Making DJ Jurisdiction Easier to Maintain
John Kong | June 22, 2021
Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC
Decided on May 12, 2021
Opinion by: Dyk, Newman, and Hughes
Summary:
How many letters, emails, and/or telephone calls from an out-of-state patent owner to an alleged patent infringer does it take to establish specific personal jurisdiction over that out-of-state patent owner in the alleged infringer’s home state? Somewhere between 3 and 22, depending on the nature of those communications.
Procedural History:
Trimble and Innovative Software Engineering (ISE) filed a lawsuit in its home state (California), seeking declaratory judgment that it doesn’t infringe out-of-state (Texas) PerDiemCo’s patents. The district court dismissed the case for lack of specific personal jurisdiction over PerDiemCo, relying on Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 148 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[a] patentee should not subject itself to personal jurisdiction in a forum solely by informing a party who happens to be located there of suspected infringement” because “[g]rounding personal jurisdiction on such contacts alone would not comport with principles of fairness.”). The Federal Circuit reversed, finding specific personal jurisdiction.
Background:
PerDiemCo is a Texas LLC owning eleven geofencing patents monitoring a vehicle’s entry or exit from a preset area, electronically logging hours and activities of the vehicle’s driver. PerDiemCo’s sole owner, officer, and employee is Robert Babayi, a patent attorney living and working in Washington, DC, who rents office space in Marshall, Texas, that had never been visited.
Trimble is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Sunnyvale, CA. ISE is a wholly owned subsidiary LLC of Trimble, headquartered in Iowa.
Mr. Babayi sent a letter to ISE in Iowa offering a nonexclusive license and including an unfiled patent infringement complaint for the Northern District of Iowa and a claim chart detailing the alleged infringement. ISE forwarded that letter to Trimble’s Chief IP Counsel in Colorado, who was the point of contact for this matter. Mr. Babayi communicated “at least twenty-two times” by letter, email, and telephone calls with Trimble’s IP Counsel in Colorado, to negotiate and to further substantiate infringement allegations, including Trimble’s products, more patents, and more claim charts. PerDiemCo also threatened to sue in the Eastern District of Texas, identifying local counsel.
Personal Jurisdiction Primers:
- PerDiemCo’s communications with Trimble’s IP Counsel in Colorado are considered, for personal jurisdiction, purposefully directed to the company at its headquarters (in California), not to the location of counsel. See, Maxchief Investments Ltd. v. Wok & Pan, Ind., Inc., 909 F.3d 1134, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
- “[A] tribunal’s authority [to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant] depends on the defendant’s having such ‘contacts’ with the forum State that ‘the maintenance of the suit’ is ‘reasonable, in the context of our federal system of government,’ and ‘does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” “The contacts needed for [specific] jurisdiction often go by the name ‘purposeful availment.’” Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1024 (2021) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316-317 (1945)).
- From Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) and World-Wide Volkswagon Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980), courts determine whether the exercise of jurisdiction would “comport with fair play and substantial justice” by considering five factors: (1) the burden on the defendant; (2) the forum State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute; (3) the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief; (4) the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and (5) the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.
Decision:
In Red Wing, a cease-and-desist letter was deemed “more closely akin to an offer for settlement of a disputed claim rather than an arms-length negotiation in anticipation of a long-term continuing business relationship.” Accordingly, in Red Wing, this court held that “[p]rinciples of fair play and substantial justice afford a patentee sufficient latitude to inform others of its patent rights without subjecting itself to jurisdiction in a foreign forum.” However, this year’s Supreme Court Ford decision and other post-Red Wing Supreme Court decisions have emphasized that “analysis of personal jurisdiction cannot rest on special patent policies.”
