Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Federal Circuit Is Headed to Malibu

Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016

The Federal Circuit will be sitting in southern California this October, with sessions in Los Angeles, Orange County, Irvine, and Malibu.  I’m guessing that the Malibu stop will be at Pepperdine University School of Law.  The schedule from the CAFC web site is shown below:

Sitting in Los Angeles, CA
Panel A:  Tuesday, October 04, 2016, 10:00 A.M.
15-1672 PATO NuVasive, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. [argued]
15-1670 PATO NuVasive, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. [argued]
16-1054 DCT Blue Spike, LLC v. Google Inc. [argued]
16-1068 CFC Agility Defense v. US [argued]
16-2041 MSPB Evans v. MSPB [on the briefs]
Panel C:  Wednesday, October 05, 2016, 10:00 A.M.
16-1208 PATO Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd [argued]
16-1216 DCT ProFoot, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc. [argued]
16-1278 CFC Rocky Mountain Helium, LLC v. US [argued]
16-1785 DCT Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [argued]
16-1986 MSPB Hambrick v. USPS [on the briefs]
16-2148 CFC Chittenden v. US [on the briefs]
Panel D:  Wednesday, October 05, 2016, 10:00 A.M.
16-1046 PATO DataTreasury Corporation v. Fidelity National Information [argued]
16-1050 PATO DataTreasury Corporation v. Jack Henry and Associates, Inc [argued]
16-1229 PATO DataTreasury Corporation v. Fiserv, Inc. [argued]
16-1250 PATO In Re DataTreasury Corporation [argued]
16-1933 MSPB Hernandez v. MSPB [on the briefs]
16-1934 MSPB Hernandez v. MSPB [on the briefs]
Sitting in Malibu, CA
Panel B:  Tuesday, October 04, 2016, 10:00 A.M.
15-1410 DCT Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc. [argued]
15-1907 DCT Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. [argued]
15-3233 MSPB Howard v. Air Force [argued]
16-1298 CFC Estes Express Lines v. US [argued]
16-1557 MSPB El v. MSPB [on the briefs]
16-1660 MSPB Pistilli v. MSPB [on the briefs]
Sitting in Irvine, CA
Panel E:  Thursday, October 06, 2016, 10:00 A.M.
15-3225 MSPB Wilson v. Navy [argued]
16-1062 PATO In Re Villena [argued]
16-1184 PATO Knauf Insulation, Inc. v. Rockwool International A/S [argued]
16-1370 DCT Red Dog Mobile Shelters, LLC v. Kat Industries, Inc. [argued]
16-1849 CAVC Harris v. McDonald [on the briefs]
16-1910 MSPB Scrivens v. OPM [on the briefs]
Sitting in Orange, CA
Panel F:  Thursday, October 06, 2016, 10:00 A.M.
16-1077 DCT Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp. [argued]
16-1128 DCT Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Company [argued]
16-1143 PATO Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Cirrex Systems, LLC [argued]
16-1313 CFC Sandoval Lua v. US [argued]
16-1667 MSPB Edwards v. USPS [on the briefs]

Supreme Court Oral Argument Recordings

Thursday, August 18th, 2016

The OYEZ site is a great site for listening to recordings of oral arguments from the Supreme Court (going back to at least 1956).

Here is a link to the oral arguments from patent cases at the Supreme Court: [Link].

Here is a link to the oral arguments from trademark cases at the Supreme Court [Link].

And, here is a link to the oral arguments from copyright cases at the Supreme Court [Link].

All content on oyez.org and other sites and projects maintained by Oyez is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Secondary Indicia of Patent Eligibility

Saturday, August 13th, 2016

I believe it was the oral argument of LendingTree v. Zillow in which the patent owner mentioned “secondary indicia of patent eligibility.”  Because the Supreme Court has conflated patent eligibility with obviousness in its Bilski-Mayo-Alice line of cases, I suppose it is a natural evolution for the patent bar to begin to rely on traditional 103 arguments to establish patent eligibility.

The argument would be that if the elements of a claim as an ordered combination recite something that has achieved, for example, commercial success, then the claimed invention must not have been well-understood, routine, and conventional, as of the date of its invention.  Therefore, the nature of the claim has been transformed into a patent eligible application.

