Make Sure Patent Claims Do Not Contain an Impossibility
Bo Xiao | March 12, 2021
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc., v. Dropbox, Inc.
February 12, 2021
PROST, REYNA and TARANTO
Summary
Synchronoss Technologies appealed the district court’s decisions that all asserted claims relating to synchronizing data across multiple devices are either invalid or not infringed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgments of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 2, with respect to certain asserted claims due to indefiniteness. The Federal Circuit also found no error in the district court’s conclusion that Dropbox does not directly infringe by “using” the claimed system under § 271(a). Thus, the Federal Circuit affirmed on non-infringement.
Background
Synchronoss sued Dropbox for infringement of three patents, 6,757,696 (“’696 patent”), 7,587,446 (“’446 patent”), and U.S. Patent Nos. 6,671,757 (“’757 patent”), all drawn to technology for synchronizing data across multiple devices.
The ’446 patent discloses a “method for transferring media data to a network coupled apparatus.” The indefinite argument of Dropbox targets on the asserted claims that require “generating a [single] digital media file” that itself “comprises a directory of digital media files.” Synchronoss’s expert conceded that “a digital media file cannot contain a directory of digital media files.” But Synchronoss argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been reasonably certain that the asserted ’446 patent claims require a digital media that is a part of a directory because a file cannot contain a directory.” The district court rejected the argument as “an improper attempt to redraft the claims” and concluded that all asserted claims of the ’446 patent are indefinite.
The ’696 patent discloses a synchronization agent management server connected to a plurality of synchronization agents via the Internet. The asserted claims of the ‘696 patent all include the following six terms, “user identifier module,” “authentication module identifying a user coupled to the synchronization system,” “user authenticator module,” “user login authenticator,” “user data flow controller,” and “transaction identifier module.” The district court concluded that all claims in the ’696 patent are invalid as indefinite. The decision leaned on the technical expert’s testimony that all six terms are functional claim terms. The specification failed to describe any specific structure for carrying out the respective functions.
The asserted claim 1 of ‘757 patent recites “a system for synchronizing data between a first system and a second system, comprising …” The district court found that hardware-related terms appear in all asserted claims of ‘757 patent. The hardware-related terms include “system,” “device,” and “apparatus,” all that means the asserted claims could not cover software without hardware. Dropbox argued that it distributed the accused software with no hardware. The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Dropbox.
Discussion
i. The ‘446 Patent – Indefiniteness
The Federal Circuit noted that the claims were held indefinite in circumstances where the asserted claims of the ’446 patent are nonsensical and require an impossibility—that the digital media file contains a directory of digital media files. As a matter of law under § 112, paragraph 2, the claims are required to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. “The primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent.” (MPEP 2173)
Synchronoss argued that a person of ordinary skill would read the specification to interpret the meaning of the media file. However, the Federal Circuit rejected the argument since Synchronoss’s proposal would require rewriting the claims and also stated that “it is not our function to rewrite claims to preserve their validity.”
ii. The ‘696 Patent – Indefiniteness
The ‘696 patent was focused on whether the claims at issue invoke § 112, paragraph 6. The Federal Circuit applied a two-step process for construing the term, 1. identify the claimed function; 2. determine whether sufficient structure is disclosed in the specification that corresponds to the claimed function.
However, the asserted claims were found not to detail what a user identifier module consists of or how it operates. The specification fails to disclose an “adequate” corresponding structure that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize and associate with the corresponding function in the claim. The Federal Circuit held that the term “user identifier module” is indefinite and affirmed the district court’s decision that asserted claims are invalid.
iii. The ‘757 Patent – Infringement
The ‘757 patent is the only one focused on the infringement issue. Synchronoss argued that the asserted claims recite hardware not as a claim limitation but merely as a reference to the “location for the software.” However, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s founding that the hardware term limited the asserted claims’ scope.
The Federal Circuit explained that “Supplying the software for the customer to use is not the same as using the system.” Dropbox only provides software to its customer but no corresponding hardware. Thus, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement.
Takeaway
- Make sure patent claims do not contain an impossibility
- Supplying software alone does not infringe claims directed to hardware.
- “Adequate” structures in the specification are required to support the functional terms in the claims.
