c) for a judgment on the pleadings, arguing that claims 1-4 of the ‘662 patent were ineligible under 35 U.S.C § 101, which the district court granted. KPN appealed on claims 2-4, stating that they present “a non-abstract improvement in the functionality of an existing technological process and not simply an abstract idea of manipulating data.”

It has been one year since my software patent was invalidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Now, this intellectual property is considered worthless and my dream of paying off extensive student loans with the proceeds from patent licensing fees are in the past. The irony being that if it were not for these extensive student loans, this invention, most likely, would not have come to into being. My patent No. 6,769,915, issued in 2003, was invalidated under Section 101 and struck down on appeal. The patent covers “a user-interactive behavior modification system” that is in competition with technology pursued by the companies including Nike, FitBit, Apple, and Samsung.  The rules that existed when I applied for this software patent in 2000 no longer guarantee myself and hundreds of other independent inventors the right to collect patent licensing fees. This right was granted to all with The Patent Act of 1790. Yet, over the last 15 years, the U.S. patent laws have been changed drastically by extremely well-financed lobbyists on behalf of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) largest customers— global corporations, including the Big Tech industry. This has relieved Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. from the necessity of having to pay independent inventors software licensing fees. With this shift in intellectual property laws, the once small startups of Silicon Valley have become the large monopolies they are now.

Several weeks ago, the International Trade Commission (ITC) announced that Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Charles Bullock issued a Notice of Initial Final Determination recommending that certain memory modules manufactured and imported by SK Hynix, Inc. and its subsidiaries should be excluded from importation into the United States. As is common with these announcements, the ITC first released a one-page indication of the decision, which was followed by the redacted full decision once the parties had an opportunity to request redaction of trade secrets and confidential information. The full decision has now been released, and the ITC is asking for comments relating to public interest issues from the parties, interested persons, and other government agencies and departments.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Federal Circuit strikes down a district court’s finding of design patent infringement on summary judgment; the USPTO advises trademark attorneys to monitor filings to prevent against the unauthorized use of their names; the U.S. Copyright Office issues final rules eliminating options for physical material submissions for newspaper and serial registrations; the U.S. Supreme Court will take up Booking.com’s appeal of the rejection of its trademark application by the USPTO; AG Barr supports the FCC’s plan to restrict Huawei and ZTE equipment purchases through the Universal Service Fund; Nirvana’s copyright case against Marc Jacobs moves past a motion to dismiss; Biogen loses $3 billion in market value after PTAB hearing; and Amazon seeks an injunction against a patent owner asserting infringement claims against Amazon Fire product retailers.

As I have previously reported on KSJ Law, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued 80 decisions on appeals in October, and reversed the examiner in 24 of those. Claim construction was at issue in several, and the PTAB made several comments, supported by case law, that will be useful to those laboring against “broadest reasonable interpretations” that are, in fact, not reasonable. Taken together, these recent decisions provide a road map for first arguing against a broadest reasonable interpretation that is overly broad and unreasonable, thereby supporting the conclusion that a prima facie case against the properly construed claims has not been made.

Chestnut Hill Sound, Inc. has filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether the Federal Circuit’s disparate practice with respect to issuing Rule 36 decisions for losing patent owner-appellants versus losing petitioner-appellants is constitutional. The petition includes statistics demonstrating that patent owner-appellants are three times more likely to receive a Rule 36 judgment than petitioner-appellants. Chestnut Hill’s petition cites statistics on the number of Rule 36 decisions being issued, which come from Larry Sandell’s article, What Statistical Analysis Reveals About Winning IPR Appeals, LAW 360 (August 8, 2019, 5: 22 PM). A footnote in the petition explains that the likelihood of patent owner-appellants receiving a Rule 36 affirmance is actually closer to 3.6 than 3. “Since a losing Patent Owner- Appellant has a 66% chance of receiving a Rule 36 opinion, and a losing Petitioner- Appellant has an 18% chance of receiving a Rule 36 opinion, a Patent Owner- Appellant is 3.6 times as likely to receive a one- word affirmation than a Petitioner- Appellant,” says the petition.

Petitioners challenging patents covering pharmaceuticals and biologics often use drug product labels as prior art in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). To effectively use a label as prior art, a petitioner must show that it is a “printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b). Past PTAB cases demonstrate, however, that proving drug product labels as prior art can be fraught with danger. But practitioners can employ best practices to guard against this. In Celltrion, Inc. v. Biogen, Inc., IPR2016-01614, Paper 65 (Feb. 21, 2018), the Petitioners relied on a copyrighted label for Rituxan that was published on the internet and available on the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) and on Biogen’s website all before the critical date. The Board held that the Petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence establishing that the drug label was indeed the one disseminated with Rituxan at the time it was proposed to be publicly available or that “persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Similarly, the Board held in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, IPR2016-01563, Paper 16 (Feb. 3, 2017), that a relied-upon Glucophage label had no source identifying information or indicia of when it became publicly available and the declaration attesting to its publication was not based on personal knowledge, but was merely conclusory.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) invited ALE USA Inc. to respond to Chrimar System Inc.’s petition for rehearing en banc. Five amici consisting of inventors and intellectual property advocates have now filed amicus curiae briefs  in support of Chrimar and the petition for rehearing. In September, the CAFC affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision in Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. ALE that rendered a previously affirmed jury verdict null and void. The heavily contested decision found the PTAB, an executive administrative agency, vacating the judicial verdict of an Article III court. According to FedCircuitBlog, there are currently 17 pending petitions for en banc rehearing with the Federal Circuit, while 22 petitions have been denied between August and November 2019. Of the 22 petitions denied, nine included a call for response, or 41% of denied petitions. Thus, while not a sure indicator that the court will grant the petition, the court’s invitation for response in Chrimar is at least a necessary step toward that goal. Here is what the amici are saying.

