Same difference: A broad interpretation of “contrast” renders patented design obvious in view of prior art showing a similar “level of contrast”.
WHDA Blogging Team | October 19, 2020
Sealy Technology, LLC v. SSB Manufacturing Company (non-precedential)
August 26, 2020
Before Prost, Reyna, and Hughes (Opinion by Prost).
Summary
In nixing a design patent purporting to show “contrast” between design elements, the Federal Circuit broadly interprets “contrast” in the claimed design as not requiring a level of contrast that is different than what is available in the prior art.
Details
In their briefs to the Federal Circuit, Sealy Technology, LLC (“Sealy”) told the story about how, during a slump in sales around 2009, they re-designed their Stearns & Foster luxury-brand mattresses to visually distinguish their mattresses in a marketplace overrun with white or otherwise monochromatic mattress designs.
To be visually distinct, Sealy incorporated a “bold” combination of contrast edging running horizontally along the edges of the mattress and around the handles on the mattress.
Sealy claimed this design in their U.S. Design Patent No. 622,531 (“D531 patent”). The D531 patent claimed “[t]he ornamental design for a Euro-top mattress design, as shown and described”, with Figure 1 being representative:
The D531 patent did not contain any textual descriptions of the contrast edging in Sealy’s mattress design.
Sealy’s dispute with Simmons Bedding Company (“Simmons”) began shortly after the D531 patent issued, when in 2010, Sealy sued Simmons for infringing the D531 patent. The product at issue was Simmons’s Beautyrest-brand mattress:
in 2011, Simmons sought an inter partes reexamination of the D531 patent. During the first round of the reexamination, the Examiner interpreted the claimed design as including the following elements:
- The horizontal piping along the edges of the top and bottom of the mattress and along the top flat surface of the pillow top layer has a contrasting appearance.
- The [eight] flat vertical handles each have contrasting sides of edges running vertically with the length of the handles.
However, the Examiner declined to adopt any of Simmons’s requested anticipation and obviousness challenges. And when Simmons appealed the Examiner’s refusal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Sealy vouched for the Examiner’s interpretation.
Unfortunately for Sealy, the Board on appeal entered new obviousness rejections. A second round of the reexamination followed. This time around, the Examiner adopted the Board’s rejections, which Sealy was unable to overcome even after a second appeal to the Board. Sealy then appealed the rejections to the Federal Circuit.
Sealy raised two main issues on appeal: first, whether the Board correctly construed the “contrast” in the claimed design; and second, whether the cited prior art was a proper primary reference.
On the question of claim construction, the Board had determined that “the only contrast necessary is one of differing appearance from the rest of the mattress”, whether by contrasting fabric, contrasting color, contrasting pattern, and contrasting texture.
Sealy argued that the Board’s construction was too broad. The proper construction, argued Sealy, should require a more specific level of contrast, that is, “a contrasting value and/or color” or “something that causes the edge to stand out or to be strikingly different and distinct from the rest of the design”.
Sealy relied on MPEP 1503.02(II), which provides that “contrast in materials may be shown by using line shading in one area and stippling in another”, that “the claim will broadly cover contrasting surfaces unlimited by color”, and that “the claim would not be limited to specific material”. Sealy also argued that a designer of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the D531 patent as requiring a more specific degree of contrast than the Board’s construction.
The Federal Circuit disagreed.
The Federal Circuit agreed with the Examiner and the Board’s findings that the patent contained no textual descriptions about contrast in the claimed design, that the drawings did not convey a different level of contrast than the prior art, and that Sealy’s argument regarding the understanding of a designer skilled in the art lacked evidentiary support..
On the question of obviousness, Sealy challenged the Board’s reliance on the Aireloom Heritage mattress shown below, arguing that the prior art mattress lacked the requisite contrast.
The weakness in Sealy’s argument was that its success depended entirely on the Federal Circuit adopting Sealy’s claim construction. And because the Federal Circuit did not find that the claimed design required a “strikingly different” contrast between the edging and the rest of the mattress, the Federal Circuit agreed with the Board’s determination that the prior art mattress had “at least some difference in appearance” between the edging and the rest of the mattress. This was sufficient to qualify the Aireloom Heritage mattress as a proper primary reference.