Repeated communications stent into a state may create specific personal jurisdiction, depending on the nature and scope of such communications. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S 298, 308 (1992). And, the out-of-state defendant’s “negotiation efforts, although accomplished through telephone and mail, can still be considered as activities ‘purposefully directed’ at residents of [the forum].” Inamed Corp. v. Kuzmak, 249 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (applying Quill). Personal jurisdiction was held to be reasonable after the out-of-state defendant sent communications to eleven banks located in the forum state identifying patents, alleging infringement, and offering non-exclusive licenses, rejecting Red Wing and its progeny as having created a rule that “the proposition that patent enforcement letters can never provide the basis for jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action.” Jack Henry & Associates, Inc. v. Plano Encryption Technologies LLC, 910 F.3d 1199, 1201, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also, Genetic Veterinary Sciences, Inc. v. Laboklin, GmbH & Co. KG, 933 F.3d 1302, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Beyond the sending of communications into a forum, DJ jurisdiction can also be premised on other contacts, such as “hiring an attorney or patent agent in the forum state to prosecute a patent application that leads to the asserted patent, see Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2003); physically entering the forum to demonstrate the technology underlying the patent to the eventual plaintiff, id., or to discuss infringement contentions with the eventual plaintiff, Xilinx, Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, 848 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the presence of ‘an exclusive licensee … doing business in the forum state,’ Brekenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs., Inc., 444 F.3d 1356, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2006); and ‘extra-judicial patent enforcement’ targeting business activities in the forum state, Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale, 542 F.3d 879, 886 (Fed. Cir. 2008).”
The Supreme Court’s recent Ford decision reinforces “that a broad set of a defendant’s contacts with a forum are relevant to the minimum contacts analysis.” In Ford, personal jurisdiction could be exercised over Ford even though the two types of vehicles involved in the accident were not sold in the forum states. Specific personal jurisdiction simply “demands that the suit ‘arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.’” So, the broader efforts by Ford in selling similar vehicles and having dealerships in the forum states established specific personal jurisdiction.
Unlike Red Wing, which involved a total of three letters (asserting patent infringement and offering a nonexclusive license), this case involved twenty-two communications, “an extensive number of contacts with the forum in a short period of time [three months].” And unlike Red Wing “solely…informing a party who happens to be located [in the forum state] of suspected infringement,” this case’s communications continually amplified threats of infringement, including continually adding more patents, more products, suggesting mediation to reach a settlement on infringement allegations, and threat of suit in EDTx, identifying counsel that PerDiemCo planned to use. As such, “PerDiemCo’s attempts to extract a license in this case are much more akin to ‘an arms-length negotiation in anticipation of a long-term continuing business relationship’ over which a district court may exercise jurisdiction.”
As for whether specific personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice, the court found no fairness concerns as follows:
- Burden on the defendant: PerDiemCo’s office in Texas is “pretextual” (not an operating company, but merely an IP portfolio owner, with no employees in Texas) and is far from Washington, DC where Mr. Babayi lives and works. So, if Texas is ok, so is California.
- Forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute: ND Cal. has significant interest since Trimble is a resident there.
- Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief: Trimble is near the federal district court.
- Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies: no favor either way.
- The shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social polices: not applicable.
Takeaways:
- This case is a good refresher for specific personal jurisdiction in the DJ action arena for patent owners and accused infringers.
- Red Wing is NOT overturned. Quite the contrary, the court quotes from the Supreme Court’s recent Ford decision that treats “isolated or sporadic [contacts] differently from continuous ones,” and confirms that “Red Wing remains correctly decided with respect to the limited number of communications involved in that case.” The court only emphasizes that “there is no general rule that demand letters can never create specific personal jurisdiction.”
- In Red Wing, the patentee’s first letter asserted patent infringement and offered a nonexclusive license. The second letter granted an extension of time for a response and asserted more products as infringing the patent. The third letter rebutted Red Wing’s noninfringement analysis and continued to offer to negotiate a nonexclusive license. So, there was some “amplification” in the second letter, just like in this case. But, the continued back and forth negotiations in Red Wing was much more limited than in this case. Where do we cross the Red Wing threshold and enter into specific personal jurisdiction for a DJ action? It is not as simple as somewhere between 3 and 22. It is the nature of the communications – the continuing of negotiations “to extract a license” that likens the behavior/communications to “an arms-length negotiation in anticipation of a long-term continuing business relationship.”