Sorry Doc, no Patent Term Adjustment under the C-delay Provision!
Adele Critchley | March 1, 2021
Steven C. Chudik vs., Andrew Hirshfeld (performing the functions & duties of the under Secretary of Commerce for IP and Director of the US.PTO).
February 8, 2021
Bryson, Hughes, and Taranto (author).
Summary:
i. Background:
Dr. Chudik filed his patent application before the USPTO on September 29, 2006.
After the issuance of a second rejection in 2010 “Dr. Chudik took a step that would turn out to have consequences for the patent term adjustment awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)” by requesting continued examination rather than “immediately taking an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.”
Then in 2014, the Examiner again rejected the claims and Dr. Chudik appealed to the Board. As a result, the Examiner reopened prosecution and issued a subsequent office action rejecting the claims as unpatentable on a different ground.
Two more times Dr. Chudik appealed and each time the Examiner reopened prosecution and issued a new rejection.
In December 2017, while a fourth notice of appeal was pending, the Examiner withdrew several rejections; and after some claim amendments, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance in 2018. The application issued as a patent on May 15, 2018, eleven and a half years (11.5 yrs) after the patent application was originally filed.
Dr Chudick was given a patent term adjustment of 2,066 days under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b). The PTO rejected Dr. Chudik’s argument that “he was entitled to an additional 655 days, under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(C)(iii) (C-delay), for the time his four notice of appeals were pending.
ii. Issues:
Is Dr. Chuick entitled to patent term adjustment under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(C)(iii) (C-delay) for the time his four notice of appeals were pending, even though each time prosecution was reopened, and the case never proceeded to the Board?
iii. Holding
No, the CAFC agreed with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in affirming that Dr. Chudick was not entitled to the additional PTA under the C-delay provision. Chudik v. Iancu, No. 1:19-cv-01163 (E.D. Va. March 25, 2020), ECF No. 33.
The C-delay provision covers delays due to “appellate review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or by a Federal court in a case in which the patent was issued under a decision in the review reversing an adverse determination of patentability.” 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(C)(iii).
The District Court held and the CAFC affirmed that the provision does not apply here because the Examiner reopened prosecution after each Notice of Appeal and so (1) the Board did not review the patent at issue and thus “the Board’s jurisdiction over the appeal never attached,” and as a consequence “(2) there was no reversal of the rejection by the Board.”
Dr. Chudick “argued that [the] C-delay applies in situations of “appellate review,” which, he urged, refers to the entire process for review by the Board, beginning when a notice of appeal is filed.”
The District Court rejected this argument and the CAFC agreed holding that the statutory language for “appellate review” requires a “decision in the review reversing an adverse determination of patentability.” 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(C)(iii), and that language is both “reasonably” and “best interpreted” to require an actual “reversal decision made by the Board.” Consequently, the language excludes the “time spent on a path pursuing such a decision when, because of an examiner reopening of prosecution, no such decision is ever issued.”
The CAFC noted that “[W]hen adopting its 2012 regulations, the PTO explained that the limitations on C-delay adjustments… may be offset by an increased availability of B-delay adjustments.” However, for Dr. Chudik a B-delay increase fails to apply because rather than appealing his initial 2010 final rejection, a request for continued examination was filed and so the statutory exclusion was triggered. See 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(B)(i) (excluding “any time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant under [35 U.S.C. § 132(b)]”).
The CAFC concluded that “[T]he unavailability of B-delay for nearly two years (655 days) of delay in the PTO illustrates what applicants should understand when deciding whether to request a continued examination rather than take an immediate appeal. The potential benefit of immediate re-engagement with the examiner through such continued examination comes with a potential cost.”
Additional Note:
Congress set forth three broad categories of delay for which a patent may receive a patent term adjustment. See 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(A)–(C).
First, under § 154(b)(1)(A), a patent owner may seek an adjustment where the PTO fails to meet certain prescribed deadlines for its actions during prosecution.
Second, under § 154(b)(1)(B), adjustment is generally authorized for each day that the patent application’s pendency extends beyond three years (B-delay), subject to certain exclusions, such as for “time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant under section 132(b).”
