Posts Tagged: "Judge Paul Michel"

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the nation’s patent court, is at a crossroad. Today, unlike in earlier decades, nearly all its cases are patent-related, yet, to my eye, barely half its members can be considered lifetime patent lawyers. And although any diligent lawyer can learn “black letter” patent law on the job (as I myself did), that is no longer sufficient, because judges also need a deep understanding of how inventors and investors, including corporate CEOs, rely on patents in making difficult and fateful decisions about whether to fund new R&D and manufacture new products, or not. Such decision-makers crave predictability of outcome and stability of legal requirements. Because uncertainty generates excess risk, when in doubt, they usually opt against going forward…. To me, this all suggests that the nominee to fill the vacancy on the CAFC expected in May should be a seasoned patent litigator.

On January 5, the Honorable Paul R. Michel filed an amicus brief in support of Ericsson’s Emergency Application for an Anti-Interference Injunction related to Samsung’s lawsuit filed in the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court of China (the Wuhan Action). In response to Ericsson’s motion filed on December 28, 2020, the United States Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a temporary restraining order against Samsung in the FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing rates) lawsuit. Michel’s brief addressed the “substantial notice and due process concerns associated with [an] anti-suit injunction issued by the Wuhan Court.”

If you’re looking for some positive patent news from 2020, count the heightened civic awareness of our intellectual-property/innovation policies, as a result of the global pandemic, as a silver lining. But our present task is to report on the 2020 highlights from the Federal Circuit; unfortunately, it’s all downhill from here. If 2019 had Section 101 law as its defining issue, given the Federal Circuit and
Supreme Court’s slate of rulings and non-rulings, 2020 only seemed to make the Section101 exclusions even broader. The capstone was AAM, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, 966 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the Federal Circuit’s denial of en-banc consideration (again) of Section 101 rulings that, all judicial protests aside, seemed to plainly expand a reviewing court’s power under Section 101 (again). And in ways many would’ve thought unimaginable just six-to-eight years ago, when Mayo-Alice emerged from the Supreme Court with only “inventive-concept” tests ringing about. Neapco’s panel ruling in the fall of 2019 was the proverbial shot across the Section112 bow.

Headlining day two of IPWatchdog’s CON2020 was Retired U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Chief Judge Paul Michel, who offered attendees 12 “perspectives” on the present-day Federal Circuit to provide context for some of the Court’s current problems. Ultimately, said Michel, these problems need to be fixed via legislation, not the courts, and the key to speeding up that legislative process is for individuals and companies to become involved and proactively advocate for patent reform at the local level.

With its recent opinion in AAM, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings, LLC, No. 18-1763 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2020), and a 6-6 stalemate by the court’s active judges on whether to take the case en banc, the Federal Circuit has now adopted—under the rubric of 35 U.S.C. §101—a formalized set of enablement-like requirements for patent claims. For a simple “threshold” eligibility test, section 101 has grown remarkably complex. Indeed, since the Supreme Court’s 2012 Mayo and 2014 Alice decisions re-cast patent eligibility into a “two-step framework,” the Section 101 test adjudges not just subject-matter eligibility and the three “limited” exceptions thereto, but also patentability or “inventive-concept” challenges predicated on comparisons to the prior art, see 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103. And now the enablement-type requirements imposed by AAM v. Neapco.

The Supreme Court’s Bilski v. Kappos decision—which celebrated its 10th birthday this past weekend—still matters, even in the age of Mayo-Alice. For one thing, the case marked the end of the patent-eligibility peace. For another, Bilski stands for the well-known principle that the “machine-or-transformation” test offers a “useful and important clue” as to whether the process claimed by a patent will qualify as patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. And at the same time, it stands for the fact that the machine-or-transformation test has been far more trivia than principle, the case law not having applied or considered that Bilski “clue” much beyond the Bilski case itself.

The case of the “garage door opener,” The Chamberlain Group v. Techtronic Industries, Inc., has received its share of attention. Rightly so. The case, after all, spotlights not only the breadth of the Supreme Court’s Mayo-Alice test for assessing patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101; but also the Federal Circuit’s particular “directed to” definition for that test and the dissection of patent claims that has followed.
And it fairly asks, in a petition to the Supreme Court, that if a claim on a garage door opener is “directed to” an “abstract idea” and thus ineligible for patent protection—is any patent, or any technology, safe from the Mayo-Alice ineligibility test? Chamberlain says no. From the outset, its petition declares that its case therefore presents a “patent emergency,” one that the Supreme Court must review to stop the Mayo-Alice test—and the Federal Circuit’s “directed-to” version of it—from expanding into, and negating, claims in every subject imaginable.

Experts speaking during IPWatchdog’s Virtual Patent Masters Symposium yesterday expressed concern over the state of the U.S. patent system, but also offered a number of solutions, and many took a cautiously optimistic outlook for the future. In one session, Patent Masters Q. Todd Dickinson of Polsinelli, Judge Theodore Essex of Hogan Lovells, Retired Chief Judge Paul Michel, and Robert Stoll of Drinker Biddle discussed the Supreme Court case eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, wherein the former bright line rule of issuing permanent injunctions was replaced by a four-factor test according to familiar rules of equity that apply to all areas of law. While the consensus among the Masters was that eBay has created a multitude of problems, Judge Michel pointed out that eBay has been misinterpreted by the district courts.

