TRANSACTIONS WITHOUT PRIMARY EXPERIMENTAL-USE PURPOSE DO NOT INSULATE FROM THE ON-SALE BAR
| June 3, 2022
Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P., v. U.S. Venture, Inc., U.S. Oil Co., Inc.
Decided: April 29, 2022
Before PROST, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
Summary
The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded judgement of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois regarding patent infringement. In one of the decisions, the Federal Circuit overturned a district court judgment on some of Sunoco’s claims insulating from the on-sale bar.
Background
Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. (“Sunoco”) sued U.S. Venture, Inc. and U.S. Oil Co., Inc. (collectively, “Venture”), alleging that Venture’s operation butane-blending systems infringed claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,032,629 (“the ’629 patent”), 6,679,302 (“the ’302 patent”), 9,494,948 (“the ’948 patent”), and 9,606,548 (“the ’548 patent”) owned by Sunoco.
The patents claimed systems and methods that are directed to blending butane into gasoline before the end chain of distribution. Butane blended with gasoline has some advantages: butane’s volatility helps cars start more easily at low temperatures, and butane is cheaper than gasoline. However, since butane causes air pollution when burned in warm climate, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established regulations on butane blending. Sunoco’s patented technology seeks to maximize butane content while complying with EPA’s (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) regulations.
The district court ruled on various summary judgment motions and sided with Sunoco in a bench trial to affirm the award of $2 million in damages, later trebled to $6 million.
Discussion
Venture appealed the district court’s decision on (I) rejection of its on-sale-bar defense, (II) determination that it infringed two patents, (III) construction of two claim terms, and (IV) decision to enhance damages. On cross-appeal, Sunoco challenged the district court’s decision not to grant lost-profits damages and its reasonable-royalty award.
The discussion is focused on the topic of on-sale-bar. Venture’s on-sale-bar defense, if successful, would invalidate some claims in two of Sunoco’s patents. The “on-sale-bar” provides the principle that “no person is entitled to patent an ‘invention’ that has been ‘on sale’ more than one year before filing a patent application” (i.e., before the critical date). “On sale” defined by the courts should meet two criteria that the invention is both “the subject of a commercial offer for sale” and “ready for patenting.” Pfaff v. Wells Elec’s., Inc., 525 U.S. 55 (1998). In addition, the on-sale bar can be negated if the patent owner demonstrates that the sale qualifies as “primarily for purposes of experimentation.”
The inventor’s company (MCE) offered to sell and install a butane-blending system to Equilon on February 9, 2000, two days before the critical date. The agreement indicated that Equilon would not pay anything for the machine, but would agree to purchase at least 500,000 barrels of butane from MCE over the next 5 years. The district court found that the equipment was being given away since “the contract did not require Equilon to pay MCE anything in exchange for the system in the normal course of events.” The district court later determined that Sunoco’s systems were sold for experimental-use purposes rather than commercial purposes. However, the Federal Circuit disagreed and opined that the sale “agreement bears ‘all the hallmarks of a commercial contract for sale.’”
The Federal Circuit states that “the agreement begins by expressly describing the transaction as a sale, without reference to any experimental purpose” as recited in the agreement:
MCE agrees to sell to Equilon, and Equilon agrees to purchase, the Equipment (as hereinafter defined) along with a license to use certain technology and software owned by MCE pertaining to the computerized blending of Butane and gasoline stocks, in consideration for the purchase and sale of Butane as set forth herein.
The section of the agreement characterized the sale’s commercial purpose and indicated that “MCE already ‘developed’ the relevant technology and equipment, that Equilon wanted to purchase it, and that MCE was willing to sell it, install it, and supply butane for it.”
Sunoco argued that a primarily experimental purpose is a section of the agreement entitled “Equipment Testing” including two sets of testing: pre-installation testing and post-installation testing. Sunoco drew an analogy to the Supreme Court’s seminal City of Elizabeth case. However, the Federal Circuit pointed out that “the nature of a street pavement,” the invention in the case of the City of Elizabeth, “is such that it cannot be experimented upon satisfactorily except on a highway, which is always public,” City of Elizabeth, 97 U.S. at 134. The Federal Circuit found that the testing was not done by Equilon but a third party. Sunoco also acknowledged that the test could have been done at any time prior to entering the deal with Equilon in January of 2000.
For the posit-installation testing, the section of the agreement states:
Upon completion of installation of the Equipment, MCE shall provide Equilon with written notice of such completion. Within three (3) days of said notice, Equilon shall (i) make all necessary arrangements within the Terminal to enable MCE to test the Equipment to determine whether the Equipment is properly blending butane, and (ii) provide notification to MCE that said arrangements have been made. MCE shall test the Equipment according
to parameters set forth in Schedule 1.10. MCE shall proceed with testing in a timely manner and have a period not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date of said notification by Equilon to complete its testing.
The Federal Circuit found that the post-installation tests were also not experiments, but are acceptance tests to confirm that the equipment “is properly blending butane”—that is, that it is working as promised. It further noted that there was no objective evidence that supported a conclusion that the “primary purpose” of the sale was “to conduct experimentation.”
The Federal Circuit further noted that the district court should have considered “whether the invention was under development, subject to testing, or otherwise still in its experimental stage at the time of the asserted sale.” But that consideration is not the question of Pfaff prong 1. The district court’s “still under development” observation would be better considered at Pfaff prong 2.
Therefore, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s experimental-use determination and remand the district court to assess whether the invention was “ready for patenting.”.
Takeaway
- Transactions without primary experimental-use purpose do not insulate from the on-sale bar.
Primer in Patent Enforcement
| May 26, 2022
NICHIA CORPORATION, v. DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.
Decided: April 26, 2022
Before DYK, REYNA, and STOLL. Opinion by REYNA
Summary
Although not precedential, this decision serves as a primer on patent enforcement and the interplay of district court actions by a patent owner, and defenses raised by an alleged infringer with a petition for inter partes review. A review of the underlying Board decision reveals eight district court cases brought by Document Security Systems, Inc., against six different entities, where three inter partes reviews were requested. There were also petitions for inter partes reviews (IPRs) of different patents owned by Document Security Systems, Inc. not involved in this appeal.
In one of the IPRs, the Board found claims 1, 6-8, 15 and 17 of USP 7,524,087 (the ‘087 patent which is the patent involved in the decision) unpatentable (Seoul Semiconductor Co. v. Document Sec. Sys., Inc., IPR2018-00522 and Everlight Elecs. Co. v. Document Sec. Sys., Inc., IPR 2018-01226 – motion for joinder with IPR 2018-00522). In another IPR, the Board declined to institute inter partes review due to the petition being filed more than one year after service of the complaint alleging infringement (Cree, Inc., v. Document Sec. Sys., Inc., IPR2018-01221).
In the present decision, the Board found claims 1 and 6-8 of the ‘087 patent unpatentable and found that claims 2-5 and 9-19 of the ‘087 patent are not unpatentable. Nichia appeals the decision upholding claims 2-5 and 9-19 while Document Security Systems appeals the holding that claims 1 and 6-8 are unpatentable. The CAFC affirmed the Board’s findings as to all claims except claims 15-19, reversing on claim 15 and remanding on dependent claims 16-19.
Background
The ‘087 patent relates to an optical device with an LED die, such as for use in a large display panel. As an example, a stadium display may include numerous small light emitting elements arranged in an array and consisting of an LED die mounted to a plastic housing. In an exemplary embodiment, LEDs are mounted in a housing and encapsulated for protection from the environment. The device contains reflector housing 20 with a sidewall 26 extending between top 22 and bottom 24, with a first pocket or cavity 30 formed on top and a second pocket 34 formed on bottom shown in Figs. 1 and 2:
The first pocket 30 may be filled with encapsulant to cover and protect the LED dies. Claim 1 is representative.
1. An optical device comprising:
a lead frame with a plurality of leads;
a reflector housing formed around the lead frame, the reflector housing having a first end face and a second end face and a peripheral sidewall extending between the first end face and the second end face, the reflector housing having a first pocket with a pocket opening in the first end face and a second pocket with a pocket opening in the second end face;
at least one LED die mounted in the first pocket of the reflector housing;
a light transmitting encapsulant disposed in the first pocket and encapsulating the at least one LED die; and
wherein a plurality of lead receiving compartments are formed in the peripheral sidewall of the reflector housing.
