Written Description Requirement raised when the claimed invention is limited to one of the disclosed embodiments
| September 8, 2016
Scriptpro LLC, v. Innovation Associates, Inc
August 15, 2016
Before Moore, Taranto and Hughes. Opinion by Moore
Summary:
ScriptPro alleges that the specification does not limit the claimed invention to “sorting and storing prescription containers by patient-identifying information.” The district court interpreted the ’601 patent’s specification as limited to sorting by patient-identifying information and invalidated ‘601 patent for lacking written description requirement. The CAFC reversed the case by describing the reasons that the specification contemplated many objectives and embodiments other than the one asserted by Innovation Associates; the original claims which would mostly provide written description were not limited by the patient-identifying information feature; and the present case should be distinguished from Gentry Gallery and ICU Medical.
本事件の争点を一言で表せば、クレームの対象とされた発明は、明細書の記載全体に鑑みて単一の実施形態へと狭く解釈されるべきであり、それよりも広い特許クレームは、Written Description Requirement の要件(サポートの問題)を満たさず、無効であるというものである。考え方としては、明細書の記載に基づいて、広いクレームを狭い実施形態の範囲へと限定解釈する際の議論と共通するものがある。明細書を作成する際に、単一の目的あるいは課題に限定しないことの重要性など、明細書作成に当たっての留意事項が再確認される事件である。
Patentee’s standing to sue for infringement evaporates after correction of inventorship
| August 25, 2016
Vapor Point v. Moorhead (Precedential)
August 10, 2016
Before O’Malley, Chen, Stoll (per Curiam, O’Malley concurrence)
Summary:
After NanoVapor filed patent applications on a VOC removal technology, naming only its in-house inventor, it was sued by two non-employees trying to be added as inventors through an inventorship correction action. NanoVapor countersued for patent infringement, but having tied its infringement action to the inventorship action, NanoVapor lost standing when it lost on the inventorship action.
Arbitration is Good, but it Needs Protection
| August 17, 2016
Verinata Health, Stanford & Illumina v. Ariosa & Laboratory Corp.
July 26, 2016
Before Reyna, Clevenger and Wallach. Opinion by Reyna.
Summary:
- Plaintiff Illumina and Defendant Ariosa entered into a supply agreement which contained a compulsory arbitration clause.
- Illumina sued Ariosa for patent infringement.
- Ariosa counterclaimed for breach of contract and breach of good faith, asserting that the supply agreement gave it a license to Illumina’s patent.
- Illumina moved the trial judge to order that the contract and good faith breach counterclaims go to compulsory arbitration.
- The trial judge denied Illumina’s motion that Ariosa’s counterclaims go to arbitration.
- The CAFC affirmed the trial judge’s denial of Illumina’s motion for arbitration.
Another fatality attributed to 35 U.S.C. §101 abstract idea
| August 5, 2016
Electric Power Group, LLC v Alstom
August 1, 2016
Before: Taranto, Bryson and Stoll. Opinion by Taranto.
Summary:
Electric Power Group sued Alstom alleging infringement of various claims of U.S. Patents Nos. 7,233,843; 8,060,259; and 8,401,710 directed to systems and methods for performing real-time performance monitoring of an electric power grid. On Alstom’s motion for summary judgment, the district court held that Electric Power Group’s asserted patent claims fail the standard for patent eligibility under §101. The CAFC affirmed finding the claims don’t go beyond the abstract idea of the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field.
Burden of Proof does not shift to Patent Owner upon institution of an Inter Partes Review
| August 1, 2016
In Re: Magnum Oil Tools International, LTD.
July 25, 2016
Before Newman, O’Malley, and Chen. Opinion by O’Malley
Summary:
McClinton Energy Group, LLC (“McClinton”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413 (“the ‘413 patent”) owned by Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd. (“Magnum”). McClinton based the petition on two combinations of prior art references: (1) Alpha in view of Cockrell and Kristiansen, and (2) Lehr in view of Cockrell and Kristiansen. The petition primarily focused on the combination of Alpha, Cockrell and Kristiansen, and merely “incorporated by reference” the arguments based on Alpha for the arguments based on Lehr. The IPR was instituted based only on Lehr in view of Cockrell and Kristiansen, and in a final decision, the claims were found unpatentable. The CAFC reversed the PTAB decision stating that the arguments “incorporated by reference” are not sufficient for meeting the burden of proving obviousness by a preponderance of the evidence. Conclusory statements cannot satisfy the petitioner’s burden of demonstrating obviousness, and thus the PTAB did not have sufficient evidence on which to base its legal conclusion of obviousness. The PTAB improperly shifted the burden to Magnum to disprove obviousness without requiring McClinton to prove its assertion of obviousness. The CAFC also stated that it was improper for the PTAB to rely on an unpatentability theory that was not included in the petition.
Appealing a Victory in an Inter Partes Reexamination?
| July 21, 2016
SKYHAWKE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC V. DECA INTERNATIONAL CORP.
