One More Bite at Overcoming a Denial of a Motion to Amend
| June 22, 2018
Sirona Dental Systems GmbH v. Institut Straumann AG, Dental Wings Inc.
June 19, 2018
Before Prost, Moore and Stoll. Opinion by Moore.
Summary
This precedential opinion highlights some of the complicated issues which can arise in an IPR, particularly in light of recent precedent of SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) and Aqua Products Inc. V. Matal, 872 F. 3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The decision also lets us know that there will be more developments with IPR practice down the road, such as whether the Board may consider combinations of references not argued by the petitioner in opposing a motion to amend, and if so, what procedures consistent with the APA are required to do so.
The CAFC reviewed the PTAB’s application of the time-bar under § 315(b) and the obviousness determination
| June 20, 2018
WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corporation, ION International S.A.R.L. (collectively, “ION”); In re WesternGeco, LLC.
May 7, 2018
Before Wallach, Chen and Hughes. Opinion by Chen.
This is the latest Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) decision in a series of patent litigations since 2009. In this case, the CAFC reviewed two main issues appealed from six inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions.
Firstly, the CAFC reviewed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decision regarding the time-bar determination. Under § 315(b), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “may not institute an IPR where the petition ‘is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, the real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.’” However, the PTAB found that ION was not sufficiently close to the third party, Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. (“PGS”), “such that both should be bound by the trial outcome and related estoppels.” Thus, there was no privity between ION and PGS, and the time-bar was not applicable here. The CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s decision and this case was reviewed on the merits.
Secondly, the CAFC reviewed the PTAB’s determination of obviousness in the IPRs. Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,080,607 (the “’607 Patent”), the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s claim construction because WesternGeco’s argument relied on a part of the specification which only described preferred embodiment and could not rebut the PTAB’s rationale. With respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520 (the “’520 Patent”), the CAFC said the PTAB’s obviousness determination was correct because WesternGeco failed to show evidence of impermissible hindsight to prove obviousness. As for U.S. Patent No. 7,162,967 (the “’967 Patent”), the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s decision because the PTAB showed substantial evidence of obviousness which WesternGeco could not rebut. Also, WesternGeco did not show a nexus between the ’967 and ’520 Patents’ claims and any objective evidence of nonobviousness. The CAFC fully affirmed the PTAB’s conclusion.
Japanese Summary
本件は2009年に始まった特許訴訟で争われた一連の訴訟の最新のCAFC判決であり、CAFCは6つのIPRから控訴された2つの争点について判断した。
第一の争点は米国特許庁審判部(PTAB)による特許法第315条(b)項のTime-barの判断の正否であった。特許法第315条(b)項は、米国特許商標庁は、申立人、利害関係のある実際の当事者(real party in interest)、又は申立人と当事者関係(privity)のある者が当該特許の侵害を主張する告訴を受けた日から1年を超えて申立がなされた場合、IPRを開始することはできないと規定している。本件では、PTABは、ION社はPGS社のIPRの結果に拘束されるほど十分にPGS社と密接な関係をもっていないので、ION社とPGS社の間に当事者関係がないとした。CAFCはPTABの判断を支持し、本件の実体的事項を検討する(on the merits)とした。
第二の争点は、先のIPRにおけるPTABの自明性判断であった。607特許に関しては、WesternGeco社が自社の主張に引用した明細書の箇所は、実施例を述べているだけであり、PTABの解釈を反駁できなかったので、CAFCはPTABのクレーム解釈を認めた。520特許については、WesternGeco社は、PTABが「不当な後知恵(impermissible hindsight)」を用いたという証拠を示さなかったので、CAFCはPTABの自明性の判断を支持した。967特許については、PTABは自明である明白な証拠を示しており、WesternGeco社はそれに反論できなかった。さらに、WesternGeco社は967特許と520特許のクレームと、非自明性の証拠の因果関係(nexus)を示さなかったのでCAFCはPTABの解釈を支持した。
The Definiteness Standard for AIA Trials is Still Undecided
| June 7, 2018
Tinnus Enterprises LLC v. Telebrands Corp.
May 30, 2018
O’Malley, Wallach and Hughes. Opinion by O’Malley.
Summary:
This case is an appeal from a final decision from the PTAB in a Post-Grant Review (“PGR”) finding that the claims in U.S. Patent No. 9,051,066 are indefinite applying the In re Packard standard for definiteness. Tinnus Enterprises LLC (“Tinnus”) argued that the Nautilus standard for definiteness is the proper standard, but that the claims are definite under either standard. The CAFC declined to decide which definiteness standard is correct for a PGR at the USPTO. The CAFC instead held that the claims are definite under either standard, and thus reversed the PTAB’s decision of invalidity due to indefiniteness.