The Board found that claims 1 and 6-8 are unpatentable as obvious over Takenaka (teaching most of claim 1) in combination with Kyowa (teaching the remaining limitation requiring multiple lead-receiving compartments in the reflector housing sidewall). The Board further found that Nichia did not demonstrate that claims 1 and 6-14 are unpatentable over Okazaki and Kyowa because Okazaki discloses a tubular vessel instead of the claimed two pockets. The Board found that Document Security’s expert was more credible than Nichia’s expert in that one of ordinary skill would understand Okazaki as teaching a tubular vessel instead of two pockets. The Board also found that Nichia did not demonstrate that claims 9-19 are unpatentable over Takenaka in view of Kyowa because Nichia did not identify disclosure in Takenaka regarding claim 9’s plastic limitation: “A display comprising a plurality of plastic leaded chip carrier LEDs, the plastic leaded chip carrier LEDs each comprising ….” The Board determined that the underlined phrase was not part of the preamble. Lastly, the Board found that Nichia also did not identify any disclosure in Takenaka that teaches or suggests the “electrical connection limitation” in independent claim 15.
Discussion
The CAFC first notes the standard of review: the Board’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo whereas the factual findings underlying obviousness are reviewed for substantial evidence.
Nichia’s Appeal
Nichia makes three arguments that the Board erred in finding that Nichia failed to show that claims 9-19 are unpatentable over Takenaka in view of Kyowa.
In the first argument, Nichia argued that the Board erred in the construction of the preamble of claim 9. Nichia argued that the preamble should be considered as the entirety of “A display comprising a plurality of plastic leaded chip carrier LEDs, the plastic leaded chip carrier LEDs each” comprising” (the second “comprising” being considered the transitional phrase). The Board found the preamble to be “A display.” Claim construction is an issue of law reviewed de novo. The CAFC simply found that the phrase “[a] display comprising” is a general description followed by the transition word “comprising” and then the required elements.
In the second argument, Nichia argued that the Board abused its discretion by not including information contained in claim charts regarding plastic from Takenaka. The CAFC found that Nichia failed to establish anywhere in its petition or expert declaration that Takenaka disclosed “plastic.” Nichia’s claim charts disclosed use of resin with no argument comparing plastic and resin.
In the third argument, Nichia argued that the Board abused it’s discretion in finding that Nichia did not prove claim 15 unpatentable based on Takenaka in view of Kyowa. Claim 15 is similar to claim 1 but includes the additional limitation of “at least one LED die … electrically connected to said plurality of electrically conductive leads.” Nichia argues that the Board abused its discretion by ignoring Nichia’s reference to its claim chart for claim 1. Unlike with the plastic phrase, Nichia’s petition specifically stated that Takenaka disclosed an electrical connection. Therefore, the CAFC reversed the Board’s determination regarding claim 15 and remanded with respect to dependent claims 16-19.
Document Security’s Cross-Appeal
The cross-appeal challenged the determination that claims 1 and 6-8 are unpatentable over Takenaka in view of Kyowa. Document Security made two arguments. In the first argument, Document Security argued that Takenaka meets all the limitations of the asserted patent’s disclosed method to protect the leads from external forces, and therefore there was no need to combine with Kyowa.[1] Motivation to combine is a finding of fact. The Board relied on Nichia’s expert that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the compartments described in Kyowa to the LED housing sidewall of Takenaka to protect the leads from external forces. The expert testimony and Kyowa’s disclosure provide “relevant evidence as a reasonable mind” would find supports the Board’s conclusion.
In the second argument, Document Security argued that even if there was motivation to combine, the Board erred because Kyowa does not teach a required element of the claims at issue, arguing that Kyowa does not disclose or suggest reflector housing and therefore cannot teach the lead-receiving compartments limitation. What the prior art teaches is a finding of fact. The Board explained that Kyowa teaches the device is enclosed in a resin package, which is an LED housing, and the sidewall contains multiple compartments in the housing. The Board reasoned that since Takenaka teaches a housing formed of white resin having high reflectance, it would correspond to the required reflector housing. As such, the CAFC found the Board’s findings supported by substantial evidence.
Takeaways
- Any IPR petition needs to clearly tie elements of the prior art to elements of the claim(s) at issue. For example, the resin of the prior art needed to be shown to correspond to plastic of claim 9. On the other hand, Nichia’s petition clearly set forth “electrical” connection which resulted in reversal.
[1] The author notes that this seems to be strange that the patent owner was arguing that it’s claim would be taught by one prior art reference. It is suspected that the strategy was to save the claim based on the multiple compartments limitation which was taught by the secondary reference.
Insufficient Extrinsic Evidence and Prosecution Disclaimer Led to Claim Construction in Patentee’s Favor
| May 6, 2022
Decided: April 1, 2022
Newman, Reyna, and Stoll. Opinion by Reyna.
Summary
The CAFC found in favor of a patentee seeking broad interpretation of a claim term, where an expert testimony offered by an opponent in support of narrower claim scope was insufficient to overcome a clear record of the patent, and the prosecution history lacked “clear and unmistakable” statements to establish express disavowal of claim scope.
Details
This is an appeal from a district court action where Genuine Enabling Technology LLC (“Genuine”) sued Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America, Inc. (“Nintendo”) for infringing certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,219,730. The patent relates to user input devices, such as mouse and keyboard, and its representative claim 1 recites:
1. A user input apparatus operatively coupled to a computer via a communication means additionally receiving at least one input signal, comprising:
user input means for producing a user input stream;
input means for producing the at least one input signal;
converting means for receiving the at least one input signal and producing therefrom an input stream; and
encoding means for synchronizing the user input stream with the input stream and encoding the same into a combined data stream transferable by the communication means.
(Emphasis added.)
The inventive idea may be pictured as a “voice mouse.” As seen in Fig. 1B of the patent, the inventive apparatus or mouse 18, connected with a computer 10 via a communication link 12, serves the traditional function of allowing user to move an object 14 on the computer monitor 13 (i.e., “user input means for producing a user input stream”), while also capable of receiving a speech input from a microphone 16 (i.e., “input means for producing the at least one input signal”) and transmitting a speech output to a speaker 17.
At issue in the case is the construction of the term “input signal.”
During prosecution, the inventor distinguished his invention over U.S. Patent No. 5,990,866 (“Yollin”) cited in an office action, arguing that the “input signal” limitation was missing in the reference. Specifically, the inventor argued that various physiological sensors disclosed in Yollin, such as those detecting user’s muscle movement, heart rate, brain activity, blood pressure, skin temperature, etc., only produce “slow varying” signals as opposed to “signals containing audio or higher frequencies” to which his invention pertains. The inventor pointed out that the inventive apparatus would resolve a specific problem presented by the use of high frequency signals, which, unlike slow varying signals, tend to “collide” with other signals in producing a composite data stream. This “slow varying” vs. “audio or higher frequencies” distinction is repeatedly noted in the inventor’s argument.
The parties disputed the extent of prosecution disclaimer resulting from the inventor’s statements as to the term “input signal.” In the district court, Genuine proposed to construe the term as
“a signal having an audio or higher frequency,”
whereas Nintendo maintained that the proper scope should be narrower:
“A signal containing audio or higher frequencies. [The inventor] disclaimed signals that are 500 Hertz (Hz) or less. He also disclaimed signals that are generated from positional change information, user selection information, physiological response information, and other slow-varying information. Alternatively, indefinite.”
Nintendo argued that the inventor disclaimed the certain types of “slow-varying” signals taught by Yollin. While specific frequencies were not disclosed in Yollin, Nintendo relied on its expert testimony citing a reference purportedly showing that Yollin’s physiological sensors encompassed the range of “at least 500 Hz.”
Genuine contended that the disclaimed scope should be limited to “slow-varying signals below the audio frequency spectrum [of 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz],” in accordance with the inventor’s argument which only had distinguished the reference “slow-varying” signals from “fast-varying” signals.