July 15, 2016
Before Taranto, Chen, and Hughes. Opinion by Hughes.
Summary
The results of inter partes reexaminations under pre-AIA are important both to the patent owner and the requester because of ongoing litigation between the parties. The results in one proceeding could certainly have an impact on the other proceeding. In this case, the patent owner SkyHawke received a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) affirming the patentability of its claims. However, SkyHawke was concerned with the reasoning of the PTAB with respect to claim construction which could allow Deca to escape infringement in the litigation proceeding. Asserting 35 U.S.C. § 141 (a patent owner “who is in any reexamination proceeding dissatisfied with the final decision in an appeal to the Board … may appeal the decision only to” the CAFC), SkyHawke appealed to the CAFC. Deca filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The CAFC granted the motion to dismiss.
The “on-sale” bar is triggered by a commercial sale that bears the general hallmarks of a sale pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code
| July 18, 2016
The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc.
July 11, 2016
En Banc Decision by O’Malley.
Summary
Hospira 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. The two patents-in-suit cover Angiomax, the trade name of a form of bivalirudin that MedCo markets in the United States. On August 19, 2010, MedCo sued Hospira in the district court of Delaware alleging that Hospira’s two ANDA filings infringed the two patents-in-suit. The district court found the patents-in-suit not invalid and not infringed. MedCo appealed and Hospira cross-appealed. The original three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit agreed with Hospira and held that the patents-in-suit are invalid. MedCo petitioned for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc. The en banc panel affirmed the district court’s holding and remanded the appeal to the original three-judge panel for further proceedings.
Tags: on sale bar > patent invalidation > product-by-pass claims > supplier exeption
Patent eligible Laboratory methods
| July 13, 2016
Rapid Litigation Management Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc.
July 5, 2016
Before Prost, Moore and Stoll. Opinion by Prost.
Summary
Patented claims at issue were directed to a method of producing a desired preparation of hepatocytes (liver cells) useful for laboratory tests such as drug safety tests. The claimed process was invented based on the discovery that liver cells are capable of surviving multiple freeze-thaw cycles, which provides desired pool samples of hepatocytes from multiple donners. The district court held that the claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101. CAFC vacated the decision, holding that the claimed process is not directed to a patent-ineligible concept.
ドラッグテスト等に有用な肝細胞プールを調製する方法を記載した特許クレームが、101条の特許対象要件を満たすか否かを争われたケースである。従来は、肝細胞の冷凍保存は1回が限度であると認識されていた（一度解凍したら使い捨てとなる）。しかし、本件発明者は肝細胞を複数回冷凍保存しても使用できることを発見し、少なくとも2回の冷凍－解凍の工程を記した方法に特許を受けた。複数回の冷凍-解凍を繰り返せること利用して、異なるドナーからの肝細胞プールを無駄なく適宜に調製できるという利点がある。
近年最高裁判決の下、自然法則または自然現象を優位に超える特徴をクレームに記載しなければ特許対象にはならない。地裁は肝細胞が冷凍保存可能であることはその細胞の自然能力の発揮にすぎず、本特許の方法は自然法則の利用を優位に超える特徴を記載していないとして同特許を無効にした。高裁はその地裁判決を破棄し、従来の知見反して肝細胞の冷凍を2回以上繰り返す工程を記載した本特許の方法は従来の方法にはない利点があるから特許可能対象であると判示した。複数回の冷凍保存を行うことができるという科学的発見に基づくシンプルな発明コンセプトであるが、新規で有用な結果をもたらす方法は特許対象になりえることが示された。このケースは発見を利用する発明を新規な「方法」として記載することで特許対象になり得ることを示しているが、その肝細胞を「プロダクト」としてクレームした場合は自然物の寄せ集めであり特許対象になりえないことも示唆された（Funk Bros判決参照）。一方で、101条の特許対象要件の判断において従来技術との対比が重要な意味を持ち得ることを示した判決でもある。
Tags: laboratory technique > law of nature > method claims > patent eligibility
Federal Circuit reverses district court’s decision that a continuing application filed on the same day as the parent’s issuance loses benefit under 35 U.S.C. §120
| July 6, 2016
Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp.
June 21, 2016
Before Prost, Linn, and Taranto. Opinion by Taranto
Summary
The Federal Circuit confirmed the longstanding practice that for the purpose of claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. §120, a continuing application can be filed either before, or on the same date as, the patent issue date of the parent application.
Software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology under 35 USC §101
| June 24, 2016
Enfish, LLC v Microsoft Corp.
May 12, 2016
Precedential Opinion by Hughes, joined by Moore and Taranto.
Summary:
Enfish sued Microsoft for infringement of several patents related to a “self-referential” table for a database. The district court found all claims invalid as ineligible under § 101 on summary judgment. The CAFC reversed the summary judgment based on § 101 by finding that claims drawn to a “self-referential” table for a data base are not directed to an abstract idea under step one of the Alice analysis.
Tags: 35 U.S.C. § 101 > abstract idea > Alice > eligible subject matter > ineligible subject matter
