2020 FALL NEWSLETTER - staasandhalsey.com
16
2020 FALL NEWSLETTER TABLE OF CONTENTS U.S. SUPREME COURT 1. Google LLC vs. Oracle America, Inc. – U.S. copyright protection for software interfaces. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 1. Amgen Inc. v Sanofi, Aventisub LLC – CAFC heard argument that may influence COVID-19 drug patentability. 2. Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC – CAFC applies Lexmark analytical framework as the applicable standard to determine whether a person is eligible to bring a petition for the cancellation of a trademark registration. 3. Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC – The CAFC identified the proper standard for the “problem” analysis in analogous art as “the problems to which the claimed invention and reference at issue relate must be identified and compared from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art”. 4. In re Google Technology Holdings LLC - Arguments regarding patentability of a claim, such as claim construction, should be presented to both the Examiner as well as the PTAB once an Examiner makes a prima facie case for rejecting an application. 5. IQASR vs. Wendt - A patent application must be drafted to define claims terms such that that a person of ordinary skill can clearly understand the claim scope with reasonably certainty. 6. St. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLC - The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim must be considered in light of the specification. USPTO NEWS 1. USPTO Trademark Fee Increase Effective January 2, 2021 S&H FIRM NEWS 1. S&H Celebrates 50 Years in 2021 2. Going Paperless 3. Continuing Uninterrupted in view of COVID-19 1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. 7TH FLOOR WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 202.434.1500 202.434.1501 [email protected]
Transcript of 2020 FALL NEWSLETTER - staasandhalsey.com
2020 FALL NEWSLETTER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
U.S. SUPREME COURT 1. Google LLC vs. Oracle America, Inc. – U.S. copyright protection for
software interfaces.
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 1. Amgen Inc. v Sanofi, Aventisub LLC – CAFC heard argument that may
influenceCOVID-19drugpatentability. 2. Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC – CAFCappliesLexmarkanalytical frameworkastheapplicablestandardtodeterminewhetherapersonis eligibletobringapetitionforthecancellationofatrademarkregistration. 3. Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC – The CAFC identifiedtheproperstandardforthe“problem”analysisinanalogousart as“theproblemstowhichtheclaimedinventionandreferenceatissue relatemustbeidentifiedandcomparedfromtheperspectiveofaperson havingordinaryskillintheart”. 4. In re Google Technology Holdings LLC - Argumentsregardingpatentability ofaclaim,suchasclaimconstruction,shouldbepresentedtoboththe ExamineraswellasthePTABonceanExaminermakesaprima facie caseforrejectinganapplication. 5. IQASR vs. Wendt - Apatentapplicationmustbedraftedtodefineclaims termssuchthatthatapersonofordinaryskillcanclearlyunderstandthe claimscopewithreasonablycertainty. 6. St. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLC-Thebroadest reasonableinterpretationofaclaimmustbeconsideredinlightofthe specification.
USPTO NEWS 1. USPTOTrademarkFeeIncreaseEffectiveJanuary2,2021 S&H FIRM NEWS 1. S&HCelebrates50Yearsin2021 2. GoingPaperless 3. ContinuingUninterruptedinviewofCOVID-19
1201NEWYORKAVENUE,N.W.WASHINGTON,D.C.
1201NEWYORKAVENUE,N.W.7THFLOORWASHINGTON,[email protected]
1201NEWYORKAVENUE,N.W.7THFLOORWASHINGTON,[email protected]
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
U.S. copyright protection for software interfaces.
Background
In2008,GoogleLLC(“Google”)releasedAndroid,“anopen-sourceplatformdesignedtoenablemobiledevicessuchassmartphonesandtablets.TheAndroidplatformwasbuiltusingtheJavaprogramminglanguagedevelopedbySunMicrosystems,whichwaslateracquiredbyOracleAmerican,Inc.(“Oracle”).PriortoOracle’sacquisitionofSunMicrosystems,GooglereplicatedthesyntaxandstructureoftheJavaapplicationprogramminginterface(“API”)withintheAndroidplatformtoensurethird-partydeveloperscouldutilizetheprewrittenmethodsanddeclarationsknownwithinJava’sAPIlibraries.Googlereplicated“37JavaAPIlibrariesthatweredeterminedbyGoogletobe‘keytomobiledevices,’”whichattributedtoonly3%oftheAndroidenvironment.Googleindependentlywrotetheremainderofthecodeto“accommodatetheuniquechallenges”ofthemobiledeviceenvironment.UponitsacquisitionofSunMicrosystems,OraclesuedGoogleintheU.S.DistrictCourtfortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia(“DistrictCourt”),allegingcopyrightinfringementforthereplicatedcode.
Attheendoftrial,theDistrictCourtheldtheJavaAPIwasnotcopyrightableandrejectedGoogle’sfairusedefense,whichpermitstheunlicenseduseofcopyright-protectedworksincertaincircumstances.Onappeal,theU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit(“FederalCircuit”)reversedandremandedthedistrictcourt’sdecision.Specifically,theFederalCircuitfoundtheJavaAPIwassubjecttocopyrightprotectionandremandedthecasebecausetherewasalackofsufficientfactualfindingstoresolvethefairuseissueraisedbyGoogleintheDistrictCourt.Onremand,thejuryconcludedGoogle’suseoftheJavaAPIconstitutedfairuse.Oracletimelyappealed.OnceagainonappealintheFederalCircuit,thecourtoverturnedthejury’sverdict,findingGoogledidnotengageinfairuseasamatteroflaw.Googlesubsequentlypetitionedforcertiorari,whichthe Supreme Court granted.