- From this case, patent owners must be careful to avoid continued communications, whether by letter, email, or telephone, that as a whole can be construed to be a continuation of negotiations to extract a license or “an arms-length negotiation in anticipation of a long-term continuing business relationship.” If the desired nonexclusive license doesn’t look promising after just a handful of contacts, this case suggests that it is safer for the patent owner to hold off further back and forth negotiations and file a complaint in the patent owner’s preferred forum state, otherwise risk a DJ action in the accused infringer’s home court. For the accused infringer, this case suggests that stringing the patent owner out and creating more back and forth communications would help secure specific personal jurisdiction for a DJ action in the accused infringer’s home court.
Tailored Advertising Claims Are Invalidated Due to Lack of Improvements to Computer Functionality
Bo Xiao | June 8, 2021
Free Stream Media Corp., DBA Samba Tv, V. Alphonso Inc., Ashish Chordia, Lampros Kalampoukas, Raghu Kodige
Decided on May 11, 2021
Before DYK, REYNA, and HUGHES. Opinion by REYNA.
Summary
The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and found that the asserted claims directed to tailored advertising were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Background
Free Stream sued Alphonso for infringement of its US patents No. 9,026,668 (“the ’668 patent”) and No. 9,386,356 (“the ’356 patent”). The patents describe a system sending tailored advertisements to a mobile phone user based on data gathered from the user’s television. Claim 1 and 10 were involved in the alleged infringement. Free Stream conceded claims 1 and 10 are similar. Listed below is claim 1.
1. A system comprising:
a television to generate a fingerprint data;
a relevancy-matching server to:
match primary data generated from the fingerprint data with targeted data, based on a relevancy factor, and
search a storage for the targeted data;
wherein the primary data is any one of a content identification data and a content identification history;
a mobile device capable of being associated with the television to:
process an embedded object,
constrain an executable environment in a security sandbox, and
execute a sandboxed application in the executable environment; and
a content identification server to:
process the fingerprint data from the television, and
communicate the primary data from the fingerprint data to any of a number of devices with an access to an identification data of at least one of the television and an automatic content identification service of the television.
The asserted claims of ‘356 patent includes three main components: (1) a television (e.g., a smart TV) or a networked device ; (2) a mobile device or a client device ; and (3) a relevancy matching server and a content identification server. The television is a network device collecting primary data, which can consist of program information, location, weather information, or identification information. The mobile phone is a client device that may be smartphones, computers, or other hardware showing advertisements. The client device includes a security sandbox, which is a security mechanism for separating running programs. Finally, the servers use primary data from the networked device to select advertisements or other targeted data based on a relevancy factor associated with the user.
Alphonso argued that the asserted claims are patent ineligible under § 101 because they are directed to the abstract idea of tailored advertising. But Free Stream characterized the claims as directed to a specific improvement of delivering relevant content (e.g., targeted advertising) by bypassing the conventional “security sandbox” separating the mobile phone from the television.
The district court rejected Alphonso’s argument and applied step one of the Alice test to conclude that the asserted claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The district court found that the ’356 patent “describes systems and methods for addressing barriers to certain types of information exchange between various technological devices, e.g., a television and a smartphone or tablet being used in the same place at the same time.”
Discussion
The Federal Circuit agreed with Alphonso’s contention that the district court erred in concluding that the ’356 patent is not directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Claims 1 and 10 were reviewed by the Federal Circuit as being directed to (1) gathering information about television users’ viewing habits; (2) matching the information with other content (i.e., targeted advertisements) based on relevancy to the television viewer; and (3) sending that content to a second device.
Free Stream contended that claim 1 is “specifically directed to a system wherein a television and a mobile device are intermediated by a content identification server and relevancy-matching server that can deliver to a ‘sandboxed’ mobile device targeted data based on content known to have been displayed on the television, despite the barriers to communication imposed by the sandbox.” Free Stream also asserted that its invention allows devices on the same network to communicate where such devices were previously unable to do so, namely bypassing the sandbox security.
The Federal Circuit, however, noted that the specification does not provide for any other mechanism that can be used to bypass the security sandbox other than “through a cross site scripting technique, an appended header, a same origin policy exception, and/or an other mode of bypassing
a number of access controls of the security sandbox.” Also, the Federal Circuit pointed out that the asserted claims only state the mechanism used to achieve the bypassing communication but not at all describe how that result is achieved.