The district court sided with Nintendo, finding non-infringement in its favor. In particular, the district court noted that “an applicant’s argument that a prior art reference is distinguishable on a particular ground can serve as a disclaimer of claim scope even if the applicant distinguishes the reference on other grounds as well.” Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007). That is, according to the district court, the fact that the inventor’s argument distinguished Yollin as lacking “audio or higher frequencies” did not negate the effect of the inventor’s statement also distinguishing Yollin’s range as “slow-varying” signals.
On appeal, the CAFC rejected the district court’s claim construction.
First, the CAFC noted that the role of extrinsic evidence in claim construction is limited, and cannot override intrinsic evidence where there is clear written record of the patent. And as one form of extrinsic evidence, “expert testimony may not be used to diverge significantly from the intrinsic record.” Here, the 500 Hz frequency threshold was not identified in the intrinsic record nor Yollin, and its only basis was Nintendo’s expert testimony which relied on another extrinsic reference that was not in the record. The extrinsic evidence conflicted with the prosecution history in which the examiner had accepted the inventor’s argument distinguishing Yollin without drawing a bright line between “slow-varying” and “audio or higher frequenc[y]” signals. As such, the CAFC found that the expert testimony cannot overcome the clarity of the intrinsic evidence.
Second, the CAFC noted that prosecution disclaimer requires that the patentee make a “clear and unmistakable” statement to disavow claim scope during prosecution. The fact that the inventor repeatedly distinguished the reference “slow-varying” signals from “audio or higher frequenc[y]” signals—the argument which successfully traversed the rejection—led the CAFC to decide that the “clear and unmistakable” disavowal was limited to “signals below the audio frequency spectrum.” Although the CAFC noted that the inventor’s statements “may implicate” certain frequency ranges such as 500 Hz or less, the intrinsic record was not unambiguous enough for the particular range to be disclaimed. For similar reasons, the CAFC also found no disclaimer of “signals that are generated from positional change information, user selection information, physiological response information, and other slow-varying information,” which had not been directly addressed in the inventor’s argument.
The CAFC concluded that the district court erred in the claim construction and that the proper scope of the term “input signal” is “a signal having an audio or higher frequency.”
Takeaway
This case provides a reminder that caution should be taken not to make “clear and unmistakable” statements in arguing around the prior art during prosecution. Although there appears to be no fixed criteria for assessing what qualifies as a “clear and unmistakable” disavowal, applicant’s consistency in presenting one main argument—focused on an essential distinction between the claim and the prior art—without introducing unnecessary details may help limit the extent of potential prosecution disclaimer.
Claim differentiation helps broaden the scope of a claim to a Fuse end cap
| April 29, 2022
Littlefuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp.
Decided: April 4, 2022
Prost, Bryson and Stoll. Opinion by Bryson.
Summary:
Littlefuse sued Mersen for infringement of its patent to a fuse end cap. In construing the claims, the district court held that the claims are limited to a multi-piece apparatus even though some dependent claims recite a single-piece apparatus. Upon review of the claims, specification, and prosecution history, and based on principles of claim differentiation, the CAFC concluded that the district court’s construction is incorrect. The CAFC concluded that the independent claims should be construed as including multi-piece fuse end caps as well as single-piece fuse end caps. Thus, the CAFC vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded.
Details:
Littlefuse owns U.S. Patent No. 9,564,281 to a “fuse end cap for providing an electrical connection between a fuse and an electrical conductor.” Independent claim 1 is provided:
1. A fuse end cap comprising:
a mounting cuff defining a first cavity that receives an end of a fuse body, the end of the fuse body being electrically insulating;
a terminal defining a second cavity that receives a conductor, wherein the terminal is crimped about the conductor to retain the conductor within the second cavity; and
a fastening stem that extends from the mounting cuff and into the second cavity of the terminal that receives the conductor.
Dependent claims 8 and 9 are also important in this case and are provided:
8. The fuse end cap of claim 1, wherein the mounting cuff and the terminal are machined from a single, contiguous piece of conductive material.
9. The fuse end cap of claim 1, wherein the mounting cuff and the terminal are stamped from a single, contiguous piece of conductive material.
The specification describes three embodiments: (1) a “machined end cap” that may be manufactured from a single piece of any suitable, electrically conductive material; (2) a “stamped end cap” that may be manufactured from a single piece of any suitable, electrically conductive material; and (3) an “assembled end cap” in which the terminal and mounting cuff are formed from separate pieces of material, the material being any suitable, electrically conductive material. With the “assembled end cap,” the terminal and mounting cuff are “joined together, such as by press-fitting a fastening stem of the mounting cuff into the cavity of the terminal” or by using “a variety of other fastening means including … various adhesives, various mechanical fasteners, or welding.”
The following is an example of the “machined fuse end cap”:
And the following is an example of the “assembled end cap”:
During prosecution, the Examiner issued a restriction requirement stating that each of the three embodiments represented a distinct species. Littlefuse elected to prosecute the species corresponding to the “assembled end cap” embodiment. Claims 8 and 9 directed to the “machined end cap” and the “stamped end cap,” respectively, were then withdrawn. These dependent claims were subject to reinstatement if a generic claim was found to be allowable. Upon a rejection issued by the Examiner, claim 1 was amended to include the “fastening stem” limitation shown above. Amended claim 1 was then allowed and claims 8 and 9 were rejoined since the Examiner concluded that claims 8 and 9 require all the limitations of the allowable claims.
District Court
In the district court, the term “fastening stem” was construed to mean “a stem that attaches or joins other components”; and “a fastening stem that extends from the mounting cuff and into the second cavity of the terminal that receives the conductor” was construed to mean “a stem that extends from the mounting cuff and into the second cavity of the terminal that receives the conductor, and attaches the mounting cuff to the terminal.” The district court further construed claim 1 such that the fuse end cap “is of multi-piece construction” and that claim 1 does not cover a single-piece apparatus. The parties stipulated to non-infringement based on the district court’s construction of claim 1 as covering only a multi-piece apparatus, and Littlefuse appealed the claim construction ruling.
CAFC
The court first explained claim construction principles citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) stating that “A claim term is generally given the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention” and that “How the term is used in the claims and the specification of the patent is strong evidence of how a person of ordinary skill would understand the term.”
The court further stated that “The structure of the claims is enlightening.” Citing Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 972 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the court stated that “By definition, an independent claim is broader than a claim that depends from it, so if a dependent claim reads on a particular embodiment of the claimed invention, the corresponding independent claim must cover that embodiment as well.” The court stated that if this were not the case, then the dependent claim would be meaningless, and a claim construction that leads to that result is generally disfavored. Thus, the court concluded that the recitation of a single-piece apparatus in claims 8 and 9 is persuasive evidence that claim 1 also covers a single-piece apparatus.
The court then explained principles regarding claim-differentiation stating that “the presumption of differentiation in claim scope is not a hard and fast rule” citing Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and that “any presumption created by the doctrine of claim differentiation will be overcome by a contrary construction dictated by the written description or prosecution history” citing Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co., 653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Mersen argued that notwithstanding the doctrine of claim differentiation, a construction that renders certain claims superfluous need not be rejected if that construction is consistent with the teachings of the specification citing Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HenCon, Inc., 672 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (en banc). However, the court stated that Littlefuse’s construction is supported by the specification. The court further stated that Mersen’s construction “would not merely render the dependent claims superfluous, but would mean that those claims would have no scope at all, a result that should be avoided when possible.”
The court pointed out that the district court recognized the inconsistency between its construction of claim 1 as covering only a multi-piece apparatus and the recitation of a single-piece apparatus in dependent claims 8 and 9. The district court concluded that the Examiner’s rejoinder of those dependent claims was a mistake. However, the CAFC said that the record in this case does not support the district court’s conclusion. The CAFC agreed with the Examiner that the dependent claims “require all the limitations of the … allowable claims” since the independent claims are not limited to a multi-piece construction and “the dependent claims form a coherent invention in that they each recite a fuse end cap that comprises a mounting cuff, a terminal, and a fastening stem.
