Satisfying Written Description When Therapeutic Effectiveness is Claimed
| June 26, 2019
Nuvo Pharmaceuticals v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories
Summary
The CAFC reversed and dismissed a holding by the District Court that the claims of the ‘907 and the ‘285 patents had adequate written description regarding the efficacy of an uncoated PPI. The CAFC states that it not necessary to prove that a claimed pharmaceutical compound actually achieves a certain result. However, if the claim recites said result, then there must be sufficient support in the specification. Herein, the claims were held invalid because the therapeutic effectiveness of uncoated PPI, which was recited in the claims, was not supported by the specification.
Details
The use of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (hereinafter “NSAID”), such as aspirin, can cause gastrointestinal problems, and thus, some patients are prescribed an acid inhibitor, such as proton pump inhibitor (PPI), to be taken with said NSAID. However, even this combination therapy may be problematic. That is, if the PPI has not taken affect before the administration of the NSAID then gastrointestinal problems may still occur.
The U.S. Patent Nos. 6,926,907 (hereinafter “the ‘907 patent”) and 8,557,285 (hereinafter “the ’285 patent”) are directed towards a coordinated release drug formulation comprising an acid inhibitor/PPI and a NSAID. The coordinated release drug allows for an acid inhibitor to work before the release of the NSAID and thereby minimizes potential gastrointestinal problems. The ‘285 patent is a related patent of the ‘907 patent and both share a specification. Claim 1 of the ‘907 patent and claim 1 of the ‘285 patent are presented below:
Claim 1 of the ’907 patent:
1. A pharmaceutical composition in unit dosage form suitable for oral administration to a patient, comprising:
(a) an acid inhibitor present in an amount effective to raise the gastric pH of said patient to at least 3.5 upon the administration of one or more of said unit dosage forms;
(b) a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) in an amount effective to reduce or eliminate pain or inflammation in said patient upon administration of one or more of said unit dosage forms;
and wherein said unit dosage form provides for coordinated release such that:
i) said NSAID is surrounded by a coating that, upon ingestion of said unit dosage form by said patient, prevents the release of essentially any NSAID from said dosage form unless the pH of the surrounding medium is 3.5 or higher;
ii) at least a portion of said acid inhibitor is not surrounded by an enteric coating and, upon ingestion of said unit dosage form by said patient, is released regardless of whether the pH of the surrounding medium is below 3.5 or above 3.5.
(emphasis added)
Claim 1 of the ’285 patent:
1. A pharmaceutical composition in unit dosage form comprising therapeutically effective amounts of:
(a) esomeprazole, wherein at least a portion of said esomeprazole is not surrounded by an enteric coating; and
(b) naproxen surrounded by a coating that inhibits its release from said unit dosage form unless said dosage form is in a medium with a pH of 3.5 or higher;
wherein said unit dosage form provides for release of said esomeprazole such that upon introduction of said unit dosage form into a medium, at least a portion of said esomeprazole is released regardless of the pH of the medium.
(emphasis added)
Nuvo, who owns the ‘907 and ‘285 patents, make and sells Vimovo, which is the commercial embodiment of the patents. The patented drug achieves a coordinated release of the acid inhibitor and the NSAID in a single tablet. The core of the tablet is NSAID, which is coated so as to prevent its release before the pH has increased to a desired level, and an acid inhibitor, like PPI, on the outside of the coating, that actively works to increase the pH to said desired level. The PPI is uncoated. The specifications discloses methods for preparing and making the claimed drug formulations and provides examples of the structure and ingredients of the drug formulations but does not disclose any experimental data demonstrating the therapeutic effectiveness of any amount of uncoated PPI and coated NSAID in a single dosage form. Id. at 6. The specification discloses that coated PPIs avoid destruction by stomach acid but may not work quickly enough and the specification does not have any disclosure regarding the effectiveness of uncoated PPIs being able to raise pH. The inventor of the ‘907 and ‘285 patents recognized that an uncoated PPI is at greater risk of being destroyed by stomach acid, which would undermine the effectiveness of the PPI, but contemplated that uncoated PPI would allow for immediate release into a patient’s stomach and achieve an increase in pH level.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, and Lupin Pharmaceuticals (hereinafter “the Generics”) submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking approval to sell a generic version of Vimovo. Dr. Reddy’s submitted a second ANDA wherein the product would contain a small amount of uncoated NSAID on the outermost layer of the tablet, which is separate from the coated-core-NSAID.
Nuvo sued the Generics in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in order to prevent the Generics from entering the market upon approval of the ANDAs, alleging all ANDAs products would infringe the ‘907 and ‘285 patents. The Generics stipulated to infringement, except for Dr. Reddy’s second ANDA product, and then countered that the ‘907 and ‘285 patents were invalid for obviousness, lack of enablement and inadequate written description.
The District Court granted Dr. Reddy’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringment of the ‘907 patent with regards to the second ANDA product. A bench trail was held regarding the validity of the ‘907 patent, the ‘285 patent, and whether the second ANDA product by Dr. Reddy infringed the ‘285 patent. It was concluded that the claims were not obvious over the prior art “because it was nonobvious to use a PPI to prevent NSAID-related gastric injury, and persons of ordinary skill in the art were discouraged by the prior art from using uncoated PPI and would not have reasonably expected it to work.” Id. at 8. It was also held that the claims of both patents were enabled and there was sufficient written description. The District Court held that the second ANDA by Dr. Reddy infringes the claims of the ‘285 patent.
At the District Court, the Generics argued that, “if they lose on their obviousness contention, then the claims lack written description support for the claimed effectiveness of uncoated PPI because ordinarily skilled artisans would not have expected it to work and the specification provides no experimental data or analytical reasoning showing the inventor possessed an effective uncoated PPI.” Id. at 9. Nuvo countered that “experimental data and an explanation of why an invention works are not required, the specification adequately describes using uncoated PPI, and its effectiveness is necessarily inherent in the described formulation.” Id. at 9. The District Court rejected Nuvo’s argument that effectiveness does not need to be described because effectiveness is inherent. The District Court acknowledged that the specification of the ‘907 and ‘285 patents did not describe efficacy of uncoated PPI. However, the District Court did conclude that there was sufficient written description because “the specification described the immediate release of uncoated PPI and the potential disadvantages of coated PPI, namely that enteric-coated PPI sometimes works too slowly to raise the intragastric pH. The district court did not explain why the mere disclosure of immediate release uncoated PPI, coupled with the known disadvantages of coated PPI, is relevant to the therapeutic effectiveness of uncoated PPI, which the patent itself recognized as problematic for efficacy due to its potential for destruction by stomach acid.” Id. at 10. The Generics appeal the written description ruling and Nuvo cross-appeals the District Court grant of summary judgment of noninfringement. Based solely on the written description issue regarding the claim language of “efficacy”, the CAFC reversed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal.
Before the CAFC, the Generics argued that the patents claim uncoated PPI that raises the gastric pH to at least 3.5, but that in view of the District Court’s holding, as part of the obviousness analysis, a skilled artisan would not have expected uncoated PPI to be effective to raise gastric pH, and that the specification of the patents fails to disclose the effectiveness of uncoated PPI. Id. at 12. Nuvo argued that “the claims do not require any particular degree of efficacy of the uncoated PPI itself, it is enough that the specification discloses making and using drug formulations containing effective amounts of PPI and NSAID, and experimental data and additional explanations demonstrating the invention works are unnecessary.” Id. at 12. The CAFC held that the District Court’s analysis does not support its conclusion of adequate written description and gave a review of the record to establish that the clear error standard has been met. “A written description finding is review for a clear error.” Id. at 11.
First, the CACF rejected Nuvo’s argument that the claims do not recite an efficacy requirement for uncoated PPI. As noted above, claim 1 of the ‘907 patent discloses “an acid inhibitor present in an amount effective to raise the gastric pH of said patient to at least 3.5” and claim 1 of the ‘285 patent discloses “therapeutically effective amounts of (a) esomeprazole….” The CAFC held that the claims of both patents require an amount of uncoated PPI effective to raise the gastric pH to at least 3.5. Id. at 14. Further, the CAFC noted that Nuvo’s argument, which is an attempt to “either recharacterizing the written description dispute or rewriting the claim language”, is being presented for the first time on appeal and is thus forfeited. The CAFC held that, before the District Court, the parties characterized that “claims require a therapeutically effective amount of uncoated PPI that would raise the gastric pH to at least 3.5”, that this understanding was “a fair reading of the claim language” and this understanding will not be altered in the appeal. Id. at 16.
Next, Nuvo argued that the expert testimony of Dr. Williams identified four portions of the specification that provided written description support. The Generics argued that the noted portions only disclose typical dosage amounts of uncoated PPI, the use of uncoated PPI in a drug formulation and did not discuss or explain efficacy of uncoated PPI. The CAFC agreed with the Generics. “We have expressly rejected the “argument that the written description requirement … is necessarily met as a matter of law because the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. GenProbe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” Id. at 18. The CAFC noted that the case law does not requirement experimental data to establish effectiveness or an explanation of how or why a claimed composition will be effective. Id. at 18. Nevertheless, the CAFC held that the “record evidence demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have known or understood that uncoated PPI is effective.” Id. at 18. The CAFC held that the specification is fatally flawed since the “the specification provides nothing more than the mere claim that uncoated PPI might work, even though persons of ordinary skill in the art would not have thought it would work…. It does not demonstrate that the inventor possessed more than a mere wish or hope that uncoated PPI would work, and thus it does not demonstrate that he actually invented what he claimed: an amount of uncoated PPI that is effective to raise the gastric pH to at least 3.5” Id. at 19. The inventor’s own testimony confirms this holding. At trial, the inventor admitted “that he only had a ‘general concept of coordinated delivery with acid inhibition’ using uncoated PPI at the time he filed his first patent application.” Id. at 19.