Oral Argument at the U.S. Supreme Court
Asnoted,thequestionsbeforetheSupremeCourtarewhethercopyrightprotectionextendstoasoftwareinterface,andwhetherGoogle’suseofasoftwareinterfaceinthecontextofcreatinganewcomputerprogramconstitutesfairuse.Initspetitionforcertiorari,GoogleassertsthatiftheFederalCircuit’sapproachisallowedtostand,“developerswillbeforcedtoabandontheirtraditionalbuilding-blockapproachtosoftwareinterfacedevelopment,”andinturn,“wouldhaveadevastatingimpactonthedevelopmentofcomputersoftware.”Nevertheless,OracleassertsthatafindinginfavorofGooglewouldpenalizesoftwaredevelopersforsimplycreatingasoftwareinterfacepopularenoughsincethatwouldallowothercompaniestouseitwithoutconsequenceunderthefairusedoctrine.
TheSupremeCourtheldoralargumentsinthecaseonOctober7,2020.
Googlearguedatpages3,4,and5ofthetranscriptthat:
Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., Dkt. 18-956 (S. Ct. 2018)
1201NEWYORKAVENUE,N.W.7THFLOORWASHINGTON,[email protected]
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Themergerdoctrineresolvedthecopyrightabilityquestioninthiscase.Oraclehasacopyrighttothe computercodeinJavaSEbutnotapatent.Thatmeansthatthepublic,notOracle,hasthe righttoJavaSE’sfunction,andOraclecannotleverageitscopyrighttocreatepatent-likerights. Specifically,underthemergerdoctrine,thereisnocopyrightprotectionforcomputercodethatis theonlywaytoperformthosefunctions. Here,Javasoftwaredevelopershavetherighttousecertaincommandstocreateapplicationsfor Google’sAndroidsmartphoneplatform,but,towork,thecommandsrequireGoogletoreuseanexact setofdeclarationsfromJavaSE,likeakeythatfitsintoalock.
Becausetherearenosubstitutes,Oracleisimpermissiblyclaimingtheexclusiverightnotmerelyto whatthedeclarationssaybutalsotowhatthedeclarationsdo.Thatisnotacopyright;itisa patent right.
Withrespecttofairuse,thelong-settledpracticeofreusingsoftwareinterfacesiscriticaltomodern interoperablecomputersoftware.Here,reusingtheminimallycreativedeclarationsallowedthe developerstowritemillionsofcreativeapplicationsthatareusedbymorethanabillionpeople.
ButthosepolicyquestionsarealmostacademicbecausetheissueisnotwhetherthisCourtwould findfairuse.Thestandardofreviewasksthemuchnarrowerquestionwhetherthejurycould reasonablyfindfairuse.Oraclenowobviouslyregretsitsdemandthatthejuryweighalltheevidence anddecidefairuseinageneralverdictthatcontainsnosubsidiaryfindings.
Nopreviouscourteverheldthatonlyacourtmaydecidefairuse.Itissofact-boundthatnoprior appellatecourteveroverturnedafairuseverdict.Thisuniquelycontestedcaseshouldnotbe thefirst.
Today,youwillhearthreelawyerspresentlegalargumentsforanhour.In2016,thejuryheardthe starklyconflictingtestimonyofalmost30witnessesandreviewedroughly200exhibitsovertwo-and-a- halfweeks.Thiscaseperfectlyillustrates,asthisCourtrecentlyreiteratedinGeorgiaversusPublic. Resource,thatfairuse“isnotoriouslyfact-sensitiveandoftencannotberesolvedwithoutatrial.”
Oraclearguedatpages38,39,and40ofthetranscriptthat:
Google’swholeargumentthismorningiscodeisdifferent.
Nowafewbasiclegalprinciplesandconcessionscontroltheoutcomeofthiscase.
Legalprinciple1:Congressdefinedliteraryworktoincludesoftwareandgrantedcopyrightprotection aslongasthecodeisoriginal.GoogleconcededOracle’scodeisoriginal.That’stheendof thequestion.
GoogleasksthisCourttocarveoutdeclaringcode,butCongressrejectedtheverycarveoutinmultiple ways,includinginitsdefinitionofcomputerprogramandbynotincludingGoogle’scarveoutamongthe limitationsinSection117.
Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., Dkt. 18-956 (S. Ct. 2018) (cont.)
1201NEWYORKAVENUE,N.W.7THFLOORWASHINGTON,[email protected]
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Legalprinciple2:ThisCourtheldinHarperandinStewartthatasupersedinguseisalwaysunfairasa matteroflaw.Nocourthasfoundfairuseorupheldafairuseverdictwhereacopyistcopiedsomuch valuableexpressionintoacompetingcommercialsequeltomeanthesamethingandservethe samepurposeastheoriginal.Googleconcededthepurposeandthemeaningarethe same.That’stheendofQuestion2.
NooneelsethoughtthatinnovatingrequiredcopyingSun’scodewithoutalicense.
AsJusticeAlitonotes,AppleandMicrosoftdidnotcopytocreatetheircompetingplatforms.