The court also addressed the specification which only refers to a “fastening stem” with respect to the “assembled end cap” embodiment, which is a multi-piece apparatus. But the court said that “courts ordinarily should not limit the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.” The court pointed out that the specification does not state that a fastening stem cannot be present in a single-piece apparatus and “one can envision a stem that projects from the side of the mounting cuff even in an embodiment in which the fuse end cap is formed from a single piece of material.”
The court concluded that the construction of “fastening stem” that is most consistent with the claims, specification, and prosecution history is a construction that includes a multi-piece end cap as well as a single-piece end cap. Thus, the court vacated the district court’s judgment of non-infringement and remanded.
Comments
Claim differentiation can be a useful tool for providing broader claim scope to independent claims. Thus, when drafting patent applications, it is a good idea to include various dependent claims.
Also, when faced with a restriction requirement due to distinct species and upon allowance of some claims, make sure to review whether other claims can be rejoined. In this case, the fact that the Examiner rejoined some species claims as being covered by a generic independent claim helped persuade the CAFC to provide a broader construction of the independent claim.
APPLE MAKES ROTTEN CONVINCING THAT THE PTAB CANNOT CONSTRUE CLAIMS PROPERLY
| April 7, 2022
Apple, Inc vs MPH Technologies, OY
Decided: March 9, 2022
MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and TARANTO. Opinion by Moore.
Summary:
Apple appealed losses on 3 IPRs attempting to convince the CAFC that the PTAB had misconstrued numerous dependent claims for a myriad of reasons. The CAFC sided with the Board on all counts, in general showing deference to the PTAB and its ability to properly interpret claims.
Background:
Apple appealed from 3 IPRs wherein the PTAB had held Apple failed to show claims 2, 4, 9, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,712,494; claims 7–9 of U.S. Patent No. 9,712,502; and claims 3, 5, 10, and 12–16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,838,362 would have been obvious. Apple’s IPR petitions relied primarily on a combination of Request for Comments 3104 (RFC3104) and U.S. Patent No. 7,032,242 (Grabelsky).
The patents disclose a method for secure forwarding of a message from a first computer to a second computer via an intermediate computer in a telecommunication network in a manner that allowed for high speed with maintained security.
The claims of the ’494 and ’362 patents cover the intermediate computer. Claim 1 of the ’494 patent was used as the representative independent claim for the patents:
1. An intermediate computer for secure forwarding of messages in a telecommunication network, comprising:
an intermediate computer configured to connect to a telecommunication network;
the intermediate computer configured to be assigned with a first network address in the telecommunication network;
the intermediate computer configured to receive from a mobile computer a secure message sent to the first network address having an encrypted data payload of a message and a unique identity, the data payload encrypted with a cryptographic key derived from a key exchange protocol;
the intermediate computer configured to read the unique identity from the secure message sent to the first network address; and
the intermediate computer configured to access a translation table, to find a destination address from the translation table using the unique identity, and to securely forward the encrypted data payload to the destination address using a network address of the intermediate computer as a source address of a forwarded message containing the encrypted data payload wherein the intermediate computer does not have the cryptographic key to decrypt the encrypted data payload.
The ’502 patent claims the mobile computer that sends the secure message to the intermediate computer.
Decision:
The Court first looked at dependent claim 11 of the ’494 patent and dependent claim 12 of the ’362 patent requirement that “the source address of the forwarded message is the same as the first network address.”
Apple had asserted RFC3104 disclosed this aspect of the claims. Specifically, RFC3104 discloses a model wherein an RSIP server examines a packet sent by Y destined for X. “X and Y belong to different address spaces A and B, respectively, and N is an [intermediate] RSIP server.” N has two addresses: Na on address space A and Nb on address space B, which are different. Apple asserted the message sent from Y to X is received by RSIP server N on the Nb interface and then must be sent to Na before being forwarded to X.
The model topography for RFC3104 is illustrated as:
In light thereof, Apple asserted that because the intermediate computer sends the message from Nb to Na before forwarding it to X, Na is both a first network address and the source address of the forwarded message. That the message was not sent directly to Na, Apple claimed, was of no import given the claim language. The Board had disagreed and found there was no record evidence that the mobile computer sent the message directly to Na.
In the appeal, Apple argued the Board misconstrued the claims to require that the mobile computer send the secure message directly to the intermediate computer. Rather, Apple asserted, the mobile computer need not send the message to the first network address so long as the message is sent there eventually. Specifically, Apple emphasized that the PTAB’s construction is inconsistent with the phrase “intermediate computer configured to receive from a mobile computer a secure message sent to the first network address” in claim 1 of the ’494 patent, upon which claim 11 depends.
The Court construed the plain meaning of “intermediate computer configured to receive from a mobile computer a secure message sent to the first network address” requires the mobile computer to send the message to the first network address. The phrase identifies the sender (i.e., the mobile computer) and the destination (i.e., the first network address). The CAFC maintained that the proximity of the concepts links them together, such that a natural reading of the phrase conveys the mobile computer sends the secure message to the first network address. Thus the CAC agreed with the PTAB that the plain language establishes direct sending.
The Court reenforced their holding by looking to the written description as confirming this plain meaning. Specifically, they noted it describes how the mobile computer forms the secure message with “the destination address . . . of the intermediate computer.” The mobile computer then sends the message to that address. There is no passthrough destination address in the intermediate computer that the secure message is sent to before the first destination address. Accordingly, like the claim language, the written description describes the secure message as sent from the mobile computer directly to the first destination address.
Second, the CAFC examined dependent claim 4 of the ’494 patent is similar to claim 5 of the ’362 patent. Claim 4 of the ‘494 recites:
…wherein the translation table includes two partitions, the first partition containing information fields related to the connection over which the secure message is sent to the first network address, the second partition containing information fields related to the connection over which the forwarded encrypted data payload is sent to the destination address. (emphasis added in opinion).
The Board had interpreted “information fields” in this claim to require “two or more fields.” However, Apple’s obviousness argument relied on Figure 21 of Grabelsky, which disclosed a partition with only a single field. Therefore, the Board found Apple failed to show the combination taught this limitation. Moreover, the Board found Apple failed to show a motivation to modify the combination to use multiple fields.
On claim construction, Apple contended there is a presumption that a plural term covers one or more items. Apple maintained that patentees can overcome that presumption by using a word, like “plurality”, that clearly requires more than one item.
The Court found that Apple misstated the law. In accordance with common English usage, the Court presumes a plural term refers to two or more items. And found that this is simply an application of the general rule that claim terms are usually given their plain and ordinary meaning.
The Court also noted that there is nothing in the written description providing any significance to using a plurality of information fields in a partition. The CAFC therefore found that absent any contrary intrinsic evidence, the Board correctly held that fields referred to more than one field.
Third, the Court looked to Claim 2 of the ’494 patent and claim 3 of the ’362 patent. Claim 2 of the ‘494 states:
…wherein the intermediate computer is further configured to substitute the unique identity read from the secure message with another unique identity prior to forwarding the encrypted data payload. (emphasis added in opinion).
The Board construed the word “substitute” to require “changing or modifying, not merely adding to.” Because it determined that RFC3104 merely involved “adding to” the unique identity, the Board found Apple had failed to show RFC3104 taught this limitation. The Board expressly addressed Apple’s argument from the hearing that “adding the header is the same as replacing the header because at the end of the day you have a different header than what you had before, a completely different header.” The Board disagreed with Apple and construed “substitute” to mean “changing, replacing, or modifying, not merely adding,” and observed that this construction disposed of Apple’s position.
The CAFC found no misconstruction by the PTAB with this interpretation. Moreover, the Court noted tat substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Apple failed to show a motivation to modify the prior art combination to include substitution. Apple relied solely on its expert’s contrary testimony, which the Court found the Board had properly disregarded as conclusory.
Fourth, the Court reviewed the PTAB’s interpretation of claim 9 of the ’494 patent, similar to claim 10 of the ’362 patent. Claim 9 of the ‘494 states:
…wherein the intermediate computer is configured to modify the translation table entry address fields in response to a signaling message sent from the mobile computer when the mobile computer changes its address such that the intermediate computer can know that the address of the mobile computer is changed. (emphasis added in opinion).