Further, the Federal Circuit went on to note that “even assuming the specification sufficiently discloses how the sandbox is overcome, the asserted claims nonetheless do not recite an improvement in computer functionality.” The asserted claims do not incorporate any such limitations of bypassing the sandbox. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “targeted advertising.”
The Federal Circuit further reached Step 2 because the district court concluded that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea at Step 1. Free Stream argued that the claims of the ’356 patent “specify the components or methods that permit the television and mobile device to operate in [an] unconventional manner, including the use of fingerprinting, a content identification server, a relevancy-matching server, and bypassing the mobile device security sandbox.”
The argument on Step 2 was also directed around bypassing sandbox security. The Federal Circuit explained that the security sandbox may limit access to the network, but the claimed invention simply seeks to undo that by “working around the existing constraints of the conventional functioning of television and mobile devices.” It was concluded that “such a ‘work around’ or ‘bypassing’ of a client device’s sandbox security does nothing more than describe the abstract idea of providing targeted content to a client device.” The Federal Circuit emphasized that “an abstract idea is not patentable if it does not provide an inventive solution to a problem in implementing the idea.” Finally, the Federal Circuit found that the asserted claims simply utilized generic computing components arranged in a conventional manner but failed to embody an “inventive solution to a problem.”
Takeaway
- An abstract idea is not patentable if it does not provide an inventive solution to a problem in implementing the idea.
- The “work-around” does not add more features that give rise to a Step 2 “inventive concept.”
Lying in a Deposition – Never a Good Policy
Fumika Ogawa | June 2, 2021
Cap Export, LLC v. Zinus, Inc.
Decided on May 5, 2021
Summary
Rule 60(b)(3) relieves a patent challenger of a final judgment entered in favor of a patentee where the patent challenger with due diligence could not discover a later-revealed fraud committed by the patentee during the underlying litigation in which the deposed patentee’s witness lied to conceal his knowledge of on-sale prior art determined to be highly material to the validity of the patent.
Details
Zinus owns U.S. Patent No. 8,931,123 (“the ’123 patent”) entitled “Assemblable mattress support whose components fit inside the headboard.” The invention allows for packing various components of a bed into its headboard compartment for easy shipping in a compact state. The concept may be seen in one of the ‘123 patent figures:
The application that resulted in the ‘123 patent was filed in September 2013.
In 2016, Cap Export, LLC (“Cap Export”) sought declaratory judgment of invalidity and noninfringement of the ‘123 patent in the Central District of California. The lawsuit eventually resulted in the district court upholding the validity of the ‘123 patent claims as not anticipated or obvious over all prior art references considered. The final judgment stipulated and entered in favor of Zinus included payment of $1.1 million in damages to Zinus, and a permanent injunction against Cap Export[1]. Particularly relevant to the present case is the fact that in the course of the lawsuit, Cap Export deposed Colin Lawrie, Zinus’s president and expert witness, as to his knowledge of various prior art items.
In 2019, Zinus sued another company for infringement of the ‘123 patent. This second lawsuit prompted Cap Export to learn that Zinus’s group company had bought hundreds of beds manufactured by a foreign company which apparently had a bed-in-a-headboard feature, before the filing date of the ‘123 patent. Colin Lawrie, the aforementioned Zinus’s president, appears to be involved in this transaction as the purchase invoice was signed by Lawrie himself.
Cap Export then timely filed a Rule 60(b)(3) motion for relief from the final judgment, alleging that Lawrie during the previous deposition lied to Cap Export’s counsel. Some questions and answers highlighted in the case include:
Q. Prior to September 2013 had you ever seen a bed that was shipped disassembled in one box?
A. No.
Q. Not even—I’m not talking about everything stored in the headboard, I’m just saying one box.
A. No, I don’t think I have.
In the Rule 60(b)(3) proceeding, Lawrie admitted that his deposition testimony was “literally incorrect” while denying intentional falsity because he had misunderstood the question to refer to a bed contained “in one box with all of the components in the headboard,” rather than a bed contained “in one box” (where most laypersons should know of the latter, if not the former).