Lastly, Nuvo argued that the written description requirement was satisfied due to the disclosure of how to make and use the claimed invention and accept that therapeutic effectiveness of uncoated PPI is a matter of inherency. Id. at 20 and 21. The Generics argued that Nuvo’s assertion did not satisfy written description but would only satisfy the enablement requirement, which is a separate and distinct requirement. Nuvo cited Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 745 F.3d 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2014) for support but the CAFC quickly dismissed this and noted that the factual circumstances of Alcon were “markedly different”. Id. at 22. In Alcon, the patent reference presented example formulations and disclosed data showing stability testing of the claimed invention. Further, the CAFC stated that only “under a narrow set circumstance” would inherency satisfy the written description requirement. Nuvo cited Allergan to support their argument that the claimed efficacy of uncoated PPI is necessarily inherent in the specification’s explicit disclosure of methods for making and using drug formulations containing uncoated PPI. The CAFC agreed with the Generics that the factual circumstances of Allergan are not applicable to the present case. In Allergan, the parties did not dispute the therapeutic efficacy of the claimed formulation and the specification in Allergan presented experimental results that established a trend in clinical effectiveness.
Based on the specific facts of certain cases, it is unnecessary to prove that a claimed pharmaceutical compound actually achieves a certain result. But when the inventor expressly claims that result, our case law provides that that result must be supported by adequate disclosure in the specification. In this case, the inventor chose to claim the therapeutic effectiveness of uncoated PPI, but he did not adequately describe the efficacy of uncoated PPI so as to demonstrate to ordinarily skilled artisans that he possessed and actually invented what he claimed. And the evidence demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification would not have otherwise recognized, based on the disclosure of a formulation containing uncoated PPI, that it would be efficacious because he or she would not have expected uncoated PPI to raise gastric pH. Under those facts, the patent claims are invalid for lack of adequate written description pursuant to § 112, ¶ 1.
(emphasis added). Id. at 24.
The CAFC holds that the ‘907 patent and the ‘285 patent invalid for lack of adequate written description with regards to the claimed effectiveness of uncoated PPI. The CAFC did not address the other issues on appeal and cross-appeal.
Takeaway
- Before
filing an application, one may consider identifying the written description support
in the specification for each individual feature of a claim
- Given the narrow set of circumstances, try not to rely upon inherency to satisfy written description
- If possible, include experimental data of drug formulations
A treatment method including an administering step based on discovery of a natural law is patentable eligible
| June 18, 2019
Endo pharmaceuticals, Et Al. v. Teva pharmaceuticals Et Al.
Summary
The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision holding the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,808,737 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. The Federal Circuit held that the claims at issue are not directed to a natural law.
Details
Endo owns the ‘737 patent, entitled “method of treating pain utilizing controlled release oxymorphone pharmaceutical compositions and instruction on dosing for renal impairment.” The inventors of the ‘737 patent discovered that patients with moderately or severely impaired kidney function need less oxymorphone than usual to achieve a similar level of pain management. Accordingly, the treatment method of the ‘737 patent advantageously allows patients with renal impairment to inject less oxymorphone while still treating their pain.
More specifically, the degree of renal impairment of the subjects can be indicated by their creatinine clearance rate. The subjects may be separated into four groups based on their creatinine clearance rates:
Furthermore, the inventors discover that there was a statistically significant correlation between plasma AUC (area under curve) for oxymorphone and a patient’s degree of renal impairment, as shown below:
That is, there was relatively little change in oxymorphone AUC until the subjects had moderate-to-severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance rates below 50 mL/min). Subjects with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance rates below 30 mL/min) had the highest AUC values.
Claim 1 of the ‘737 patent is as follows:
1. A method of treating pain in a renally impaired patient, comprising the steps of:
a. providing a solid oral controlled release dosage form, comprising:
a) about 5 mg to about 80 mg of oxymorphone or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof as the sole active ingredient; and
b) a controlled release matrix;
b. measuring a creatinine clearance rate of the patient and determining it to be
a) less than about 30 ml/min;
b) about 30 mL/min to about 50 mL/min;
c) about 51 mL/min to about 80 mL/min, or
d) about 80 mL/min; and
c. orally administering to said patient, in dependence on which creatinine clearance rate is found, a lower dosage of the dosage form to provide pain relief;
wherein after said administration to said patient, the average AUC of oxymorphone over a 12-hour period is less than about 21 ng·hr/mL.
The magistrate judge held, and the district court agreed, that the claims at issue were not patent-eligible because the claims are directed to the natural law that the bioavailability of oxymorphone is increased in people with severe renal impairment, and the three steps a-c do not add “significant more” to qualify as a patentable method.
However, the federal circuit disagrees with the district court, holding that the claims at issue were directed to a patent-eligible application of a natural law. Specifically, The Federal Circuit points out that “it is not enough to merely identify a patent-ineligible concept underlying the claim; we must determine whether that patent-ineligible concept is what the claim is ‘directed to.’” Applying this law, the Federal Circuit concluded that claims of the ‘737 patent are directed to a patent-eligible method of using oxymorphone or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof to treat pain in a renally impaired patient. The conclusion is supported by the claim language itself and confirmed by the specification. The claim language recites specific steps a-c in using oxymorphone to treat pain in a renally impaired patient. The specification predominantly describes the invention as a treatment method, and explains that the method avoids possible issues in dosing and allows for treatment with the lowest available dose for patients with renal impairment. That is, the inventors here recognized the relationship between oxymorphone and patients with renal impairment, but claimed an application of that relationship, which is a method of treatment including specific steps to adjust or lower the oxymorphone dose for patients with renal impairment.
Then, the Federal Circuit considered that the claims at issue are similar to those in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Ltd, (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. V. CellzDirect (Fed. Cir. 2016) while distinguishing the claims at issue from those in Mayo collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc. (SC 2012), and Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015). For example, the claims at issue in Vanda related to a method of treating schizophrenia patients with a drug (iloperidone), where the administered dose is adjusted based on whether or not the patient is a “CYP2D6 poor metabolizer.” Like the claims in Vanda, the claims at issue here “are directed to a specific method of treatment for specific patients using a specific compound at specific doses to achieve a specific outcome.” In contrast, the representative claim in Mayo recited administering a thiopurine drug to patient as a first step in the method before determining the natural law relationship. The administering step is not performed based on the natural law relationship, and accordingly is not an application of the natural law.
Take away
- Adding an application step such as an administering step based on discovery of a natural law will render the claims patent eligible.
- There is a potential problem of divided infringement issue here in the subsequent enforcement effort. But direct infringement against physicians and induced infringement against pharmaceutical companies have been found based on similar patent claims. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-2067 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 12, 2017).
More Diagnostic Patent Claims Fall—Despite following USPTO Guidelines
| May 3, 2019
Cleveland Clinic v. True Health Diagnostics
April 1, 2019
Lourie, Moore and Wallach. Opinion by Lourie. (non-precedential)
Summary
In a non-precedential opinion, the CAFC considered diagnostic patent claims ineligible. The CAFC dismissed recitation of detection of a biomarker using conventional tools as an “overly superficial” rephrasing of claims that were previously considered ineligible. The CAFC also indicated that it is not bound by USPTO guidelines, and implied that the relied-upon USPTO Example is inconsistent with Ariosa.
Details
This case relates to a diagnostic to detect heart disease. Myeloperoxidase (MPO) is an early marker of heart disease associated with atherosclerotic plaques. It was known in the prior art that MPO can be detected in surgically removed plaques, but it was not known that MPO is present in elevated levels in the blood of patients having atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The inventors disclosed a method of detecting MPO by lab techniques such as colorimetric-based assay, flow cytometry, ELISA etc, and then correlating the detected MPO to heart disease. Notably, the specification states that MPO can be detected “by standard methods in the art,” and that commercially available kits can be modified to detect MPO.
In Cleveland Clinic I, the CAFC held that method claims reciting “a method of assessing risk of having atherosclerotic heart disease” were invalid as reciting a law of nature without anything significantly more. See Cleveland Clinic v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2621, (2018). In that case, the claims only recited a step of “comparing” MPO levels of a subject with MPO levels in a known non-diseased person.
However, this case presents slightly different claims based on same technology. Rather than reciting diagnosis or treatment, the present claims recite methods of detecting and identifying elevated MPO, with more detail. Specifically, the relevant claims are as follows:
Patent 9,575,065:
1. A method of detecting elevated MPO mass in a patient sample comprising:
a) obtaining a plasma sample from a human patient having atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD); and
b) detecting elevated MPO mass in said plasma sample, as compared to a control MPO mass level from the general population or apparently healthy subjects, by contacting said plasma sample with anti-MPO antibodies and detecting binding between MPO in said plasma sample and said anti-MPO antibodies.
Patent 9,581,597:
1. A method for identifying an elevated myeloperoxidase (MPO) concentration in a plasma sample from a human subject with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease comprising: a) contacting a sample with an anti-MPO antibody, wherein said sample is a plasma sample from a human subject having atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease;
b) spectrophotometrically detecting MPO levels in said plasma sample;
c) comparing said MPO levels in said plasma sample to a standard curve generated with known amounts of MPO to determine the MPO concentration in said sample; and
d) comparing said MPO concentration in said plasma sample from said human subject to a control MPO concentration from apparently healthy human subjects, and identifying said MPO concentration in said plasma sample from said human subject as being elevated compared to said control MPO concentration.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to step a), centrifuging an anti-coagulated blood sample from said human subject to generate said plasma sample.