The test for obviousness is controlled by what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done based on the teachings of the references
| May 25, 2018
In re: Daryl David Coutts
April 6, 2018
Before Dyk, Wallach and Chen. Opinion per curiam.
Summary
The inventor Daryl David Coutts has a patent application 11/836,293 rejected by the Examiner and the Board (Patent Trail and Appeal Board) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness as being unpatentable over the combination of three prior arts (Cheung, Awada, and Kang). The Board stated that the patent application would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art by combining these prior arts.
However Mr. Coutts argued that the patent application is not obvious over the prior arts because, for a particular claim limitation/feature, the inventors of Cheung knew of this particular claim feature but did not claim it in their patent application and therefore the combination of Cheung and the claim feature could not have been obvious. The Court of Appeals of Federal Circuit (the “Court”) affirmed the decision of the Board and also affirmed that the test of obviousness is controlled by what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done based on the teaching of the references and not what the inventors of the prior art would have done. In other words, what the prior art inventors would have done is not relevant for the obviousness test.
What do dioxaborinanes and benzoxaboroles have in common? They both exhibit activity against fungi, and so Anacor failed before the Federal Circuit, which could not have been fun-guys…
| May 17, 2018
Anacor Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. PTO; case number 17-1947
May 14, 2018
Before Reyna, Bryson and Stoll. Opinion by Bryson.
要旨:
本件は、米国特許庁審判部の無効審決に対する控訴事件であり、争点は自明性に関するものである。具体的には、既存の組成物を利用した新しい治療法の特許に関する。CAFCは以下のような判断を示した。まず、似たような組成物同士が一定の特性を共通に備えている場合、他の関連する特性においても共通していると推定するのが合理的である。また、組成物同士の構造上の類似性は、組合せの動機づけや「当該組合せの成功に対する合理的な期待」を評価する上で重要な要素である。類似の構造を備える組成物同士が類似の特性を持つこと、また、構造の類似性が特性の類似性を示唆することは、長年の実務慣行である。一方、化学の分野では予測できない結果も起こり得るので、構造の類似性が常に特性の類似性につながるとは限らない。したがって、自明性の判断は、しばしば、構造上の類似性と機能的な類似性との間に強い関連性があることが証拠によって証明されたか否かに依存する。本件では、Austin引例とBrehove引例とに開示された組成部には限られた構造上の類似性しかなかったのであるが、構造および機能の類似性に鑑みれば、無効という判断を支持する十分な証拠があると判断された。(中村剛)
Summary:
This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding. The Board held all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,582,621 (‘621 patent) owned by Anacor pharmaceuticals Inc., (Anacor) to be unpatentable for obviousness. The patent is directed to the use of 1,3- dihydro-5-fluoro-1-hydroxy-2,1-benzoxaborole is also known as tavaborole. When applied topically, tavaborole can penetrate the nail plate and treat an underlying fungal infection. Anacor appealed only one of the rejected claims.
Newly Adopted Claim Construction Overcomes Anticipation & Obviousness Rejections
| May 2, 2018
Wonderland NurseryGoods Co., Ltd. v. Baby Trend, Inc., Denny Tsai, Betty Tsai
April 19, 2018
Before Moore, Prost & Newman. Opinion by Moore.
Summary:
The CAFC reversed the Board’s findings of anticipation and obviousness due to an erroneous claim construction. The newly adopted claim construction by the CAFC is consistent with the specification and prosecution history. Further, the CAFC held that the references of record did not anticipate nor render obvious the claims in light of the newly adopted claim construction.
要旨:
米国連邦巡回控訴裁判所(cafc)は、米国特許庁審判部のクレーム解釈が誤りであることを認め、誤ったクレーム解釈に基づく新規性ならびに自明性の判断を覆した。cafcが示したクレーム解釈は、当該米国特許の明細書ならびにプロセキューションヒストリに鑑みたものである。再発行特許(リイシュー)の手続き内で行なわれた補正が、権利範囲を拡張するためのものであったのか、あるいは、引例を回避するためのものであったのかが争点となった。
Details:
U.S. Reissued Patent43,919 (hereinafter ‘919) is directed towards “an easy to assemble baby crib in which a fabric member is positioned on a bed frame structure.” Id. at 2. The terms at issue are “a fabric member” and “an enclosure member”.