The district court was not convinced, pointing to the fact that Cap Export’s counsel had rephrased the question to distinguish the two concepts. Also, emails were discovered showing repeated sales of the beds at issue to Zinus’s family companies, the record which Zinus admitted had been in its possession throughout the underlying litigation.
The district court set aside the final judgement under Rule 60(b)(3), finding that the purchased beds were “functionally identical in design” to the ’123 patent claims, and that Lawrie’s repeated denials of his knowledge of such beds amounted to affirmative misrepresentations. Zinus appealed.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed.
FRCP Rule 60(b)(3)
Rule 60(b)(3) relieves a losing party of a final judgment where an opposing party commits “fraud … , misrepresentation, or misconduct.” The Ninth Circuit applies an additional requirement that the fraud not be discoverable through “due diligence”[2]. A movant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the opposing party has obtained the verdict in its favor through fraudulent conduct which “prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting the defense.” Since the issue is procedural, the Federal Circuit follows regional circuit law and reviews the district court decision for abuse of discretion.
Due Diligence in Discovering Fraud
Zinus’s main contention was that the due diligence requirement is not satisfied, arguing that the key evidence would have been discovered had Cap Export’s counsel taken more rigorous discovery measures[3] specific to patent litigation.
The Federal Circuit disagreed, finding that due diligence in discovering fraud is not about the lawyers’ lacking a requisite standard of care, but rather, the question is “whether a reasonable company in Cap Export’s position should have had reason to suspect the fraud … and, if so, took reasonable steps to investigate the fraud.”
Here, Cap Export met the requirement because there was no reason to suspect the fraud in the first place. Lawrie’s repeated denials in the deposition testimony, combined with the impossibility to reach the concealed evidence despite numerous search efforts by Cap Export and the general unavailability of such evidence, forestalled an initial suspicion of fraud which would otherwise call for further inquiry into the possible misconduct.
Opponent’s Fraud Preventing Fair and Full Defense
The Federal Circuit also found that the district court had not abuse its discretion in judging other parts of Rule 60(b)(3) jurisprudence.
As to the existence of fraud, the Federal Circuit approved the district court’s finding of affirmative misrepresentations. There is no clear error where the district court rejected Lawrie’s explanation that the false testimony arose from misunderstanding and was unintentional, which lacks credibility given the fact that the deposition occurred within a few years from the sales at issue.
As to the frustration of fairness and fullness, the Federal Circuit noted that Rule 60(b)(3) standard does not require showing that the result would have been different but for the fraudulently withheld information, but showing the evidence’s “likely worth” is sufficient to establish the harm. As such, the concealed prior art does not have to “qualify as invalidating prior art,” but being “highly material” suffices.
The Federal Circuit endorsed the district court’s judgment that the concealed evidence “would have been material” and its unavailability to Cap Export prevented it from fully and fairly presenting its case. The determination rests on the underlying factual findings that the on-sale prior art is “functionally identical in design” to the ‘123 patent claims, and that without the misrepresentations, the evidence would have been considered by the court in its obvious and anticipation analysis.
The Opinion’s closing remarks appear to suggest an implication of the procedural rules such as Rule 60(b)(3) in allowing the patent system to achieve its core purpose of serving the public interest. Legitimacy of patents is preserved by warding off fraudulent conduct in proceedings before the court, the establishment which works only where parties give entire information for a full and fair determination of their controversy.
Takeaway
- A favorable verdict procured through fraud will be vacated under Rule 60(b)(3).
- Due diligence requirement under Rule 60(b)(3) is unique to the Ninth Circuit. In cases involving the patentee’s knowledge about prior art, reasonableness in the patent challenger’s discovery and investigation tactics, even if they didn’t expose a lie, likely satisfies this additional requirement.
- To establish the evidentiary value of the concealed prior art in a Rule 60(b)(3) motion, a showing that the information is “highly material” to presenting the movant’s case, if not “invalidating” the patent, would be sufficient.