Prosecution
In prosecution of these patents, the Applicant argued by analogy to Example 29 of the May 2016 USPTO eligibility guidelines. Example 29 presents two claims:
1. A method of detecting JUL-1 in a patient, said method comprising:
a. obtaining a plasma sample from a human patient; and
b. detecting whether JUL-1 is present in the plasma sample by contacting the plasma sample with an anti-JUL-1 antibody and detecting binding between JUL-1 and the antibody.
2. A method of diagnosing julitis in a patient, said method comprising:
a. obtaining a plasma sample from a human patient;
b. detecting whether JUL-1 is present in the plasma sample by contacting the plasma sample with an anti-JUL-1 antibody and detecting binding between JUL-1 and the antibody; and
c. diagnosing the patient with julitis when the presence of JUL-1 in the plasma sample is detected.
According to the 2016 guidelines, claim 1 is eligible, because it does not recite a law of nature (pass on step 2A). However, in the USPTO’s view, claim 2 is ineligible because it recites a law of nature without reciting something significantly more (fail on steps 2A and 2B).
In prosecution, the Applicant argued that the “detecting” claim of the ‘065 patent is more similar to the “detecting” claim 1 of Example 29 (eligible) than it is to the “diagnosing” claim 2 of Example 29 (ineligible). The Examiner agreed and allowed the application.
As to the ‘597 claims, the Applicant successfully argued in prosecution that the “identifying” claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, also relying on Example 29. The Applicant argued that it was not known to identify elevated MPO in plasma of patients having atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases, even though it was previously known to detect MPO in plaques. The Examiner agreed and allowed the application.
District Court
The district court interpreted the claims as being directed to a law of nature, based on the recitations of “detecting elevated MPO mass in a patient sample…”, “….from a human having atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease”, and “identifying an elevated [MPO] concentration in a plasma sample from a human subject with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.” The district court concluded that the method is only useful for detecting elevated MPO associated with cardiovascular disease. In other words, the method is only useful for detecting a natural phenomenon.
As such, the district court concluded that the claims do not recite a general laboratory technique and instead are trying to “recast [a] diagnostic patent as a laboratory method patent.” The district court concluded that the claims are directed to detecting the correlation between MPO and the disease, rather than to detecting MPO more generally. Thus, the claims fail step 2A. Further, the additional steps are all well-known and conventional and thus fail step 2B. Specifically, the district court stated that “[i]f merely using existing, conventional methods to observe a newly discovered natural phenomenon were enough to qualify for protection under §101, the natural law exception would be eviscerated.”
CAFC
The CAFC agreed in holding that the claims are ineligible. Cleveland Clinic argued first that the claims are not directed to a natural law, but rather to a technique of using an immunoassay to measure MPO. However, the CAFC considered this distinction to be “overly superficial,” and stated that the claims are directed to a natural law (correlation between MPO and the disease). The CAFC characterized the difference between the claims at issue and the claims of Cleveland Clinic I as a “rephrasing” that does not make the claims less directed to a law of nature.
Cleveland Clinic also argued that the correlation is not a natural law because it can only be detected using certain techniques. However, the CAFC saw through this, and stated that the same is true for many of the natural laws at issue in previous cases. Specifically, the CAFC stated that “[i]nadequate measures of detection do not render a natural law any less natural.”
The CAFC also held that the claims do not recite an additional inventive concept. Cleveland Clinic argued that using a known technique in a standard way to observe a natural law confers an inventive concept. However, the CAFC stated that this reasoning has been dismissed is previous cases such as Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo and Ariosa v. Sequenom. Further to this point, the CAFC stressed that the MPO is detected using known techniques without significant adjustments.
Finally, the CAFC addressed the USPTO guidelines. Cleveland Clinic stated that the district court erred by not giving appropriate deference to Example 29 noted above. The CAFC agreed with True Health in stating the USPTO guidelines are neither persuasive nor relevant to the claims at issue, because the district court reached the correct decision.
The CAFC did not include an extensive discussion of the USPTO guidelines, but stated as follows:
While we greatly respect the PTO’s expertise on all matters relating to patentability, including patent eligibility, we are not bound by its guidance. And, especially regarding the issue of patent eligibility and the efforts of the courts to determine the distinction between claims directed to natural laws and those directed to patent-eligible applications of those laws, we are mindful of the need for consistent application of our case law.
Further with regard to Example 29, the CAFC stated that its claim 1 is “strikingly similar” to ineligible claim 1 of Ariosa. As such, the CAFC stated that although they have considered Example 29 and related arguments, Ariosa must control. Thus, the CAFC did not follow the USPTO’s guidelines.
Takeaway
- Patent eligibility of diagnostic methods continues to be highly problematic. However, Chris Coons (D-DE) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) have recently been holding meetings on the issue, and released a “framework” on April 17, 2019:
However, in view of competing interests of the life sciences industry and the software industry, as well as reluctance to change a long-standing law, legislative change may be farther away than one might hope.
- One relies on USPTO guidelines at their own risk. Here, less than 3 years after publication, a CAFC panel has declined to follow the USPTO’s guidelines. Since such guidelines do not have the force of law, the courts are not required to follow them. In fact, in this case, the CAFC was somewhat dismissive of the USPTO’s efforts regarding §101. It is quite possible that the much-lauded USPTO guidelines issued on January 4, 2019 might suffer the same fate.
- If trying to claim a diagnostic as a detection method, it is probably better to omit recitation of a specific disease and a high/low comparison in the claims. In the rare case it is possible, it would be ideal to disclose a non-diagnostic use of the detected compound in the specification.
A comparison of an accused product to a commercial product that meets all the claim limitations for finding infringement of the claim
| April 29, 2019
TEK Global S.R.L. v. Sealant Systems International Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Prost, C.J.) (Case No. 17-2507)
March 29, 2019
Prost, Chief Judge, Dyk and Wallach, Circuit Judges. Court opinion by Chief Judge Prost.
Summary
In a precedential opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction in a specific context that an asserted claim including “container connecting conduit” was not subject to 35 U.S.C 112, ¶ 6 (112(f)) because the term “conduit” recites sufficiently definite structure to avoid classification as a nonce term. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s overruling of the accused infringer’s objections to certain alleged product-to-product comparisons in the patentee’s closing argument with general guidance that, despite the maxim that to infringe a patent claim, an accused product must meet all the limitations of the claim, a comparison of the accused product to a commercial product that meets all the claim limitations may support a finding of infringement of the claim.
Details
I. background
1. Patent in Dispute
TEK Corporation and TEK Global, S.R.L. (collectively, “TEK”) owns U.S. Patent No. 7,789,110 (“’110 patent”), directed to an emergency kit for repairing vehicle tires deflated by puncture.
In a lawsuit by TEK against Sealant Systems International and ITW Global Tire Repair (collectively, “SSI”) at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“district court”), claim 26 is the only asserted independent claim:
26. A kit for inflating and repairing inflatable articles; the kit comprising a compressor assembly, a container of sealing liquid, and conduits connecting the container to the compressor assembly and to an inflatable article for repair or inflation, said kit further comprising an outer casing housing said compressor assembly and defining a seat for the container of sealing liquid, said container being housed removably in said seat, and additionally comprising a container connecting conduit connecting said container to said compressor assembly, so that the container, when housed in said seat, is maintained functionally connected to said compressor assembly, said kit further comprising an additional hose cooperating with said inflatable article; and a three-way valve input connected to said compressor assembly, and output connected to said container and to said additional hose to direct a stream of compressed air selectively to said container or to said additional hose.
2. Preceding Proceedings
In claim construction proceedings, SSI argued that “conduits connecting the container” and “container connecting conduit” in claim 26 are subject to 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6, and that the claim requires a fast-fit coupling, which the accused product lacks.
FIG. 1, showing a “view in perspective of a repair kit [1] comprising a container [3] of sealing liquid [and a compressor assembly 2],” is reproduced below
FIG. 4, showing a “underside view in perspective [o]f the FIG. 1 kit [1] partly disassembled,” and a portion of the specification of ’110 patent, relevant to the “fast-fit coupling” are reproduced below:
“Conveniently, hose 4 [i]s fitted on its free end with a fast-fit, e.g. lever-operated, coupling 58.” ’110 patent col. 4 ll. 7–9.
The magistrate judge rejected SSI’s contention, and entered an order respectively construing these terms (“conduits connecting the container” and “container connecting conduit”) as “hoses and associated fittings connecting the container to the compressor assembly and to an inflatable article for repair or inflation” and “a hose and associated fittings for connecting the container to the compressor assembly.”
Following the claim construction, SSI moved for summary judgment of invalidity, arguing that claim 26 was obvious over U.S. Patent Application No. 2003/0056851 (“Eriksen”) in view of Japanese Patent No. 2004-338158 (“Bridgestone”). The district court granted SSI’s motion with determinations that the term “additional hose cooperating with said inflatable article” did not require a direct connection between the additional hose and the inflatable article, and that Bridgestone discloses an air tube (54) that works together with a tire, even though it is not directly connected to the tire, and that air tube (54) therefore represents the element of an additional hose (83) cooperating with the tire. TEK appealed the district court’s order to the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s construction of the “cooperating with” limitation and its subsequent invalidity determination, and remanded the case back to the district court, because SSI “has not had an opportunity to make a case for invalidity in light of this court’s claim construction.”
On remand, SSI again moved for summary judgment of invalidity, contending that “it would have been obvious . . . to modify Bridgestone to eliminate the second three-way valve (60) and joint hose (66), resulting in a conventional tire repair kit meeting the limitations of the claims of the 110 Patent.” The magistrate judge denied SSI’s motion, noting that “the Federal Circuit has already considered and rejected obviousness in light of the combination of Eriksen and Bridgestone.”