In two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the Board determined that “a fabric member” means “one or more pieces of fabric” and “an enclosure member” means “one or more members.” Id. at 2. In light of this construction, the Board held that the claims of the ‘919 Patent were anticipated U.S. Patent No. 6,004,182 (“Pasin”) and Australian Patent No. 715,883 (“Bidwell”) and would have been rendered obvious by Pasin in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,063,096 (“Stoeckler”), Bidwell in view of Stoeckler; U.S. Patent No. 3,924,280 (“Vaiano”) in view of Pasin and the combination of Vaiano, Pasin and Stoeckler. It is noted that the Board “stated that Vaiano taught ‘a single, continuous member’.” Id. at 3. Wonderland appealed.
“In IPR proceedings, the Board gives claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 751 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” Id. at 3. The CAFC reversed the Board and held that the Board erred in its constructions of the terms “a fabric member” and “an enclosure member.”
Although the use of the singular articles “a” and “an” often means “one or more” when the transitional phrase “comprising” is used, Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 812 F.3d 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in this instance, the Board’s construction is inconsistent with the use of the terms in the claims.
The ordinary language of the claims indicates that a single fabric or enclosure member is capable of separating the interior of the claimed crib from the exterior.
Id. at 3. The CAFC held that “a fabric member” and “an enclosure member” “must be unitary structures able to ‘delineate’ or ‘surround []’ an ‘enclosed space’.” Id. at 4. The CAFC held that their claim construction is consistent with the specification, including preferred embodiments, examples and the drawings. “Although we must be careful not to read limitations from the specification into the claims, the specification’s use of the claim terms in a manner consistent with their use in the claims further supports our conclusion.” (emphasis added) Id. at 4. The CAFC dismissed the Board and Baby Trend’s reliance upon prosecution history to support the original claim construction by noting that claim amendments by Wonderland “were part of a series of changes emphasizing that the ‘fabric/enclosure member surrounds an enclosed space adapted for receiving a baby therein’ J.A. 1853, made in response to the examiner’s citation to a prior art reference directed to chairs.” Id. at 4-5. The CAFC held that the proper construction of “a fabric member’ and ‘an enclosure member’ refer to unitary elements that separate the interior of the claimed crib from the exterior.” Id. at 5.
In light of the newly adopted claim construction, the CAFC held that the “Board’s alternative finding that the claims are unpatentable under the construction we now adopt is not supported by substantial evidence.” Id. at 5. Baby Trend, relying upon the Board’s finding that Vaiano taught a single, continuous member, argued that Vaiano disclosed the claimed features under the newly adopted claim construction. The CAFC disagreed, noting that the citation of Vaiano cited by the Board did not support their position, and that Vaiano merely discloses a netting feature. The CAFC concluded that the disclosure of Vaiano “does not indicate that the netting is a single, continuous member.” Id. at 5. Further, the CAFC dismissed Baby Trend’s argument that Vaiano depicts a continuous, single member because the lines of netting are aligned in one corner, as illustrated in Figure 1, by noting that the lines in the other corners were not aligned. “While it is possible that a single, continuous piece could be used in Vaiano, that is not the question before us. Instead, we ask whether Vaiano discloses a single, continuous piece. Substantial evidence does not support the Board’s finding that it does.” Id. at 6.
Id. at 5. Lastly, the CAFC dismissed Baby Trend’s argument that the Board inherently relied upon their expert testimony regarding the disclosure of Vaiano by noting that merely finding an argument persuasive does not deem said evidence adopted. “When the Board intends to rely on extrinsic evidence, it does so expressly. A single citation to 10 pages in a petition does not incorporate by reference every piece of evidence referenced therein. Similarly, Baby Trend may not rely on statements made by Administrative Patent Judges at the oral hearing that were not included in the Board’s written decisions.” Id. at 6.
Takeaway:
Review claim construction to ensure it is consistent with the specification. The disclosed use of a claim term can affect claim construction.
Carefully review each reference to determine if the Examiner’s understanding is accurate.
THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT TO A CLAIM FOR A GENUS CAN BE SATISFIED IF A SINGLE SPECIES OF THAT GENUS IS DISCLOSED AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THAT GENUS ARE WELL KNOWN IN THE ART
| April 20, 2018
Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. and Covidien LP
March 14, 2018
Before Newman, Wallach, and Stoll. Opinion by Stoll.