Coordinate Adjectives:”Well-understood, routine, conventional”

Monday, August 8th, 2016

From time to time during oral arguments at the Federal Circuit, grammatical issues arise.  Sometimes a judge will instruct an advocate about what the proper grammatical interpretation of something is (according to that particular judge).  And, at least one judge is a self-described “grammar nerd.”  I’m curious if any of the judges will ever put their grammar credentials on the line to assess the proper grammatical interpretation of “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” from the MayoAlice cases.

It seems clear to me that in the phrase “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” that “well-understood, routine, conventional”  are being used as coordinate adjectives.  The grammar.com site gives this definition for coordinate adjectives:

Coordinate adjectives are two adjectives, of equal weight, modifying the same noun. Generally, you should separate the adjectives with a comma. A good test to use: Put the word and between the two adjectives and see if that makes sense. If so, the adjectives are coordinate adjectives.

Consider this example:

It was a long, hot summer.

See http://www.grammar.com/coordinate-adjective (last accessed August 7, 2016).

As the test makes clear, “well-understood, routine, conventional” is the equivalent of “well-understood, routine, and conventional” — a conjunctive phrase.

The Federal Circuit has noted that a conjunctive test requires that all parts of the test be met.  For example, in Luigi Bormioli v. United States, 304 F.3d 1362 (2002), after determining that Bormioli did not satisfy a criterion of a conjunctive test,  a panel of Judges Dyk, Clevenger, and Archer stated for the Federal Circuit:

We conclude that the Court of International Trade correctly held that Bormioli did not demonstrate that it met TD 85-111’s criterion that its financing arrangement with Bormioli Italy for the subject charges was in writing.

Because the TD 85-111 requirements are conjunctive, we need not address whether Bormioli satisfied the final requirement: that “where required by Customs, the buyer can demonstrate that [1][t]he goods undergoing appraisement are actually sold at the price declared as the price actually paid or payable, and [2][t]he claimed rate of interest does not exceed the level for such transaction prevailing in the country where, and at the time, when the financing was provided.” See TD 85-111. For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of International Trade is

AFFIRMED.

Luigi Bormioli v. United States, 304 F.3d 1362 (2002)(emphasis added).

Other circuits have applied conjunctive principles as well.  For example, in US v. SOTO-MATEO, No. 13-2031 (1st Cir. Aug. 26, 2015), Judges Kayatta, Selya, and Dyk stated for the First Circuit:

A defendant facing a charge of illegal reentry after removal may, under some circumstances, challenge the validity of the underlying order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d); United States v. Luna, 436 F.3d 312, 317 (1st Cir. 2006). To wage such a collateral attack, he must demonstrate that

(1) [he] exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order;

(2) the deportation proceedings at which the order was issued improperly deprived [him] of the opportunity for judicial review; and

(3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.

8 U.S.C. § 1326(d). In reviewing a district court’s determination as to whether a particular defendant has satisfied these requirements, we assay the district court’s subsidiary factual determinations for clear error, see United States v. DeLeon, 444 F.3d 41, 48 (1st Cir. 2006), and afford plenary review to its conclusions of law, see Luna, 436 F.3d at 316. Moreover, when “performing the collateral attack analysis under § 1326(d), [an inquiring] court ordinarily should address the initial test of exhaustion of administrative remedies before going on to the other two tests.” DeLeon, 444 F.3d at 45. The elements of section 1326(d) are conjunctive, and an appellant must satisfy all of those elements in order to prevail on a collateral challenge to his removal order. See Luna, 436 F.3d at 317.

US v. SOTO-MATEO, No. 13-2031 (1st Cir. Aug. 26, 2015)(emphasis added).

If the grammarists on the Federal Circuit choose to apply proper rules of grammar to the “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” test so as to treat it as a tripartite conjunctive test, they could reign in much of the overzealous application of Mayo/Alice that runs rampant today in assessing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101.

“Real-time”

Monday, July 25th, 2016

Oral arguments debating the meaning of the claim limitation “real-time” are always interesting.  Here’s a recent one: [Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple, Inc.].

You can read the court’s Rule 36 Judgment here: [Link].

Post-Prosecution Pilot (P3) Program

Friday, July 15th, 2016

Here is a link to the Federal Register Notice for the USPTO’s new Post-Prosection Pilot (P3) Program [Link].

Here is a link to the USPTO page [Link].