NeitherdidotherswhowrotecompetingplatformsintheJavalanguage.
Therewasandstillisahugemarketfordeclaringcode.OthermajorcompanieslikeIBMandSAP werepayingalotofmoneytolicensejusttheSundeclaringcodepreciselybecauseitwascreated. Andthroughoutthislitigation,Googleneverdeniedthis.
IfthisCourtholdsthatajurymayconcludethatcopyingdeclaringcodeisfair,itwillencouragecopying, createlegaluncertainty,anddecimatethebusinessmodelwhichalotofcompaniesdependon, underminingtheveryincentivescopyrightwasdesignedtopromote.
Weawaitadecision.
Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., Dkt. 18-956 (S. Ct. 2018) (cont.)
1201NEWYORKAVENUE,N.W.7THFLOORWASHINGTON,[email protected]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
OnDecember9,2020,theU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit(FederalCircuit)heardoralargumentinapharmaceuticalpatentcase,AmgenInc.v.Sanofi,AventisubLLC.
Background
AmgensuedSanofiandRegeneronPhamaceuticals,Inc.,allegingtheircompetingdrug,PRALUENT,infringedAmgen’spatentsforREPATHA.Amgen’spatentsarerelatedtoagenusofantibodiescalledPCSK9inhibitors,whichhelppatientswithLDL,abadcholesterol,whohavedifficultygettingtheirconditionundercontrolwithwidelyusedstatinssuchasPfizerInc.’sLIPITOR.
AlowerfederaltrialcourtfoundAmgen’stwopatentsshouldneverhavebeengrantedbecauseitwouldtakeanundueexperimentandwouldnotenableaskilledartisantorecreatethegenusofantibodiesclaimedbythepatentsatissue.
Oral Argument at Federal Circuit
Thecourtconsideredargumentsfrombothpartiesregardingtheenablementrequirementwithrespecttoantibodyclaims.
BeforeAmgen’spresentationofarguments,JudgeLouriecommentedthattheclaimsaredirectedtocompositionofmatterclaimsthatwereclaimedbyfunctionratherthanstructure.Further,JudgeLourieindicated,thedistrictcourtfoundthatnostructure-functionrelationshipwouldeliminatetheneedforundueexperimentationandthereforelackofenablement.
Disagreeingthattheclaimswereclaimedbyfunctionandnotstructure,Amgenrespondedthatitisunrelatedtotheissue.Amgenassertedthattwo“anchorantibodies”spannedthefullareaofonespotinthePCSK9antibodyandarguedthatoneofordinaryskillintheartcanidentifyalloftheatmost400distinctantibodiesthatbindanywhereonthatonespot.”Further,heargued,identifyingtheantibodiestothosethatbindtothesweetspotcouldbedonewithoutundueexperimentation,withcommonlyavailablelaboratoryresourcesandthebasicresearchtoolsofthefieldofantibodyresearch.
“I’mhavingtroubleseeingwhereyourroadmapandyourexamplesgetyoutoenablementofthefullscopeoftheclaims,”ChiefJudgeSharonProstsaid.
JudgeLourieemphasizedthatthedistrictcourtwasconcernedthattheclaimdidnotprovideguidanceonpredictingwhetheranantibodywouldbind.Amgenrespondedthatantibodyscientistsaspersonswithordinaryskillintheartwouldunderstandthatonceyoumakethesequenceyouknowtowhichsitetheywillbind,andthatthespecificationprovidedguidanceonhowtomakeeachofthe400distinctantibodies.
JudgeProstalsoaskedhowthepatentroadmapencompassedSanofi’sallegedinfringingantibodies.JudgeProstsaidtheseinfringingantibodiesseemedtofunctiondifferentlyfromthoseclaimedbybindingadifferentnumberofantibodies.Amgenrespondedthatexperttestimonyindicatednoantibodyscientistwouldconsiderthecompetitorantibodiestobeofadifferentclassfromthosecreatedbythepatentroadmap.