- In the present case, the second lawsuit filed by the patentee (i.e., the lying party) led to the discovery of its own fraud. What could the patent challenger have done to safeguard against the patentee’s lies in the first lawsuit? Perhaps taking patent-specific standard discovery measures such as those noted at footnote 3 might help. Watch out for a patentee’s past transactions involving products manufactured by a third party, which might be “highly material” on-sale prior art simply because of its functional or design similarity to the patent claims.
- After a final judgment is entered, a losing party may benefit from monitoring the opponent’s litigation activity involving the patent at issue, which might lead to discovery of previously unknown information, allowing for a potential Rule 60(b)(3) relief.
[1] And a third-party defendant added during the litigation. The parties on Cap Export’s side are referred to collectively as Cap Export.
[2] The Federal Circuit notes that the diligence requirement is at odds with the plain text of Rule 60(b)(3) and does not appear to be adopted in other regional courts of appeals. Compare Rule 60(b)(2), which states that “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial.”
[3] Such as “[to] specifically seek prior art [in a written discovery request]; … [to] depose the inventor of the ’123 patent; and [to take] a deposition of Lawrie … [specifically] under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6).”
Inventors’ Agreements will not protect a former employer from the inventors’ future related work
Michael Caridi | May 27, 2021
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 10X Genomics Inc.
Decided on April 29, 2021
Before Taranto, Chen and Stoll. Opinion by Taranto.
Summary:
Bio-Rad attempted to assert that language in inventors’ agreements which were signed by two of the named inventors in the patents asserted against Bio-Rad made the patents their intellectual property by being subject to assignment. The CAFC disagreed noting that the agreements were too general is scope as asserted and 10X had failed to assert an earlier conception date.
Details
- Background
10X Genomics Inc. filed a complaint against Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. with the International Trade Commission, alleging that Bio-Rad’s importation and sale of microfluidic systems and components used for gene sequencing or related analyses violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1337.
The ITC found that Bio-Rad infringed the patent claims at issue and also that 10X practiced the claims, the latter fact satisfying the requirement of a domestic industry relating to the articles protected by the patent. Bio-Rad argued on appeal that the Commission erred in finding that Bio-Rad infringes the asserted claims of the patents, in finding that 10X’s domestic products practice the asserted claims of the ’530 patent, and in rejecting Bio-Rad’s indefiniteness challenge to the asserted claims of the ’530 patent. The CAFC disagreed and affirmed the Commission. These aspects of the appeal are not the subject of this paper.
In addition, the ITC rejected Bio-Rad’s defense that it could not be liable for infringement because it co-owned the asserted 10X patents under assignment provisions that two of the named inventors signed when they were employees of Bio-Rad (and its predecessor), even though the inventions claimed were not made until after the employment.
Regarding the timeline of invents of the work of the two inventors, around mid-2010, the two named inventors of the 10X patents—Dr. Hindson and Dr. Saxonov—were working for a company called QuantaLife, Inc., which Dr. Hindson had co-founded. Each of them signed an agreement (Dr. Hindson in 2009, Dr. Saxonov in 2010) that provided, as relevant here:
(a) Employee agrees to disclose promptly to the Company the full details of any and all ideas, processes, recipes, trademarks and service marks, works, inventions, discoveries, marketing and business ideas, and improvements or enhancements to any of the foregoing (“IP”), that Employee conceives, develops or creates alone or with the aid of others during the term of Employee’s employment with the Company . . . .
(b) Employee shall assign to the Company, with-out further consideration, Employee’s entire right to any IP described in the preceding subsection, which shall be the sole and exclusive property of the Company whether or not patentable.
In 2011, Bio-Rad acquired QuantaLife, and Drs. Hindson and Saxonov became Bio-Rad employees. In October of that year, they each signed an agreement that provided, as relevant here:
All inventions (including new contributions, improvements, designs, developments, ideas, discoveries, copyrightable material, or trade secrets) which I may solely or jointly conceive, develop or reduce to practice during the period of my employment by Bio-Rad shall be assigned to Bio-Rad.
