The term “receiver” connotes sufficiently definite structure to avoid interpretation under §112, sixth paragraph
| February 7, 2014
EnOcean Gmbh v. Face International Corporation
Decided January 31, 2014
Before Radar, Lourie and Prost. Opinion by Prost
Summary
Face’s patent (USP 7,084,529) issued in 2006, having claims directed to a self-powered switch. EnOcean owns the rights to U.S. Patent Application No. 10/304,121, also having claims directed to a self-powered switch. The EnOcean ‘121 application claims priority back to a German application filed on May 24, 2000. Face’s priority only goes back to 2001. After Face’s patent issued, EnOcean amended the claims in the ‘121 application to match those of the ‘529 patent, and requested an interference.
In the interference proceeding, EnOcean identified a set of prior art references, including published PCT Application No. PCT/GB01/00901 to Burrow, that invalidated the Face’s ‘529 patent as obvious. However, the prior art date of the Burrow reference is March 5, 2001, which is an intervening date between the US filing date of EnOcean’s application (November 25, 2002) and the filing date of the German priority application (May 24, 2000).
The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) treated the amended claims in EnOcean’s application reciting a “receiver” as means-plus-function claims, and, as such, found that these claims were not supported by the German priority application because the priority document did not describe the structure corresponding to the “receiver”. The Board found that these claims were not entitled to the earlier priority date of the German application, and that these claims were invalid as obvious over the same combination of prior art that invalidated Face’s patent.
EnOcean appealed. The CAFC held that the Board erred in treating certain of EnOcean’s claims as means-plus-function claims.
In case of first impression, the CAFC determines that the principles of prosecution history estoppel apply to design patents.
| January 31, 2014
Pacific Coast Marine v. Malibu Boats, LLC
Decided January 8, 2014
Before Dyk, Mayer, and Chen. Opinion by Dyk.
Summary
Bach’s original design patent application included multiple embodiments of a marine windshield. The Examiner issued a restriction requirement, in response to which Bach elected the first embodiment, canceled the other four, and filed a divisional for the third embodiment only. After the patent issued, Bach assigned it to Pacific Coast, which sued Malibu Boats for infringement. The Malibu Boats windshield differed slightly from the patented embodiment, as well as the non-elected embodiments. The district court granted Malibu Boats’ motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement on the grounds of prosecution history estoppel, finding that “that, during prosecution, the applicant had surrendered the designs reflected in the canceled figures and amended the claim ‘in order to obtain the patent.’” The CAFC reversed, holding that although “there was a surrender of claim scope during prosecution,” the accused design was not “within the scope of the surrender.”
Weak Prima Facie Case Obviousness vs. Strong Evidence of Non-Obviousness
| January 22, 2014
Institute Pasteur v. Focarino (Fed. Cir. 2013)
(2012-1486)
Decided December 30, 2013
Before NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. TARANTO, Circuit Judge.
Key Words: non-obviousness, biotechnology, enzyme, reasonable expectation of success
Summary:
Institute Pasteur (Pasteur) owned patents claiming inventions related to a group of enzymes, i.e., Group I intron-encoded (GIIE) endonucleases. The enzymes are useful as laboratory tools to cut a DNA sequence at a particular site of the sequence in vitro or in situ. In reexamination of the patents, the Board of Appeals rejected the claims as being obvious over cited references. Pasteur appealed to the CAFC. The CAFC vacated the Board decision and remanded for consideration of what would constitute motivation for one skilled in the art to pursue the claimed invention because the Board misread the teachings in prior art and failed to weigh properly substantive evidence of non-obviousness.
Read More/続きを読む
Federal Circuit Restricts ITC Remedies for Induced Infringement
| January 14, 2014
Suprema and Mentalix v Int’l Trade Comm’n – CAFC Opinion
Decided December 13, 2013
Prost; O’Malley; Reyna. Opinion by O’Malley; Dissent by Reyna.