AMGEN INC. V. SANOFI, AVENTISUB LLC
1201NEWYORKAVENUE,N.W.7THFLOORWASHINGTON,[email protected]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Sanofiemphasizedthenumber“400”wasunsupported,respondingtoAmgen’sarguments,andarguedthatthis“400”numberwasnotinthedistrictcourt’sopinionbecausethisnumberwasneverpresentedtothedistrictcourt.Whenaskedhowmanyantibodieswouldaccomplishthefunctionifthepatentroadmapwasused,SanofiarguedAmgen’sinventorreplied“Idon’tknowaspecificnumber”andAmgen’sexpertanswered“Ican’tgiveyouanumberonwhatthetotalis.” JudgeLourieaskedtoSanofionwhytheenablementrequirementwouldnothavebeenmetinthiscasewhenthewrittendescriptionrequirementhasbeenmet.Sanofirespondedbyarguingthatwhenyouhaveafunctionallimitation,toomanycandidates,andyouwouldhavetotesteachandeveryonetoseewhichoneswork,whichisatypicalexampleofundueexperimentation.Accordingtothedistrictcourt,Sanofiargued,“thefactthatyouknewthere[was]goldinthehillsandthatyouknewhowtouseapantofindit,[that]doesn’tmeanyouareentitledtoeveryounceofgoldineverysquaremileoftheCaliforniacountryside.” JudgeHughesaskedwhyrequiringalargequantityofexperimentationwouldbeconsideredundueexperimentationifqualitativelytheexperimentationrequiredcouldbeminimalandeasy.SanofirespondedbyarguingthatAmgen’sownexperttestifiedthattesting“millionsandmillionsofantibodiestoseewhethertheywouldwork...wouldbe‘anenormousamountofwork’andmorethananyscientistwouldevencontemplatedoing.” JudgeHughesthenaskedwhetheragenusclaimwithregardtoantibodiesshouldbeabletobeclaimedfunctionallyinanyway.Sanofididnotgiveadefinitepositiontotheinquiry.Sanofiarguedthattheremaybeacasewherefunctiondictatesstructuresufficientlyintheantibodyfieldtocrossthethresholdofpredictability,butthatitwasnotthecaseinthissetoffacts. Amgenrepliedthat,giventhestructureandthespecificonespotinthePCSK9antibody,onewouldexpectthatalimitednumberofantibodycandidateswouldresultfromthepatentroadmap.Amgenalsoarguedthatanexpertestimatedsomewherearound100antibodies,andAmgenconservativelyarguedthatthisnumbercouldbe400. JudgeHughesaskedwhy,ifmillionsandmillionsoftestswererequiredtoseeiftheantibodybindsandblocks,thatsituationwouldnotbeundueexperimentation.Amgenrepliedthat,whilehebelievedthatnumberappearstobeextreme,experimentationwouldnotbeunduebecauseofthelowriskofexperimentalfailures.Inthiscase,theenablementofaprocessisdefeatedonlywhensuchfailuresarepervasiveandfrequent.Incomparisontopriorcases,Amgenargued,claimsfailedwhenthousandsoftestswereexpectedtofail,andyouweresearchingforonethatmightwork.Here,thousandsoftestswouldbeexpectedtosucceedwithapossibilityofafewvariations.“It’sonlywhenyouhavefailuresthatimpedeyourabilitytomakeandusetheinventionthatyouhaveundueexperimentation,”Amgenargued.“Beingabletosuccessfullymaketheseproductsisn’tundueexperimentation,it’sproduction.” S&H’s Analysis Thiscaseisinterestinginpartbecauseitmayhaveimplicationsforthepatentabilityofananti-bodydrug,includingantibodiestotreatCOVID-19. WeawaitadecisionbytheFederalCircuit.
AMGEN INC. V. SANOFI, AVENTISUB LLC (cont.)
1201NEWYORKAVENUE,N.W.7THFLOORWASHINGTON,[email protected]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
OnOctober27,2020,theU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit(CAFC)affirmedaTrademarkTrialandAppealBoard(“TTAB”)decisionthatSFMwasentitledtobringandmaintainapetitionunder35U.S.C.§1064. Background SFMownsU.S.trademarkregistrationsforthemarkSPROUTStobeusedwithretailgrocerystoreservices.SFMfiledapetitiontocancelCorcamore’smarkSPROUTforusewithvendingmachineservicesallegingalikelihoodofconsumerconfusion. TheTTABreliedonEmpresa Cubana del Tabaco v. General Cigar Co.,753F.3d1270(Fed.Cir.2014)todenyCorcamore’smotiontodismissthecancellationpetitionforlackofstandingastheTTABconcludedSFMhadstandingduetoitsrealinterestinthecancellationproceedingandareasonablebeliefofdamagecausedbytheSPROUTmarkcontinuingtoberegistered. CorcamoreappealedthattheTTABerredinapplyingEmpresea Cubana ratherthanfollowingtheanalyticalframeworkestablishedinLexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,572U.S.118(2014)fordeterminingwhethertherequirementsformaintainingastatutorycauseofactionhavebeensatisfied. CAFC’s Analysis The CAFC agreed with Corcamore that Lexmark’s“analyticalframeworkistheapplicablestandardfordeterminingwhetherapersoniseligibleunder§1064tobringapetitionforthecancellationofatrademarkregistration”andexplainedthattheSupremeCourtinLexmarkestablishedapartyisentitledtobringastatutorycauseofactionifitdemonstrates“(i)aninterestfallingwithinthezoneofinterestsprotectedbythestatuteand(ii)proximatecausation.”Thus,theCAFCconcludedtheLexmarkanalyticalframeworkappliesto§1064. AlthoughtheTTABappliedthestandardofEmpresa Cubana rather than Lexmark,theCAFCassertedtherewas“nomeaningful,substantivedifferencebetweentheanalyticalframeworksexpressedinLexmark and Empresa Cubana”;therefore,theTTABstillreachedthecorrectresult. S&H’s Analysis The Corcamore decision appears to show that Lexmark’sanalyticalframeworkthatapartyisentitledtobringastatutorycauseofactionifitdemonstrates(i)aninterestfallingwithinthezoneofinterestsprotectedbythestatuteand(ii)proximatecausation,andthatthisistheapplicablestandardfordeterminingwhetherapersoniseligibleunder§1064tobringapetitionforthecancellationofatrademarkregistration.