Third, under § 154(b)(1)(C), a patent owner may seek an adjustment for “delays due to derivation proceedings, secrecy orders, and appeals,” including “appellate review by the [Board] . . . in a case in which the patent was issued under a decision in the review reversing an adverse determination of patentability” (C-delay).
Take-away:
- Where no new amendments and/or evidence is to be presented, carefully consider the balance between “[T]he potential benefit of immediate re-engagement with the examiner through such continued examination” and the “potential cost” thereof with respect to lost PTA under the B-delay exclusion.
- C-delay provision only applies when “the Board’s jurisdiction over the appeal” attaches and there is a reversal of the Examiner’s rejection.
Motion detection system found to be ineligible patent subject matter
Andrew Melick | February 18, 2021
iLife Technologies v. Nintendo
January 13, 2021
Moore, Reyna and Chen. Opinion by Moore.
Summary:
iLife sued Nintendo for infringing its patent to a motion detection system. Claim 1 of the patent recites a motion detection system that evaluates relative movement of a body based on both dynamic and static acceleration, and a processor that determines whether body movement is within environmental tolerance and generates tolerance indica, and then the system transmits the tolerance indica. In granting Nintendo’s motion for JMOL, the district court held that claim 1 of iLife’s patent is directed to patent ineligible subject matter under § 101. The CAFC affirmed the district court stating that claim 1 of the patent is directed to the abstract idea of “gathering, processing, and transmitting information” and no other elements of claim 1 transform the nature of the claim into patent-eligible subject matter.
Details:
The patent at issue in this case is U.S. Patent No. 6,864,796 to a motion detection system owned by iLife. iLife sued Nintendo for infringement of claim 1 of the ‘796 patent. Claim 1 of the ‘796 patent is provided:
1. A system within a communications device capable of evaluating movement of a body relative to an environment, said system comprising:
a sensor, associable with said body, that senses dynamic and static accelerative phenomena of said body, and
a processor, associated with said sensor, that processes said sensed dynamic and static accelerative phenomena as a function of at least one accelerative event characteristic to thereby determine whether said evaluated body movement is within environmental tolerance
wherein said processor generates tolerance indicia in response to said determination; and
wherein said communication device transmits said tolerance indicia.
Nintendo moved for summary judgment arguing that claim 1 is directed to patent ineligible subject matter. The district court declined to decide the eligibility issue on summary judgment and the case proceeded to a jury trial. After a jury verdict in favor of iLife, Nintendo moved for a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) again arguing patent ineligibility. The district court granted Nintendo’s motion for JMOL holding that claim 1 is directed to ineligible subject matter.
The CAFC followed the two-step test under Alice for determining patent eligibility.
1. Determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept such as laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. If so, proceed to step 2.
2. Examine the elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the claim contains an inventive concept sufficient to transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. If the claim elements involve well-understood, routine and conventional activity they do not constitute an inventive concept.
Under step one, iLife argued that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because claim 1 recites “a physical system that incorporates sensors and improved techniques for using raw sensor data” in attempt to analogize with Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and Cardio-Net, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020). However, the CAFC distinguished Thales because in Thales, “the claims recited a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a specific choice of reference frame in order to more accurately calculate position and orientation of an object on a moving platform.” The court in Thales held that the claims were directed to an unconventional configuration of sensors.”
The CAFC also distinguished Cardio-Net because the claims in that case were “focused on a specific means or method that improved cardiac monitoring technology, improving the detection of, and allowing more reliable and immediate treatment of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter.” The CAFC started that claim 1 of the ‘796 patent “is not focused on a specific means or method to improve motion sensor systems, nor is it directed to a specific physical configuration of sensors.” Thus, the CAFC concluded that claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of “gathering, processing, and transmitting information.”
Under step two, the CAFC stated that “[a]side from the abstract idea, the claim recites only generic computer components, including a sensor, a processor, and a communication device.” The CAFC also reviewed the specification finding that these elements are all generic. iLife attempted to argue that “configuring an acceleration-based sensor and processor to detect and distinguish body movement as a function of both dynamic and static acceleration is an inventive concept.” But the CAFC pointed out that the specification describes that sensors that measure both static and dynamic acceleration were known. The CAFC further stated that “claim 1 does not recite any unconventional means or method for configuring or processing that information to distinguish body movement based on dynamic and static acceleration. Thus, the CAFC concluded that merely sensing and processing static and dynamic acceleration information using generic components “does not transform the nature of claim 1 into patent eligible subject matter.”