Summary:
The CAFC found that the ITC cannot issue an exclusion order based solely on induced infringement under circumstances in which the underlying direct infringement of an asserted method patent necessarily does not take place until after importation of the contested article. Where direct infringement does not exist or occur before or during importation, the ITC does not have the authority to remedy acts of induced infringement alone, under such circumstances where direct infringement of the claimed method of the asserted patent occurs post-importation: the imported goods are not, in and of themselves, infringing articles before or while they are being imported into the U.S. While the Court’s majority emphasizes the circumstance-specific implications of its decision, the dissenting opinion by Circuit Judge Reyna raises concern that the distinctions articulated by the Court would, in effect, overturn decades of practice by the ITC conducting Section 337 investigations into respondents who actively induce post-importation infringement by their products, and similarly allow for infringers to circumvent ITC authority, accordingly.
EXAMINER’S NEW MOTIVATION TO COMBINE REFERENCES MAY CONSTITUTE “NEW GROUND OF REJECTION,” PREVENTING FINALITY OF THE REJECTION
| December 18, 2013
in re Lutz Biedermann – CAFC Opinion
Decided October 18, 2013
Panel: Linn (Opinion author), Moore and O’Malley
Summary
While the Examiner’s motivation to combine prior art references in his rejection was the efficiency of a square thread, the principal reason the Board affirmed the combination of these references was the use of square threads to avoid splaying. The Federal Circuit held that these are different grounds of rejection, and form the bases or underpinnings of different rejections. Therefore, the Federal Circuit found that because the Board made new findings and adopted different reasons to support a new ground of rejection, it had improperly deprived the applicant of both notice and an opportunity to respond.
Read More/続きを読む
Tags: Due process > Motivation > New Ground of Rejection > Notice and Opportunity to Respond > obviousness
Permanent Injunctions: the Federal Circuit’s Causal Nexus Swing
| December 11, 2013
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics – CAFC Opinion
Decided November 18, 2013
Panel: Judges Prost, Bryson and O’Malley, Opinion by Judge Prost
Summary
The Federal Circuit vacated the California District Court’s denial of permanent injunctive relief against Samsung for its infringement of Apple, Inc.’s smart phone utility patents on the basis of the District Court having abused its discretion by failing to properly analyze evidence of causal nexus pertaining to irreparable harm and the inadequacy of legal remedies. This case is the third appeal to the Federal Circuit in this matter between Apple and Samsung. In 2011, in Apple’s initial infringement suit against Samsung, the jury found that twenty-six (26) Samsung smart phones infringed on six (6) Apple patents, and awarded Apple more than $1 billion in damages. Prior appeals to the Federal Circuit involved appeals related to preliminary injunctive relief (Apple I and II). While the Federal Circuit in prior appeal (Apple II) had rejected the District Court’s award of a preliminary injunction for not having considered the causal nexus requirement, the Federal Circuit now vacates the District Court’s award of permanent injunctive relief for having placed too much emphasis on the causal nexus requirement.
Details
Background:
Upon obtaining the District Court decision, Apple moved for a permanent injunction to enjoin Samsung from importing or selling any of its twenty-six (26) infringing products or any other product not more than colorably different. Apple’s appeal is based on infringement of Apple’s 1) utility patents, 2) design patents and 3) trade dress. On December 12, 2012, the District Court denied the request for a permanent injunction. Here, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of permanent injunction for infringement of the design patents and trade dress, but vacated and remanded the denial of permanent injunction for infringement of the utility patents.
Read More/続きを読む
Tags: Causal Nexus > injunction > irreparable harm > permanent injunction
Patent Infringement Litigation as a Double-Edged Sword: Invalidated Patents and Inequitable Conduct
| December 6, 2013
The Ohio Willow Wood Company (OWW) v. ALPS South LLC. (Alps)
Decided November 15, 2013
Before Dyk (Circuit Judge), Bryson (Circuit Judge) and Reyna (Circuit Judge). Opinion by Reyna.
Keywords: collateral estoppel, obviousness, inequitable conduct, reexamination, and rule of reason.
Summary:
OWW initiated a suit against Alps for patent infringement. After a long legal battle including two ex parte reexaminations, two District Court proceedings, and two CAFC appeals, OWW lost two patents and was charged with inequitable conduct.