CORCAMORE, LLC v. SFM, LLC
1201NEWYORKAVENUE,N.W.7THFLOORWASHINGTON,[email protected]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
OnNovember9,2020,theU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit(CAFC)vacatedandremandedaninterpartesreview(IPR)decisionfromtheU.S.PatentTrialandAppealBoard(PTAB)forProStageGear’spatentforguitareffectspedals.ThePTABhadrejectedobviousnesschallengesbyDonneronthegroundthatDonnerdidnotprovethatapriorartreferenceisanalogousart. Background ProStageGear’spatentU.S.PatentNo.6,459,023(’023patent)describesimprovementstoguitareffectspedals.The“BackgroundoftheInvention”portionofthespecificationofthe’023patentstatesapriorartsolutionforaproblemofcablemanagementistocoverthecablesbyfoamsothatthecablesarenotexposed,butthatthispriorartsolution“restrictstheabilitytochangeoutoroneeffectforanotheroraddanadditionaleffectbecausethefoammustberemovedtouncoverthecableconnections,theeffectremovedfromtheboard,thecablesrepositionedfortheneweffect,theneweffectpositionedontheboard,thecablesrerouted,andthefoamre-cutorreplacedfortheneweffect.” The“SummaryoftheInvention”portionofthe‘023patentdescribes“a cable connection opening which isadaptedtoallowthecabletopassfromtheadapterontheguitareffectthroughtheeffectmountingsurfaceintoacableroutingandstorageareawhichallowsforthecabletobekeptcontainedandoutofthewayduringuseoftheeffectpedals”. InthePTABIPRproceeding,Donnerchallengedvariousclaimsofthe‘023patentasobviousinviewofU.S.PatentNo3,504,311(Mullen).Mullenisdirectedtoproviding“animprovedsupportforsupportingoneormorerelaystructuresandforprovidingwiring-channelspaceforreceivingwiresthatwouldbeconnectedtotherelaystructurestoconnecttherelaystructuresinvariouscontrolcircuits.”DonnerassertedMullen’sstructureisanalogoustotheclaimedstructureinthe‘023patent.ThePTABdeterminedthatDonner’sobviousnesschallengefailedbecauseDonnerhadnotproventhatMullenisanalogousart. CAFC’s Analysis TheCAFCstated“Itisundisputedthatthe’023patentandMullenarenotfromthesamefieldofendeavor.Therefore,theonlyquestioniswhetherMullenisreasonablypertinenttooneormoreoftheparticularproblemstowhichthe’023patentrelates.”TheCAFCidentifiestheproperstandardforthe“problem”analysisas“theproblemstowhichtheclaimedinventionandreferenceatissuerelatemustbeidentifiedandcomparedfromtheperspectiveofapersonhavingordinaryskillintheart”. TheCAFCthenstatedthePTABmaynothave“meaningfullyconsideredallofDonner’sargumentsandevidence”includingdetailedexperttestimony,and“failedtoproperlyidentifyandcomparethepurposesorproblemstowhichMullenandthe’023patentrelate”.Accordingly,theCAFCconcludedthat“becausetheBoardfailedtoidentifyandcomparetheproblemstowhichthe’023patentandMullenrelate,theBoardfailedtoapplytheproperstandard.” S&H’s Analysis TheprecedentialDonnerdecisionreinforcesthepropositionthatthePTAB“mustexaminetherelevantdataandarticulateasatisfactoryexplanationforitsactionincludingarationalconnectionbetweenthefactsfoundandthechoicemade.”.InDonner,theCAFCidentifiedtheproperstandardforthe“problem”analysisinanalogousartas“theproblemstowhichtheclaimedinventionandreferenceatissuerelatemustbeidentifiedandcomparedfromtheperspectiveofapersonhavingordinaryskillintheart”.Therefore,ApplicantsmaywishtotaketheDonnerdecisionintoconsiderationwhendraftingaspecificationtoavoidpotentiallyanalogousart,orwhenmakingnon-analogousartargumentsduringprosecutionofanapplication.
DONNER TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. PRO STAGE GEAR, LLC (precedential)
1201NEWYORKAVENUE,N.W.7THFLOORWASHINGTON,[email protected]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
OnNovember13,2020,theU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit(CAFC)affirmedadecisionbythePatentTrialandAppealBoard(PTAB)sustainingtherejectionoftheExaminer’sfinalrejectionofvariousclaimsunder35U.S.C.§103inanapplicationbyGoogle.Inclarifyingthedifferencebetweenthedoctrinesof“waiver”and“forfeiture,”theCAFCheldthatGooglehadforfeitedtheargumentsputforthonappealbecausethoseargumentswerenotpresentedtotheExaminerorPTAB.Therefore,theCAFCaffirmedthePTAB’sdecision. Background Google’sapplicationrelatedto“distributedcachingforvideo-on-demandsystems,andinparticulartoamethodandapparatusfortransferringcontentwithinsuchvideo-on-demandsystems.”Independentclaim1wasdirectedtoamethodtorespondingtorequeststostreamcontenttoset-topboxesfromvariouscontentservers.Inappealingtherejectionofindependentclaim1tothePTAB,Googlebroadlyarguedinlengthyblockquotesthatthecitedreferencesdidnotdisclosemostofthefeaturesfromclaim1.Googlealsoarguedthatthecitedreferencesdidnotdisclosethefeaturesofevictingitemsfromacacheinamannerwhichminimizeda“networkpenalty,”asrecitedindependentclaim2. ThePTABwasnotpersuadedbyGoogle’sarguments,andfoundthatthecitedreferencestaughttheconceptofdistributingcontentbasedona“cost”whichwas“basedonanetworkimpact.”ThePTABfoundtheExaminer’sbroadinterpretationoftheterm“cost,”inviewofthecitedreferences,wasconsistentwiththeapplication’sspecification.Furthermore,thePTABnotedthatGooglehadnotcitedtoadefinitionof“cost”or“networkimpact,”inthespecificationwhichwouldhaveprecludedtheExaminer’sinterpretation.Finally,thePTABalsosustainedtherejectionofclaim2,findingthatGoogle’sattempttoattackcertainreferencesindividuallydidnotconsidertheteachingsofthereferencesincombination. CAFC’s