Comments
When drafting patent applications, make sure to include specific details for performing particular functions and/or specific configurations. Claims including details about performing functions or about specific configurations will have a better chance to survive step one of the Alice test for patent eligibility. The specification should also include descriptions of why the specific functions or configurations provide improvements over the prior art to be able to show that the claims provide an “inventive concept” under step two of Alice.
“Kitchen” Sinks QuikTrip’s Trademark Opposition: The Federal Circuit Explains that Although Trademarks are Evaluated in their Entireties, when Determining Similarities between Trademarks, More Weight Is Applied to Distinctive Aspects of the Trademarks
WHDA Blogging Team | January 20, 2021
Quiktrip West, Inc. v. Weigel Stores, Inc
January 7, 2021
Lourie, O’Malley, and Reyna, (Opinion by Lourie)
Summary
QuikTrip filed a trademark opposition in the U.S. Patent & Trademarks Office (U.S.P.T.O.) against Weigel in relation to Weigel’s application for the trademark W Kitchens based on QuikTrip’s assertion that Weigel’s trademark is likely to cause confusion in relation to Quiktrip’s registered trademark QT Kitchen. The Board at the U.S.P.T.O. found that the dissimilarity of the marks weighed against the likelihood of confusion and dismissed QuikTrip’s opposition. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision. The Federal Circuit explained that the Board correctly evaluated the trademarks in their entireties, while properly giving lower weight to less distinctive aspects of the trademark, such as the term “kitchen.” The Federal Circuit also noted that although some evidence suggested that Weigel may have copied QuikTrip’s trademark, the fact that Weigel modified its trademark multiple times in response to QuikTrip’s allegations of infringement negated any inference of an intent to deceive or cause confusion.
Background
- The Factual Setting
QuikTrip operates a combination gasoline and convenience store, and has sold food and beverages under its registered mark QT Kitchens (shown below left) since 2011.
In 2014, Weigel started using the stylized mark W Kitchens shown at the top-right below (First Iteration). QuikTrip sent Weigel a cease-and-desist letter. In response, Weigel adapted its mark to change Kitchens to Kitchen and to adapt the stylizing as shown at the middle-right below (Second Iteration). In response, QuikTrip demanded further modification by Weigel, and Weigel again adapted its mark to further change the font, to add its’ name Weigel’s and to include “new open” as shown at the bottom-right below (Final Challenged Mark).
The U.S.P.T.O. Proceedings
Weigel applied to register its’ Final Challenged Mark with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (application no. 87/324,199), and QuikTrip filed an opposition to Weigel’s mark under 15 U.S.C. 1052(d) asserting that it would create a likelihood of confusion with its QT Kitchens mark.
The Board evaluated the likelihood of confusion and found that the dissimilarity of the marks weighed against the likelihood of confusion and dismissed QuikTrip’s opposition to Weigel’s registration of its mark.
QuikTrip appealed the Board’s decision to the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit’s Decision
The Federal Circuit reviews the Board’s legal determination de novo, but reviews the underlying findings of fact based on substantial evidence.
Here, the legal analysis involves the determination of whether the mark being sought is “likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion” with another registered mark. See 15 U.S.C. 1052(d) of the Lanham Act. The likelihood of confusion evaluation is a legal determination based on underlying findings of fact relating to the longstanding factors set forth in E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F. 2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973). For reference, these factors include:
- The similarity of the marks (e.g., as viewed in their entireties as to their appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression);
2. The similarity and nature of the goods and services;
3. The similarity of the established trade channels;
4. The conditions under which, and buyers to whom, sales are made (e.g., impulse
verses sophisticated purchasing);
5. The fame of the prior mark;
6. The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods (e.g., by 3rd
parties);
7. The nature and extent of any actual confusion;
8. The length of time during, and the conditions under which, there has been
concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion;
9. The variety of goods on which a mark is or is not used;
10. The market interface between the applicant and the owner of a prior mark;
11. The extent to which applicant has a right to exclude others from use of its mark;
12. The extent of possible confusion;
13. Any other established fact probative of the effect of use.
On Appeal, QuikTrip challenges the Board’s analysis regarding the Dupont factor number one (1) based on “similarity of the marks” and the Dupont factor thirteen (13) based on “other established fact probative of the effect of use” which other fact is asserted by QuikTrip as being the “bad faith” of Weigel.