Details:
OWW is the owner of US Patent No. 5,830,237 (the ‘237 patent), entitled “Gel and Cushioning Devices,” filed on March 5, 1996. The ‘237 patent disclosed cushioning devices designed to cover the residual stumps of amputated limbs, acting as a shape-conforming buffer, as illustrated below, to make the use of attached prostheses more comfortable. The primary invention was a cushion liner comprising a fabric covering in the shape of a tube sock coated on only one side with mineral oil-based polymeric gels.
On December 27, 2004, OWW filed its complaint against Alps for infringement of the ‘237 patent. After the District Court issued its Claim Construction order in the proceedings, Alps filed its first request for an ex parte reexamination of the ‘237 patent. The District Court stayed the litigation for the duration of reexamination proceedings, pending resolution of the validity of the disputed patent.
Read More/続きを読む
Tags: Collateral Estoppel > inequitable conduct > obviousness > reexamination > Rule of Reason
Election of species in case where there is no generic claim amounts to a “restriction” for applying safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. §121
| September 18, 2013
St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Access Closure, Inc.
September 11, 2013
Panel: Lourie, Plager and Wallach. Opinion by Plager. Concurring opinion by Lourie.
Summary:
St Jude Medical, Inc. asserts two sets of patents against Access Closure, Inc. (ACI). The patents claim methods and devices for sealing a “vascular puncture” into a vein or artery made during a medical procedure.
Claims 7, 8 and 9 of the Janzen patent are invalid for double patenting over the claims of a copending “sibling” application because claims 7, 8 and 9 are directed to an invention identified as Group II in a restriction requirement, further limited to species C, and the claims in the sibling patent are directed to a Group II invention but without any limitation to species. The safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. §121 does not apply because the claims of the Janzen patent are not patentably distinct from the claims of the sibling patent, and the patents do not maintain the “consonance” created by the original restriction requirement and requirement for election of species.
The claims of the two Fowler patents asserted by St Jude Medical are not obvious over a combination of two cited references because the references teach alternative methods (inserting a balloon or inserting a gelfoam stick) for achieving hemostasis, whereas the claims in the Fowler patents use a balloon for another purpose, i.e., to help position a plug and prevent it from entering a blood vessel.
Tags: double patenting > election of species > obviousness > restriction > safe harbor rule
Predictably Divided CAFC Panel Finds Computer System Claims Not Patent-Eligible
| September 17, 2013
Accenture Global Services, GMBH v. Guidewire Software, Inc. September 5, 2013 Panel: Lourie (author), Reyna, Rader (dissent) Summary:Not surprisingly, the decision of the latest Federal Circuit case on software patent eligibility can be predicted based on the makeup of the CAFC panel. Judge Lourie, joined by Judge Reyna, issued the majority opinion that the system claims were invalid. The Court followed the analysis for determining patent eligibility from CLS Bank, 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) and affirmed the district court’s finding that the system claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,013,284 (“the ‘284 patent”) were ineligible. Judge Rader dissented.
Tags: §101 > abstract idea > CLS Bank > preemption > software patent
Inventorship disputes raise difficult issues; involvement of State universities adds layers of complexity
| September 6, 2013
University of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
August 19, 2013
Panel: Moore, Reyna and Wallach. Opinion by Reyna. Dissent by Moore.
Summary:
This case started with the University of Utah suing the University of Massachussetts and others to obtain correction of inventorship in a group of patents co-owned by UMass and the other defendants. But the main issues in this appeal relate to the status of the plaintiff UUtah and initial co-defendant UMass as State entities.
To overcome UMass’ sovereign immunity defense (a State can be sued by another State only in the Supreme Court under Article III of the Constitution), UUtah amended its complaint to name individual UMass officials, instead of UMass itself.
The District Court held that the lawsuit could proceed, and the Federal Circuit affirms on the grounds that (1) UMass is not a “real party of interest” because deciding inventorship does not involve a core state interest, and (2) UMass is not an “indispensable party” because the officials can adequately represent the interest of UMass as co-owner of the patents.
Tags: indispensable party > inventorship correction > sovereign immunity