Following a four-day trial, the jury found the asserted claims including claim 26 of the ’110 patent infringed and not invalid. The jury awarded $2,525,482 in lost profits and $255,388 in the form of a reasonable royalty for infringing sales for which TEK did not prove its entitlement to lost profits.
SSI then moved for a new trial on damages (or remittitur) and for JMOL on damages, invalidity, and noninfringement. The district court denied SSI’s motions for a new trial and for JMOL on invalidity and noninfringement. As to SSI’s motion for JMOL on damages, the district court denied the motion with respect to lost profits and granted it with respect to reasonable royalty. The district court also granted TEK’s motion for a permanent injunction. SSI appealed to the Federal Circuit.
II. The Federal Circuit
The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s final judgment as to validity and reversed its denial of SSI’s motion for partial new trial on validity. In the interest of judicial economy, the Federal Circuit also reached the remaining issues on appeal including claim construction and infringement, and affirmed on those issues in the event the ’110 patent is found not invalid following the new trial.
This article focuses on the issues of the claim construction and infringement.
1. Claim Construction
(a) Fast-fit coupling
Review the district court’s claim construction de novo, and any underlying factual findings based on extrinsic evidence for clear error, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction, concluding that the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence in this case establishes that the term “conduit” recites sufficiently definite structure to avoid classification as a nonce term and agreed with the district court that SSI did not meet its burden to overcome the presumption against applying 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6.
First, the Federal Circuit noted that SSI did not dispute that the elements connected via the conduits—i.e., the container, the compressor assembly, and the inflatable article (e.g., a tire)—each comprise definite structure, and that SSI did not dispute that the “hose” disclosed in the ’110 patent is structural.
Second, the Federal Circuit concluded that the ’110 patent (intrinsic evidence) clearly contemplates a conduit having physical structure. Indeed, the disclosed conduits serve to physically connect a container of sealing liquid to a compressor and to connect the compressor to tires such that “[t]he liquid is fed into the [tire] for repair by means of compressed air, e.g., by means of a compressor.” ’110 patent col. 1 ll. 13–14. Note that the cited portion in the parentheses is described in the “BACKGROUND ART” section of the specification without reference to any drawing in the patent.
Third, citing the applicant’s statement when adding new claim 26 to its patent application, “[n]ew claim 26 is similar to claim 10 but defines the connections in structural terms rather than ‘means for’ language,” the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s determination that the prosecution history establishes that the applicant intended for the term “conduit” to avoid the application of 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6, with note that “[t]he subjective intent of the inventor when he used a particular term is of little or no probative weight in determining the scope of a claim,” but that is not necessarily true when the intent is “documented in the prosecution history.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 985 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (emphasis added).
Finally, the Federal Circuit indicated that extrinsic evidence also supports the conclusion. For example, dictionary definitions at or around the time of the invention confirm that the noun “conduit” denoted structure with “a generally understood meaning in the mechanical arts.” Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (explaining that the dictionary definition of “detent” shows that a person skilled in the art would understand the term to connote structure); Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 474 (1993) (defining “conduit” as “a natural or artificial channel through which water or other fluid passes or is conveyed: aqueduct, pipe”); The New Oxford American Dictionary 358 (2001) (defining “conduit” as “a channel for conveying water or other fluid”).
(b) Outer casing connected to compressor
SSI also argues that because claim 26 requires that the “seat is part of the outer casing[,] . . . the outer casing connects the container to the compressor.”
Regarding the issue, the Federal Circuit indicated that its inquiry is limited to whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s infringement verdict under the issued claim construction, and did not reach whether the accused product infringes the asserted claims under SSI’s posited constructions because the district court expressly rejected SSI’s interpretation when determining that the term should have its plain and ordinary meaning, and because SSI did not appeal the district court’s claim construction order rejecting its interpretation of the plain and ordinary meaning.
2. Infringement (Product-to-Product Comparison)
SSI argued that the district court legally erred by allowing TEK, over SSI’s objections, to compare the accused product to TEK’s commercial embodiment during its closing argument.
While the Federal Circuit agreed with SSI’s assertion that to infringe, the accused product must meet all the limitations of the claim, the Court noted, “when a commercial product meets all the claim limitations, then a comparison [of the accused product] to that [commercial] product may support a finding of infringement.”
Regarding this case, the Federal Circuit stated that it cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the jury to hear the indirect product-to-product comparison, given that SSI’s own expert, Dr. King, acknowledged that he understood the TEK device to be an “embodying device” and to “practice[] the ’110 Patent,” and that certain statements made by SSI’s former executive, TEK’s counsel, and the inventor also suggest that TEK’s device is the commercial embodiment of the ’110 patent.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that the district court overruled SSI’s objections to certain alleged product-to-product comparisons in TEK’s closing argument because it determined that “SSI and its expert invited a product-to-product comparison by identifying TEK’s product as an embodiment of the invention, then drawing a contrast (albeit an unconvincing one) with SSI’s product.”
The Federal Circuit also affirmed that the district court, in its discretion, determined that the indirect comparison between TEK’s product and SSI’s product, in the context that it occurred, was not cause for a new trial. For the support of the affirmance, the Federal Circuit referred to the district court’s instruction directing the jury not to perform a product-to-product comparison to decide the issue of infringement (“You’ve heard evidence about both TEK’s product and SSI’s product. However, in deciding the issue of infringement, you may not compare SSI’s Accused Product to TEK’s product. Rather, you must compare SSI’s Accused Product to the claims of the ’110 Patent when making your decision regarding patent infringement.”). In the Federal Circuit’s view, the district court’s cautionary instructions are sufficient to mitigate any potential jury confusion or substantial prejudice to SSI due to the apparent product-to-product comparison.
In light of the above considerations, the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion, and thus declined to reverse its denial of SSI’s motion for a new trial on infringement.
Takeaway
• The term “conduit” is now a member of examples of structural terms that have been found not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6. See MPEP 2181 [R-08.2017].
• Despite the maxim that to infringe a patent claim, an accused product must meet all the limitations of the claim, a comparison of the accused product to a commercial product that meets all the claim limitations could support a finding of infringement of the claim.
A case for importing limitation from specification into the claim
| April 6, 2019
Forest Laboratories, LLC v. Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC
March 14, 2019
Before Prost, Dyk, and Moore (Opinion by Moore)
Summary
A district court’s narrowing claim interpretation that read a limitation from the specification into the claim may have helped a patent about an antipsychotic drug survive invalidity challenges. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s claim interpretation, reasoning that repeated emphasis on the limitation in the specification and prosecution history supports the reading of the limitation into the claim. The Federal Circuit also agreed that, as a solution to an unrecognized problem, the claimed invention may not be obvious, particularly when there were no alternate, independent bases on which the prior art could be combined to make the claimed invention. Unfortunately, the district court’s lack of express findings on an unrelated proffered motivation to combine prompted the Federal Circuit to nevertheless vacate the district court’s nonobviousness determination and remand the case.
Details
Forest Laboratories, LLC makes and sells the drug, SAPHRIS®, for treating bipolar disorders and schizophrenia. The active ingredient in SAPHRIS® is the compound, asenapine. This compound is the subject matter of U.S. Patent No. 5,763,476 (“476 patent”), also owned by Forest Laboratories.
SAPHRIS® on average costs almost $1,500 for 60 tablets, and there are currently no generic alternatives. When a group of drug makers sought approval from the FDA to make generic versions of SAPHRIS®, Forest Laboratories accused them of infringing the 476 patent.
For our purpose, claim 1 of the 476 patent is of particular interest:
1. A pharmaceutical composition comprising as a medicinally active compound: trans-5-chloro-2-methyl-2,3,3a,12b-tetrahydro-1H-dibenz[2,3:6,7]oxepino[4,5,-c]pyrrole or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; wherein the composition is a solid composition and disintegrates within 30 seconds in water at 37°C.
It is worth noting that claim 4 of the 476 patent recites a “method for treating tension, excitation, anxiety, and psychotic and schizophrenic disorders, comprising administering sublingually or buccally” the asenapine.
Among the issues on appeal, the Federal Circuit’s discussions on claim construction and nonobviousness of claim 1 are informative.
As to claim construction, the question was whether claim 1 should be limited to sublingually or buccally administered compositions, or as the accused infringers would argue, should cover any composition that meets the claimed disintegration profile.
The district court determined that claim 1 should be limited to sublingual or buccal compositions. And the Federal Circuit agreed.
Unlike claim 4, claim 1 does not expressly recite “sublingual or buccal” administrations. The original claim 1 did recite “[a] sublingual or buccal pharmaceutical composition…suitable for use in sublingual or buccal compositions”, but all the “sublingual or buccal” language was removed during prosecution.
At first glance, then, the district court’s claim interpretation would seem to contradict not only the plain language of the claims, and also the intrinsic evidence vis-à-vis the prosecution history.
However, both the district court and the Federal Circuit were able to draw for their claim interpretation from the specification and prosecution history of the 476 patent.
The 476 patent specification repeatedly uses “sublingual or buccal” to modify the “invention”. For example, the 476 patent is titled “sublingual or buccal pharmaceutical composition”, and statements like “the invention relates to a sublingual or buccal pharmaceutical composition” are peppered throughout the specification. The 476 patent also extolls sublingual and buccal treatments, and criticizes conventional peroral or oral treatments.
The Federal Circuit noted that “[w]hen a patent…describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this description limits the scope of the invention” (quoting Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In addition, both the district court and the Federal Circuit cited UltimatePointer, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 816 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to support their claim interpretation. In UltimatePointer, the court limited the claim term “handheld device” to a “direct-pointing device” (for example, a Wiimote), even though the claim language did not expressly contain such a limitation. “[T]he repeated description of the invention as a direct-pointing system, the repeated extolling of the virtues of direct pointing, and the repeated criticism of indirect pointing clearly point to the conclusion that the ‘handheld device’…is limited to a direct-pointing device.” Id. at 823-24.