Retired Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Paul Michel told registrants of IPWatchdog’s Virtual Patent Masters program taking place today  that the U.S. patent system has been “weakened to the point of being dysfunctional.” This dysfunction has been especially harmful to small businesses and startups, as well as to innovation in the life sciences industry—which we need now more than ever. Asked by IPWatchdog CEO and Founder Gene Quinn whether the coronavirus pandemic may be a wakeup call to those in power about the importance of incentivizing innovation in the life sciences area, Judge Michel noted that experts in the vaccine industry have indicated that China now dominates vaccine research and production. “The current circumstances may shift the thinking of policy makers quite suddenly and quite far,” Michel said. “We definitely are crimping the human health efforts for prevention and cure of symptoms. Let’s hope this really is a wakeup call for our leaders.”

The Federal Circuit needs to go en banc more often. That is the unmistakable lesson not just in light of the Supreme Court’s recent denials of certiorari on the hot questions of patent law, such as Section 101 and its application to diagnostic testing, or to whether Section 101 involves underlying factual questions. It is also tied into the very reason that Congress created the court in 1982: to provide predictability, stability, and clarity for the U.S. patent laws and system. Without these attributes, the patent system suffers—who, after all, wants to invest in patents where the governing rules are unclear or unpredictable?

In October, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) rejected a method for manufacturing propshafts in American Axle & Manufacturing (AAM) v. Neapco Holdings (Neapco), holding that the claims at issue were ineligible under Section 101. Judge Moore dissented, arguing that “the majority’s decision expands §101 well beyond its statutory gate-keeping function and the role of this appellate court well beyond its authority.” Several amici have now filed briefs in support of AAM’s request for rehearing of the CAFC’s decision. Former Chief Judge of the CAFC Paul Michel in his brief argues four points: 1) the opinion contravenes core summary-judgment rules and ignores evidence of a genuine dispute; 2) the ‘911 claims recite a multi-part, multi-step process for manufacturing auto parts and are not directed to ineligible matter; 3) the ‘911 claims do not preempt Hooke’s Law, confirming they are patent-eligible; and 4) the majority’s Section 101 rulings warrant en banc treatment.

This year has included many twists and turns for IP stakeholders, particularly on the patent side. Most recently, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex has called into question the constitutionality of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions, and perhaps the Board itself. Elsewhere, Congress has been—unsuccessfully—attempting to step in and clarify U.S. patent law since early in the year, while the courts have continued to muddy the waters of patent eligibility law. The Federal Trade Commission’s case against Qualcomm, and Judge Lucy Koh’s decision in the case, have further called into question the United States’ ability to compete on the innovation front going forward. And yet, there have been some wins in other areas this year, including at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and there remain many reasons to be hopeful about the year ahead. IPWatchdog asked some IP experts to share what they have to be thankful for on the IP front this Thanksgiving, despite all the uncertainty. Hopefully, as those of you who celebrate the holiday enjoy your Thanksgiving dinners, these sentiments will inspire you to be thankful too.

November 1 was the deadline for filing amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is considering whether to grant a petition for writ of certiorari to take up Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative Services on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Almost every amicus filing to the Supreme Court in this case supported granting the petition or backed up the position of petitioner Athena, who is asking the Supreme Court to clarify its patent-eligibility doctrine under the Alice/Mayo framework on the subject of medical diagnostic patent claims. The appeal to the Supreme Court follows a hotly contested denial of an en banc rehearing of the Federal Circuit’s original panel decision in Athena, which produced eight opinions, including four dissents, with many judges agreeing that Athena’s invention should be patent eligible even while they disagreed over whether Supreme Court precedent allowed for patent protection of diagnostic methods.

The Supreme Court has requested that Apple and Cisco file responses to Straight Path IP Group, LLC’s (SPIP’s) petition for certiorari in Straight Path IP Group, LLC v. Apple Inc., et al. The petition presents the following question: “Whether Rule 36(e) of the Federal Circuit’s Rules of Procedure violates the Fifth Amendment by authorizing panels of the Federal Circuit to affirm, with no explanation whatever, a District Court judgment resolving only issues of law.” SPIP filed its petition on August 23 and Apple and Cisco filed waivers of their right to respond on September 4 and 5, respectively. But on September 18, the Court requested that both companies file their responses by October 18.

On August 30, a number of amicus briefs were filed in the FTC v. Qualcomm appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal stems from a May 2019 order finding Qualcomm liable for anticompetitive behavior and issuing “sweeping” injunctive relief. Following Judge Koh’s ruling, her opinion has been called “disastrous,” an “utter failure,” and “based on scant evidence,” and further been accused of “mangling” antitrust law. The Ninth Circuit, in granting a partial stay of the injunction, noted there were “serious questions on the merits” of Judge Koh’s decision. Three of the amicus briefs in particular point out the errors in Judge Koh’s opinions that have given rise to these “serious questions.” Retired Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel filed an amicus brief focusing primarily on patent law issues, including the smallest salable patent-practicing unit (SSPPU) concept and reasonable royalty calculation. The International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) and Scholars of Law and Economics filed an amicus brief arguing that Judge Koh’s decision “is disconnected from the underlying economics of the case” and will cause serious harm to antitrust law. Finally, a number of Antitrust and Patent Law Professors, Economists, and Scholars filed an amicus brief highlighting how antitrust overreach, as they allege is present here, will harm innovation and arguing that the district court failed to engage in the level of real-world economic analysis as is required by this case.