Drs. Hindson and Saxonov left Bio-Rad in April 2012, and together they formed 10X in July 2012. By August 2012, 10X filed the first of several provisional patent applications that focused on using microcapsules in capsule partitions or droplet partition. By January 2013, the 10X inventors had conceived of a different architecture: “gel bead in emulsion” (GEM). The GEM architecture involves “part-tioning nucleic acids, DNA or RNA, in droplets together with gel beads that are used to deliver the barcodes into the droplet,” where the “barcodes are released from the gel beads using a stimulus.” The asserted 10X patent claims all involve this architecture. The CAFC found that the common core of the inventions in the asserted 10X patents is the use of gel beads with releasably attached oligonucleotide barcode molecules as a system for delivery of barcodes to nucleic acid segments.
After 10X began selling its products, including the GemCode and Chromium products, Bio-Rad released its own ddSEQ™ system, whose ordinary use, 10X alleges, practices its patents. The ddSEQ system uses oligonucleotide molecules that are attached to a gel bead and can be released from the bead via a stimulus.
- Opinion
On appeal, Bio-Rad renewed its argument, made as a defense to infringement, that it co-owns the three assert-ed patents based on the assignment provisions in the employment contracts signed by Drs. Hindson and Sax-onov. The CAFC noted that it is undisputed that, if Bio-Rad is a co-owner, it cannot be an infringer, per 35 U.S.C. § 262 (“[E]ach of the joint owners of a patent may make, use, offer to sell, or sell the patented invention . . . without the consent of and without accounting to the other owners.”). However, co-ownership itself was disputed.
The CAFC first noted that Bio-Rad did not present an alternative conception date (earlier than January 2013), and it lost the opportunity to argue conception of certain claim elements while Drs. Hindson and Saxonov were at QuantaLife.
The Court reasoned that Bio-Rad has furnished no persuasive basis for disturbing the Commission’s conclusion that the assignment provisions do not apply to a signatory’s ideas developed during the employment (with Bio-Rad or QuantaLife) solely because the ideas ended up contributing to a post-employment patentable invention in a way that supports co-inventorship of that eventual invention.
Examining the employee agreements, the CAFC found that the assignment provisions are limited temporally. The assignment provision of the QuantaLife agreement reaches only a “right to any IP described in the preceding section,” and the preceding (disclosure-duty) section is limited to IP “that Employee conceives, develops or creates alone or with the aid of others during the term of Employee’s employment with the Company,” before adding a limitation, stating: “All inventions . . . which I may solely or jointly conceive, develop, or reduce to practice during the period of my employment by Bio-Rad shall be assigned to Bio-Rad.”. Based thereon, the Court concluded that the most straightforward interpretation is that the assignment duty is limited to subject matter that itself could be protected as intellectual property before the termination of employment.
The Court went on to note that Bio-Rad did not argue or demonstrate, that a person’s work, just because it might one day turn out to contribute significantly to a later patentable invention and make the person a co-inventor, is itself protectible intellectual property before the patentable invention is made. Specifically, the CAFC stated:
Such work is merely one component of “possible intellectual property.” Bio-Rad Reply Br. at 3. In the case of a patent, it may be a step toward the potential ultimate existence of the only pertinent intellectual property, namely, a completed “invention,” but the pertinent intellectual property does not exist until at least conception of that invention. See, e.g., REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj, 841 F.3d 954, 958 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Dawson v. Dawson, 710 F.3d 1347, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1227–28 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The panel reviewed the current fact pattern in light of previous decisions on the issue of inventor’s employment agreements. Of note, regarding the FilmTec case (FilmTec Corp. v Hydranautics, 982 F.2d 1546, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1992)) cited by Bio-Rad involved language of an agreement, and language of the statutory command embodied in the agreement, that expressly assigned ownership to the United States of certain inventions as long as they were “conceived” during performance of government-supported work under a contract. The panel noted that in the Filmtec case the Court had examined the claimed invention, namely, a composition conceived during the term of the agreement, where conception meant the “‘formation in the mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice.’” Id. at 1551–52 (quoting Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
We noted that the inventor, continuing to work on the invention after the agreement ended, added certain “narrow performance limitations in the claims.” See id. at 1553. But we treated the performance limitations as not adding anything of inventive significance because they were mere “refine[ments]” to the invention already conceived during the term of the agreement. See id. at 1552–53. We held the claimed inventions to have been conceived during the agreement—something that Bio-Rad accepts is not true here. We did not deem a mere joint inventor’s contribution to a post-agreement conception sufficient. (Emphasis added).
