The CAFC reviewed the PTAB’s application of the time-bar under § 315(b) and the obviousness determination
Miki Motohashi | June 20, 2018
WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corporation, ION International S.A.R.L. (collectively, “ION”); In re WesternGeco, LLC.
May 7, 2018
Before Wallach, Chen and Hughes. Opinion by Chen.
This is the latest Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) decision in a series of patent litigations since 2009. In this case, the CAFC reviewed two main issues appealed from six inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions.
Firstly, the CAFC reviewed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decision regarding the time-bar determination. Under § 315(b), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “may not institute an IPR where the petition ‘is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, the real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.’” However, the PTAB found that ION was not sufficiently close to the third party, Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. (“PGS”), “such that both should be bound by the trial outcome and related estoppels.” Thus, there was no privity between ION and PGS, and the time-bar was not applicable here. The CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s decision and this case was reviewed on the merits.
Secondly, the CAFC reviewed the PTAB’s determination of obviousness in the IPRs. Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,080,607 (the “’607 Patent”), the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s claim construction because WesternGeco’s argument relied on a part of the specification which only described preferred embodiment and could not rebut the PTAB’s rationale. With respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520 (the “’520 Patent”), the CAFC said the PTAB’s obviousness determination was correct because WesternGeco failed to show evidence of impermissible hindsight to prove obviousness. As for U.S. Patent No. 7,162,967 (the “’967 Patent”), the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s decision because the PTAB showed substantial evidence of obviousness which WesternGeco could not rebut. Also, WesternGeco did not show a nexus between the ’967 and ’520 Patents’ claims and any objective evidence of nonobviousness. The CAFC fully affirmed the PTAB’s conclusion.
Japanese Summary
本件は2009年に始まった特許訴訟で争われた一連の訴訟の最新のCAFC判決であり、CAFCは6つのIPRから控訴された2つの争点について判断した。
第一の争点は米国特許庁審判部(PTAB)による特許法第315条(b)項のTime-barの判断の正否であった。特許法第315条(b)項は、米国特許商標庁は、申立人、利害関係のある実際の当事者(real party in interest)、又は申立人と当事者関係(privity)のある者が当該特許の侵害を主張する告訴を受けた日から1年を超えて申立がなされた場合、IPRを開始することはできないと規定している。本件では、PTABは、ION社はPGS社のIPRの結果に拘束されるほど十分にPGS社と密接な関係をもっていないので、ION社とPGS社の間に当事者関係がないとした。CAFCはPTABの判断を支持し、本件の実体的事項を検討する(on the merits)とした。
第二の争点は、先のIPRにおけるPTABの自明性判断であった。607特許に関しては、WesternGeco社が自社の主張に引用した明細書の箇所は、実施例を述べているだけであり、PTABの解釈を反駁できなかったので、CAFCはPTABのクレーム解釈を認めた。520特許については、WesternGeco社は、PTABが「不当な後知恵(impermissible hindsight)」を用いたという証拠を示さなかったので、CAFCはPTABの自明性の判断を支持した。967特許については、PTABは自明である明白な証拠を示しており、WesternGeco社はそれに反論できなかった。さらに、WesternGeco社は967特許と520特許のクレームと、非自明性の証拠の因果関係(nexus)を示さなかったのでCAFCはPTABの解釈を支持した。
The Definiteness Standard for AIA Trials is Still Undecided
Andrew Melick | June 7, 2018
Tinnus Enterprises LLC v. Telebrands Corp.
May 30, 2018
O’Malley, Wallach and Hughes. Opinion by O’Malley.
Summary:
This case is an appeal from a final decision from the PTAB in a Post-Grant Review (“PGR”) finding that the claims in U.S. Patent No. 9,051,066 are indefinite applying the In re Packard standard for definiteness. Tinnus Enterprises LLC (“Tinnus”) argued that the Nautilus standard for definiteness is the proper standard, but that the claims are definite under either standard. The CAFC declined to decide which definiteness standard is correct for a PGR at the USPTO. The CAFC instead held that the claims are definite under either standard, and thus reversed the PTAB’s decision of invalidity due to indefiniteness.
The test for obviousness is controlled by what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done based on the teachings of the references
WHDA Blogging Team | May 25, 2018
In re: Daryl David Coutts
April 6, 2018
Before Dyk, Wallach and Chen. Opinion per curiam.
Summary
The inventor Daryl David Coutts has a patent application 11/836,293 rejected by the Examiner and the Board (Patent Trail and Appeal Board) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness as being unpatentable over the combination of three prior arts (Cheung, Awada, and Kang). The Board stated that the patent application would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art by combining these prior arts.
However Mr. Coutts argued that the patent application is not obvious over the prior arts because, for a particular claim limitation/feature, the inventors of Cheung knew of this particular claim feature but did not claim it in their patent application and therefore the combination of Cheung and the claim feature could not have been obvious. The Court of Appeals of Federal Circuit (the “Court”) affirmed the decision of the Board and also affirmed that the test of obviousness is controlled by what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done based on the teaching of the references and not what the inventors of the prior art would have done. In other words, what the prior art inventors would have done is not relevant for the obviousness test.
What do dioxaborinanes and benzoxaboroles have in common? They both exhibit activity against fungi, and so Anacor failed before the Federal Circuit, which could not have been fun-guys…
Adele Critchley | May 17, 2018
Anacor Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. PTO; case number 17-1947
May 14, 2018
Before Reyna, Bryson and Stoll. Opinion by Bryson.
要旨:
本件は、米国特許庁審判部の無効審決に対する控訴事件であり、争点は自明性に関するものである。具体的には、既存の組成物を利用した新しい治療法の特許に関する。CAFCは以下のような判断を示した。まず、似たような組成物同士が一定の特性を共通に備えている場合、他の関連する特性においても共通していると推定するのが合理的である。また、組成物同士の構造上の類似性は、組合せの動機づけや「当該組合せの成功に対する合理的な期待」を評価する上で重要な要素である。類似の構造を備える組成物同士が類似の特性を持つこと、また、構造の類似性が特性の類似性を示唆することは、長年の実務慣行である。一方、化学の分野では予測できない結果も起こり得るので、構造の類似性が常に特性の類似性につながるとは限らない。したがって、自明性の判断は、しばしば、構造上の類似性と機能的な類似性との間に強い関連性があることが証拠によって証明されたか否かに依存する。本件では、Austin引例とBrehove引例とに開示された組成部には限られた構造上の類似性しかなかったのであるが、構造および機能の類似性に鑑みれば、無効という判断を支持する十分な証拠があると判断された。(中村剛)
Summary:
This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding. The Board held all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,582,621 (‘621 patent) owned by Anacor pharmaceuticals Inc., (Anacor) to be unpatentable for obviousness. The patent is directed to the use of 1,3- dihydro-5-fluoro-1-hydroxy-2,1-benzoxaborole is also known as tavaborole. When applied topically, tavaborole can penetrate the nail plate and treat an underlying fungal infection. Anacor appealed only one of the rejected claims.