The prosecution history of the 476 patent likewise repeatedly used “sublingual or buccal” to modify the claimed composition. Most notably, in interpreting the original claim 1, the Examiner took the position that the language “‘suitable for sublingually or buccal administration,’ does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art,” and the “the composition as claimed may be used for either mode of administration (sublingually or orally, rectally, etc.).” In response, the patentee amended claim 1 to define “suitability” to mean that “the composition is a solid composition and disintegrates within 30 seconds in water at 37°C”. This feature distinguished the claimed invention over the prior art:
The Office Action indicated that any composition whose physical characteristics make the composition unique to sublingual or buccal administration…would be allowable. Applicants submit that the distinguishing feature of disintegration time is exactly such a characteristic…It is this feature of rapid disintegration which distinguishes a sublingual composition from a peroral one and which makes the compositions of the present invention suitable to avoid the adverse effects observed with peroral administration….
To obtain the good effects of the compositions of the present invention, it is necessary that the medicine be delivered by sublingual or buccal administration.
The district court inferred from those statements the inventors’ intention to limit the claims to sublingual or buccal compositions. The Federal Circuit reached the same conclusion even without considering the prosecution history. Looking only at the specification, and in a rather attenuated logic, the Federal Circuit determined that since the specification describes the claimed disintegration time as defining “rapid disintegration”, and also describes “rapid disintegration” as a feature of sublingual/buccal composition, the claimed disintegration time must therefore limit the claim to “sublingual or buccal” compositions.
Based on the above interpretation, the district court and the Federal Circuit agreed that claim 1 of the 476 patent was not obvious.
Even though asenapine, the use of asenapine to treat schizophrenia, and sublingual and buccal administrations of drugs were separately known in the art, there was no motivation to combine the prior art to arrive at the 476 patent’s sublingual or buccal formulation.
The Federal Circuit noted a “problem/solution” basis for finding nonobviousness. “[W]here a problem was not known in the art, the solution to that problem may not be obvious”. “[S]olving an unrecognized problem in the art can itself be [a] nonobvious patentable invention, even where the solution is obvious once the problem is known.”
Here, the invention grew out of concerns over severe cardiotoxic side effects of oral asenapine, which caused cardiac arrest in some patients. This prompted the inventors to consider alternative routes of administration. However, the dangers of oral asenapine were unknown in the art at the time of invention. Large-scale clinical studies were even being conducted with conventional oral asenapine tablets.
In addition, the inventors found that the cardiotoxicity of oral asenapine was likely due to accumulation of unmetabolized asenapine. However, sublingual or buccal administrations were expected to produce more, not less, unmetabolized asenapine.
The district court found, and the Federal Circuit accepted, that since nothing in the prior art indicated that oral asenapine had problems, the person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to change the route of administration. Moreover, “it would not have been predictable or expected that sublingual administration would provide a solution to the problem of cardiotoxic effect.”
The accused infringers attempted to argue, as an alternate motivation to combine, the benefit of having more treatment options. However, the Federal Circuit dismissed this argument, because “a generic need for more antipsychotic treatment options did not provide a motivation to combine these particular prior art elements.”
The Federal Circuit did disagree with the district court on one thing—unexpected results. The district court found it unexpected that sublingual administrations of asenapine lacked the cardiotoxicity of the oral formulations, because the skilled person would have expected the contrary. However, if the problem was not known, then how could the solution to the problem be “unexpected”? There would have been no expectations. As the Federal Circuit explained, “[A] person of ordinary skill could not have been surprised that the sublingual route of administration did not result in cardiotoxic effects because the person of ordinary skill would not have been aware that other routes of administration do result in cardiotoxic effect”.
The fight, however, is not completely over. The accused infringers offered a different “motivation to combine” argument, based on whether sublingual or buccal administration would have addressed patient compliance problems. The Federal Circuit did not think the district court made sufficient express findings on this proffered motivation to combine, and for this reason, vacated the district court’s nonobviousness determinations and remanded the case.
The district court and the Federal Circuit’s “problem/solution” approach to nonobviousness in this case raised an interesting question. How does that approach reconcile with the established case law that any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the prior art? The whole of MPEP 2144(IV) is dedicated to explaining how the motivation to combine can be for a purpose or problem different from that of the inventor.
The Federal Circuit answered that question in a recent, non-precedential decision in In re Conrad (Fed. Cir., March 22, 2019): “[C]ases found that the inventor’s discovery of and solution to an unknown problem weighed in favor of non-obviousness because the proffered reason to modify the prior art did not present a specific, alternate basis that was unrelated to the rationale behind the inventor’s reasons for making the invention.” Where the person skilled in the art would combine the prior art “for a reason independent from solving the problem identified by [the inventor]”, the fact that the invention solved an unrecognized problem may not lend as much patentable weight as it did in Forest Laboratories.
Takeaway
In this case, the narrower interpretation worked to the patentee’s advantage, particularly because the accused infringers had already conceded on the question of infringement. But such narrowing of the claim scope after the fact may not always be desirable. One may have preserved the validity of the patent, but is left with a negligible pool of potential infringers against whom to assert the patent.
Be mindful of how the invention is defined in the specification and during prosecution. Be careful with scope-limiting language such as “The present invention is…”, and absolute language such as “necessary”, “essential”, and “the distinguishing feature”.
Question the Examiner’s rationale for combining prior art. I have on several occasions seen Examiners use “more options” to rationalize a proposed combination of prior art. This may be a cop-out, because the Examiner may not have a specific, alternate basis for combining the prior art that is unrelated to the inventor’s reasons for making the invention. In that case, the nonobviousness of the invention may be formulated as the discovery of a solution to the “recognition of an unknown problem”.
Claims to a Dietary Supplement Survive a Motion to Dismiss on a § 101 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Challenge
| March 26, 2019
Natural Alternatives International, Inc., v. Creative Compounds, LLC
March 15, 2019
Before Moore, Reyna, and Wallach. Opinion by Moore. Opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part by Reyna.
Summary:
This case is an appeal from a Rule 12(c) dismissal for judgment on the pleadings in the district court. The district court held that all of the asserted claims to a dietary supplement, method of using the supplement and method of manufacturing the dietary supplement are patent ineligible under § 101 because they are directed to natural laws or natural phenomena. The CAFC reversed and remanded stating that the claims are not directed to an exception to § 101 under the first step of the Alice test.
Details:
Natural Alternatives sued Creative Compounds for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,965,596; 7,825,084; 7,504,376; 8,993,610; 8,470,865; and RE45,947. These patents relate to dietary supplements containing beta-alanine. Beta-alanine can form dipeptides which are also found in the muscles. Dipeptides aid in regulating intra-cellular pH during muscle contraction, and variations in concentrations of dipeptides affect anaerobic capacity. The claims of the patents are to supplements containing beta-alanine to increase the anaerobic working capacity of muscle and other tissue.
The district court accepted Natural Alternatives’ proposed claim constructions, but held that all of the claims under the proposed claim construction are patent ineligible as natural laws or natural phenomena. The CAFC stated that the district court properly accepted Natural Alternatives’ claim constructions due to the stage of the litigation, but the CAFC stated that the proposed claim constructions plausibly establish eligibility of the claims.
1. Method of Treating Claims
Claim 1 of the ‘596 patent and claim 1 of the ‘865 patent are treated as representative of the claims to a method of using beta-alanine. These claims are provided:
Claim 1 of the ‘596 patent:
1. A method of regulating hydronium ion concentrations in a human tissue comprising:
providing an amount of beta-alanine to blood or blood plasma effective to increase beta-alanylhistidine dipeptide synthesis in the human tissue; and
exposing the tissue to the blood or blood plasma, whereby the concentration of beta-alanylhistidine is increased in the human tissue.
Claim 1 of the ‘865 patent:
1. A method of increasing anaerobic working capacity in a human subject, the method comprising:
a) providing to the human subject an amount of an amino acid to blood or blood plasma effective to increase beta-alanylhistidine dipeptide synthesis in the tissue, wherein said amino acid is at least one of:
i) beta-alanine that is not part of a dipeptide, polypeptide or oligopeptide;
ii) an ester of beta-alanine that is not part of a dipeptide, polypeptide or oligopeptide; or
iii) an amide of beta-alanine that is not part of a dipeptide, polypeptide or oligopeptide; and
b) exposing the tissue to the blood or blood plasma, whereby the concentration of beta-alanylhistidine is increased in the tissue,
wherein the amino acid is provided through a dietary supplement.
Natural Alternatives’ claim construction of the highlighted “effective” limitations is to “elevate beta-alanine above natural levels to cause an increase in the synthesis of beta-alanylhistidine dipepetide in the tissue.” “Dietary supplement” is construed as “an addition to the human diet, which is not natural of conventional food, which effectively increases athletic performance when administered to the human over a period of time.” “Increasing anaerobic working capacity” is construed as “increasing the amount of work performed by a muscle under lactate producing conditions.”
The district court held that both method claims are directed to natural laws in that “ingesting certain levels of beta-alanine, will increase the carnosine concentration in human tissue and, thereby, increase the anaerobic working capacity in a human.” The CAFC disagreed with the district court stating that “[a]dministering certain quantities of beta-alanine to a human subject alters that subject’s natural state.” The CAFC stated that due to administering beta-alanine, homeostasis is overcome and the body produces more creatine which results in physiological benefits for athletes engaged in intense exercise. The CAFC also emphasized that the claims require administering the dosage form claimed in the manner claimed, altering the athlete’s physiology to provide described benefits. Citing Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Ltd., the CAFC concluded that “[t]hese are treatment claims and as such they are patent eligible.” “The Method Claims are directed to patent eligible new ways of using an existing product, beta-alanine.”