Apple argued that establishing a secure authorization in RFC3104 includes creating a new table entry address field as required by the claim. The Board disagreed, reasoning that “modify[ing] the translation table entry address fields” requires having existing address fields when the mobile computer changes its address. Accordingly, it found Apple failed to how the combination taught this limitation. Apple argued before the CAFC that the “configured to modify the translation table entry address fields” limitation is purely functional and, thus, covers any embodiment that results in a table with different address fields, including new address fields. The CAFC disagreed, finding as the Board held, the plain meaning of “modify[ing] the translation table entry address fields” requires having existing address fields in the translation table to modify.
Specifically, the Court reasoned that the surrounding language showing the modification occurs “when the mobile computer changes its address such that the intermediate computer can know that the address of the mobile computer is changed” further supports the existence of an address field prior to modification. Thus, the CAFC found that the limitation does not merely claim a result; it recites an operation of the intermediate computer that requires an existing address field.
Fifth and final, the Court reviewed claim 7 of the ’502 patent which recites:
…wherein the computer is configured to send a signaling message to the intermediate computer when the computer changes its address such that the intermediate computer can know that the address of the computer is changed.
The Court noted that the RFC3104 disclosed an ASSIGN_REQUEST_RSIPSEC message that requests an IP address assignment. Apple argued that, when a computer moves to a new address, the computer uses this message as part of establishing a secure connection and, in the process, the intermediate computer knows the address has been changed. The Board had found that the message was not used to signal address changes. Accordingly, the Board determined that Apple had failed to show that the intermediate computer knows that the address is changed, as required by the claim language. Apple reprises its arguments, which the Board had rejected.
The CAFC noted that claims 7–9 of the ’502 patent require a computer to send a message to the intermediate computer “such that the intermediate computer can know that the address of the computer is changed.” The Court affirmed the Board’s contrary finding was supported by substantial evidence, including MPH’s expert testimony and RFC3104 itself. MPH’s expert testified that a skilled artisan would not have understood the relevant disclosure in RFC3104 to teach any signal address changes. Agreeing with the PTAB, the Court found that the relevant disclosure in RFC3104 relates to establishing an RSIP-IPSec session, not to signal address changes. Hence, they saw no reason why the Board was required to equate communicating a new address and signaling an address change. They therefore concluded that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding.
In the end, the CAFC affirmed all of the Board’s final written decisions holding that claims 2, 4, 9, and 11 of the ’494 patent; claims 7–9 of the ’502 patent; and claims 3, 5, 10, and 12–16 of the ’362 patent would not have been obvious.
Take away:
Although the CAFC reviews claim construction and the Board’s legal conclusions of obviousness de novo, they are inclined toward giving deference to the PTAB. Caution should be taken in attempting to convince the CAFC that the Board has misconstrued claims unless there is a clear showing that the Board did not follow the Phillips standard (Claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning, which is the meaning one of ordinary skill in the art would ascribe to a term when read in the context of the claim, specification, and prosecution history).
Got A Lot To Say? Unfortunately, CAFC Affirm A Word Limit Will Not Prevent Estoppel Under 35 USC §315(e)(1)
| April 1, 2022
Intuitive Surgical, Inc., vs., Ethicon LLC and Andrew Hirshfeld, performing the functions and duties of the undersecretary of commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO.
Decided: February 11, 2022
Circuit Judges O’Malley (author), Clevenger and Stoll.
Summary:
The CAFC affirmed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal board (PTAB) terminating Intuitive’ s participation in an inter partes review (IPR) based on the estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. §315(e)(1).
35 U.S.C. §315(e)(1) states that “[t]he petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim in a patent under this chapter that results in a final written decision . . . may not request or maintain a proceeding before the Office with respect to that claim on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.” 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1).
On June 14, 2018, Intuitive simultaneously filed three IPR petitions against a Patent owned by Ethicon (U.S. Patent No. 8,479,969), each challenging the patentability of claims 24 to 26 but each based upon a different combination of prior art references. Despite being filed at the same time, one of the three petitions was instituted one month after the other two. Continuing on this varied timeline, the PTAB issued final written decisions in the two petitions that instituted earliest. As a result, the PTAB found that Intuitive was estopped from participating as a party in the pending third petition. The PTAB concluded that §315(e)(1) did not preclude estoppel from applying where simultaneous petitions were filed by the same petitioner on the same claim.
Intuitive appealed. Intuitive argued that the 14000-word page limit for IPR petitions meant they could not reasonable have raised the prior art from the third and pending petition in in the same petition as the others. Intuitive argued that §315(e)(1) estoppel should not apply to simultaneously filed petitions. Intuitive argues, moreover, that it may appeal the merits of the Board’s final written decision on the patentability of the claims because, “even if the Board’s estoppel decision is not erroneous, Intuitive was once “a party to an inter partes review” and is dissatisfied with the Board’s final decision within the meaning of § 319.” (Only a party to an IPR may appeal a Board’s final written decision. See 35 U.S.C. § 141(c) (“A party to an inter partes review . . . who is dissatisfied with the final written decision . . . may appeal.”). Section 319 of Title 35 repeats that limitation).
The CAFC disagreed arguing that the plain language of §315(e)(1) is clear. §315(e)(1) estops a petitioner as to invalidity grounds for an asserted claim that it failed to raise but “reasonably could have raised” in an earlier decided IPR, regardless of whether the petitions were simultaneously filed and regardless of the reasons for their separate filing. The CAFC reasoned that since Intuitive filed all three petitions, it follows that they actually knew of all the prior art cited and so could have reasonably raised its grounds in the third petition in either of the first two petitions. First, the CAFC concludes that the petitions could have been written “more concisely” in order to fit within two petitions. Second, the CAFC noted that Intuitive had alternative avenues, including (i) seeking to consolidate multiple proceedings challenging the same patent (see 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) (permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent)); or (ii) filing multiple petitions where each petition focuses on a separate, manageable subset of the claims to be challenged—as opposed to subsets of grounds—as § 315(e)(1) estoppel applies on a claim-by-claim basis.
Take-away:
- To avoid estoppel under 315(e)(1), when it is not possible to draft IPR petitions concisely, consider multiple petitions each focused on a separate manageable subset of claims or seek consolidation.
Forum Selection Clause Can Prevent IPR Fights
| March 25, 2022
Nippon Shinyaku Co., Ltd. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.
Decided on February 8, 2022
Lourie (author), Newman, and Stoll
Summary:
The Federal Circuit reversed the district decision’s denial of a preliminary injunction for Nippon Shinyaku because its agreement with Sarepta was clear to exclude filing IPR petitions, and Sarepta’s filing of IPR petitions clearly breached the agreement with Nippon Shinyaku.
Details:
On June 1, 2020, Nippon Shinyaku and Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (“Sarepta”) executed a Mutual Confidentiality Agreement (“MCA”) to enter into discussions for a potential business relationship relating to therapies for the treatment of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (“DMD”).
Section 6 of the MCA included a mutual covenant not to sue during the Covenant Term[1]:
shall not directly or indirectly assert or file any legal or equitable cause of action, suit or claim or otherwise initiate any litigation or other form of legal or administrative proceeding against the other Party . . . in any jurisdiction in the United States or Japan of or concerning intellectual property in the field of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.
Section 6 further stated:
For clarity, this covenant not to sue includes, but is not limited to, patent infringement litigations, declaratory judgment actions, patent validity challenges before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office or Japanese Patent Office, and reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office . . . .
After the expiration of the Covenant Term, the forum selection clause in Section 10 of the MCA is applied:
[T]he Parties agree that all Potential Actions arising under U.S. law relating to patent infringement or invalidity, and filed within two (2) years of the end of the Covenant Term, shall be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and that neither Party will contest personal jurisdiction or venue in the District of Delaware and that neither Party will seek to transfer the Potential Actions on the ground of forum non conveniens.
