Posts Tagged: "Patentability"

Earlier this month, Mallinckrodt succeeded in its inter partes review (IPR) challenge against patent owner Biovie, Inc. (Biovie). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) final determination held that all claims of Biovie’s U.S. Patent No. 9,655,945 (the ‘945 patent) were unpatentable. The claims of Biovie’s ‘945 patent, directed to administering terlipressin to ascites (abnormal buildup of fluid in the abdomen) patients, were deemed anticipated and/or obvious over the prior art. During the IPR, Biovie attempted to use the recent Federal Circuit decision from OSI Pharmaceuticals v. Apotex (OSI) as a shield to patentability, but the shield was unsuccessful. As such, OSI is unlikely to be a cure-all for pharmaceutical method of treatment claims, in IPR proceedings or otherwise.

During this turbulent era in the history of the U.S. patent system, many enterprises have pursued new models for IP strategy and execution. Others have taken a wait-and-see, business-as-usual tack. Change certainly is no stranger to patent systems around the world. Yet, some principles remain timeless and unassailable no matter how winds may shift. For example, we all can agree that patent filing and maintenance decisions should be sound, protecting the right technologies in the right places for the right reasons. Technology companies face patent-related decision points around seemingly every corner. The consequences of suboptimal decision-making are troubling, including wasteful expenditures, missed strategic opportunities, and diminished shareholder value. Therefore, enterprises should not hesitate to continually reflect on the quality of their patent filing and maintenance decisions, and on the framework that supports them. Cognitive bias—defined as “the collection of faulty ways of thinking … hardwired into the human brain”—can hijack patent decision processes just as it does every other area of human endeavor. As such, it can lead to suboptimal outcomes despite IP stakeholders’ sincere, dedicated participation.

My company, Chestnut Hill Sound Inc. (ChillSound), has been victimized by a U.S. patent system that for nearly a decade has been in a sorry state. Changes wrought by the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011 and other recent developments cost my company, its investors and inventors millions of dollars. These changes have allowed a large company to reap great profits at our expense. Even more unfortunately, our story is too typical of many other inventors and small companies. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and need to be cultivated, as they are the most dynamic source of new jobs and competitive products and technologies. There have always been reports of large corporations stealing inventions from small businesses, but it used to be possible via the courts to vindicate the patent rights of owners and obtain ultimate redress.  The AIA—sold by the “efficient infringers” lobby as a measure to protect big business from the expense and nuisance of so-called “patent trolls”—has turned into a weapon of deep-pocketed big businesses that enables them to steal with impunity inventions from small businesses and independent inventors. The AIA brought with it the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Inter Partes Review (IPRs), a post-grant adversarial proceeding at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). As has been amply discussed here on IPWatchdog, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently opined that the so-called Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) were unconstitutionally appointed from the beginning. Yet these unconstitutionally appointed APJs continue to kill patents, especially when the patent owner is a small company that has sued a large company for infringement, as was the case with ChillSound.

It is not unusual for there to be unintended consequences in the law or life. A loved one gives you something you don’t really like, but you do such a good job of feigning happiness that it becomes a regular gift. Who knew you could ever have too many “lovely” ties or too much single malt Scotch? Congress is in the process of giving the patent bar some welcome relief on some important issues, but may be throwing in that unwanted gift along with it. The STRONGER Patents Act intends to address the potential for inconsistent rulings between district court cases and inter partes reviews (IPRs). The Act achieves this by expressing a preference for district court rulings and by requiring IPRs to apply the same standards for validity determinations that are used in the district court. This is already the case by USPTO regulation with respect to claim construction, but the Act would make it statutory for both claim construction and validity, and thus not subject to change by the USPTO. While the use of the same standard for validity in both forums will make the rulings more consistent, the statutory preference for the district court over the IPR may have an unintended consequence.

Since the issuance by the United States Supreme Court of its opinion in Alice Corporation Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has increased its focus on patent eligibility. As a consequence, patent applicants now receive more claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, leading to protracted prosecution. While rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are likely unavoidable, patent attorneys and agents can take steps during application preparation and prosecution to minimize the likelihood of such rejections and to successfully rebut such rejections when they do arise.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Federal Circuit issues precedential decisions regarding its authority to remand to the PTAB, patent prosecution history estoppel and expert testimony on motivation to combine for obviousness findings; China nominates its choice for WIPO Director while pledging to reach “social satisfaction” on IP protections by 2025; INTA announces Ayala Deutsch as the organization’s new president; the USPTO seeks public comments on information collection related to national security concerns; the TTAB applies Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to discovery requests; Hewlett Packard shares drop after quarterly revenues fall short of analyst expectations; and the PTAB allows additional briefing in a case after the possibility of Administrative Procedure Act violations were raised by a patent owner.

