Posts in Patents

Yesterday, we ran a series of excerpts from responses to Senator Thom Tillis’ (R-NC) questions for the record to panelists following the June hearings on U.S. patent eligibility law, held by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. Along with Tillis and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) also posed several questions to the participants in the 101 hearings. Hirono’s questions overall demonstrate a good faith desire to get to the heart of the problems in search of real solutions.

A Federal Circuit panel comprising Judges Lourie, O’Malley and Chen issued a precedential opinion yesterday, August 21, in part reversing a district court’s finding that certain claims of Chamberlain Group, Inc.’s (CGI’s) patent for a “moveable barrier operator” (for example, a garage door opener) were not abstract under Section 101. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Techtronic Industries’ (TTI’s) motion for judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims were patent-ineligible and granted CGI’s motions for enhanced damages and attorney fees. The district court disagreed with TTI’s assertion that the claims at issue were directed to the abstract idea of wireless transmission of content, instead finding that “[h]ere, the ’275 patent claims are not directed to the transmission of data, but to garage door openers that wirelessly transmit status information.”

Last month, we reported on the responses submitted to Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) by panelists who participated in the June hearings on the state of U.S. patent eligibility, held by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. Along with Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Senator Blumenthal entered a series of questions for the record to be answered by certain participants. While movement on the bill appears to be stalled for the time being, with reports that Tillis and Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) have reinstituted the stakeholder roundtables that led up to the draft bill and hearings in the first place, it’s worth reviewing some of the responses to Tillis’ questions as the IP community waits for the next move. From David O. Taylor’s statistic that 62% of investors he surveyed said they were less likely to invest in companies where patent protection is not available, to Bob Armitage’s characterization of the draft bill’s revision to Section 112(f) as “perfect,” to the Cleveland Clinic’s statement that they are currently less likely to make the necessary investments to bring new advances in diagnostics to market, these responses are a reminder of what’s at stake.

When the USPTO issued its 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance in January of this year, it seemed as if the patentability tides had finally shifted in favor of software applicants. Far less attention and fanfare, however, was afforded to the concurrently issued and unassuming Section 112 Guidelines on examination practice for computer-related and software claims. In particular, potential pitfalls awaiting software applicants may lie unforeseen in the requirement that “[f]or a computer-implemented 112(f) claim, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed computer function, or else the claim is indefinite.” 

The Federal Circuit issued an opinion on July 29 affirming the District Court for the District of Delaware’s dismissal of Amgen Inc. and Amgen Manufacturing Ltd.’s (collectively, “Amgen”) complaint alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 8,273,707 (the “’707 Patent”) for failure to state a claim.  The district court held that prosecution history estoppel barred Amgen from succeeding on its infringement claim under the doctrine of equivalents.  Amgen Inc. v. Coherus BioSciences, Inc., No. 18-1993 (Fed Cir. July 29, 2019) (Before Reyna, Hughes, and Stoll, Circuit Judges) (Opinion for the Court, Stoll, Circuit Judge). 

On August 16, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire issued an opinion in Automated Transactions, LLC v. American Bankers Association affirming a lower court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss claims of defamation alleged by an inventor whose legitimate patent licensing business was decimated by a collection of entities and individuals deriding that inventor as a “patent troll.” The decision is certainly unwelcome news to any inventor concerned by the prospect that large entities could infringe upon their intellectual property and escape any chance of facing justice simply by hurling the “patent troll” epithet.

On August 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in the case between VirnetX and Apple/ Cisco, and separately denied Apple’s request for rehearing en banc in its appeal from the U.S.  District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruling awarding VirnetX nearly $440 million. In response, Apple quickly filed motions to stay and vacate those decisions, and requested leave to petition for a second rehearing. Most recently, on August 15, VirnetX filed its reply to Apple’s motions, arguing that the tech giant is merely trying to delay the case in order to give priority to continuing PTAB hearings.

There is a lot of focus—and rightly so—on China’s stealing of U.S. intellectual property (IP). Recently, Trump economic adviser Larry Kudlow stated on CNBC’s Squawk Box that China has stolen at least $600 billion in American IP. Additionally, one in five North American-based corporations on the CNBC Global CFO Council said that Chinese companies have stolen their IP within the last year. In all, 7 of the 23 companies surveyed said that Chinese firms have stolen from them over the past decade. The annual cost to the U.S. economy for these actions is estimated to be greater than $600 billion. While this is a serious matter that must continue to be addressed, domestic theft of U.S. IP is just as bad if not worse. It is easy to point fingers at China, given their track record, but small U.S. companies and inventors are not having their dreams extinguished by the Chinese. They are being victimized by Silicon Valley’s big tech companies, which make billions of dollars using their stolen IP.