Here, “Potential Actions” is defined as “any patent or other intellectual property disputes between [Nippon Shinyaku] and Sarepta, or their Affiliates, other than the EP Oppositions or JP Actions, filed with a court or administrative agency prior to or after the Effective Date in the United States, Europe, Japan or other countries in connection with the Parties’ development and commercialization of therapies for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.”
The Covenant Term ended on June 21, 2021, at which point the two-year forum selection took effect. On June 21, 2021, Sarepta filed seven petitions for IPR.
District Court
On July 13, 2021, Nippon Shinyaku filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting claims against Sarepta for breach of contract, among other things. Nippon Shinyaku alleged that Sarepta breached the MCA by filing seven IPR petitions. Nippon Shinyaku filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Sarepta from proceeding with IPR petitions.
On September 24, 2021, the district court denied Nippon Shinyaku’s motion for a preliminary injunction and issued its memorandum order with the following reasons:
- There would be a “tension” that would exist between Sections 6 and 10 if the forum selection clauses were interpreted to exclude IPRs.
- Section 10 applies only to cases filed in federal court.
- Practical effects of interpreting Section 10 as excluding IPRs for two years following the Covent Term.
- Finally, Nippon Shinyaku did not meet its burden on second (suffer irreparable harm), third (balance of hardship), fourth (public interest) PI factors in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.
Federal Circuit
The CAFC reviewed a denial of a preliminary injunction using the law of the regional circuit (Third Circuit) for abuse of discretion.
The CAFC focused on the court’s interpretation of the MCA.
Based on the plain language of the forum selection clause in Section 10 of the MCA, the CAFC held that the forum selection clause is unambiguous because the definition of “Potential Actions” includes “patent or other intellectual property disputes… filed with a court or administrative agency,” and the district court acknowledged that the definition of Potential Actions literally encompasses IPRs.
The CAFC held that under the plain language of Section 10, Sarepta should have brought all disputes regarding the invalidity of Nippon Shinyaku’s patents in the District of Delaware.
The CAFC rejected Sarepta’s argument that IPR petitions must be filed in the federal district court in Delaware. Also, the CAFC held that there is no conflict or tension between Sections 6 and 10. The CAFC noted that this reflects harmony, not tension between two sections and this framework is “entirely consistent with our interpretation of the plain meaning of the forum selection clause.”
Finally, the CAFC noted that other factors of a preliminary injunction favored Nippon Shinyaku. As for irreparable harm, the CAFC agreed with Nippon Shinyaku’s argument that they would be “deprived of its bargained-for choice of forum and forced to litigate its patent rights in multiple jurisdictions.” As for balance of hardships, Nippon Shinyaku would suffer the irreparable harm, and Sarepta would potentially get multiple chances at a forum it bargained away. As for public interest, the CAFC rejected any notion that there is “anything unfair about holding Sarepta to its bargain.”
Therefore, the CAFC reversed the decision of the district court and remanded for entry of a preliminary injunction.
Takeaway:
- Companies will need to be extra careful when drafting nondisclosure and joint development agreements now that the CAFC held that clauses in those agreements can give up right to file challenges at the PTAB.
- Contracts can be used to waive the right to AIA review.
- This is a cautionary tale for attorneys to start paying attention to boilerplate parts of contracts.
- This is the first time that the CAFC held that it is not again the public interest to have forum selection clauses that exclude PTAB proceedings.
[1] Covenant Term is defined as “the time period commencing on the Effective Date and ending upon twenty (20) days after the earlier of: (i) the expiration of the Term, or (ii) the effective date of termination.”
Tags: contract > IPR > Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) > preliminary injunction
Broadcom Wi-Fi chips, and Apple smartphones, tablets and computers held responsible for patent infringements
| March 18, 2022
California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Ltd.
Decided on February 4, 2022
Lourie, Linn (Senior), and Dyk. Court opinion by Linn. Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part Opinion by Dyk.
Summary
On appeals from the district court for the judgment of infringement of patents in favor of Caltech, the patentee, against Broadcom totaling $288,246,156, and against Apple totaling $885,441,828 and denial of JMOL on infringement thereof, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the JMOL because the Court was not persuaded that the district court erred in construing the term “repeat” in the claim of the patent in issue, and that the record before the jury permits only a verdict of no infringement. Judge Dyk filed a dissenting opinion regarding the denial of JMOL on infringement.
Details
I. Background
The California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) filed an infringement suit against Broadcom Limited, Broadcom Corporation, and Avago Technologies Ltd. (collectively “Broadcom”) and Apple Inc. (“Apple”) at the District Court for the Central District of California (“the district court”). Caltech alleged infringement of its U.S. Patents No. 7,116,710 (“the ’710 patent”), No. 7,421,032 (“the ’032 patent”), and No. 7,916,781 (“the ’781 patent”) by certain Broadcom Wi- Fi chips and Apple products incorporating those chips, including smartphones, tablets, and computers. The accused Broadcom chips were developed and supplied to Apple pursuant to Master Development and Supply Agreements negotiated and entered into in the United States.
While the case involves several issues regarding these patents, this case review focuses on the issue of claim construction regarding the term “repeat” in the ’710 patent.
Caltech argued that the accused chips infringed claims 20 and 22 of the ’710 patent. Claims 20 and 22 of the ’710 patent depend from claim 15, which provides:
15. A coder comprising: a first coder having an input configured to receive a stream of bits, said first coder operative to repeat said stream of bits irregularly and scramble the repeated bits; and a second coder operative to further encode bits output from the first coder at a rate within 10% of one. (emphasis added)
Caltech specifically identified as infringing products two encoders contained in the Broadcom chips- a Richardson-Urbanke (“RU”) encoder and a low-area (“LA”) encoder. In the accused encoders, incoming information bits are provided to AND gates in the RU encoder or multiplexers in the LA encoder.
In its brief , Broadcom presents the following table, using the example of the functioning of a single AND gate, to show how outputs are determined by the two inputs:
| Input 1 (Information Bit) | Input 2 (Parity-Check Bit) | AND Gate Output |
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
For each AND gate, the output of the gate is 1 if both inputs (the information bit and the parity-check bit) are l ; otherwise, the output is 0. One consequence of this logic is that if the parity-check bit is 1 (as shown in rows two and four), then the output is identical to the information-bit input. If the parity-check bit is 0, the output is 0, 1regardless of the value of the input (rows one and three).
For the claim construction regarding the term “repeat” in the ’710 patent, Caltech advocated for the term’s plain and ordinary meaning. In contrast, Apple and Broadcom proposed a narrower construction, contending that “repeat” should be construed as “creating a new bit that corresponds to the value of an original bit (i.e., a new copy) by storing the new copied bit in memory. A reuse of a bit is not a repeat of a bit.” (emphasis added)
In pre-trial, at the conclusion of the Markman hearing, the district court construed the term “repeat” to have its plain and ordinary meaning and noted that the repeated bits “are a construct distinct from the original bits from which they are created,” but that they need not be generated by storing new copied bits in memory.
During trial, the district court instructed the jury that the term “repeat” means “generation of additional bits, where generation can include, for example, duplication or reuse of bits.” (emphasis added) Apple and Broadcom then argued that the chips did not infringe the ’710 patent because they did not repeat information bits at all, much less irregularly. The jury ultimately found infringement of all the asserted claims. Broadcom and Apple filed post-trial motions for JMOL and a new trial, challenging the jury’s infringement verdict. The district court denied JMOL, finding no error in its claim construction ruling and concluding that the verdict was supported by substantial evidence.
The district court entered judgment against Broadcom totaling $288,246,156, and against Apple totaling $885,441,828. These awards included pre-judgment interest, as well as post-judgment interest and an ongoing royalty at the rate set by the jury’s verdict.
Broadcom and Apple appealed.
II. The Federal Circuit
The Federal Circuit (“the Court”) affirmed the district court’s construction of the term “repeat” and JMOL on Infringement.
1. Claim Construction of “repeat”
Broadcom and Apple argued that the district court erroneously construed the term “repeat,” contending that the accused AND gates and multiplexers do not “repeat” information bits in the manner claimed, but instead combine the information bits with bits from a parity-check matrix to output new bits reflecting that combination. Broadcom and Apple further argue that the AND gates and multiplexers also do not generate bits “irregularly,” asserting that they output the same number of bits for every information bit.