On November 23, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) ruling in a pair of inter partes review (IPR), which had invalidated all claims of two related patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,014,243 and 8,718,158. TQ Delta, the patent owner, appealed the PTAB’s holding that all claims of the challenged patents would have been obvious when viewed in light of the prior art references, including U.S. Patent Nos. 6,144,696 (Shively) and 6,625,219 (Stopler), asserted by Cisco System Inc. and the other appellees (collectively, “Cisco”). Admissibility of evidence, claim construction, and due process were among several other challenges raised by TQ Delta on appeal. Because the PTAB’s determination of obviousness was not supported by substantial evidence, the CAFC reversed.

In Airbus S.A.S v. Firepass Corporation, Appeal 2019-1803 (November 8, 2019), Airbus appealed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) reversal of the examiner’s rejection of new claims presented by Firepass in an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,418,752 (“the ‘752 patent”). In particular, the inter partes reexam returned to the Court from a prior appeal (Airbus SAS v. Firepass Corp., 793 F.3d 1376 [Fed. Cir. 2015]) in which the Court vacated and remanded to the Board to consider Airbus’s challenge to the newly presented claims. Airbus disputes the Board’s finding that an asserted prior art reference, which just so happens to be a patent issued to the same inventor as the ‘752 patent, is nonanalogous art.

On October 30, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property heard from five witnesses on ways to improve patent quality at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The Subcommittee subsequently posed questions to the witnesses, including professors Colleen Chien, R. Polk Wagner, and Melissa Wasserman, to supplement their testimony. Those witnesses have now submitted their responses, which expand upon their various suggestions for improving patent quality.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reviewed an appeal of the PTAB’s final decision that Game and Technology Co. Ltd.’s (GAT) Patent No. 7,682,243 (the ‘243 patent) was obvious over the prior art, and that inter partes review (IPR) was not barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The CAFC held that the PTAB properly asserted that claims 1-7 of patent ‘243 were obvious in light of the prior art and that an IPR was not barred because the petitioner, Wargaming Group Limited (Wargaming), was not properly served with a complaint alleging infringement of the [‘243] patent over a year before it filed its petition for an IPR.

If you innovate and invest more than $10,000 to obtain patent protection on your idea, do you trust a government-issued patent to be a valid one?  And if you believe you have a valid patent, would you trust that government’s judicial system to protect you from sanctions for believing in its validity? These underlying assumptions provide the foundation to any system. If you purchase and obtain title to a car, stock, or real estate, you expect that title to be valid. And you expect not to be penalized for believing in that title’s validity.     For patents, it’s quite the opposite. It has become so commonplace for government-issued patents to be invalidated after issuance, we hardly bat an eye. But with the development of Section 101 law, the patent system has turned down a twisted path—one that sanctions patent holders for believing their patent to be valid. In Finnavations LLC v. Payoneer, Inc., the U.S. District court for the District of Delaware unfortunately advanced our patent system down this path

“It’s up to you to do the right thing and fix this,” said Professor Arti Rai of The Center for Innovation Policy at Duke University School of Law near the end of a hearing on what Congress should do in the wake of the Arthrex decision yesterday. Rai was one of four IP scholars who testified during the hearing of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet; all witnesses seemed to agree that the courts will not fix the problem soon enough to ensure the requisite certainty for U.S. patent owners and businesses, so Congress must act. In Arthrex, the Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) were unconstitutionally appointed and removed the civil service protections they previously were deemed to enjoy—although, as Professor John Duffy of the University of Virginia School of Law pointed out, if the Federal Circuit ruled that the APJs can’t have tenure, that arguably means they never did. “If you go back to Marbury v. Madison, courts don’t actually strike down statutes; they simply say what the law is,” Duffy said.

On November 13, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in the case of Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. (Seirus). Columbia appealed the judgment from a jury trial holding claims 2 and 23 of U.S. Patent 8,453,270 (the ‘270 patent) invalid as anticipated and obvious. Seirus cross-appealed from a grant of summary judgment by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, holding tSeirushat Seirus infringed U.S. Design Patent No. D657,093 (the ‘093 patent). The CAFC affirmed that claims 2 and 23 of the ‘270 patent were invalid, reversed the summary judgment decision against Seirus for infringement of the ‘093 patent and remanded for further proceedings on the design patent.

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.”

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.