The CAFC distinguished Mayo by stating that while the Method Claims rely on a relationship between the administration of beta-alanine and beta-alanylhistidine dipeptide synthesis, under Natural Alternatives’ constructions, “the Method Claims require specific steps be taken in order to bring about a change in a subject, altering the subject’s natural state,” and the Method Claims do more than simply recite a natural law. The CAFC concluded that the Method Claims describe using a natural product in unnatural quantities to alter a patient’s natural state, to treat a patient with specific dosages. Thus, the Method Claims are not directed to an exception to § 101 under the first step of Alice.
2. Dietary Supplement Claims
Claim 6 of the ‘376 patent and claim 1 of the ‘084 patent are treated as representative of the claims to a dietary supplement. Claim 6 of the ‘376 patent depends from claims 1 and 5. The claims are provided:
Claims 1, 5 and 6 of the ‘376 Patent:
1. A composition, comprising:
glycine; and
a) an amino acid selected from the group consisting of a beta-alanine, an ester of a beta-alanine, and an amide of a beta-alanine, or
b) a di-peptide selected from the group consisting of a beta-alanine di-peptide and a beta-alanylhistidine di-peptide.
5. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition is a dietary supplement or a sports drink.
6. The composition of claim 5, wherein the dietary supplement or sports drink is a supplement for humans.
Claim 1 of the ‘084 patent:
1. A human dietary supplement, comprising a beta-alanine in a unit dosage of between about 0.4 grams to 16 grams, wherein the supplement provides a unit dosage of beta-alanine.
Natural Alternatives construed “dietary supplement” as “an addition to the human diet, which is not a natural or conventional food, which effectively increases athletic performance and is manufactured to be used over a period of time.”
The district court held that the Product Claims are directed to the natural phenomena of beta-alanine and glycine, and thus, are directed to ineligible subject matter. The CAFC disagreed stating that the Product Claims are not directed to beta-alanine. The claims are directed to specific treatment formulations that incorporate natural products and they have different characteristics and can be used in a manner that natural beta-alanine cannot be used.
The CAFC added that beta-alanine and glycine are incorporated into particular dosage forms. The natural products are isolated and then incorporated into a dosage form with particular characteristics. In addition, the CAFC stated that “the record indicates that the claimed combination of glycine and beta-alanine could have synergistic effects allowing for outcomes that the individual components could not have.” The CAFC added that the factual allegations are sufficient to render judgment on the pleadings inappropriate, and that the Product Claims survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings at the first step of the Alice test.
3. Manufacturing Claims
Claim 1 of the ‘610 patent is treated as representative of the claims to a method of manufacturing a dietary supplement. This claim is provided:
1. Use of beta-alanine in manufacturing a human dietary supplement for oral consumption;
supplying the beta-alanine, which is not part of a dipeptide, polypeptide or oligopeptide, as a single ingredient in a manufacturing step of the human dietary supplement or
mixing the beta-alanine, which is not part of a dipeptide, polypeptide or oligopeptide, in combination with at least one other ingredient for the manufacture of the human dietary supplement,
whereby the manufactured human dietary supplement is for oral consumption of the human dietary supplement in doses over a period of time increases beta-alanyl histidine levels in muscle tissue sufficient to delay the onset of fatigue in the human.
The district court held that this claim is directed to “the natural phenomenon beta alanine and the natural law that ingesting certain levels of beta-alanine will increase the carnosine concentration in human tissue.” The CAFC disagreed stating that the claim is directed to “an application of the law and new use of that product.” The CAFC stated that the supplement is not a product of nature and the use of the supplement to achieve a given result is not directed to a law of nature, and thus, “[w]e do not see, therefore, how a claim to the manufacture of a non-natural supplement would be directed to the law of nature or natural product.” Thus, the CAFC held that the claims are not directed to ineligible subject matter under step one of the Alice test.
Dissent
Judge Reyna stated that the majority relies on an erroneous claim construction because Natural Alternatives’ claim construction improperly imports limitations into the claims. He took issue with the construction for claim 1 of the ‘084 patent. Specifically, Natural Alternatives construed “human dietary supplement” to be “an addition to the human diet, ingested as a pill, capsule, powder or liquid, which is not natural or conventional food, meat or food flavoring or extract, or pharmaceutical product which effectively increases the function of a tissue when administered to the human over a period of time.” Judge Reyna stated that this construction improperly imports the limitation that beta-alanine “effectively increases the function of a tissue when administered to the human over a period of time” because it is not in the plain language of the claim. He also stated that the proposed construction is contradicted by the written description.
Judge Reyna raised the issue of whether the court should reconsider whether a Rule 12(c) motion based on § 101 should be decided before claim construction. He interprets the majority’s remand to mean that upon formal claim construction, the § 101 issue may be revisited and asks “whether anything meaningful has been achieved in these circumstances.”
Comments
In this case, Natural Alternatives provided a favorable proposed claim construction for surviving the § 101 issue and due to the stage of the litigation at the motion to dismiss phase, the court adopted much of this proposed claim construction. Relying on this claim construction, the CAFC found all of the claims to be patent eligible. However, as Judge Reyna pointed out, it is not clear that the district court will adopt such a favorable claim construction at the claim construction stage of the litigation. And the § 101 issue might be raised again.
Prior Art Based on Inherency Does Not Extend to “Probably” Existing Subject Matter, but Is Limited to “Necessarily” Existing Subject Matter.
| March 21, 2019
Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
March 12, 2019
Before Moore, Taranto and Chen. Opinion by Chen.
Summary
In September, 2013, Apple, Inc. (Apple) filed an inter parties review (IPR) proceeding before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against Personal Web Technologies, LLC (Personal Web) asserting unpatentability of U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310. The PTAB held that the ‘310 patent was obvious. On appeal, the Federal Circuit overturned the Board’s holding of obviousness on the basis that the Board had relied upon purported “inherent” subject matter in a prior art document without sufficient evidence that the purportedly inherent subject matter “necessarily exists” based on the teachings of the reference.
Details
Procedural Background
In September, 2013, Apple, Inc. (Apple) filed an inter parties review (IPR) proceeding before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) asserting multiple grounds of unpatentability of U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310 owned by Personal Web Technologies, LLC (Personal-Web). The PTAB held that the ‘310 patent was obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,649,196 (Woodhill) in view of 7,359,881 (Stefik). Personal-Web appealed the PTAB’s ultimate determination of obviousness.
Factual Background
The ‘310 patent is directed to “Controlling Access to Data in a Data Processing System.” In the prior art, problems arose due to conventional naming techniques in which data files are typically identified by a name and/or pathname or location. In particular, with convention systems, when a data item is transferred from a first device to a second device, if the same data item exists in the second device a duplicate copy will be created on the second device.
According to the invention of the ‘310 patent, a data file or element is given a unique name by creating a “unique identifier” that is added to the data item’s identification along with its user-defined name, location, etc. In particular, this unique identifier is created by applying a cryptograph hash function to the data item, but creates a unique identifier for the specific data item. Accordingly, if the data item is different (e.g., modified), it will have a different unique identifier. However, if the data item is the same (e.g., not modified), it will have the same unique identifier.
The key patent claim at issue – independent claim 24 – is set forth below for reference. And, a key element of this claim at issue in this litigation is highlighted below.
24. A computer-implemented method implemented at least in part by hardware comprising one or more processors, the method comprising:
(a) using a processor, receiving at a first computer from a second computer, a request regarding a particular data item, said request including at least a content-dependent name for the particular data item, the content-dependent name being based, at least in part, on at least a function of the data in the particular data item, wherein the data used by the function to determine the content-dependent name comprises at least some of the contents of the particular data item, wherein the function that was used comprises a message digest function or a hash function, and wherein two identical data items will have the same content-dependent name; and
(b) in response to said request:
(i) causing the content-dependent name of the particular data item to be compared to a plurality of values;
(ii) hardware in combination with software determining whether or not access to the particular data item is unauthorized based on whether the content-dependent name of the particular data item corresponds to at least one of said plurality of values, and
(iii) based on said determining in step (ii), not allowing the particular data item to be provided to or accessed by the second computer if it is determined that access to the particular data item is not authorized.
In holding that the claim was obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,649,196 (Woodhill) in view of 7,359,881 (Stefik), the PTAB held that the Woodhill reference inherently taught the highlighted features above.
Discussion
The Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s decision on the basis that the Board’s inherency finding determination of the above-noted highlighted feature lacked substantial evidence.
- The Federal Circuit’s Discussion of the Law
The Federal Circuit explained that “[w]hile it is possible that Woodhill’s system utilizes an un-stated Binary Object Identifier lookup table to locate binary objects of a previous version of a file that is going to be restored …, mere possibility is not enough.” The Court further indicated that “[i]nherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities” and that “[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”
The Federal Circuit explained that for inherency “a party must ‘show that the natural result flowing from the [disclosure] as taught would result in [the claimed subject matter]” – i.e., in this case that the “natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function.”
The Federal Circuit held that because the claimed subject matter “does not necessarily exist in the” Woodhill reference, reliance on inherency for that feature in the obviousness analysis was improper.
2. The Federal Circuit’s Discussion of the Evidence
In concluding that the Board’s inherency finding determination was not based on substantial evidence, the Federal Circuit explained that the Woodhill reference did not inherently include “causing the content-dependent name of the particular data item to be compared to a plurality of values” for the following reasons.
The Woodhill reference teaches a distributed management system in which files are apportioned into binary objects. The system uses binary object identifiers to determine whether a binary object has changed from one version of a file to the next, and only those binary objects whose content has changed needs to be backed up, thereby reducing the amount of data being backed up. In Woodhill, the binary object identifier is based on the contents of the binary object, such that the binary object identifier changes when the contents is changed.
