Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc., Docket No. 08-1501 & -1507 (Fed. Cir. March 30, 2010), Power-One, Inc. (“Power-One”) owns U.S. Patent No. 7,000,125 (the ‘125 patent). The ‘125 patent relates to power supply systems which control, program and monitor point-of-load (POL) regulators. Each of the claims recites the use of POL regulators, but the specification does not specifically define the term “POL regulator”.
Artesyn Technologies, Inc. (“Artesyn”) sells a competing power control system, which Power-One asserts infringes the ‘125 patent. At trial, the District Court defined the term “POL regulator” to be a “dc/dc switching voltage regulator designed to receive power from a voltage bus on a printed circuit board and adapted to power a portion of the devices on the board and to be placed near the one or more devices being powered as part of a distributed board-level power system.” Based upon this definition, the jury found that the ‘125 patent was a valid patent, and that Artesyn infringed the ‘125 patent.
On appeal, Artesyn contended that the District Court’s definition of the POL regulator was unduly broad and that the term is indefinite. Moreover, Artesyn appealed the District Court’s decision that the ‘125 was non-obvious.
Undue Breadth of District Court Definition
On the issue of whether the District Court’s definition was unduly broad, the Federal Circuit first cited to Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) for the rule that claim terms are “generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning “a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . at the time of the invention” would give to a particular claim term. In reviewing the specification, the Federal Circuit noted that the definition of POL regulator was supported by the intrinsic record. Importantly, the Federal Circuit found that the definition adopted by the District Court provided sufficient meaningful guidance to the jury as to be definite and not unduly broad. Specifically, the Federal Circuit has found that the terms “adapted to” and “near” can be definite, and the District Court was entitled to utilize these terms without rendering the resulting definition unduly broad as these terms are understandable in light of the ‘125 patent specification. As noted by the Federal Circuit, “[t]he fact that the claim is not defined using a precise numerical measurement does not render it incapable of providing meaningful guidance to the jury because the claim language, when taken in context of the entire patent, provides a sufficiently reasonable meaning to one skilled in the art of distributed power systems.”
Definiteness of Undefined, Well-known Claim Term
Consistent with this holding, the Federal Circuit also found that the term “POL regulator” was definite for purposes of 35 U.S.C. §112, paragraph 2. In making this determination, the Federal Circuit outlined the test for definiteness as being whether the claim boundaries are discernible to a skilled artisan based on the language of the claim, the specification, and the prosecution history, as well as the artisan’s knowledge of the relevant field of art. See Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-1 LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249-51 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” The mere fact that the claim term may be difficult to understand or subject to some disagreement is not enough to find a claim indefinite. Exxon Research & Eng’g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“if the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusions may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree, we have held the claim sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds.”).
In applying this standard, the Federal Circuit found that the intrinsic record did support the recited term “POL regulator”. Specifically, the Federal Circuit found that the intrinsic record showed that POL regulators are well known devices in the field. Since one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what a POL regulator does and how it operates, the Federal Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision that the term “POL regulator” is definite despite any express definition in the specification.
Nonobviousness of claims
On the issue of obviousness, the Federal Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision that the ‘125 patent was nonobviousness. During trial, Artesyn asserted that the ‘125 patent was obvious based upon seven pieces of prior art, and testimony of its expert. Power-One provided its own expert, as well as secondary considerations of non-obviousness. The Federal Circuit found that the jury was entitled to credit Power-One’s expert at the expense of Artesyn’s expert on the issue of obviousness.
Further, the Federal Circuit noted that Artesyn’s primary argument was that each of the recited elements were known in the prior art. In rejecting this argument, the Federal Circuit quoted the Supreme Court for the proposition that “a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements is, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). As such, to show obviousness, there needs to be evidence as to why the known arguments would have been combined.
Lastly, the Federal Circuit noted that the jury was entitled to take into account secondary considerations. Specifically, Power-One put into evidence that Artesyn had copied Power-One’s patented design, which Artesyn then touted as an advancement in the industry on introduction of its copied product. According to the Federal Circuit, “Artesyn’s contemporaneous reaction to Power-One’s invention, and the industry’s reaction, demonstrate the unobviousness of the invention disclosed in the ’125 patent.” See Allen Archery, Inc. v. Browning Mfg. Co., 819 F.2d 1087, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (praise in the industry for a patented invention, and specifically praise from a competitor tends to “indicat[e] that the invention was not obvious”). As such, the evidence of copying, as well as Artesyn’s own advertising represented an admission usable as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness.
Significance for Patent Owners and Applicants
In Power-One, the Federal Circuit provides a reminder that tests such as definiteness under 35 U.S.C. §112 and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 are primarily factual inquiries to be based upon evidence, not formulaic rules. Thus, claim terms are not rendered indefinite merely because they are undefined specifically in the specification so long as there is evidence that one skilled in the art would understand the meaning of the term. Moreover, merely because each claim element is known does not render a claim obvious without evidence as to why the particular recited combination would be made. Lastly, it is interesting to note that the Federal Circuit based its nonobviousness ruling, at least in part, on the fact that the infringer had copied the patented design as evidence of copying is not classically considered a secondary consideration.