Surviving Alice Gone Wild
| November 26, 2014
Before the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v CLS Bank Int’l [1], Judge Moore said “this case is the death of hundreds of thousands of patents, including all business method, financial system, and software patents as well as many computer implemented and telecommunications patents.”[2] This concern is premised on about twenty years of patent practice grounded in the en banc 1994 Federal Circuit decision in In re Alappat which previously established the “special purpose computer” justification for patent eligibility under 35 USC §101 for computer-implemented inventions.[3] The Alice decision essentially eliminated the “special purpose computer” bright line rule as applied generally to computer-implemented inventions. The new Mayo 2-part §101 test for computer-implemented inventions is, however, fraught with issues from the lack of guidance on how to properly apply it. Some strategic arguments for surviving a §101 attack are presented in this article, as well as a new way to address what is “significantly more.”
Tags: 101 > abstract idea > Alice > CLS Bank > computer > means plus function > patent eligible subject matter > preemption > Section 101 > software
CAFC redefines the singular phrase “a patient” as a plural patient population
| November 18, 2014
Braintree Laboratories, Inc. v. Novel Laboratories, Inc.
April 22, 2014
Panel: Dyk, Prost Moore. Majority opinion by Prost. Concurrence by Dyk. Dissent by Moore.
Summary
In this ANDA litigation, the claims recited a composition for purgation of the colon of “a patient”. The majority imported the preamble phrase of “a patient” into the claim, and also interpreted this as not a single patient, but rather a “patient population”. Judge Moore dissented on this point. Additionally, Judge Dyk dissented on the grounds that the majority based its analysis on an accused infringing product different from the subject of the ANDA application, contrary to Hatch-Waxman rules.
HARVARD/DUPONT’S CANCER MOUSE PATENT NIXED BY PARENT PATENT’S TERMINAL DISCLAIMER
| November 11, 2014
President and Fellows of Harvard v. Lee
October 29, 2014
Panel: Lourie, Moore and O’Malley. Opinion by Moore
Summary
Harvard/DuPont appealed the Virginia Eastern District’s Summary Judgment grant of the USPTO’s finding of their cancer mouse patent (USP 5,925,803) expired due to a terminal disclaimer filed in the parent patent disclaiming term for any future patents. Harvard/DuPont argued that the terminal disclaimer was not properly entered because the requisite fee was not paid and therefore ineffective. The Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s finding on the basis that the ruling was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law under the APA standard.
NEGOTIATION IN THE U.S. IS NOT SALE OR OFFER FOR SALE WITHIN THE U.S. UNDER §271(a) WHEN SUBSTANTIAL SALES ACTIVITIES OCCUR OUTSIDE THE U.S.
| November 11, 2014
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (Precedential Opinion)
October 22, 2014
Panel: Lourie, O’Malley, and Hughes. Opinion by Lourie
Summary
Halo Electronics (“Halo”) owns U.S. Patent No.5,656,985 and other patents of electronic packages. Halo sued Pulse Electronics (“Pulse”) for patent infringement. Pulse manufactures, sells and delivers electronic packages only outside the United States [for the purpose of the summary judgment]. All purchase orders were received at Pulse’s sales offices abroad. However, Pulse negotiated with Cisco in the United States regarding the price for Cisco’s foreign contract manufacturers. The district court granted summary judgment of no direct infringement as to the products that Pulse manufactured, shipped, and delivered outside the United States.
CAFC held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment of no direct infringement because those products were neither sold nor offered for sale by defendant within the United States.
Note) Some other issues are involved in the case, but this report focuses only on the appeal of the summary judgment.
Halo社は、電子回路パッケージに関する米国特許5,656,985号その他の特許権者である。Haro社はPulse社を特許侵害で訴えた。Pulse社はその殆どの製品を米国外で製造、販売、配送を行っていた。注文も米国外のPulseの販売事務所で受けていた。
しかし、Pulse社は、米国のCisco社と価格の交渉をしていた。それは、米国外のCisco社の契約メーカーへの販売価格に関するものであった。地裁は、Pulse社が米国外で製造、販売、配送を行っていた製品に関して、米国内での販売又は販売の申し出はないとして、非侵害のサマリ・ジャジメントを下した。
CAFCは、製品の米国内での販売又は販売の申し出はないとして、地裁のサマリ・ジャジメントは誤りではないとして維持した。