Takeaway
- Consider adding strategic textual descriptions in the specification to clarify the claimed design. For example, in Sealy’s case, since the contrast in the claimed design is provided in part by contrast in color, it may have been helpful to include such descriptions as “Figure 1 is a perspective view of a mattress showing a first embodiment f the Euro-top mattress design with portions shown in stippling to indicate color contrast”.
- If color contrast is important to the claimed design, consider adding solid black shading to the appropriate portions. 37 C.F.R. 1.152 (“Solid black surface shading is not permitted except when used to represent the color black as well as color contrast”).
- If the color scheme is important to the claimed design, consider filing a color drawing with the design application. One of Apple’s design patents on the iPhone graphical user interface includes a color drawing, which helped Apple’s infringement case against Samsung because similarities between the claimed design and the graphical user interface on Samsung’s Galaxy phones were immediately noticeable.
LICENSING AGREEMENTS AND TESTIMONIES COULD BE USED AS EVIDENCE OF SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS TO OVERCOME OBVIOUSNESS ONLY WHEN THEY PROVIDE A “NEXUS” TO THE PATENTS
Sung-Hoon Kim | October 10, 2020
Siemens Mobility, Inc. v. U.S. PTO
September 8, 2020
Lourie (author), Moore, and O’Malley
Summary:
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final decision that claims of Siemens’s patents are unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit found that the PTAB’s findings in claim construction of “corresponding regulations,” and evaluation of Siemens’s evidence of secondary considerations are clearly supported by substantial evidence.
Details:
Siemens Mobility, Inc. (“Siemens”) appeals from two final decisions of the PTAB, where the PTAB held that claims 1-9 and 11-19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,609,049 (“the ‘049 patent) and claims 1-9 and 11-19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,824,110 (“the ‘110 patent) were unpatentable.
The ‘049 patent and ‘110 patent
Siemens’s ‘049 and ‘110 patents are directed to methods and systems for automatically activating a train warning device, including a horn, at various locations. The systems include a control unit, a GPS receiver, and database of locations of grade crossings, and a horn. Siemens’s two patent disclose that if that grade crossing is subject to state regulations, the horn is activated based on those state regulations. If that grade crossing is not subject to state regulations, Siemens’s system considers that crossing as subject to a Federal Railroad Administration regulation and sounds the horn when the train is 24 seconds or fewer away from the crossing.
Independent claim 1 of ‘110 patent:
1. A computerized method for activating a warning device on a train at a location comprising the steps of:
maintaining a database of locations at which the warning device must be activated
and corresponding regulations concerning activation of the warning device;
obtaining a position of the train from a positioning system;
selecting a next upcoming location from among the locations in the database based at least in part on the position;
determining a point at which to activate the warning device in compliance with a
regulation corresponding to the next upcoming location; and
activating the warning device at the point.
The claims of the ‘049 and ‘110 patents substantially similar.
PTAB
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (“Westinghouse”) petitioned for IPR, challenging claims of both ‘049 and ‘110 patents under §103.
The PTAB found that all challenged claims would have been obvious over two references (Byers and Michalek). In addition, the PTAB did not found Siemens’s evidence of secondary considerations to be persuasive. Finally, the PTAB found that a skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of both references.
Siemens appealed.
CAFC
Three aspects of the PTAB decisions at issue in the appeal:
- The board’s claim construction of “corresponding regulations”;
- The board’s evaluation of Siemens’s evidence of secondary considerations; and
- The board’s findings of a person of skill in the art would have combined both references.
As for the second issue, Siemens presented two license agreements to both patents. Also, Siemens provided evidence regarding Westinghouse’s request to license and testimony from Westinghouse employees regarding the strength of two patents.
Siemens argued that the PTAB improperly discounted this evidence for lack of nexus.
The CAFC did not find those license agreements to be persuasive.
The CAFC noted that the license agreement with Norfolk Southern was presented to the PTAB with royalty information redacted and that another license was provided only for a nominal fee. Also, the CAFC noted that a license request from Westinghouse was for avoiding the cost of a pending patent infringement suit.
Furthermore, the CAFC agreed with the PTAB’s position that testimony from Westinghouse “provided a scant basis for accessing the value of the ‘110 patent” because while the testimony referred to a “horn sequencing patent” or “automatic horn activation,” it did not provide any connection to the language of the claims.
Therefore, the CAFC held that the PTAB’s findings were clearly supported by substantial evidence.