Later this year (likely in October), the United Kingdom’s highest court will hear arguments on questions arising in two disputes concerning standard essential patents (SEPs). The UK Supreme Court has agreed to hear appeals in Unwired Planet International Ltd and another v Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd and another UKSC 2018/0214 and the joined cases Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and another v Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL UKSC 2019/0041 and ZTE Corporation and another v Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL UKSC 2019/0042. The arguments are likely to focus on one question: can a national court impose a global license in SEP cases? The closely watched appeal will be the culmination of years of litigation between the parties. In the Unwired Planet case, Mr. Justice Birss of the High Court heard five trials on the validity and infringement/essentiality of Unwired Planet’s patents. In April 2017, he then gave a mammoth judgment determining what a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) license would be, and setting royalty rates. Critically, he found that only a worldwide license would be FRAND in the circumstances of this case. The England and Wales Court of Appeal upheld this conclusion, in a judgment in October 2018. The Supreme Court will likely sit in a five-judge panel in a hearing that will last about two days and will be live streamed on its website (the date and panel details have not been confirmed yet). It will hand down judgment later this year or early in 2020. (Ironically, patent specialist Lord Kitchin is a member of the Supreme Court but will not be sitting in this case as it is his own judgment that is under appeal.) You might have thought that—after decades of legal debate and academic writing, dozens of judgments addressing questions such as what constitutes a FRAND license and what are reasonable royalties, and extensive discussions between technology companies—the questions around SEPs would be close to being resolved. But that is far from the case. The outcome of the UK Supreme Court hearing, for instance, will have an impact on negotiations between owners of SEP portfolios and implementers worldwide, at a time when standards are set to become critical to many more industries.

Too often, engineering companies are in such a race to come up with the next big thing that they forget to consider the crucial step following their grand discoveries or inventions: patent protection. If a business is willing to spend years developing products and a considerable amount of money marketing, then it only makes sense to follow through and protect the accomplishment. Yet, many (unintentionally) don’t. Below are five risky ways tech companies often jeopardize their intellectual property rights, sometimes even before a product has been developed.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has had a sordid history. Whether you are in favor of the PTAB allowing serial challenges that require patent owners to constantly fight dozens of petitions from a multitude of challengers or not, no one can or should excuse the PTAB from the egregious appearance of impropriety that continues to plague the institution. It is insulting and inappropriate. It is well past time for Director Iancu to put an end to Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) deciding petitions filed by former clients. We know direct conflicts where APJs are deciding petitions filed by former clients are still happening thanks to two orders entered on August 8, 2019 in IPR2019-00819 and IPR2019-00820. Through these orders, we learn that APJ Stacy Beth Margolies is sitting on a panel assigned to address inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed by Apple, Inc. against patent owner MPH Technologies OY. The problem is Margolies, while she was an attorney, represented Apple.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: The Federal Circuit has asked USPTO Director Andrei Iancu to brief the appellate court on deference that should be paid to precedential PTAB opinions; China announced that it will create a credit rating mechanism for patent agents; Russ Slifer Op-Ed revives 101 debate; the FCC will approve the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger; amicus briefs filed at the Supreme Court support the abrogation of state sovereign immunity against copyright claims; Nintendo ramps up copyright campaign against YouTube accounts using video game music; Guns N’ Roses settles trademark dispute over craft beer brand; and copyright troll entity Malibu Media faces investor lawsuit.

The Federal Circuit recently reversed the District of Minnesota’s denial of summary judgment and held claims related to paper check processing invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Despite the claims being directed to processing “physical” checks, the Court held that “the abstract idea exception does not turn solely on whether the claimed invention comprises physical versus mental steps.”  The Court also reasserted that novelty and/or non-obviousness does not obviate ineligibility under Section 101. See Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., Nos. 2019-1345, 2019-1460, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 22516 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019) (Before Chen, Hughes, and Stoll, Circuit Judges) (Opinion for the Court, Chen, Circuit Judge).

Perhaps the report on China’s strategy for eclipsing the U.S. lead in biopharma from the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) resonated so strongly with me because of several articles in The Wall Street Journal. Taken together, they present a sobering picture of what we’re up against. The first was a book review of “Leadership and the Rise of Great Powers” by Yan Xuetong, a prominent Chinese professor. Characterized as “a window into Chinese elite thinking about the world; it is as much a political manual as an international-relations text book.”  The thesis is the inevitable rise of China as the world’s dominant power at the expense of the United States.

Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued 23 institution-phase decisions in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, resulting in 14 IPR institutions and nine IPR denials. Two of the instituted IPRs were brought by Facebook, which is seeking to invalidate claims of a photo tagging patent asserted against it in district court by Blackberry. Apple saw two of three IPRs instituted against Firstface, but the consumer tech giant was still successful in challenging claims from both of the fingerprint authentication patents it was seeking to invalidate. Apple also saw two successful IPR institutions against Nartron after failing in a series of petitions challenging the same patent.