USPTO Issues New §101 Memo in Response to CellzDirect

Thursday, July 14th, 2016

The USPTO posted a new memorandum to its patent subject matter eligibility page today in regard to the Federal Circuit’s recent CellzDirect case.

The memo is available [HERE].

What impact should the UCC as authority have on patent eligible subject matter?

Tuesday, July 12th, 2016

In yesterday’s opinion in Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc), the Federal Circuit relied upon the Uniform Commercial Code in establishing a test for when an “offer for sale” has been made. The Supreme Court has relied upon the UCC in the past, for example, in Pfaff v. Wells Electronics.   Since the unanimous Federal Circuit looked to the U.C.C. as authority in Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., I wonder if litigants will begin seizing upon the U.C.C.’s definition of “goods” for 35 U.S.C. §101 purposes.

I think one argument might go as follows.  If a patent claim, such as a Beauregard claim, satisfies the U.C.C.’s definition of a “good,” then the claimed subject matter is subject to the U.C.C.  A good is defined by section 2-105 of the U.C.C., as follows.

(1) “Goods” means all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (Article 8 ) and things in action. “Goods” also includes the unborn young of animals and growing crops and other identified things attached to realty as described in the section on goods to be severed from realty (Section 2-107).

The Supreme Court has said that abstract ideas are “free to all men.”

The Court’s precedents provide three specific exceptions to § 101’s broad patent-eligibility principles: “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Chakrabarty, supra, at 309, 100 S.Ct. 2204. While these exceptions are not required by the statutory text, they are consistent with the notion that a patentable process must be “new and useful.” And, in any case, these exceptions have defined the reach of the statute as a matter of statutory stare decisis going back 150 years. See Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 174-175, 14 L.Ed. 367 (1853). The concepts covered by these exceptions are “part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men . . . free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130, 68 S.Ct. 440, 92 L.Ed. 588 (1948).

Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3225 (2010).

The U.C.C. does not state that there are any goods that are abstract ideas and thus free to all men.  So, if claimed subject matter falls under the definition of good, then it must necessarily be non-abstract.

If this is not the case, then the ALI will need to revise the UCC to except those goods that are “abstract,” as any abstract good would necessarily need to be free to all people and reserved exclusively to none.

You can read the Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc. en banc decision here: [Read the opinion].

You can listen to the recording of the en banc oral argument here: [Listen].

Forty-four Percent of All Financial Expert Reports Excluded

Friday, July 1st, 2016

I was listening to a recording of a recent Federal Circuit oral argument where one of the advocates mentioned that a PWC study reports that forty-four percent of all financial expert reports are excluded under Daubert.  Quite an interesting statistic.  PWC notes:

  • 44% of financial experts were excluded in 2015. This is consistent with the 16-year average.
  • Across the 16-year timespan, the most common reason for financial expert exclusions has been lack of reliability. Exclusion rates have been highest in intellectual property and product liability cases.
  • Testimony “based on sufficient facts or data” is a common stumbling block for financial experts and is the most frequent reason for reliability exclusions.
  • In 2015, accountants faced the highest number of challenges and experienced the highest exclusion rate.
  • In a majority of cases (78%), appellate courts agree with lower court Daubert rulings on financial experts.

Here’s a link to the PWC study: [Link].

Supreme Court Case of the Week: Prouty and Mears v. Ruggles et al.

Thursday, June 23rd, 2016

This week’s Supreme Court Case of the Week is a short one but an important one.  The key passage recites:

The patent is for a combination, and the improvement consists in arranging different portions of the plough, and combining them together in the manner stated in the specification for the purpose of producing a certain effect. None of the parts referred to are new, and none are claimed as new; nor is any portion of the combination less than the whole claimed as new, or stated to produce any given result. The end in view is proposed to be accomplished by the union of all, arranged and combined together in the manner described. And this combination, composed of all the parts mentioned in the specification, and arranged with reference to each other, and to other parts of the plough in the manner therein described, is stated to be the improvement, and is the thing patented. The use of any two of these parts only, or of two combined with a third, which is substantially different, in form or in the manner of its arrangement and connection with the others; is therefore not the thing patented. It is not the same combination if it substantially differs from it in any of its parts. The jogging of the standard into the beam, and its extension backward from the bolt, are both treated by the plaintiffs as essential parts of their combination for the purpose of brace and draft. Consequently the use of either alone, by the defendants, would not be the same improvement, nor infringe the patent of the plaintiffs.