Takeaway:
- In the obviousness analysis, a nexus is required between the merits of the claimed invention and the offered evidence.
- Licensing agreements and testimonies could be used as evidence of secondary considerations to overcome obviousness only when they provide a “nexus” to the patents at issue.
Tags: employee testimony > evidence of secondary considerations > licensing agreement > nexus > obviousness
Prosecution history estoppel applies to narrowing amendment for a purpose, but not for all purposes
WHDA Blogging Team | September 25, 2020
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Et Al. v. 10X Genomics Inc.
August 3, 2020
Newman, O’Malley (Opinion author), and Taranto
Summary
The Federal Circuit held that 10X infringes Bio-Rad’s ‘083 patent under the doctrine of equivalents because a tangential exception to the prosecution history estoppel applies in this case.
Details
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. and the University of Chicago (collectively, “Bio-Rad”) accused 10X Genomics Inc. (“10X”) of infringing three patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,888,083 (“083 patent”); 8,304,193 (“193 patent”); and 8,329,407 (“407 patent”). The United States District Court for the District of Delaware held that 10X willfully infringed all three patents and awarded damages in an amount of $23,930,716.
The patents-in-suit are directed to systems and methods for forming microscopic droplets (also called “plugs”) of fluids to perform biochemical reactions. Claim 1 of the ‘083 patent, as below, is representative:
A microfluidic system comprising:
a non-fluorinated microchannel;
a carrier fluid comprising a fluorinated oil and a fluorinated surfactant comprising a hydrophilic head group in the microchannel;
at least one plug comprising an aqueous plug-fluid in the microchannel and substantially encased by the carrier-fluid, wherein the fluorinated surfactant is present at a concentration such that surface tension at the plug-fluid/microchannel wall interface is higher than surface tension at the plug-fluid/carrier fluid interface.
During prosecution, the inventors amended the claims, as underlined above, to distinguish from a prior art, U.S. Patent No. 7,294,503 (“Quake”). Quake disclosed microchannels formed or coated with Teflon (a fluorinated polymer) or other fluorinated oils. Furthermore, the inventors argued that their invention attempts to prevent droplets from sticking to the walls of microchannels and requires that the “surfactant should be chemically similar to the carrier fluid and chemically different from the channel walls.” That is, the non-fluorinated microchannels and the fluorinated surfactant are required not to react with each other. This is the purpose of the amendment. In contrast, Quake did not teach that microchannels and carriers fluids were chemically distinct, and the fluorinated microchannels and surfactants could, therefore, react with each other.
After the litigation was filed, 10X modified its products to add 0.02% Kynar-a non-reactive amount of a fluorine-containing resin-to its microchannels. 10X concedes that the addition of this amount of Kynar is irrelevant to the functioning of its products. In the District Court, the jury found that 10X’s accused products, as modified, do not literally satisfy the “non-fluorinated microchannels” limitation, but meet the limitation under the doctrine of equivalents. On appeal, among other issues, 10X argued that prosecution history estoppel and claim vitiation barred Bio-Rad’s theory of equivalence. The District Court held that prosecution history estoppel does not apply in this case because the amendment at issue was only tangentially related to the accused equivalent.
On appeal, 10X continued to argue that prosecution history estoppel applies because the inventors’ amendment narrowed the claims to recite a “non-fluorinated microchannel” to overcome Quake, which taught “fluorinated” microchannels. As such, the inventors surrendered the right to expand their monopoly to cover microchannels containing fluorine, “for whatever purpose.” In response, Bio-Rad counter argued that the reason for narrowing the claims was peripheral, or not directly relevant to the alleged equivalent. Bio-Rad contends that the patentees amended the claims to make clear that the carrier fluid and the microchannel wall should be chemically distinct, which bears no more than a tangential relation to the alleged equivalent-microchannel walls containing a nominal amount of fluorine that is not chemically distinct from the carrier fluid. The Federal Circuit agreed with Bio-Rad, and reasoned that inventors surrendered microchannels coated with fluorine that reacted with carrier fluids, not those containing de minimis amounts of fluorine that have no effect on how the microchannel functions in the system. The narrowing amendment can only be said to have a tangential relation to the equivalent at issue-negligibly fluorinated microchannels, or microchannels with non-fluorinated properties. That is, the inventors surrendered microchannels coated with fluorine for a purpose, but not for all purposes.
