Statements made in IPR proceeding can be relied on to support a finding of prosecution disclaimer during claim construction
| July 5, 2017
Aylus Networks, Inc., v. Apple Inc.
May 11, 2017
Before Moore, Linn, and Stoll. Opinion by Stoll.
Summary
Patent owner Aylus Networks, Inc. sued Apple Inc. in district court for infringement of the U.S. Patent No. RE 44,412 (“the ‘412 patent”). Apple filed two separate IPRs challenging validity of all the claims. PTAB denied to institute claim 2 based on Aylus’s explanation of a limitation to claim 2. During claim construction in district court, this same explanation is relied on to support a finding of prosecution disclaimer. CAFC affirmed the district court’s finding of prosecution history disclaimer. CAFC also stated that prosecution disclaimer applies whether a statement is made before or after instituting an IPR.
Alice: ‘This is impossible’ (Alice in Wonderland 2010): Alice (Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,), aid’s in striking yet another blow against the pursuit of diagnostic test method
| June 26, 2017
Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC
June 16, 2017
Before Lourie, Reyna and Wallach. Opinion by Reyna.
Summary:
The CAFC affirmed the invalidly of method claims in three diagnostic test patents held by Cleveland Clinic Foundation (hereon – Cleveland Clinic), and further affirmed that True Health Diagnostics LLC (hereon – True Health) was not liable for contributory or induced infringement of a fourth patent directed to methods of treating patients diagnosed by the diagnostic tests.
This CAFC decision strikes another blow against the patent eligibility of diagnostic methods, while further highlighting the difficulty of enforcing method treatments based on such diagnostic tests (i.e., personalized medicine).
Tags: 101 > diagnostic methods > patent eligibility > personalized treatment methods
Examiner’s determination that a claim term is means-plus-function in allowing an application does not bind the Appeals Board and CAFC.
| June 19, 2017
Skky, Inc. v. Mindgeek, S.A.R.I.
June 7, 2017
Before Lourie, Reyna and Wallach. Opinion by Lourie.
Summary
The CAFC held that the Board correctly interpreted the term “wireless device means” as not a means-plus-function limitation. As a result Skky’s method claim was subject to a broader interpretation making the claim obvious over art which had been of record during prosecution of the application.
A reference can be a background reference for evidence of motivation to combine even if not sufficient on its own to support a rejection
| June 13, 2017
Novartis Ag, Mitsubishi Parma Corp. v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, Apotex Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
April 12, 2017
Before Taranto, Chen and Stoll. Opinion by Chen.
Summary
The CAFC held that the Board correctly used Sakai as evidence to support its motivation to combine Chiba and Aulton, even though the Board dismissed challenges of patentable based on Sakai.
Of Closed Pods, Open Cartridges, Single-Brew Coffee Machines, and Descriptive Issues
| June 5, 2017
Rivera v. ITC (Precedential)
May 23, 2017
Before Reyna, Linn and Chen. Opinion by Linn.
Summary:
The Federal Circuit affirmed an ITC decision that the asserted patent claims are invalid for lack of written description. The patent application as filed described only a coffee machine with a cartridge adapter configured to receive a closed “pod”, not a cartridge adapter with an open filter for ground coffee. Thus, the written description did not show possession by the inventors of a genus encompassing the open-filter cartridge adapters at the initial filing date.
Claims Directed to the Abstract Idea of Encoding/Decoding Image Data are Found Not Patent Eligible
| May 22, 2017
RecogniCorp v. Nintendo
April 28, 2017
Before Lourie, Reyna and Stoll. Opinion by Reyna.
Summary:
RecogniCorp sued Nintendo in district court for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,005,303 (“ the ‘303 patent”) directed to a method and apparatus for encoding/decoding image data. Nintendo filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the claims were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. The district court concluded that RecogniCorp’s claims failed the Alice test, and granted Nintendo’s motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed, finding that the ‘303 patent’s claims are directed to the abstract idea of encoding and decoding image data, and the claims do not contain an inventive concept sufficient to render the claims patent eligible.