Analysis Onappeal,GooglearguedthatthePTABhaderredinitsconstructionoftheterms“cost”and“networkpenalty”inviewoftheexplicitdefinitionsinthespecification.GoogledarguedthatbecausethePTABhadreliedonincorrectinterpretationsoftheclaimterms,thePTAB’sdecisionwasincorrect.ThePTABarguedthatGooglehadwaiveditsargumentsregardingclaimconstructionofthosetermsbecausethoseargumentswerenotpresentedtothePTAB. Inaddressingeachparty’sarguments,theCAFCfirstnotedthedistinctionbetweenwaiverandforfeiture.TheCAFCstated“forfeitureisthefailuretomakethetimelyassertionofaright,”while“waiveristhe‘intentionalrelinquishmentorabandonmentofaknownright.’”Here,theCAFCfoundGooglehadfailedtoraiseitsargumentsregardingclaimconstructionoftheterms“cost,”and“networkpenalty,”totheExaminerortothePTAB.ThereforetheCAFCfoundthat,intentionalornot,Googlehadforfeitedthosearguments,statingthat“apositionnotpresentedinthetribunalunderreviewwillnotbeconsideredonappealintheabsenceofexceptionalcircumstances.”Accordingly,theCAFCdeclinedtohearGoogle’snewargumentsastotheproperconstructionof“cost,”andfoundthatGooglehadnotprovidedanyreasonableexplanationastowhyitneverarguedtotheExaminerortothePTABwhyaparticularconstructionshouldbeaffordedtotheterm.Similarly,theCAFCheldthatGooglehadnotsuggestedanyparticulardefinitionof“networkpenalty,”totheExaminerorPTABandhadalsoforfeiteditsargumentspertainingtoclaim2. S&H’s Analysis TheCAFC’sdecisionservesasaremindertoapplicantsthatargumentsregardingpatentabilityofaclaim,suchasclaimconstruction,shouldbepresentedtoboththeExamineraswellasthePTABonceanExaminer makes a prima faciecaseforrejectinganapplication.Insteadofpresentingnewargumentsonappeal,theCAFCencouragedapplicants“toavoidwasteofappellateresourcesandinsteadtaketheintra-PTOrouteoffilingneworamendedclaims(perhapsthroughacontinuationapplication)containinglanguagethatmakesthedesiredscopeclear,therebyservingthegoaloffacialclarityofpatentclaims.”
IN RE GOOGLE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LLC, 2019-1828 (precedential)
1201NEWYORKAVENUE,N.W.7THFLOORWASHINGTON,[email protected]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
InIQASR vs Wendt,theU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit(CAFC)affirmedadistrictcourt’sdecisiontoinvalidatedUSPatent.No.9,132,432duetoindefiniteness.Atissueinthecasewastheterm“magneticfuzz”. Background U.S.Patent9,132,432(‘432patent)isdirectedtoaprocessforautomobilescraprecycling.Claim1isreproducedbelow: Amethodofseparationofautomobileshredderresiduecomprisingthestepsof: providingautomobileshredderresidueasaresultformaferroussortingrecoverysystem; introducingsaidautomobileshredderresidueintoanautomobileshredderresiduesorting,non-ferrous recoverysystem; non-magneticallysortingmagnetic fuzzfromsaidautomobileshredderresiduewithsaidautomobile shredderresiduesorting,non-ferrousrecoversystem; whereinsaidsortedmagneticfuzzissubstantiallyfreeofrecyclablematerials. InBiosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.theCourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuitstatedthat“inthefaceofanallegationofindefinites,generalprinciplesofclaimconstructionapply”.Applyingthesegeneralprinciples,thedistrictcourtfoundthatthetermmagneticfuzzinthe‘432patenthadnoordinaryandcustomarymeaning.Assuch,thedistrictcourtheldthattheterm“magneticfuzz”wasacoinedterm. Havingestablished“magneticfuzz”asacoinedterm,thedistrictcourtreliedonintrinsicevidence,(i.e. claimlanguage,thespecification,andtheprosecutionhistory)andextrinsicevidence(i.e.expertwitnesses)toattempttoassignmeaningformagneticfuzz. Inanalyzingtheintrinsicevidenceofthe‘432patent,thedistrictcourtfoundthat“magneticfuzz”wasnotclearlydefinedandnotenoughofanexplanationwasgivensothatanartisancouldinferwithreasonablecertaintyobjectiveboundariesfortheterm.Thedistrictcourtalsoweighedextrinsicevidencetodetermineadefinitionformagneticfuzz. CAFC’s Analysis TheFederalCircuitfoundthatthespecificationofthe‘432patentincludedopen-endeddefinitionformagneticfuzzandthispreventedareasonableboundonthescopetheterm.Also,inviewoftheintrinsicevidence,theFederalCircuitagreedwiththedistrictcourtthatextrinsicevidencebyitselfcannotdeemaclaimdefinite.Infact,theFederalCircuitstatedthat“aclaimtermdoesnotbecomereasonablycertainsimplybecauseaskilledartisan,whenpressed,managedtoarticulateadefinitionforit”.Assuch,theFederalCircuitaffirmedthedistrictcourt’sdecisiontoinvalidatethe‘432patent.