Summary:
Hologic, Inc. initiated an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,359 (’359 patent. The ’359 patent claims priority to an earlier-filed PCT application with a nearly identical specification. The PTAB found that S&N’s PCT application has sufficient written description so that it is a proper priority document and is not an invalidating obviousness reference. The CAFC held that since substantial evidence supports the PTAB’s finding that the PCT application provides sufficient written description disclosure of the claimed feature, the ’359 patent is entitled to claim priority to the PCT application.
要旨:
米国特許第8,061,359号の当事者系リイグザミネーションに関するものである。当該特許は先行PCT出願とほぼ同一の明細書を含んでおり、この先行PCT出願に対して優先権を主張していた。米国特許庁審判部は、当該PCT出願は優先権主張に対する十分なサポートを含んでおり、よって、優先権主張は有効であるので、当該PCT出願の国際公開が先行技術になることはないと判断した。連邦巡回控訴裁判所(CAFC)は、米国特許庁審判部の判断を支持した。
Tags: drawings > expert declaration > Inter Partes Reexamination > PCT application > priority > written description
To Combine or not to Combine
| April 16, 2018
Ex parte Tesseir et al.
October 2, 2014
Before PTAB APJ Panel: Kerins, Staicovici & Woods.
Summary: The Board affirmed many of the rejections in this appeal of a Final Rejection. But the Board found that there was no motivation to support the obviousness rejection of claim 13 and therefore reversed the rejection of that claim.
要旨:
米国特許庁審判部は、最後の拒絶に対する本件アピール(拒絶査定不服審判に相当)に関し、審査官の拒絶理由の大部分を認めた。その一方、クレーム13に関する自明性の拒絶については、拒絶理由をサポートするだけの十分なモチベーション(動機付け又は理由付け)が存在しないと判断し、クレーム13に関する拒絶を覆した。具体的には、いわゆる後知恵を利用しなければ、審査官が主張するような引例の組み合わせを行なうだけの合理的な理由が存在しないと判断された。より具体的には、主引例は、既にリモート制御という構成要件を利用しており、特段の理由もなく、第2引例のリモート制御技術を組合わせるのは不合理であると判断された。
The CAFC Finds the Board’s Claim Construction to Be Unreasonably Broad
| April 13, 2018
In re Power Integrations, Inc.
March 19, 2018
Before Moore, Mayer, and Stoll. Opinion by Mayer.
Summary
Power Integrations, Inc. (“Power Integrations”) appeals a remand decision of the Patent Trail and Appeal Board (“Board”) rejecting claims 1, 17, 18 and 19 of US Patent No. 6,249,876 (the ‘876 patent) as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(b). On appeal, the CAFC found the board’s claim construction to be unreasonably broad. Because the Board’s anticipation rejection was based on an unreasonably broad claim construction, the CAFC reversed.
要旨:
連邦巡回控訴裁判所(CAFC)の判決である。先に米国特許庁審判部へ差し戻され、米国特許庁審判部が再度判断を下したその判断の適否が争われた。米国特許庁審判部が広いクレーム解釈に基づいて「新規性なし」と判断した審決をCAFCは覆した。CAFCは、米国特許庁審判部のクレーム解釈はいわゆるBRI(Broadest Reasonable Interpretation)ではなく、Unreasonably(不当)に広いと判断した。そのような不当に広いクレーム解釈に基づいて引例の開示が当てはめられた新規性の判断が覆された。
Tags: 35 U.S.C. §102 > anticipation > broadest reasonable interpretation > claim construction
A Non-Overlapping Prior Art Range May Still Render a Claimed Range Obvious
| April 12, 2018
In re Brandt
March 27, 2018
Before Lourie, Reyna and Taranto. Opinion by Reyna.
Summary:
Brandt’s patent application (U.S. Application No. 13/652,858) is to high density polyurethane or polyisocyanurate construction boards. The claims recite a coverboard having a density greater than 2.5 and less than 6 lbs/ft3. In rejecting the claims, the Examiner cited Griffin (US 2006/0096205), which discloses a coverboard having a density of “between 6 lbs/ft3 and 25 lbs/ft3 and preferably a density of at least 8 lbs/ft3” and stated that the claimed range would have been an obvious design choice. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) agreed with the Examiner stating that even though the prior art range does not overlap the claimed range, the difference in the ranges was “virtually negligible.” The CAFC agreed that the ranges are “so mathematically close that the examiner properly rejected the claims as prima facie obvious and affirmed the PTAB’s rejection of the claims.
« Previous Page — Next Page »