The On-Sale Bar Under the America Invents Act Does Not Require a Public Disclosure of the Invention
| May 9, 2017
Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
May 1, 2017
Before Dyk, Mayer and O’Malley. Opinion by Dyk
Summary:
Helsinn Healthcare S.A.’s (“Helsinn”) patents were invalidated based on the on-sale bar of § 102. One of the patents invalidated is an AIA patent, so the CAFC addressed whether the law for the on-sale bar has changed under the AIA. The CAFC declined to adopt the change proposed by Helsinn to require that the invention be publicly disclosed in the terms of a sale agreement for the on-sale bar to apply. The CAFC essentially stated that if the law has changed under AIA it is only that the fact of the sale be public, not that the terms of the sale include a description of the invention that is made available to the public. In this case, the fact of the sale was made public without publicly disclosing details of the invention. The CAFC held that this is enough in this case for the on-sale bar to apply for both pre-AIA § 102 and AIA § 102.
Japanese Summary
本件は、米国改正法（ＡＩＡ）102(a)(1)条における新規性欠如要件の1つである「販売行為（on sale）」の解釈について争われたケースである。改正前では、発明を秘密にした状態の販売行為（secret sale）も場合により「販売行為」に該当し得るとされていた（判例法）。たとえば、出願可能な程度に発明が完成しており、第三者と販売のライセンス契約等が成立すると「販売あるいは販売の申し出」をしたことになる。しかし、改正により発明新規性の条文が大幅に変わり、102(a)(1)条においては「販売された」等に加えて「その他公に利用に可能とった（or otherwise available to the public）」発明には特許を付与しないと規定された。この「公に利用可能となった」のフレーズが挿入されたため、販売に際しても、いわゆる秘密販売を除外したと説明されているが（特許庁ガイドライン）、曖昧な点が多く、改正法下での判例法の蓄積が待たれている。
本件では、出願人と第三者との間で、出願前に発明薬剤の販売についてライセンス契約が行われ、そのライセンス契約の内容が公開された。しかし、クレームに記載されていた特定の投与量の情報は開示されなかった（ただし当事者間ではその投与量の使用に合意はあった）。
地裁は、ライセンス契約で特定の投与量の情報が開示されなかったため、クレームの発明が開示されたことにはならないとして、「販売された」の要件を満たさず、特許は有効と判断した。控訴審（ＣＡＦＣ）はその地裁の判断を覆した。ＣＡＦＣは、「販売された」というためには、発明の詳細（すべてのクレーム要素）が開示されている必要はないと判示し、上記ライセンス契約により特許は無効であると判決した。すなわち、改正法下でも「販売された」の意味は実質的に変わらず、「販売」の成立に際して、必ずしも発明が「公に利用可能となる」ことが要件ではないと示唆された。なお、本件では、契約内容が秘密である場合の秘密販売（secret sale）やいわゆる公用（public use）のケースについてＣＡＦＣは判断を避けており、これらのケースについては別の判例を待つ必要があるであろう。
The Federal Circuit indirectly imports limitations from the specification into the claims through claim construction
| April 24, 2017
The Medicines Company v. Mylan Inc. Etc.
April 6, 2017
Before Dyk Wallach, and Hughes. Opinion by Dyk.
Summary
Mylan submitted two Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDA”) to seek approval of Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for selling generic bivalirudin drug products before the expiration of patents-in-suit: the ‘727 patent and the ‘343 patent. In its ANDA, Mylan stated that it would limit the Asp9 level of its generic product to less than 2.0 percent. Medicines sued Mylan for infringement of the ‘727 and ‘343 patents. Mylan filed counter-claims seeking declaratory judgments of invalidity. The district court held that Mylan infringed the ‘727 patent, but not the ‘343 patent. The Federal Circuit reverses in part, and held that Mylan does not infringe both patents.
Back to Basics: In re Chudik offers a refresher on the law of anticipation for functional limitations
| April 17, 2017
In re Chudik
March 27, 2017
Before Dyk, Reyna, and Stoll. Opinion by Reyna.
Summary
This decision is a refresher on the basic law of anticipation for functional claim elements. A prior art does not anticipate a functional claim element merely because it is “capable of” performing the recited function, but rather, such capability must be achieved without “distortion” or “modification” to the prior art.
CAFC refuses to second guess a district court determination on a motion for attorney fees under 285.
| April 13, 2017
University of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Foerderun der Wissenschaften E.V., et al.
March 23, 2017
Before O’Malley, Reyna and Wallach. Precedential Opinion by Reyna, joined by O’Malley and Wallach
Summary:
University of Utah (UUtah) sued Max-Planck et al. (Max-Planck) for correction of ownership for several of Max-Planck patents (the Tuschl II patents). The district court granted Max-Planck’s motion for summary judgment but refused to grant its motion for attorney fees under 285. The CAFC found that the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed the refusal to grant the 285 motion.
« Previous Page — Next Page »