S&H’s Analysis
TheFederalCircuit’sdecisionservesasreminderthattherearelimitstotheuseofextrinsicevidencetocureindefinitenessandthatapoorlywrittenspecificationcannotsimplybesavedbyanexpertwitness.Apatentapplicationmustbedraftedtodefineclaimstermssuchthatthatapersonofordinaryskillcanclearlyunderstandtheclaimscopewithreasonablecertainty.Thecourtwilllookattheclaimlanguage,specification,andprosecutionhistorytodeterminethescopeofclaimterms.
IQASR vs WENDT
1201NEWYORKAVENUE,N.W.7THFLOORWASHINGTON,[email protected]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
TheCourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit(FederalCircuti)inSt. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLCheldthatthebroadestreasonableinterpretationofaclaimmustbeconsideredinlightofthespecification. Background St.JudeMedical,LLCpetitionedtwiceforinter partesreviewofapatentownedbySnydersHeartValveLLC.Theclaimatissuewasdirectedtoanartificialheartvalveandasystemforinsertingthevalve.Theheartvalvecanbeinstalledviacatheterwithoutinvasivesurgeryandwithoutaneedforremovalofthepatient’sdiseasedheartvalve. Inresponsetothepetitionatissue,thePTABfoundthatfouroftheseclaimswereanticipatedbytheprior art. Infindingthepriorart’santicipationofthesefourclaims,theclaimrecitationsatissuewasa“framesizedandshapedforinsertionbetweentheupstreamregionandthedownstreamregion”,andthePTABappliedthe“broadestreasonableinterpretation”oftheseclaimrecitations.Basedonthepriorartdisclosedavalveinsertsizedtofitthevalveafterthedamagednativevalvewasremoved,thePTABunderthebroadestreasonableinterpretationinterpreted“framesizedandshaped”asalsocoveringaframethatfitsinplaceafterremovalofadamagedheartvalve.Therefore,thePTABfoundthatthepriorartanticipatedtheclaims. CAFC’s Analysis TheFederalCircuitreversed.TheFederalCircuitheldthatthepriorartrequiredremovalofadamagednativeheartvalvebeforeplacingtheartificialvalve.Incontrast,theSnydersHeartValveLLCpatentspecificationdisclosedthatthedisclosedartificialheartvalvecanbeinsertedwithoutremovingthenativevalveandexpresslyindicatedthatthisfeaturewasanimprovementoverthepriorart.TheFederalCircuitfoundthatthePTABfailedtotakesuchlanguageinthespecificationintoconsiderationforthebroadestreasonableinterpretation.Accordingly,thePTABimproperlyconstruedthe“sizedandshaped”limitationascoveringanartificialvalvefittedforthespaceleftafterremovingthenativevalve.Instead,theFederalCircuitheldthat,inlightofthespecificationdisclosurediscussed,theclaimatissuewasnotanticipatedbythepriorart. S&H’s Analysis Thiscasereconfirmsthepatentpolicythatthebroadestreasonableinterpretationoftheclaimsshouldstillbeinterpretedinlightofthespecification.
ST. JUDE MEDICAL, LLC V. SNYDERS HEART VALVE LLC
1201NEWYORKAVENUE,N.W.7THFLOORWASHINGTON,[email protected]
USPTO NEWS
TheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO)issettoincreasecertaintrademarkfeeseffectiveJanuary2,2021. Thetrademarkfeeincreasesrelatetoapplicationfiling,postregistrationfeesfortrademarkmaintenance,petitions,andTrademarkTrialandAppealBoardfees. Ofparticularinteresttoownersofregisteredtrademarks,anewfeeisbeingimplementedforcertainrequeststodeletegoodsandservicesfromaregistration.Thenewfeeappliesifarequesttodeletegoods,services,orclassesfromatrademarkregistrationisfiledafteraSection8oraSection71declarationofcontinueduseisfiled.Thenewfeewillnotapplyifarequestforsuchdeletionisfiledbefore,orattimeoffiling,ofaSection8oraSection71declarationofcontinueduse.AccordingtotheUSPTO,thenewfeeistoencouragetrademarkownerstodeterminesoonerthanlaterwhetheragood,serviceorclassinatrademarkregistrationisnolongerinuseandneedstoberemoved. TrademarkownersintendingtoregisteratrademarkwiththeUSPTOcanconsiderwhethertofileatrademarkapplicationbeforethetrademarkfeeincreases. ForregisteredtrademarkswhichrenewalwindowsareopenbeforeJanuary2,2021,thetrademarkownerscanconsiderwhethertofilearenewalbeforethetrademarkfeeincreases. YoumayfollowthelinksbelowtoUSPTO’sbreakdownoftheadjustmentstothetrademarkfeesincludingacomparisonwiththeoldtrademarkfees. TableofTrademarkFees–Current,FinalTrademarkFeeSchedule,andUnitCost. FeeSettingandAdjusting|USPTO FormoreinformationabouttheUSPTOadjustmentstothetrademarkfees,orIfyouhaveanyquestion,pleasecontactus.
