Posts Tagged: "35 USC 112"

Global IP Holdings, LLC, the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,690,233, achieved a victory with the Federal Circuit vacating a decision of the Board and remanding for the Board to address predictability and criticality of the claim term to determine whether the written description requirement has been satisfied. Although victorious, Global did not achieve everything it wanted. Global had requested the Federal Circuit to simply overrule the Board. Judge Stoll, however, explained that there was not support in the record sufficient to determine whether the “plastic” claim limitation was critical or important. Therefore, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision and ordered the Board, on remand, to address predictability and criticality of the claim term in question in order to determine whether the written description requirement has been satisfied.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari in Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, refusing to hear yet another appeal in a case involving a question of patent eligibility… Simply put, the answer to the first question asked by Two-Way Media in its Petition for Certiorari is absolutely not. There never has been a requirement that a patent claim must be — or even should be or can appropriately be — read in isolation. In fact, decisions that purport to ascertain the meaning of claim languagewithout the pomp and circumstance of Markman are openly violating the clear dictates of the Supreme Court. 

“In sum, Defendants showed that epitaxially growing a monocrystalline layer directly on an amorphous layer would have required undue experimentation—indeed, that it is impossible,” the Federal Circuit found. The appellate court also found that Boston University created its own enablement problem by seeking a construction for “a non-single crystalline buffer layer” which included a purely amorphous layer. Along with reversing the district court’s denial of JMOL, the Federal Circuit dismissed-as-moot Boston University’s cross-appeal of the district court’s denial of attorney’s fees and enhanced damages.

On Friday, June 1st, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in In re: Durance striking down a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that affirmed a patent examiner’s obviousness rejection of a microwave vacuum-drying apparatus and associated method. The Federal Circuit panel consisting of Judges Alan Lourie, Jimmie Reyna and Raymond Chen…

On appeal to the Federal Circuit, Zeroclick argued that the district court erred in construing those two terms as means-plus-function limitations, an argument with which the Federal Circuit panel agreed. “Neither of the limitations at issue uses the word ‘means,’” Circuit Judge Hughes writes in his majority opinion. “Presumptively, therefore, [Section 112(f)] does not apply to the limitations.” Although Apple argued in the district court that the claims must be construed under Section 112(f), it provided no evidentiary support for its position. Although the court compared Apple’s arguments to Zeroclick’s objections, Judge Tigar did not point to any record evidence supporting the ultimate conclusion on Section 112(f) grounds.

On Wednesday, May 30th, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit entered a decision in Tinnus Enterprises v. Telebrands Corporation which reversed and remanded an earlier decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to invalidate a patent covering the award-winning Bunch O Balloons toy developed by inventor Josh Malone. The Federal Circuit panel of Circuit Judges Kathleen…

In a prior abandoned patent application, VerHoef listed himself as joint inventor of the dog mobility device with Dr. Lamb, the veterinarian making the suggestion; this joint venture failed and then each party tried to file competing patent applications. This was all done at a time when VerHoef was not well acquainted with patent law according to Thomas Loop, patent attorney at Loop IP Law representing VerHoef in the case. “All inventors take limitations and elements from others, that’s the essence of inventions,” Loop argued to the Federal Circuit panel of Circuit Judges Pauline Newman, Haldane Robert Mayer and Alan Lourie. “[VerHoef] had the entire reduction to practice of the invention… she blurted out an idea, and he adopted it. That’s what happened here.” Although VerHoef agreed that Dr. Lamb did provide the suggestion, Loop argued that this suggestion did not elevate the veterinarian to the level of inventor.

In invalidating the Idenix patent, the Delaware district court effectively overturns what had been the largest award for royalty damages in a U.S. patent infringement case ever handed out. After a two-week trial in December 2016, the jury had awarded Index $2.64 billion in damages, which was based on finding Gilead infringed the Idenix patent – U.S. Patent No. 7,608,597 — by selling the hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatments Harvoni and Sovaldi.

On Tuesday, January 23rd, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling in Google LLC v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc. which affirmed a finding by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that a patent covering a method of identifying media linked over the Internet was valid. The Federal Circuit disagreed with Google that the PTAB erred in its claim construction during the validity trial, leaving in place a patent that has been asserted by Network-1 against Google’s major online media platform YouTube.

Along with the willfulness finding, the Federal Circuit also overturned findings of no invalidity on a patent that had already survived multiple reexaminations at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in a decision giving patent owners further reason to question whether the Federal Circuit may be more aligned with anti-patent viewpoints… “We hold that a reexamination confirming patentability of a patent claim alone is not determinative of whether a genuine issue of fact precludes summary judgment of no invalidity,” the Federal Circuit’s opinion reads.

When going through the list of patents that have been deemed valid in district court and then invalidated through PTAB proceedings, there are 58 cases where the patent is invalidated at the PTAB on the same statutory grounds asserted at district court and which did not lead to invalidity. So, contrary to any notion that any data we’ve published fails to pass muster, there is plenty of evidence that the activities of the PTAB present an unfair playing ground for patent owners who are dragged before it, often after those patent owners have already been victorious in district court in proceedings where Article III federal judges have confirmed the validity of those patents.

There have been 220 patents upheld as valid in real courts and also subject to a final written decision in the PTAB. The PTAB only agreed with the real courts on 52 patents, while disagreeing with them on 168 patents. If the U.S. legal system is the gold-standard, that means the PTAB is erroneously invalidating patents 76% of the time… In the PTAB, generally only two grounds of attack are available – 35 U.S.C. §102 for novelty and 35 U.S.C. §103 for non-obviousness. But in the real court four grounds are available as a defense – along with §102, §103, accused infringers are also afforded validity challenges under 35 U.S.C. §101 for basic patentability and 35 U.S.C. §112 for specification. So how is it that the PTAB invalidates three times as many patents with only half as many grounds available? The only answer is because it is specifically designed to help infringers by bypassing due process protections afforded to inventors in real courts. Apologists will go on to argue that the PTAB had better evidence, better prior art, better experts, better judges – nonsense! The real courts have rules and procedures which are tremendously more thorough, developed, proven, and fair. The PTAB has not and cannot measure up.

Means plus function claiming allows the drafter to claim the invention based on functionality rather than the more traditional (and preferred) claiming technique that employs structure within the body of the claim itself… If there is no structure in the specification the person of skill in the art cannot save the disclosure by understanding what the drafter intended to be covered by the means plus function limitation in the claims. Thus, means-plus-function claims are valid at the mercy of the specification, and only to the extent that the specification contains support for the structures that define the means… The Federal Circuit does not blindly elevate form over substance when evaluating whether a particular claim limitation invokes means treatment. See Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“We do not mean to suggest that section 112(6) is triggered only if the claim uses the word ‘means.’”).