Posts Tagged: "Judge Paul Michel"

Last week during IPWatchdog’s Patent Masters Symposium, former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel sat down with me to discuss the state of the U.S. patent system and best options/ predictions for moving forward. He began by lamenting that “the courts have failed and failed and failed” with flawed rulings such as Helsinn v. Teva, which Michel characterized as “completely illogical”, and Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. To boot, the Supreme Court has refused to take any patent eligibility cases, and the Federal Circuit has managed to make the harm and illogic of the SCOTUS rulings even worse, Michel said. In fact, they’ve “expanded on the bad rulings of the SCOTUS.” Part of the problem may lie in a misunderstanding of the true intent of the patent system, according to Michel. “The real point of the patent system is to incentivize innovation, not to encourage creative people. Creative people will create no matter what. Investment is extremely risky and costly—if the incentive to invest shrinks, and there is evidence that it has, we are in trouble.” Below, Michel offers more of his thoughts on the current patent landscape, including what to expect from pending legislation and why he is cautiously optimistic that change is coming soon.

Commissioner Christine Wilson of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) addressed the IPWatchdog Patent Masters Symposium on Tuesday, September 10, emphasizing three main points in her keynote: that Judge Lucy Koh’s decision in FTC v. Qualcomm was flawed, that antitrust analyses should be more focused on dynamic, rather than static effects, and that, despite the latter point, antitrust authorities routinely try and fail to integrate dynamic effects into antitrust law. She was clear up front that her views did not necessarily match those of her fellow commissioners. First, Wilson reiterated the ideas expressed in her May 28 op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, which she summarized by saying that U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Lucy Koh’s opinion in the FTC v. Qualcomm case “creates bad law and bad policy.” Wilson explained that Koh in her lengthy analysis took the opportunity to “radically expand a company’s legal obligation to help its competitors” by reviving a “discredited” 1985 Supreme Court case, Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. “My opposition to the court’s opinion does not stem from any desire to help or protect Qualcomm,” Wilson said. “I am focused on applying and preserving sound antitrust principles and this decision scares me.”

Yesterday, 24 law professors, former Chief Judges of the Federal Circuit and former heads of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) sent a letter to Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) and Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Doug Collins (R-GA) aimed at correcting what the letter characterizes as “misapprehensions of law and misleading rhetoric” on the subject of pending patent reform legislation. The letter makes specific reference to statements made by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claiming that the draft legislation to amend Section 101 of the patent law “if enacted would authorize patenting products and laws of nature, abstract ideas, and other general fields of knowledge.” The authors of yesterday’s letter, which included Retired Federal Circuit Chief Judges Randall Rader and Paul Michel and former USPTO Directors Todd Dickinson and David Kappos, called such statements “profoundly mistaken and inaccurate” and laid out in detail the specific inaccuracies. Rather than expanding the scope of 101 to abstract ideas and laws of nature, said the letter, “the proposed amendments preclude ‘implicit or judicially created exceptions to subject matter eligibility,’” and do not eliminate existing constitutional and statutory bars.

On July 15, retired Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel filed an amicus brief in Qualcomm’s appeal of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) antitrust case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The following day, the United States government filed a statement of interest with the appellate court as well. Both parties filed in support of Qualcomm’s request for a partial stay of an injunction handed down this May in the Northern District of California, which requires Qualcomm to license its standard essential patents (SEPs) to modem-chip suppliers after determining that the company’s “no license, no chips” policy violated U.S. antitrust law.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was created to provide much-needed clarity and consistency to the nation’s patent law. In prior decades, the law had become hopelessly confused and incoherent due to disparate decisions of the regional courts of appeals. Two successive presidential commissions called for rectifying the situation because U.S. industrial competitiveness was lagging, and industries were faltering as a result of the weakness that had compromised the effectiveness of the patent system. For the previous century-and-a-half it had helped transform the country from a poor, agrarian land into the most advanced, powerful and wealthy nation on earth. In the 20th Century, nearly every significant scientific invention was created in America. But that was beginning to fade in the 1970s and beyond. Congress responded in 1982 by creating the Federal Circuit to hear all patent appeals…. These welcome developments increased incentives to invest in expensive research and development and the even more costly process of commercializing new inventions, putting new cures, products and services into the public’s hands and onto store shelves. In just the last few years, those incentives have lagged again due to sudden increases in uncertainty in the patent system, particularly regarding eligibility.

Recently, I’ve written several articles laying the blame for the patent eligibility crisis squarely on the Federal Circuit. Yes, we all know the Supreme Court is obviously to blame. They are the court with primary national jurisdiction, and there can be no doubt that the Mayo v. Prometheus decision is the root of the patent eligibility problem because it intentionally conflates novelty and obviousness with patent eligibility. In my recent writings, and in a variety or presentations and speeches I have been giving across the country—from Utah to Orlando to Charlotte—I’ve criticized the Federal Circuit for not distinguishing Mayo and Alice on the facts. If we listen to the Supreme Court at least, at issue in both Mayo and Alice were unusually simple “inventions” that are really not innovations at all. As I filed my latest article, Eileen said that she thought it was good because it would provoke discussion since I disagreed with Judge Michel’s view in the interview with him she had just published. There was a long pause in our conversation. “Am I really disagreeing with Judge Michel?” I asked. Whenever I disagree with Judge Michel, I pause. It isn’t that I am unwilling to disagree with him, but, over the years, I have come to learn that, when one is going to disagree with Judge Michel, prudence dictates reevaluating your position.