Prouty and Mears v. RUGGLES ET AL., 41 U.S. 336, 341 (1842).

41 U.S. 336 (____)16 Pet. 336

DAVID PROUTY AND JOHN MEARS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
DRAPER RUGGLES ET AL., DEFENDANTS IN ERROR.

Supreme Court of United States.

The case was submitted to the Court on printed arguments by 337*337 Mr. Choate, for the plaintiffs in error; and by Mr. Dexter, for the defendants.

The case is fully stated in the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is brought here by a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States, for the district of Massachusetts.

The action was instituted for the purpose of recovering damages for an infringement of a patent, which the plaintiffs had obtained for an improvement in the construction of the plough.

The invention is described in the specification, as follows:

“Be it known, that we, the said Prouty and Mears, have jointly invented, made, and applied to use, a new and useful improvement in the construction of the plough, which invention and improvement we describe and specify as follows, viz.:

Heretofore, the standard and landside of the plough has been placed perpendicular to, and at right angles with the plane of the share; on this standard the beam has been placed in such manner as to form an acute angle with the landside, of such extent as to place that part of the beam to which the moving power is applied at the distance of three or more inches from an extended line of the landside, to the right; while the after-part of the beam extends one or more inches to the left of the perpendicular of the landside, near the handle; the object has been to cause the plough `to run to land,’ or hold its width of furrow. The effect produced has been an uneasy, struggling motion, as it meets resistance at the point, wing, or heel.

We make our plough with the standard and landside forming an acute angle with the plane of the share, the standard inclining to the right or furrow side, in such manner as to enable us to place the centre of the beam on a line parallel with the landside, the forepart thereof at such distance from the extended line aforesaid, as to cause the plough to hold its width of furrow, and the after-part falling within the perpendicular of the landside of the plough, the centre of it being nearly perpendicular to the centre of resistance, on the mould-board, which we conceive to be at about one-fourth part of the lateral distance from the landside to the wing of the share, and at about one-third part of the perpendicular 338*338 height from the plane of the share to the upper edge of the mould-board.

This location of the centre of resistance, we base on the fact, that many ploughs which have been used in sharp, sandy soils, have been worn quite through at that point. The result of this formation of the plough, is a steady, well-balanced motion, requiring less power of draft, and less effort in directing the plough in its course.

The inclination of the standard and landside causes the plough to cut under, and take up the furrow in the form of an oblique-angled parallelogram, or like a board, feather-edged, which being turned over, falls in level with the last furrow more readily than right-angled or square-edged work.

The coulter or knife, having a similar inclination, cuts the roots of the grass, &c., and leaves all vegetable matter on the surface, at a greater distance from the under edge of the furrow, which being turned over, more readily falls in, and is far better covered than with square-edged work.

The top of the standard, through which the bolt passes to secure the beam, is transversely parallel to the plane of the share, and extends back from the bolt to such distance as to form a brace to the beam, when the after-part is passed down by lifting at the forepart; the share being fast under a rock, or other obstruction, the after-part of this extension is squared in such manner, that being jogged into the beam, it relieves the bolt in heavy draft.

The bolts which we use to fasten the pieces of cast iron, of which our ploughs are made, together, and the wood-work, are round, with inverted convex heads, like the wood screw, with a projection on the under side of the head, of semicircular form, which fits into a groove in the counter-sink part of the bolt hole, as it is cast to receive it, which not only prevents its turning, but also diminishes the liability of breakage at the corners of square holes; all which will more fully appear by reference to the drawing annexed to, and forming part of this specification.

We hereby declare, that what we claim as new, and of our invention, is the construction of such ploughs as aforesaid, and the several parts thereof, not separately, but in combination, for the purposes aforesaid, viz.:

339*339 1. The inclining the standard and landside so as to form an acute angle with the plane of the share.

2. The placing the beam on a line parallel to the landside, within the body of the plough and its centre, nearly in the perpendicular of the centre of resistance.

3. The forming the top of the standard for brace and draft. We do not intend to confine our claim to any particular form or construction, excepting such form as may be necessary to place the beam in the perpendicular of the centre of resistance, and parallel to the landside, and also to such form of the top of the standard, as shall serve for brace and draft, but have given such form as we deem to be most convenient, which may be varied, as is obvious.”