Take away
- During prosecution, inventors should also explain in detail the purpose of the amendment of claims in order to narrow the scope surrendered by the amendment.
Tags: doctrine of equivalents > prosecution history estoppel > tangential exception
Be careful in translating foreign applications into English, particularly with respect to uncommon terms
WHDA Blogging Team | September 18, 2020
IBSA Institut Biochimique, S.A., Altergon, S.A., IBSA Pharma Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
July 31, 2020
Prost (Chief Judge), Reyna, and Hughes. Opinion by Prost.
Summary
In a U.S. application claiming priority to an Italian application, the term “semiliquido” was translated as “half-liquid.” This term was found to be indefinite, in view of a lack of a clear meaning in the art, as well as the statements of the prosecution history and specification. Further, attempts to argue that the term “half-liquid” should be interpreted as “semi-liquid” failed due to inconsistencies with the specification.
Details
IBSA is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,723,390, which claims priority to an Italian application. Claim 1 of the ‘390 patent is as follows:
1. A pharmaceutical composition comprising thyroid hormones or their sodium salts in the form of either:
a) a soft elastic capsule consisting of a shell of gelatin material containing a liquid or half-liquid inner phase comprising said thyroid hormones or their salts in a range between 0.001 and 1% by weight of said inner phase, dissolved in gelatin and/or glycerol, and optionally ethanol, said liquid or half-liquid inner phase being in direct contact with said shell without any interposed layers, or
b) a swallowable uniform soft-gel matrix comprising glycerol and said thyroid hormones or their salts in a range between 0.001 and 1% by weight of said matrix.
Teva filed an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification asserting that the patent is invalid. In particular, Teva asserted that claim 1 is invalid as being indefinite. Upon filing of the ANDA, IBSA filed suit against Teva.
The key issue in this case is the meaning of the term “half-liquid.” IBSA asserted that this term should mean “semi-liquid, i.e., having a thick consistency between solid and liquid.” Meanwhile, Teva argued that the term is either invalid, or should be interpreted as a “non-solid, non-paste, non-gel, non-slurry, non-gas substance.”
District Court
At the district court, all parties agreed that the intrinsic record does not define the term “half-liquid.” However, IBSA asserted that its construction is supported by intrinsic evidence, including the Italian priority application. The Italian priority application used the term “semiliquido” at all places where the ‘390 patent used the term “half-liquid.” In 2019, IBSA obtained a certified translation in which “semiliquido” was translated as “semi-liquid.” IBSA asserted that “semi-liquid” and “half-liquid” would be understood as synonyms.
However, the district court noted that there were other differences between the Italian priority application and the ‘390 patent specification, beyond the “semiliquido”/“half-liquid” difference. These differences included the “Field of Invention” and “Prior Art” sections. Because of these other differences, the district court concluded that the terminology in the U.S. specification reflected the Applicant’s intent, and that any difference was deliberate.
Furthermore, the district court noted that during prosecution, there was at one point a dependent claim using the term “semi-liquid” which was dependent on an independent claim using the term “half-liquid.” Even though the term “semi-liquid” was eventually deleted, this was interpreted as evidence that the terms are not synonymous.
Additionally, the specification cited to pharmaceutical references that used the term “semi-liquid.” According to the district court, this shows that the Applicant knew of the term “semi-liquid,” but chose to use the term “half-liquid” instead.
Finally, all extrinsic evidence was considered by the district court to be unpersuasive. The extrinsic evidence used the term “half-liquid” in a different context than the present application. As such, the district court concluded that the term “half-liquid” was “exceedingly unlikely” to be a term of art at the time of filing.
Next, the district court analyzed whether a skilled artisan would nevertheless be able to determine the meaning of the term “half-liquid.” First, the court noted that the claims do not clarify what qualifies as a half liquid, other than the fact that it is neither liquid nor solid. The district court concluded that one skilled in the art would only understand “half-liquid” to be something that is not a gel or paste. This conclusion was based on a passage in the specification that stated:
In particular, said soft capsule contains an inner phase consisting of a liquid, half-liquid, a paste, a gel, an emulsion, or a suspension comprising the liquid (or half-liquid) vehicle and the thyroid hormones together with possible excipients in suspension or solution.