At the PTAB, the Board had agreed with Apple’s argument that in order to determine which data needs to be restored in Woodhill by an update request, the system “must be able to” reference local data files using the binary object identification information received and, thus, that Woodhill must maintain some sort of file system or other mapping that allows the binary object identification record to serve as a lookup for the requisite file data that is to be restored. Thus, the Board asserted that Woodhill must inherently teach the disputed feature.
However, the Federal Circuit explained that “an equally plausible” understanding of Woodhill is that the system uses conventional file names and locations to locate files and the binary object information to locate a given binary object within the file. The Federal Circuit further explained that the only disclosed use of the binary object identifier in Woodhill is to perform a one-to-one comparison with the binary object identifier in the backed-up version of the object, which occurs after the object has been identified.
Takeaways
- This case emphasizes that inherency requires the “necessary” existence of subject matter that is not expressly shown or described in a reference. Accordingly, this case may be helpful in contesting rejections where asserted subject matter is not emphatically necessarily present, but deemed to be probable or likely by the Patent Office.
- This case also demonstrates that one way to
argue against a finding of inherency is to set forth an “equally plausible”
alternative that is supported by the reference.
That is, by demonstrating that an “equally plausible” alternative
subject matter may exist, it can be argued that the Patent Office cannot
conclude that the asserted subject matter inherently exist.
A Patent of Few Words and a Defendant with a Few Parts cannot avoid a Trier of Fact
| February 22, 2019
Centrak, Inc. v. Sonitor Tech., Inc.
February 14, 2019
Before Reyna, Taranto and Chen. Opinion by Chen.
Summary:
The CAFC reversed and remanded a Motion of Summary Judgment finding that the District Court errored in focusing on the length of a written description and dismissing a plausible theory for direct infringement based on the final assembly being done by the defendant within a customer’s system.
Details
- Background
CenTrak, Inc. sued Sonitor Technologies, Inc. for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,604,909 (’909 patent), which claims systems for locating and identifying portable devices using ultrasonic base stations. The district court granted Sonitor’s MSJ that the relevant claims are invalid for lack of written description and are not directly infringed because Sonitor does not individually provide for all the aspects of the claims.
The claims are directed to ultrasonic base stations which can be mounted in various fixed locations in a facility, such as rooms in a hospital, and the portable devices can be attached to people or assets that move between rooms. Each portable device is configured to detect the ultrasonic location codes from the nearby ultrasonic base stations and “transmit an output signal including a portable device ID representative of the portable device and the detected ultrasonic location code.” While the portable devices receive location codes from ultrasonic base stations via ultrasound, they might transmit location and device information via RF to an RF base station.
The asserted claims generally recite: (1) ultrasonic (US) base stations; (2) portable devices (tags); (3) a server; (4) radio frequency (RF) base stations; and (5) a backbone network that connects the server with the RF base stations.
All the claims of the ’909 patent are directed to “ultrasonic” components. However, the specification focuses on infrared (IR) or RF components. Only two sentences of the ’909 patent’s specification discuss ultrasonic technology:
Although IR base stations 106 are described, it is contemplated that the base stations 106 may also be configured to transmit a corresponding BS-ID by an ultrasonic signal, such that base stations 106 may represent ultrasonic base stations. Accordingly, portable devices 108 may be configured to include an ultrasonic receiver to receive the BS-ID from an ultrasonic base station.
In regard to lack of written description, Sonitor argued that the two sentences in the specification dedicated to ultrasound, did not show that the inventors had possession of an ultrasound-based RTL system.
Regarding invalidity, the district court ruled that while the specification “contemplated” ultrasound, “[m]ere contemplation . . . is not sufficient to meet the written description requirement.
In regard to infringement, the accused Sonitor Sense system includes three pieces of hardware sold by Sonitor: RF “gateways,” ultrasonic location transmitters, and portable locator tags. Sonitor also provides software for installation on a customer’s server hardware.
Sonitor’s main non-infringement argument was that Sonitor does not make, use, or sell certain elements recited in the claims, including the required backbone network, Wi-Fi access points, or server hardware.
CenTrak argues that the resulting system infringes the ’909 patent when the components Sonitor sells are integrated with a customer’s existing network and server hardware. CenTrak asserted only direct infringement. Since, Sonitor does not sell all of the hardware necessary to practice the asserted claims, so, on appeal, CenTrak only pursued a theory under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) that Sonitor “makes” infringing systems when it installs and configures the Sonitor Sense system. In short, the crux of CenTrak’s assertion is that there is direct infringement when the party assembles components into the claimed assembly (i.e. the party “makes” the patented invention, even when someone else supplies most of the components).
The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement. It held that a defendant must be the actor who assembles the entire claimed system to be liable for direct infringement, and CenTrak had not submitted proof that Sonitor personnel had made an infringing assembly.
CenTrak appealed both MSJ grants.
2. Opinion
In regard to invalidity, the CAFC held that, the district court leaned too heavily on the fact that the specification devoted relatively less attention to the ultra-sonic embodiment compared to the infrared embodiment. Quoting their ScriptPro LLC v. Innovation Associates, Inc., 833 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), they reiterated that “a specification’s focus on one particular embodiment or purpose cannot limit the described invention where that specification expressly contemplates other embodiments or purposes.”
The Court explained that the real question is the level of detail the ’909 patent’s specification must contain, beyond disclosing that ultrasonic signals can be used, to adequately convey to a skilled artisan that the inventors possessed an ultrasonic embodiment. Citing their Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) en banc: “the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” They further noted per Ariad that the issue of whether a claimed invention satisfies the written description requirement is a question of fact.
The opinion details that the parties disputed the complexity and predictability of ultrasonic RTL systems, and the district court erred at the summary judgment stage by not sufficiently crediting testimony from CenTrak’s expert that the differences between IR and ultrasound, when used to transmit small amounts of data over short distances, are incidental to carrying out the claimed invention. The Court specifically noted the testimony from CenTrak’s expert that those details were not particularly complex or unpredictable, and Sonitor does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would need to see such details in the specification to find that the named inventors actually invented the claimed system.
Hence, the Court concluded that:
…there is a material dispute of fact as to whether the named inventors actually possessed an ultrasonic RTL system at the time they filed their patent application or whether they were “leaving it to the . . . industry to complete an unfinished invention.”…
Here, as in ScriptPro, the fact that the bulk of the specification discusses a system with infrared components does not necessarily mean that the inventors did not also constructively reduce to practice a system with ultrasonic components … “the written description requirement does not demand either examples or an actual reduction to practice; a constructive reduction to practice” may be sufficient if it “identifies the claimed invention” and does so “in a definite way.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352.
In regard to direct infringement, the Court noted that it is undisputed that Sonitor does not provide certain claimed elements in the accused systems, such as a backbone network, Wi-Fi access points, or server hardware. Moreover, the district court analyzed the evidence CenTrak offered and concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Sonitor “made” the claimed invention by performing installations relying on Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., 631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) for the proposition that to “make” a system, a single entity must assemble the entire system itself.
The CAFC found that Centillion does not rule out CenTrak’s infringement theory. In this case, Cen-Trak argued that the final, missing elements are the configuration that allows the location transmitters to work with the network and the location codes that are entered into the Sonitor server. According to CenTrak, admissible evidence that Sonitor is the “final assembler” raises a triable issue of fact on infringement even though Sonitor does not “make” each of the claimed components of the accused systems.
The Court further held that under Lifetime Industries, Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc., 869 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017), and Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2005), a final assembler can be liable for making an infringing combination—assuming the evidence supports such a finding—even if it does not make each individual component element.
3. Decision
The CAFC found that the District Court errored in both: (1) finding a lack of written description as it relied too heavily on the briefness of the ‘909 patents comments on ultrasonic RTL systems rather than the amount of knowledge needed for a skilled artisan to consider; and (2) finding that there was no dispute of fact as to whether Sonitor was a “final assembler” by virtue of performing the final system installation for its customers. The Court therefore reversed and remanded.
Take away
- The measure of a sufficient written description is not in its length. Rather, the test is to the amount of disclosure necessary for a skilled artisan to discern that the inventor in fact possessed the invention.
- A case for direct infringement can be made even where the defendant does not “make all the parts” if there is sufficient evidence that the accused infringer is a “final assembler” in terms of actuating the combination of elements to infringe.
Tags: 35 U.S.C. §112 > direct infringement > summary judgment > written description
Creative Strategies of Attack
| February 19, 2019
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd., v. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc.
February 1, 2019
Before Lourie, Bryson, and Wallach. Opinion by Lourie.
Summary
Creative strategies of attack can be made on a patent even when the challenger is apparently precluded by statute. In particular, this decision highlights that parties who would have been time barred in filing an inter partes review (IPR) petition, in this case, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Breckenridge Pharmaceutical and Alembic Pharmaceuticals, can be joined in an IPR and then appeal an adverse decision, even though the original petitioner (Argentum) would lack Article III standing for an appeal in federal courts.
On the merits, this decision reiterates that all facts need to be considered in making a final obviousness determination, including establishing a motivation to modify a compound.
Background
The appellants (Mylan, Breckenridge and Alembic) appeal the final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an IPR concluding that claims 1-13 of Reissue 38,551 are not unpatentable. The IPR was based on a petition filed by Argentum Pharmaceuticals who is not an appellant in the appeal. Upon institution of the IPR, the appellants (Mylan, Breckenridge and Alembic) filed their own petitions with concurrent motions for joinder. Each of these appellants had been sued for infringement of the ‘551 reissue in 2013, more than a year before the petitions were filed. Note that 35 USC 315(b) states:
An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. The time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c).(Emphasis added)
The PTAB permitted joinder. Subsequently, the PTAB rendered its decision on the merits concluding that each challenged claim had not been shown to be unpatentable. Mylan, Breckenridge and Alembic appealed the decision. Argentum, on the other hand, did not join the appeal as Argentum lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution (Argentum did not have any injury and therefore lacked entry into the federal appellate court system).
