Posts Tagged: "patent claims"

The Federal Circuit reversed. Indeed, it found that the Board committed legal error by improperly relying on inherency to find obviousness and in its analysis of motivation to combine the references. The court found that the Board erred in relying on inherency to dismiss evidence showing unpredictability in the art in rejecting Honeywell’s argument that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success. It referred to an earlier opinion [citations omitted] to state that “the use of inherency in the context of obviousness must be carefully circumscribed because “[t]hat which may be inherent is not necessarily known” and that which is unknown cannot be obvious.”

Buried in the claim language, conditional limitations may be a vulnerability in an otherwise valuable claim. A conditional limitation is a claim feature that depends on a certain condition being present. For example, when or if condition X is present, feature Y is implemented or has effect. Without condition X, feature Y may be dormant or have no effect. Patent owners should be cognizant of possible conditional limitations implications because conditional limitations may affect claim validity and infringement as discussed below in the context of recent U.S. Patent Office and Federal Circuit cases. In Ex Parte Schulhauser, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) held certain claims as unpatentable based on conditional limitations.

In Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., a district court dismissed a patent infringement complaint under FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, because the patent was drawn to patent ineligible subject matter. On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that the patent “claims an improvement to computer memory systems and is not directed to an abstract idea.” Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

One promising approach is to argue that the claims are directed to a specific technological solution to a specific technological problem, as has been successful in the courts. But, even this may not be convincing, if argued in the abstract, because, after all, we are dealing with abstract ideas to begin with, and it is all too easy for an examiner to dismiss an abstract argument as “not convincing”. A concrete, bright line test can be constructed, which may sway an examiner (or appeal board, if the rejection is appealed). Articulate a specific technological problem that the claims solve or are directed to solving. Analyze the claim and cite some of the important claim limitations that are not present in the alleged abstract idea, and explain the significance of these claim limitations in terms of the technological problem and technological solution.

Immunotherapy has emerged as one of the most promising mechanisms to combat diseases like cancer and microbial infections. Since 2000, multiple antibody drugs have reached blockbuster status, including the anti-TNF antibodies adalimumab and infliximab, the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab, the anti-VEGF-A antibody bevacizumab, and the anti-HER-2 antibody Trastuzumab. In 2016, five of the top 10 pharmaceuticals were antibody drugs, with combined sales exceeding $45.8 billion. The cancer immunotherapy market is expected to reach nearly $120 billion… The promise of immunotherapy as a treatment option has opened up the intellectual property landscape of the field. Many companies and institutions have filed patent applications related to the various drugs and targets… The claim language in a patent is crucial to the effective protection of the invention, and the balance between breadth of the claims and validity is a difficult one to achieve.

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. 

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.

On June 21, 2017, In Storer v. Clark, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s interference decision, which awarded priority to Clark’s pending application (filed May 30, 2003) over Storer’s issued patent. The Court found that Storer’s earlier provisional application (filed June 28, 2002) did not enable the subject matter of Storer’s interfering claims… To satisfy the enablement requirement, applicants should provide either explicit examples of claimed compounds or direction or guidance on how to synthesize the claimed compounds. Disclosing generic structures or general approaches to synthesis does not by itself satisfy the enablement requirement for specific compounds. A known precursor does not enable synthesis of a claimed compound if the application does not disclose the precursor or how to convert it into to a claimed compound.

Partial institutions lessen the value of estoppel because the petitioner avoids estoppel on claims that were challenged but not instituted. The PTAB never issues a final written decision for these challenged-but-not-instituted claims. And because estoppel only applies to claims receiving a final written decision, these non-instituted claims escape the estoppel statute See, e.g., Shaw Industries Group v. Automated Creed Systems, 817 F.3d 1293, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In effect, the PTAB’s current practice saves a petitioner from estoppel on claims it had little chance of invalidating. Thus, under the current practice, a petitioner currently only risks estoppel on claims that it stands a good chance of invalidating. But if the Supreme Court decides as expected, estoppel will attach to all challenged claims of an instituted IPR. Final written decisions will more often include claims found valid, and a petitioner will no longer be able to avoid estoppel for some claims by relying on the PTAB to sort strong challenges from weak ones at the institution stage.

The Cleveland Clinic’s diagnostic or “testing” patents at issue dealt with a process by which an enzyme was measured and correlated against known levels of the enzyme in patients who were healthy or had cardiovascular disease. The Federal Circuit applied the two step Alice analysis, affirming a finding of Section 101 ineligibility and a failure by plaintiff to state a claim of contributory or induced infringement.

This marks the third return to the Federal Circuit of a dispute (the 050 case) between the ArcelorMittal Appellants and the AK Steel Appellees… Overall, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment invalidating ArcelorMittal’s reissue patent, finding that the district court: (1) possessed subject matter jurisdiction when it granted summary judgment, (2) properly followed the Court’s most recent mandate on remand, and (3) properly exercised its discretion to deny a Rule 56(d) request for new discovery on commercial success… When appropriate given all of the circumstances, a district court may have jurisdiction to consider claims of a reissue patent on remand, although the claims were not asserted at trial, e.g. if the reissue claims are sufficiently connected to the original case and the remand for such consideration is requested. A case or controversy is not moot, and jurisdiction is not avoided, by tendering an unexecuted and conditional covenant not to sue.

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decision in an inter partes review proceeding, finding the Board did not set forth its reasoning for finding the asserted claims obvious in enough detail for the Court to determine whether it was supported by substantial evidence… The Board also did not set forth its reasoning in sufficient detail for the Court to determine whether its obviousness decision was procedurally proper. The Board must comply with certain procedural requirements in conducting an inter partes review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including informing the patent owner of “the matters of fact and law asserted,” give the patent owner an opportunity to submit facts and arguments, and permit the patent owner to submit rebuttal evidence.

In RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that RecogniCorp’s patent claims are directed to an abstract idea, and do not contain an inventive concept sufficient to make them patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101… Adding one abstract idea, such as math, to another abstract idea, such as encoding- decoding, does not make the claim non-abstract. A claim containing a mathematical formula can satisfy § 101 when it applies the formula in a structure or process which, as a whole, is performing a non-abstract function that the patent laws were designed to protect. Under Alice step two, a claim that is directed to a non-abstract idea is not rendered abstract simply because it uses a mathematical formula. However, the reverse is also true: A claim directed to an abstract idea does not automatically become patent eligible by adding a mathematical formula. The elements of the claim must be examined to determine whether there is an inventive concept beyond the addition of a mathematical formula, e.g. to be implemented on a computer. The claims must make it clear how the invention improves a specific technology, rather than simply stating to an abstract end-result.

Nichia Corporation (“Nichia”) sued Everlight Americas, Inc., Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. and Zenaro Lighting (collectively, “Everlight”) for infringement of three of Nichia’s patents disclosing packaging designs and methods of manufacturing LED devices. Following a bench trial, the district court found that Everlight infringed all three patents and failed to prove the patents invalid. The district court denied Nichia’s request for a permanent injunction. Nichia appealed the district court’s refusal to enter a permanent injunction, and Everlight cross-appealed the district court’s infringement and validity findings. The Court affirmed on all grounds.