- Factor 1 (Similarity of the Marks)
With respect to the first factor pertaining to the similarity of the marks, QuikTrip asserted that the Board incorrectly “dissected the marks when analyzing their similarity” rather than rendering its determination based on the similarity of “the marks in their entireties.”
First, QuikTrip argued that the Board improperly “ignored the substantial similarity created by … the shared word Kitchen(s)” and gave “undue weigh to other dissimilar portions of the marks.” In response, the Federal Circuit explained that “[i]t is not improper for the Board to determine that ‘for rational reasons’ it should give ‘more or less weight’ to a particular feature of the mark” as long as “its ultimate conclusion … rests on a consideration of the marks in their entireties.”
Here, the Federal Circuit indicated that the portion “Kitchen(s)” should “accord less weight” because “kitchen” is a “highly suggestive, if not descriptive, word” and also because there were numerous “third-party uses, and third-party registrations of marks incorporating the word “kitchen” for sale of food and food-related services.”
Moreover, the Federal Circuit explained that “the Board was entitled to afford more weight to the dominant, distinct portions of the marks” which included “Weigel’s encircled W next to the surname Weigel’s and QuikTrip’s QT in a square below a chef’s hat” emphasizing “given their prominent placement, unique design and color.”
The Federal Circuit also noted that the Board compared the marks in their entireties and further observe that: 1) the marks contained different letters and geometric shapes; 2) QuikTrip’s mark included a tilted chef’s hat; 3) phonetically, the marks do “not sound similar,” and the component Weigel’s adds an entirely different sound; and 4) the commercial impressions and connotations are different.
Accordingly, the Federal Circuit expressed that the Board’s finding of a lack of similarity was supported by substantial evidence.
- Factor 13 (Bad Faith as Another Probative Factor)
With respect to the thirteenth factor pertaining to asserted “bad faith” as being another probative factor, QuikTrip asserted that the evidence showed that Weigel acted in bad faith and that such bad faith further supported a finding of a likelihood of confusion.
However, the Federal Circuit explained that “an inference of ‘bad faith’ requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark.” Moreover, the Federal Circuit further explained that “[t[he only relevant intent is [an] intent to confuse.” The Federal Circuit noted that “[t]here is a considerable difference between an intent to copy and an intent to deceive.”
Accordingly, although the evidence showed that Weigel had taken photographs of QuikTrip’s stores and examined QuikTrip’s marketing materials, the Federal Circuit expressed that there was not an intent to deceive. In particular, the Federal Circuit emphasized that Weigel’s “willingness to alter its mark several times in order to prevent customer confusion [in response to QuikTrip’s cease-and-desist demands] negates any inference of bad faith.”
Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Board.
Takeaways
- In evaluating similarities between trademarks for the determination of potential likelihood of confusion, although the evaluation is based on the marks in their entireties, different portions of the marks may be afforded different weight depending on circumstances. Accordingly, it is important to identify portions of the mark that are more distinctive in contrast to portions of the mark that may be descriptive or suggestive or commonly used in other marks.
- Although “bad faith” can help support a conclusion of a likelihood of confusion, it is important to keep in mind that “bad faith” does not merely require an “intent to copy,” but requires an “intent to deceive.”
- In the event that a trademark owner demands an alleged infringer cease-and-desist use of a mark, if the accused infringer substantially modifies its trademark in an effort to prevent customer confusion, according to the Federal Circuit, such action would “negate any inference of bad faith.” Accordingly, in order to help avoid any inference of bad faith, in response to a cease-and-desist demand, an accused infringer can help to avoid such an inference by modifying its trademark.
Tags: “DuPont Factors” Test > Likelihood of Confusion under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) > Similarity of Marks > Trademark