The Court was not persuaded. The Court stated that the district court correctly observed that the claims require repeating but do not specify how the repeating is to occur: “The claims simply require bits to be repeated, without limiting how specifically the duplicate bits are created or stored in the memory.” (emphasis added) The Court further stated that the specifications confirm that construction and describe two embodiments, neither of which require duplication of bits.
2. JMOL on Infringement
Broadcom and Apple argued that, looking at each gate alone and the “repeat” requirement, AND gate does not “repeat” the inputted information bit “because the AND gate’s output depends on not only the information bit but also the parity-check-matrix bit.”
In contrast, Caltech argued that, considering the system as a whole, each information bit is in fact repeated, and they are not all repeated the same number of times. To support Caltech’s position, Caltech’s expert, Dr. Matthew Shoemake explained that in the parity-check-bit-equals-1 situation (second and fourth rows of the table), the output bit is a “repeat” of the information- bit input. Where the parity-check bit is 1, the gate affirmatively enables the information bit to be duplicated as the output bit. That is a ‘repeat’ … because the information bit in that situation ‘flows through’ to appear again in the output.”
The Court sided Caltech, and affirmed the district court’s denial of JMOL.
III. Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part Opinion
Judge Dyk disagreed with the majority’s holding that substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict of infringement of the asserted claims of the ’710 patent (and the ’032 patent) and stated that he would reverse the district court’s denial of JMOL of no literal infringement.
Given that the district court constructed the term “repeat” to mean “generation of additional bits, where generation can include, for example, duplication or reuse of bits,” Judge Dyk located the critical question to be whether there is substantial evidence that the accused devices cause “generation of additional bits.” Judge Dyk then pointed out that the problem for Caltech (and for the majority) is that Caltech never established that the accused devices generate “additional bits,” as required by the district court’s claim construction.
The infringement theory presented at trial explained that the accused devices work as follows: information bits are input into the accused devices, those bits travel down branched wires to the inputs of 972 AND gates, and three to twelve of those AND gates will be open for each information bit, thus outputting the bits a different number of times. In Judge Dyk’s view, for this theory to satisfy Caltech’s burden, Caltech was required to establish where, when, and how additional bits were generated. Judge Dyk stated the record does not support a theory that the branched wires generate additional bits.
Winning on Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness in an IPR
| March 11, 2022
Quanergy Systems, Inc.. v. Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc.
Opinion by: O’Malley, Newman, and Lourie
Decided on February 4, 2022
Summary:
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s validity decisions in two IPRs for Velodyne’s patent on lidar, relying substantially on Velodyne’s objective evidence of non-obviousness. Quanergy’s appeal attacked the PTAB’s presumption of a nexus between Velodyne’s product and the claimed invention. In particular, Quanergy challenged the nexus presumption by arguing that there were unclaimed features that attributed to the significance of Velodyne’s products, instead of the claimed invention. The Federal Circuit found the PTAB’s reasoning for how each alleged unclaimed feature resulted directly from claim limitations – such that Velodyne’s products are essentially the claimed invention – were found to be both adequate and reasonable.
Procedural History:
Quanergy Systems, Inc. (Quanergy) challenged the validity of Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc. (Velodyne) U.S. Patent 7,969,558 in two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as being obvious. The PTAB sustained the validity of the ‘558 patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision.
Background:
The ‘558 patent relates to a lidar-based 3-D point cloud measuring system, useful in autonomous vehicles. “Lidar” is an acronym for “Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging.” Lidar technology uses a pulse of light to measure distance to objects. Each pulse of light for measurement results in one “pixel” and a collection of pixels is called a “point cloud.” A 3-D point cloud may be achieved by making measurements with the light pulses in up-down directions, as well as in 360 degrees. Representative claim 1 is as follows:
A lidar-based 3-D point cloud system comprising:
a support structure;
a plurality of laser emitters supported by the support structure;
a plurality of avalanche photodiode detectors supported by the support structure; and
a rotary component configured to rotate the plurality of laser emitters and the plurality of avalanche photodiode detectors at a speed of at least 200 RPM.
Quanergy relied on a Mizuno reference that uses a “triangulation system” measuring the distance to an object by detecting light reflected from the object to image sensors. Quanergy also relied on a Berkovic reference that teaches the triangulation technique, as well as a time-of-flight sensing technique. To win on obviousness, Quanergy relied on a broad interpretation of “lidar” to encompass both triangulation systems and “pulsed time-of-flight (ToF) lidar.”
However, the PTAB construed “lidar” to mean pulsed time-of-flight lidar because the ‘558 specification exclusively focuses on pulsed time-of-flight lidar in which distance is measured by the “time” of travel (i.e., flight) of the laser pulse to and from an object. The PTAB also found that Mizuno does not address a time-of-flight lidar system. Instead, Mizuno’s triangulation system is a short-range measuring device. And, the PTAB held that the skilled artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Mizuno’s device to use pulsed time-of-flight lidar because Quanergy’s expert did not explain how or why a skilled artisan would have had an expectation of success in overcoming the problems in implementing a pulsed time-of-flight sensor in a short range measurement system such as that of Mizuno’s. Indeed, the Berkovic reference was found to suggest that the accuracy of pulsed time-of-flight lidar measurements degrades in shorter ranges, such as in Mizuno’s system.
But, more importantly, the PTAB relied substantially on Velodyne’s objective evidence of non-obviousness, which “clearly outweighs any presumed showing of obviousness by Quanergy” even if Quanergy satisfied obviousness with respect to the first three of the four Graham v John Deere factors (i.e., (1) scope and content of the prior art, (2) difference between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3) level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) any objective indicia of nonobviousness).
Decision:
As for the initial claim construction issue regarding “lidar,” the Federal Circuit agreed with the strength of the intrinsic record focusing exclusively on pulsed time-of-flight lidar, collecting time-of-flight measurements, and taking note of the specification’s boasted ability to “collect approximately 1 million time of flight (ToF) distance points per second, overcoming commercial point cloud systems inability to meet the demands of autonomous vehicle navigation. Indeed, the court found Quanergy’s arguments for a broader construction to be inconsistent with the specification and therefore unreasonable.
Quanergy also challenged the PTAB’s presumption of a nexus between the claimed invention and Velodyne’s evidence of an unresolved long-felt need, industry praise, and commercial success.
To accord substantial weight to Velodyne’s objective evidence, that evidence must have a “nexus” to the claims, i.e., there must be a “legally and factually sufficient connection” between the evidence and the patented invention.
The Federal Circuit may presume a nexus to exist “when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘embodies the claimed features, and is co-extensive with them.” This co-extensiveness does not require a patentee to prove perfect correspondence between the product and the patent claim. Instead, it is sufficient to demonstrate that “the product is essentially the claimed invention.” In this analysis, “the fact finder must consider the unclaimed features of the stated products to determine their level of significance and their impact on the correspondence between the claim and the products.” “Some unclaimed features ‘amount to nothing more than additional insignificant features,’ such that presuming nexus is still appropriate.” “Other unclaimed features, like a ‘critical’ unclaimed feature that is claimed by a different patent and that materially impacts the product’s functionality, indicate that the claim is not coextensive with the product.”
This presumption of a nexus is rebuttable. However, a patent challenger may not rebut the presumption of nexus with argument alone. The patent challenger may present evidence showing that the proffered objective evidence was “due to extraneous factors other than the patented invention” such as unclaimed features or external factors like improvements in marketing or superior workmanship.
Here, Quanergy argued that the PTAB failed to consider the issue of unclaimed features before presuming a nexus and failed to provide an adequate factual basis or reasoned explanation dismissing the unclaimed features argument. Quanergy argued that Velodyne’s evidence relies on unclaimed features, including high frame-rate, dense 3D point cloud with a wide field of view and collecting measurements in an outward facing lidar for 360 degree azimuth and 26 degree vertical arc. And, such unclaimed features are critical and materially impact the functionality of Velodyne’s products. Therefore, the requisite presumption of a nexus does not exist.