The plaintiffs offered to prove the utility of the alleged improvement, which proof was dispensed with by the defendants. Certain ploughs alleged by the plaintiffs to be made in conformity with their letters patent, and certain ploughs made by the defendants, which were the alleged infringement of the plaintiff’s patent, were produced in Court; and no substantial difference between them was shown by the defendants to exist, unless the fact, that the top of the standard in the defendant’s plough was not jogged into the beam, and did not extend so far back upon the beam, was to be so considered.

And the plaintiffs offered evidence to show, that the top of the standard formed, as stated in the specification, would serve for both purposes of brace and draft, although not jogged into the beam.

The defendants introduced no evidence. The counsel for the plaintiffs requested the Court to instruct the jury as follows, to wit:

The counsel of plaintiffs respectfully move the Court to instruct the jury, that if the defendants have used, in combination with the other two parts, a standard of the description set forth in the specification, and it is proved to serve both for brace and draft, such use was an infringement of the plaintiffs claim in that particular, although the defendants may not have inserted into a jog in the beam.

Also, that if any two of the three parts described, as composing the construction claimed in the specification, had been used in 340*340 combination by the defendants, it was an infringement of the patent, although the third had not been used with them.

The Court refused to give the instructions so prayed, or either of them, in manner and form as prayed by the plaintiffs; but did instruct the jury as follows, to wit:

That upon the true construction of the patent, it is for a combination, and for a combination only. That the combination, as stated in the summing up, consists of three things, viz.:

1. The inclining the standard and landside so as to form an acute angle with the plane of the share.

2. The placing the beam on a line parallel to the landside, within the body of the plough and its centre, nearly in the perpendicular of the centre of resistance.

3. The forming the top of the standard for brace and draft.

That unless it is proved, that the whole combination is substantially used in the defendants’ ploughs, it is not a violation of the plaintiffs’ patent, although one or more of the parts specified, as aforesaid, may be used in combination by the defendants. And that the plaintiffs, by their specification and summing up, have treated the jogging of the standard behind, as well as the extension, to be essential parts of their combination for the purpose of brace and draft; and that the use of either alone by the defendants would not be an infringement of the combination patented.

And thereupon the jury rendered their verdict for the defendants.

The first question presented by the exception is, whether the extension of the standard, and the jogging of it into the beam, are claimed as material parts of the plaintiff’s improvement. We think they are. In the paragraph in which it is described, he states that it “extends back from the bolt to such a distance as to form a brace to the beam;” and also, “that being jogged into the beam it relieves the bolt in a heavy draft.” And in their summing up, they declare that they claim as new, and of their invention, the construction of such ploughs as aforesaid, and the several parts thereof, not separately but in combination; and proceeding then to specify the parts so claimed, they mention, “the forming of the top of the standard for brace and draft.” They indeed say that they do not mean to confine their claim to any particular form of construction, 341*341 except “to such form of the top as shall serve for brace and draft.” That is to say, the top is to be so formed and so connected with the beam as to answer both purposes. And as those purposes, according to the preceding part of the specification, are to be accomplished by its extension back from the bolt, and by jogging it into the beam, these two things are essential to it whatever variation may be made in its shape or size. They are, therefore, material parts of the improvement they claim.

The remaining question may be disposed of in a few words. The patent is for a combination, and the improvement consists in arranging different portions of the plough, and combining them together in the manner stated in the specification for the purpose of producing a certain effect. None of the parts referred to are new, and none are claimed as new; nor is any portion of the combination less than the whole claimed as new, or stated to produce any given result. The end in view is proposed to be accomplished by the union of all, arranged and combined together in the manner described. And this combination, composed of all the parts mentioned in the specification, and arranged with reference to each other, and to other parts of the plough in the manner therein described, is stated to be the improvement, and is the thing patented. The use of any two of these parts only, or of two combined with a third, which is substantially different, in form or in the manner of its arrangement and connection with the others; is therefore not the thing patented. It is not the same combination if it substantially differs from it in any of its parts. The jogging of the standard into the beam, and its extension backward from the bolt, are both treated by the plaintiffs as essential parts of their combination for the purpose of brace and draft. Consequently the use of either alone, by the defendants, would not be the same improvement, nor infringe the patent of the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the Circuit Court must therefore be affirmed.