Additionally, during prosecution, the Applicant responded to an obviousness rejection by including the statement that the claimed invention “is not a macromolecular gel-lattice matrix” or a “high concentration slurry.” As such, the Applicant disclaimed these from the scope of “half-liquid.”
Finally, the district court commented on the expert testimony. IBSA’s expert had “difficulty articulating the boundaries of ‘half-liquid’” during his deposition. Meanwhile, Teva’s expert stated that “half-liquid is not a well-known term in the art.”
Based on the above, the district court concluded that one having ordinary skill in the art would find it impossible to know “whether they are dealing with a half-liquid within the meaning of the claim,” and concluded that the claims are invalid as being indefinite.
CAFC
The CAFC agreed with the district court on all points. First, the CAFC agreed that the claim language does not clarify the issue. Rather, the claim language only clarifies that “half-liquid” is not the same as liquid.
As to the specification, the CAFC agreed with the district court that the portion of the specification noted above clarifies that “half-liquid” cannot mean a gel or paste. Moreover, the CAFC cited another passage, which refers to “soft capsules (SEC) with liquid, half-liquid, paste-like or gel-like inner phase.” The CAFC concluded that the use of the word “or” in these passages shows that “half-liquid” is an alternative to the other members of the list, such as pastes and gels. Meanwhile, since gels and pastes have a thick consistency, IBSA’s proposed claim construction is in contradiction with these passages of the specification.
Additionally, the CAFC refuted IBSA’s argument that the specification includes passages that are at odds with the description of “half-liquid” as an alternative to pastes and gels. These passages include:
…an SEC capsule containing an inner phase consisting of a paste or gel comprising gelatin and thyroid hormones or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof…in a liquid or half liquid.
However, this argument conflates the inner phase and the vehicle within the inner phase, and does not explain why these are the same.
Additionally, the CAFC noted that the specification includes a list of examples of liquid or half-liquid vehicles, and a reference to a primer on making “semi-liquids.” However, even if some portions of the specification could support the position that “half-liquid” and “semi-liquid” are synonyms, the specification fails to describe the boundaries of “half-liquid.”
Next, the CAFC discussed the prosecution history. As in the district court, IBSA asserted that “half-liquid” means “semi-liquid.” This was because the term “half-liquid” was used in all places where “semiliquido” was used, and a certified translation showed that “semiliquido” is translated as “semi-liquid.”
The CAFC agreed the use of “half-liquid” was intentional, relying on not only the differences between the Italian application and the U.S. application noted by the district court, but others as well. In particular, claim 1 of the U.S. application differed from claim 1 of the Italian application, and incorporated an embodiment not found in the Italian application. Further, the Italian application does not use the term “gel” in the first passage noted above.
The CAFC also agreed with the district court that the temporary presence of a claim reciting “semi-liquid” dependent on a claim reciting “half-liquid” further demonstrates that these terms are not synonymous.
Finally, the CAFC reviewed the extrinsic evidence. The CAFC noted the IBSA’s expert’s inability to explain the boundaries of the term “half-liquid.” The CAFC also pointed out that only one dictionary of record had a definition including the term “half liquid,” and this was a non-scientific dictionary. This dictionary defined “semi-liquid” as “Half liquid; semifluid.” But, IBSA’s expert stated that “semifluid” and “half-liquid” are not necessarily the same.
Further, although other patents using the term “half-liquid” were cited, these patents used the term in a different context, and thus were not helpful to define the term in the context of the ‘390 patent. IBSA’s expert acknowledged the lack of any other literature such a textbook or a peer-reviewed journal using the term “half-liquid.” Additionally, IBSA’s expert stated that he was uncertain about whether his construction of “half-liquid” would exclude gels or slurries.
Based on the above, the CAFC concluded that the term “half-liquid” does not have a definite meaning. As such, the claim is invalid as failing to comply with §112.
Takeaways
-When translating a specification from a foreign language to English, it is preferable that the specifications are as close to identical as possible.
-If there are differences between a foreign language specification and the U.S. specification, these differences should ideally be limited to non-technical portions of the specification.
-If using a term that is not widely used, it is recommended to clearly define this term in the record. Failure to do so may result in the term being interpreted in an unintended manner, or worse, the term being considered indefinite.
-Where there are discrepancies between a foreign priority application and a US application, such differences may be interpreted as intentional.
« Previous Page — Next Page »