Discussion
Standing
RCT argues that the appellants lack standing because RCT had brought an infringement action against each appellant more than a year before the IPR petitions were filed. RTC argues that although the appellants were permitted to join, the initial petitioner’s IPR (filed by Argentum) was limited to an agency matter, and therefore there would be no Article III standing. The appellants, on the other hand, point out that they have an express, statutory right to appeal. The CAFC agreed. To reach this conclusion, the CAFC looked to the text of 35 USC 315(c) stating that a party may be joined. Then section 319 provides that “a party” may appeal.
Merits
The PTAB had accepted a certain compound (identified as compound 3l) as a lead compound, and concluded that the petitioners failed to establish motivation to modify that compound. The CAFC agreed that the appellants had failed to meet their burden to establish a motivation to modify. From the decision, it does seem like the arguments of obviousness were a stretch.
In this regard, the appellants first focused on a methoxyamino group in compound 3l as being uncommon and having potential synthetic and stability problems as a basis for a POSITA to have been motivated to modify in a certain way, and that the proposed modified compound would have been expected to have excellent potency.
The evidence presented by RCT, however, showed that compound 3l was actually stable and that the record was devoid of evidence of potential stability issues. In addition, RCT argued that the appellants did not provide any evidence that “only methylene would result in a more pharmaceutically common and acceptable compound and resolve the potential stability and synthesis concerns presented by the methoxyamino moiety.”
In conclusion, the CAFC concluded that the PTAB had appropriately considered all facts before making a final obviousness determination.
Although not in the decision, an examination of the history of the patent in suit is interesting. First, it is always interesting when a reissue is involved. Reissue is used to correct errors in a patent when the patent is considered defective or inoperative. The original patent issued as USP 5,773,475 on June 30, 1998. The reissue application was filed on the basis that the original patent was inoperative because priority to a provisional application was not perfected. This step was taken apparently due to some ambiguity when the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 was enacted. This became an issue because the non-provisional application was filed a little over one year from the provisional filing date because the one year anniversary fell on a Saturday. The non-provisional application was filed on the succeeding Monday. 35 USC 119(e) (3) was amended to clarify that if the anniversary date fell on a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday, the filing on the next succeeding business day would be considered timely.
In addition, it is interesting to note that an ex parte reexamination was filed on April 9, 2018 as another attack on the reissue patent. The ex parte reexamination resulted in cancellation of claims 1-7, confirmation of patentability of claims 8-13, and a determination that newly added claims 14-28 are patentable. The same rejections appear to have been addressed in the ex parte reexamination as in the IPR proceeding. Note that the IPR was filed November 25, 2015, and then the ex parte reexamination was filed April 29, 2016. The PTAB had issued an order staying the ex parte reexamination proceeding until the PTAB had issued its final written decision in the IPR.
The reissue patent was also granted 5 years of patent term extension. The reissue patent covers the drug lacosamide which is used to treat epilepsy.
Takeaway
Creativity and knowledge of the laws can open the way to challenge patents even when it does not seem possible.
It all begins with Claim Construction
| February 15, 2019
Duncan Parking v. IPS Group
January 31, 2019
Before Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto. Decision by Lourie.
Summary:
The trial judge construed the claims and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Duncan that the accused parking meters do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,595,054 owned by Plaintiff IPS. On appeal the CAFC determined that the trial judge had misconstrued the claims, vacated the summary judgment of non-infringement, and remanded the case to the trial judge for reconsideration of the infringement issue in light of the proper claim construction.
Details:
Claim 1 of the ‘054 patent recites:
- A parking meter device that is receivable within a housing base of a single space parking meter, the parking meter device including:
a timer;
a payment facilitating arrangement operable in cooperation with a non-cash payment medium for effecting payment of a monetary amount for a parking period;
a display configured to visually provide a balance remaining of the parking period;
a power management facility that supplies power to the timer, payment facilitating arrangement, and display;
a wireless communications subsystem configured to receive information relating to the non-cash payment medium in respect of the payment facilitating arrangement;
a keypad sensor that receives input comprising manipulation by the user;
a coin slot into which coins are inserted for delivery to the coin sensor and then to a coin receptacle; and
a lower portion and an upper portion;
wherein the keypad sensor operates the parking meter and determines parking time amount for purchase in accordance with the received input from the user;
wherein the display provides the amount of time purchased in response to the received input from the user;
wherein the upper portion of the parking meter device includes a solar panel that charges the power management facility;
wherein the lower portion of the parking meter device is configured to have a shape and dimensions such that the lower portion is receivable within the housing base of the single space parking meter; and
wherein the upper portion of the parking meter device is covered by a cover that is configured to accommodate the upper portion and that is engageable with the housing base of the single space parking meter such that the payment facilitating arrangement is accessible by the user for user manipulation effecting the payment of the monetary amount for the parking period when the lower portion of the parking meter device is received within the housing base and the upper portion is covered by the cover.
10 – parking meter device
34 – housing
36 – cover
41 – window
Duncan’s accused parking meter is shown below.
The trial judge court construed “receivable within” as “capable of being contained inside,” and applied this construction to require that the “entire lower portion” of the infringing product be “receivable within the housing base.” The trial judge granted summary judgment of non-infringement because it found that the keypad of the accused meter extends through an opening in the lower portion of the housing and, as a result, the lower portion of Duncan’s meter is not “receivable within” its housing base.
On appeal IPS argued that the trial judge had
- construed the claim term “receivable within,” in the claim limitation “a lower portion [of the parking meter device] . . . receivable within the housing base” too narrowly, requiring that the entire lower portion of the parking meter device be contained inside the parking meter housing;
- erroneously construed claim 1 to exclude a potential unclaimed “middle portion” of the device between the upper and lower portions; and
- excluded the preferred embodiment from the scope of claim.
On the latter point, IPS explained that the card slot and the coin slot (both parts of the device itself) cannot be part of the upper portion of the device because the upper portion must be covered by the cover panel. But they also cannot be a part of the lower portion of the device because they are not “receivable within” the housing base as per the district court’s claim construction. Instead, they are accessible through openings in the housing. Thus, either the coin slot and card slot comprise a “middle portion” not defined by the ‘054 claims or the ‘054 specification, or the trial judge’s construction of “receivable within” is too narrow.
DPT replied
- that the plain meaning of “within” is “inside,” and IPS choose not to modify the term with the words “generally” or “substantially”;
- that the trial judge’s claim construction does not actually exclude the preferred embodiment because the coin slot is still inside the housing base; while the coin slot of the preferred embodiment is accessible through an opening in the housing, it does not actually protrude through that opening; and
- that prosecution history estoppel bars IPS from asserting that claim 1 includes parking meter devices that are not entirely contained within a housing.
The CAFC touched on familiar issues, commenting on the trial judge’s approach to claim construction and then addressing the parties’ argument.
The Trial Judge’s Approach:
The trial judge construed the term “receivable within” as “capable of being contained inside,” but upon applying the claim construction in its infringement analysis added a requirement that the “entire” lower portion of the device must be contained within the housing, id. at 8, effectively altering the construction to “capable of being contained entirely inside.”
Dictionaries:
A reasonable meaning of the term “receivable within” in the context of the ’054 patent is “capable of being contained inside.” Receive, The New Oxford American Dictionary (2d ed. 2005) (defining “receive” as “to act as a receptacle for” and “receptacle” as “an object or space used to contain something”).
The suffix “-able” implies that the lower portion of the device is capable of being contained within the housing base. But this definition contains no limitation to “completely” or “entirely” contained, nor is there any evidence that persons of skill in the art would understand it to be so limited. Indeed, Duncan touted its accused meter because it “fits within” existing parking meter housings.
The ‘054 Specification:
The only use of the term “receivable” in the ‘054 specification does not imply any limitation to devices “entirely” contained by the housing (“The parking meter device in accordance with the invention may be receivable in a conventional single space parking meter housing, such as that supplied by Duncan Industries, POM or Mackay.”).
The trial judge’s claim construction did indeed exclude the preferred embodiment. The specification defines the coin slot as a part of the lower portion, even though it is not located “within” the housing base but is instead accessible through an opening. Whether the coin slot “protrudes” or not is beside the point; it is a part of the lower portion of the parking meter device but is not “capable of being contained [entirely] within” the housing base as required by the trial judge’s claim construction.
The ‘054 Prosecution History:
Duncan argued that a narrow construction was warranted by the ‘054 prosecution history because IPS had disavowed parking meter devices not fully enclosed by a housing in its response to an office action. Thus Duncan contended that by differentiating the prior art on the basis that it discloses an embodiment exposed to the elements, rather than one enclosed within a housing, IPS disavowed parking meter devices not entirely enclosed within a housing. IPS’s statements fall far short of a claim scope disavowal. IPS distinguished the cited prior art—an actual parking meter, not an insertable device—on the basis that it discloses a “self-contained unit,” as opposed to the claimed device, which is “a retro-fit upgrade to existing parking meters.”
Conclusion:
Because the CAFC agreed with IPS that the district court’s claim construction of “receivable within” was erroneous, it vacated the trial judge’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’054 patent and remanded the case to the trial judge for further proceedings.
Takeaways:
The scope of claims is determined on the basis of how they are written, not as how they might have been written.
Dictionaries are almost always important.
A claim construction that excludes a preferred embodiment in the specification from the claim scope is usually wrong.
Disavowal of claim scope in a prosecution history is rare.
« Previous Page — Next Page »