USPTO TO ADJUST TRADEMARK FEES EFFECTIVE JANURY 2, 2021
1201NEWYORKAVENUE,N.W.7THFLOORWASHINGTON,[email protected]
S&H FIRM NEWS
Specializingexclusivelyinintellectualproperty,Staas&HalseyLLPbringstogethertechnicalandlegalexpertiseinourcommitmenttoprovidequalitylegalrepresentation.
Since1971,wehaveprovidedclientswithtechnicalexpertiseandintellectualpropertyprotection.
WeprovideourclientswithhighqualityandhighvalueintellectualpropertyprotectionthroughpatentapplicationandtrademarkapplicationpreparationandprosecutionservicesbeforetheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice,understandandcareforourclients’concernsbydevelopinglong-termandcloserelationshipswithourclients,andprovideourclientswithtrainingtounderstandthecomplexitiesandnuancesof U.S. patent prosecution. Wethankallofourclientsforbeingpartofourjourney!
STAAS & HALSEY LLP CELEBRATES 50 YEARS in 2021
1201NEWYORKAVENUE,N.W.7THFLOORWASHINGTON,[email protected]
S&H FIRM NEWS
Sinceabouttheyear2010,ourfirmhasmaintainedduplicativepaperandelectronic“official”filesforeachofourclient’smatters.EffectiveJanuary1,2020,ourfirmdiscontinuedmaintenanceanduseofour“official”paperclientfiles,andinsteadreliesonlyonourelectronicofficialclientfiles.Thischangeinproceduretakesadvantageofadvancesintechnologytoreducecostsandimproveefficiency.
Staas & Halsey LLP Has Gone Paperless!
1201NEWYORKAVENUE,N.W.7THFLOORWASHINGTON,[email protected]
S&H FIRM NEWS
Staas&HalseyLLP(S&H)continuestomonitortherapidlychangingcircumstancessurroundingCOVID-19,theillnesscausedbyanovelcoronavirus.WehavetakenmeasurestocontinuetoprovideuninterruptedservicetoourclientsduringtheCOVID-19outbreakintheUSAandothercountries.
BeginningMonday,March16th2020,weimplementedtheS&Hbusinesscontinuityplanthatallowsourattorneysandstafftoworkremotelywhennecessary.Byadoptingadocumentmanagementsystemtenyearsagoandgoingcompletelypaperlessinearly2020,thetransitiontoremoteworkinghasbeenrelativelysmooth.
TheS&HremoteworksystemforemployeesusesanencryptedtunneltoprovideconnectivitytotheS&HserversstoringtheS&Hdocumentanddocketingmanagementsoftware,andaccesstoemailservers.Staas&HalseyisincompliancewiththeUKDataProtectionAct2018,asamendedin2019;theEuropeanUnion’sGeneralDataProtectionRegulation(GDPR);andtheCaliforniaConsumerPrivacyAct(CCPA).
Theabovementionedbusinesscontinuityplanisanticipatedtocontinueuntilfurthernotice,andmaybeupdated,includinganyupdatestakingintoconsiderationrecommendationsofU.S.localandfederalgovernmentsandtheWorldHealthOrganization.
Wecontinuetoaskthatcommunicationtoourfirmbeelectronic,viae-mail,facsimile,portals,orsimilarmeans.IfphysicalitemsneedtobesenttoStaas&HalseyLLP,pleaseprovideS&HpriornotificationandatleastinformDocketing@s-n-h.comofanysuchanticipateddeliveryofphysicalitemssothatS&Hcanmakearrangementforreceiptofsuchphysicalitems.Ifwenormallysendyoupackagesofphysicalitems,likepapercopiesofcommunication,pleasenotethatattimesthesemaybedelayed.
WehavepostponedalltravelplansasaprecautionbasedontherecommendationoftheU.S.localandfederalgovernmentsandtheWorldHealthOrganization.
WesendourbestwishesandthoughtstoeveryonethathavebeenaffectedbytheCOVID-19virusandhopeforahealthytomorrow.
Ifyouhaveanyquestions,[email protected].
Continuing Uninterrupted In View of COVID-19
1201NEWYORKAVENUE,N.W.7THFLOORWASHINGTON,[email protected]
Staas&HalseyLLP1201NewYorkAvenue,N.W.
7thFloorWashington,D.C.20005Telephone:202.434.1500Email:[email protected]:202.434.1501
www.staasandhalsey.com
ThismaterialhasbeenpreparedbyStaas&HalseyLLPforinformationalpurposesonlyandisnotlegaladvice.Consultwithanattorneyforlegaladvicepertinenttoyourcircumstancesbeforerelyingonanyinformationcontainedhereinorobtainedfromanyothersource.Youmayfeelfreetoforwardthisemailintacttoanyoneyouwish,butanyalterationofthisemailanditsdistribution,forremuneration,
withouttheexpresswrittenpermissionofStaas&HalseyLLP,areprohibited.@2020Staas&HalseyLLPEditor-In-Chief:GeneM.Garner
Ifyoureceivedthise-mailfromsomeoneotherthanusandwouldliketobeaddedtoourdistributionlist,[email protected]