The CAFC additionally reviewed the Stanford case (Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 583 F.3d 832, 837 (Fed. Cir. 2009), aff’d on different grounds, 563 U.S. 776 (2011)), also relied on by Bio-Rad, involved quite different contract language from the language at issue. The case involved a Stanford employee who was spending time at Cetus in order to learn important new research techniques; as part of the arrangement, the Stanford employee signed an agreement with Cetus committing to assign to Cetus his “right, title, and interest” in the ideas, inventions, and improvements he conceived or made “as a consequence of” his work at Cetus. The CAFC noted that the Stanford case was not a former-employee case and the language at issue in Stanford did not contain the temporal limitation set forth in the agreements at issue. The Court concluded by noting that the agreement at issue here did not contain the broad “as a consequence of” language at issue in Stanford.
The Court also examined the relevant aspects of the governing law of California which provides a confirmatory reason not to read the assignment provision at issue here more broadly. California law recognizes significant policy constraints on employer agreements that restrain former employees in the practice of their profession, including agreements that require assignment of rights in post-employment inventions. The Court noted that substantial questions about compliance with that policy would be raised by an employer-employee agreement under which particular subject matter’s coverage by an assignment provision could not be determined at the time of employment, but depended on an unknown range of contingent future work, after the employment ended, to which the subject matter might sufficiently contribute. The reasons behind the policy being that such an agreement might deter a former employee from pursuing future work related to the subject matter and might deter a future employer from hiring that individual to work in the area. The CAFC concluded that the contract language at issue does not demand a reading that would test the California-law constraints and they would not “test those constraints here by adopting a broader reading of the contract language than the straightforward reading we have identified.”
Finally, Bio-Rad had argued that Drs. Hindson and Saxonov conceived of key aspects of the claimed inventions, if not the entirety of the claims, at QuantaLife/Bio-Rad. The Commission had determined that many of these “ideas” are at a level of generality that cannot support joint inventorship or (sometimes and) involve nothing more than elements in the already-published prior art. Specifically, Bio-Rad contended that at least three ideas developed at QuantaLife were not publicly known in the prior art at the time Drs. Hindson and Saxonov were working on them: tagging droplets to track a sample-reagent reaction complex, using double-junction microfluidics to combine sample and reagent, and using oligonucleotides as bar-codes to tag single cells within droplets. After analysis of these concepts, the Court found that these contentions, by their terms, look to a time long before the January 2013 conception date for the inventions at issue and Bio-Rad did not deny that these ideas were in the published prior art by the time of the conception of the inventions at issue or that they were, by then, readily available to the co-inventors on the patents involved. Hence, the Court concluded that the contentions are insufficient to establish co-inventorship.
Specifically, the Court found that to accept Bio-Rad’s contention after giving the required deference to the Commission’s factual (and, in one instance, procedural) rulings would require that they find joint inventorship simply because Drs. Hindson and Saxonov, while at Bio-Rad (or QuantaLife), were working on the overall, known problem—how to tag small DNA segments in microfluidics using droplets—that was the subject of widespread work in the art.
- Decision
The CAFC concluded that Bio-Rad had not demonstrated proper ownership of “ideas” as comported to be assigned to them by the two inventors employment agreements. The general concepts relied upon by Bio-Rad were insufficient as Bio-Rad had failed to assert an earlier conception date. As such, the Court affirmed the Commission’s ruling.
Take away
- Broad language in an employment agreement assigning rights to inventions will not suffice to protect an entity from future work performed by the employees at a different entity.
- Employee agreements assigning rights to inventions conceived while employed need to be structured such that they are clear as to what is conceived is considered the property of the entity. The entity should take steps to clarify “conception” during employment to provide evidence thereof.