However, the court found that the PTAB considered, and adequately/reasonably did so, the unclaimed features arguments, reasonably finding that Veloydyne’s products embody the full scope of the claimed invention and that the claimed invention is not merely a subcomponent of those products. First, the PTAB credited Velodyne’s expert testimony providing a detailed analysis mapping claim 1 to description of Velodyne’s product literature. Second, the claims call for a 3-D point cloud and the density of the cloud and the 360 degree horizontal field of view (i.e., the ”unclaimed features”) “result directly” from the limitation for “[rotating] the plurality of laser emitters and the plurality of avalanche photodiode detectors at a speed of at least 200 RPM.” The “3-D” feature necessarily infers both horizontal and vertical fields of view. The PTAB also pointed to (1) contemporaneous news articles describing the long-felt need for a lidar sensor that could capture points rapidly in all directions and produce a sufficiently dense 3-D point cloud for autonomous navigation, (2) articles praising Velodyne as the top lidar producer and Velodyne’s products, and (3) financial information and articles reflecting Velodyne’s revenue and market share to show commercial success.
The court also found the PTAB’s analysis of those unclaimed features arguments to be commensurate with Quanergy’s presentation of the issue. Here, the court found Quanergy’s unclaimed features arguments to be merely skeletal, undeveloped arguments. In contrast, the PTAB’s explanation of how each alleged unclaimed feature results directly from claim limitations – such that Velodyne’s products are essentially the claimed invention – were found to be both adequate and reasonable.
Quanergy also presented new arguments (not previously presented to the PTAB) that, to obtain the dense 3-D point cloud, Velodyne’s products require the unclaimed critical features of (1) more than 2 laser emitters, (2) a high pulse rate, (3) vertical angular separation between pairs of emitters and detectors, and (4) a rotation speed significantly greater than 200 RPM. However, the court held that these new arguments, presented only on appeal, were forfeited.
Takeaways:
- This case is a good primer for how to best present or attack objective indicia of non-obviousness.
- One key to success for objective indicia of non-obviousness is expert testimony mapping claimed features to product literature and explaining how and why that description of the product is essentially the claimed invention. Other helpful evidence includes contemporaneous news articles about the long-felt need, praise for the subject product, and financial information/articles showing the company’s commercial success, presumably tied to the subject product.
- If unclaimed features are asserted to attack a presumption of nexus, expert testimony explaining how those alleged unclaimed features are direct results from claimed limitations, so as to side step the attack, is helpful.
- Skeletal arguments are insufficient. If making an unclaimed features argument, it is best to flesh it out before the PTAB in detail, otherwise it will be considered forfeited if newly presented on appeal.
CLAIMS ARE VIEWED AND UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SPECIFICATION AND THE PROSECUTION HISTORY
| March 7, 2022
Nature Simulation Systems Inc., v. Autodesk, Inc.
Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and DYK, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge DYK.
Summary
The Federal Circuit ruled in a split decision that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California erred in invalidating Nature Simulation System’s patents as indefinite.
Background
NSS sued Autodesk for allegedly infringing US Patents No. 10,120,961 (“the ’961 patent”) and No. 10,109,105 (“the ’105 patent”). The ’961 patent is a continuation-in-part of the ’105 patent, and both are entitled “Method for Immediate Boolean Operations Using Geometric Facets” directed to a computer-implemented method for building three-dimensional geometric objects using boolean operation.
The district court held a claim construction (Markman) hearing and subsequently ruled the claims invalid on the ground of claim indefiniteness, 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). In the hearing, Autodesk presented an expert declaration to request the construction of eight claim terms. NSS argued that construction is not necessary and the challenged terms should receive their ordinary meaning in the field of technology. The district court did not construe the terms. The district court explained that a claim term is indefinite, as a matter of law, if there are any “unanswered questions” about the term. The decision of the district court was based on two of the challenged terms in clauses [2] and [3] of Claim 1:
1. A method that performs immediate Boolean operations using geometric facets of geometric objects
implemented in a computer system and operating with a computer, the method comprising:
[1] mapping rendering facets to extended triangles that contain neighbors;
[2] building intersection lines starting with and ending with searching for the first pair of triangles that hold a start point of an intersection line by detecting whether two minimum bounding boxes overlap and performing edge-triangle intersection calculations for locating an intersection point, then searching neighboring triangles of the last triangle pair that holds the last intersection point to extend the intersection line until the first intersection point is identical to the last intersection point of the intersection line ensuring that the intersection line gets closed or until all triangles are traversed;
[3] splitting each triangle through which an intersection line passes using modified Watson method, wherein the modified Watson method includes removing duplicate intersection points, identifying positions of end intersection points, and splitting portion of each triangle including an upper portion, a lower portion, and a middle portion;
[4] checking each triangle whether it is obscure or visible for Boolean operations or for surface trimming;
[5] regrouping facets in separate steps that includes copying triangles, deleting triangles, reversing the normal of each triangle of a geometric object, and merging reserved triangles to form one or more new extended triangle sets; and
[6] mapping extended triangles to rendering facets.
The two terms are “searching neighboring triangles of the last triangle pair that holds the last intersection point” and “modified Watson method.” The district court stated that even if the questions are answered in the specification, the definiteness requirement is not met if the questions are not answered in the claims. NSS argued that on the correct law the claims are not indefinite.
Discussion
The Federal Circuit cited the opinion in Nautilus and emphasized that the claims are viewed and understood in the context of the specification and the prosecution history, as the Court summarized in Nautilus (Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 909 (2014) ).
The district court held the claims indefinite based on the “unanswered questions” that were suggested by Autodesk’s expert, as stated in the Declaration:
¶ 27. [T]he claim language, standing alone, does not specify which of those neighboring, intersecting triangles should be used to identify additional intersection points. Nor does the claim specify (where there are multiple potential intersection points for a given pair of neighboring triangles) which of the multiple potential intersection points should be used to extend the intersection line. Thus, the claim language is indefinite.
The Federal Circuit states that the “unanswered questions” is an incorrect standard and specifically pointed out that “ ‘Claim language, standing alone’ is not the correct standard of law, and is contrary to uniform precedent.” The Federal Circuit found that the district court did not consider the information in the specification that was not included in the claims and the district court misperceived the function of patent claims.
The Federal Circuit also noted that the court did not discuss the Examiner’s Amendment. During the prosecution of the ‘961 patent, the examiner discussed with the inventor and later suggested an amendment in the Notice Of Allowance to clarify the disputed language. The examiner suggested amending claim 1 and then withdrew the rejection based on the amendment. The amendment includes the limitation of the term in clause [3] as follows:
[3] splitting each triangle through which an intersection line passes using modified Watson method, wherein the modified Watson method includes removing duplicate intersection points, identifying positions of end intersection points, and splitting portion of each triangle including an upper portion, a lower portion, and a middle portion;
The Federal Circuit noted that the district court did not discuss the Examiner’s Amendment and held that the claims are invalid since the questions raised by Autodesk’s expert were not answered. The Federal Circuit found that the district court fails to give proper weight to the prosecution history showing the resolution of indefiniteness by adding the designated technologic limitations to the claims. The Federal Circuit further explained that “[a]ctions by PTO examiners are entitled to appropriate deference as official agency actions, for the examiners are deemed to be experienced in the relevant technology as well as the statutory requirements for patentability.” The Federal Circuit stated that “[i]t is not disputed that the specification describes and enables practice of the claimed method, including the best mode. The claims, as amended during prosecution, were held by the examiner to distinguish the claimed method from the prior art and to define the scope of the patented subject matter.”
Judge Dyk dissented from the majority and opined that the district court had read the patent claims in light of the specification to determine if it would inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty, which is exactly what is required under Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014). Judge Dyk also states that the majority simply does not address the problem that the limitations are “not describe[d]” in the patent, “ambiguous” and “unclear,” and “inconsistent with” Figure 13 and the accompanying text. In his view, the test for definiteness is whether the claims “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty,” but the majority relied on the fact that these limitations were suggested by the patent examiner.
Takeaway
- Claims are viewed and understood in the context of the specification and the prosecution history.
- Patent claims must provide sufficient clarity to inform about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.