As most of us know by now, in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., entered on Halloween 2019, a panel of the Federal Circuit held that the administrative patent judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were improperly appointed, and remanded the case for a new decision by a properly appointed panel. Almost immediately after, the court entered two orders dismissing motions for remand because the issue had not been timely raised. See Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp., Nos. 18-2239 & 19-1001 (Fed. Cir., Nov. 1, 2019) (the motions were inferred from letters to the court). The Federal Circuit remanded a case in which the issue had been timely raised. Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 18-2251 (Fed. Cir., Oct. 31, 2019). Predictions about the effect on pending cases overlook that the vast majority of PTAB final decisions come in appeals from the patent examining corps. Any of the hundreds of applicants dissatisfied with a recent PTAB appeal decision could appeal to the Federal Circuit and then promptly move for remand to a different panel. A reader could be forgiven for feeling a sense of déjà vu: in In re DBC, the Federal Circuit similarly found that APJs had been improperly appointed, but the issue was quickly resolved and now is remembered as a minor footnote in patent case law. In re DBC, 545 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Arthrex holds the potential to be far more significant. Indeed, Arthrex may prove more trick than treat.

Jury verdicts are supposed to be sacrosanct. The biggest opposition to the ratification of our Constitution in 1788 was due to its lack of protection for jury trials in civil cases. The omission was corrected by adding the Seventh Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights. So, when a patent holder wins a jury verdict, that should mean more than the paper the verdict is written on. Yet it does not, under recent decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On behalf of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, I filed an amicus brief on November 4 in support of a petition for rehearing en banc by the full Federal Circuit to end the abusive authority of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to overturn jury verdicts. Many other amicus briefs were subsequently filed in this case, Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. ALE USA, Inc. FKA Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise USA, Inc. (Fed. Circ. Case No. 18-2420), to make similar requests of the Federal Circuit

It’s that time of the year—Halloween candy is still lingering in bowls, turkey and dressing is tantalizingly close, holiday cheer abounds. While winter skies are overhead, Congress is working to strengthen the U.S. Patent system with the STRONGER Patents Act. The bill was most recently debated by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s IP Subcommittee in September and has stolen the spotlight from the Section 101 reform debate, which for the moment seems to have stalled. Much has been written about the main provisions of the STRONGER Act, such as making inter partes review (IPR) and district court standards and procedures the same. Like extra Halloween candy or Aunt Imelda’s sweet potato pone, Congress has included a number of extra goodies for patent owners that have not been widely appreciated.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Trump Administration sues Gilead for infringement over HIVE PrEP treatment patents; Senators Inhofe and Wicker ask President Trump to show no leniency on Chinese IP theft; the Supreme Court hears the Allen v. Cooper copyright appeal; the Federal Circuit issues precedential opinions on PTAB evidence admissibility and limitation in patent claim preamble; the Copyright Office says that its digital recordation pilot project is on track for Spring 2020; the PTAB Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) will review the Board’s rejection of substitute patent claims in a motion to amend; “This Is Spinal Tap” creators settle copyright suit; and T-Mobile announces December launch for nationwide 5G network.

Two days ago, TechCrunch published an article touting an important victory by Cloudflare against an evil patent troll—Blackbird Technologies. In the article there is no mention of any inappropriate tactics used by Blackbird, and there is nothing to suggest that Cloudflare was not infringing the patents they were accused to have infringed. In fact, that article seems to practically admit that Cloudflare was infringing on the patents because the defense tactic used by Cloudflare was not to argue that they were not infringing, but instead to argue that the patent claims asserted were invalid. Indeed, on November 4, Cloudflare published a description of their strategy, which does not mention anything about demonstrating that they were not infringing the patents issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Instead, the strategy was to: (1) not settle; (2) make a public cry for help and seek the submission of prior art that might invalidate the patent claims they were facing; and (3) file ethics complaints against the attorneys representing Blackbird. In this case, the Blackbird patent claims were found invalid. Cheering for Cloudflare, who had no reason to know that at the time they recklessly infringed those claims, is beyond the pale and speaks volumes as to why innovators are leaving America and heading to Europe, China and elsewhere around the world.

Everybody in the patent world is talking about the latest atrocity from the Federal Circuit known as the American Axle decision, but few actually appreciate the true level of absurdity. Yes, 35 U.S.C. § 101 swallowed §§ 112(a), 112(f), 102, and 103 in a single decision (a new feat of judicial acrobatics), and Judges Taranto and Dyk displayed their technical ignorance. For example, in citing the Flook decision Judges Dyk and Taranto assert that Flook’s mathematical formula (known to a million-plus engineers as the steepest-descent algorithm) is a “natural law.” American Axle, slip op. at p. 19. Seriously? Are Federal Circuit judges so technically ignorant that the entirety of the country is doomed to believe such an idiotic fantasy that a particular adaptive mathematical algorithm associated with no natural law must be a natural law?