Posts Tagged: "CACF"

At the Federal Circuit, Honeywell argued that the Board erred in (1) finding a motivation to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success, (2) rejecting Honeywell’s objective evidence of patentability, and (3) relying on a new ground of rejection (Omure), without giving Honeywell notice and opportunity to respond. The Court found that the Board improperly relied on inherency to find the claims obvious and in its analysis of motivation to combine. First, the Board’s analysis was internally inconsistent. While finding that “the claimed combination’s stability/miscibility is an inherent property of HFO-123yf and cannot confer patentability, the Board also acknowledged that inherent properties must be considered if they demonstrate unexpected and nonobvious results.

Inherent obviousness cannot be based on what the inventor thought, and, in addition, the results in a particular case may not be inherently obvious depending on what was expected by a person of ordinary skill. The court pointed out “’the mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient’ to render the results inherent.” Millennium Pharmaceuticals, 2017 WL 3013204, at *6 (citations omitted by author). The court also held that it is never appropriate to consider “what the inventor intended when the experiment was performed,” even though Millennium “conceded as a matter of law that the ester is a ‘natural result’ of freeze-drying bortezomib with mannitol.” Id. Thus, hindsight reasoning should never be applied and, obviousness is “measured objectively in light of the prior art, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the invention.”

The Federal Circuit issued a decision in Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corporation, which ought to be completely unnerving to every owner of a U.S. patent grant. Hearing an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the panel voted 2-1 in favor of Homeland Housewares and overturned a final written decision that had confirmed that challenged claims from a Whirlpool patent were valid. So even when a patent owner manages to escape the clutches of the PTAB and prevails no patent is ever truly safe any longer. A dissent was filed by Judge Newman, who chastised the majority for rewriting the claims of the patent in a way that more broadly stated the invention than did the patentee.

William Adams is the well-known front man for the music group The Black Eyed Peas and is known as will.i.am. Adams’ company – i.am.symbolic, llc – already owns trademarks on WILL.I.AM for certain goods and services, and also the mark I AM (typed drawing) for clothing in class 25. The trademark examining attorney refused registration of the standard character trademark I AM on the ground of likelihood of confusion with existing registered trademarks. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed. Because the TTAB did not err in its likelihood of confusion conclusion the Federal Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Lourie (joined by Chief Judge Prost and Judge Schall) affirmed.

The Federal Circuit heard the case of Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc., where Teresa Earnhardt appealed from the dismissal of its opposition to the trademark registration of EARNHARDT COLLECTION by Kerry Earnhardt, Inc (“KEI”). Teresa Earnhardt is the widow of Dale Earnhardt and the owner of common law rights and trademark registrations for the mark DALE EARNHARDT in typed and stylized form, in connection with various goods and services. Kelly Earnhardt is the co-founder and CEO of KEI, the son of Dale Earnhardt, and the stepson of Teresa Earnhardt.

A reasonable expectation of success in combining references to obtain the claimed invention does not require absolute certainty or predictability. As a result, an invention is not non-obvious simply because persons of ordinary skill in the art continues to study aspects of the claimed invention after an initial disclosure. Rather, conducting additional or follow-up studies can be strong evidence that success is expected or likely.

Although the distinction between inherency in obviousness and anticipation is sometimes blurred, the two concepts are quite different and a claim may be inherently anticipated without being inherently obvious.  This could happen if the missing and unknown limitation were to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art, and yet not be predictedable… A major difference between having knowledge of the missing limitation versus not having it is that the knowledge can provide the motivation to combine prior art references. 

The Federal Circuit issued a decision in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus N.V. upholding the determination that the patent owned by biotech firm Regeneron was unenforceable. The decision affirmed a lower court’s finding based on Regeneron’s inequitable conduct during prosecution of the patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which was the result of the withholding of references from the USPTO that had but-for materiality. The patent, which the Federal Circuit deemed unenforceable, is U.S. Patent No. 8502018, titled Methods of Modifying Eukaryotic Cells.

In the calculation of design patent infringer profits, two key issues are the definition of the article of manufacture and the methodology for calculating total infringer profits… Depending upon the case, infringer profits may be based on the entire accused product or may be limited to a component of the accused product, but there is no test or guidance at this point for how to determine if the entire product is the article of manufacture or if only a component or certain components comprise the article of manufacture. Therefore, it may be prudent, depending upon the case, to calculate infringer profits based on one or more alternative assumptions as to what the article of manufacture is comprised of in the specific situation. In some cases, the design patent will cover most or all of the product in question but in other cases such as in the Apple case, it will cover only a minor portion of the product.

These revisions favor patent owners, according to Palmer, but not everyone is supportive. For instance, Bilski, Mayo, Myriad, and Alice have given several accused infringers an additional tool for fighting non-practicing entities. So. the level of support for these revisions will depend where you fall on this spectrum. That being said, Palmer does not think the Court will change its eligibility analysis in the foreseeable future, and Congress is not likely to take up these anytime soon.

Two recent cases, The Medicines Co. v. Mylan, Inc and Skedco, Inc. v. Strategic Operations, Inc., illustrate that the patentee’s specification is key to determining whether an alleged infringer has practiced an alternative embodiment or a non-infringing invention… The specifications at issue in Skedco and Medicines took different approaches to the phrasing of example components, and thus led to different results against infringers. The CAFC in Skedco used several example embodiments in the specification to find infringement by a competitor who practiced the invention differently, yet consistent with the available examples. In contrast, the CAFC in Medicines found no infringement by a competitor who practiced a similar process due to a lack of examples and permissive language in the Specification. Through these cases, the CAFC provides two practices for broadening the possible construction of a patent’s claims.

The district court denied a request for a permanent injunction against Metaswitch after a jury found infringement because Genband failed to establish irreparable harm. More specifically, the court found that Genband failed to establish a causal-nexus between infringement and irreparable harm, i.e. that “the patent features drive demand for the product.” The Federal Circuit remanded because this causal-nexus requirement was too stringent. The Federal Circuit explained that the court could not have confidence as to the answer to the causation question under the standard properly governing the inquiry or whether there is any independent ground for the district court finding no irreparable harm or otherwise denying an injunction.

The district court made clearly erroneous factual findings that independently supported reversal. Particularly, the record supported a finding that this case was exceptional given the weakness of AdjustaCam’s litigating position. The evidence offered by AdjustaCam showed that its lawsuit was baseless. However, the district court instead found that AdjustaCam’s litigation position was not exceptional because Newegg’s ball-and-socket products were constrained in such a way that AdjustaCam could reasonably argue that it rotated on a single axis, consistent with the original district judge’s Markman order. But the Court pointed out that AdjustaCam never advanced this argument.

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Board’s finding of obviousness of certain challenged claims based on a means-plus-function limitation, affirmed the Board’s finding of obviousness as to other challenged claims and affirmed the Board’s findings that the prior art discloses all other limitations of the challenged claims on appeal… In a patentability determination, the Board must identify the structure of a means-plus-function limitation disclosed in the specification; it is insufficient to merely disagree with patentee’s arguments. Additionally, if a practitioner reopens prosecution and amends claims during inter partes reexamination, additional prior art can be cited against the amended claims.