By Evan Jensen In its much-anticipated Alice v CLS Bank decision the Supreme Court held that Alice’s software patent was patent-ineligible subject matter under §101. But in its decision the Supreme Court seems to have blended a §101 analysis with a §103 analysis. The Court seems to infer that well-known ideas, such as methods that are fundamental to modern economy, are abstract and therefore patent-ineligible under §101. There is no debate that abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter. No one may claim exclusive rights to the idea of addition, or of binary-decimal conversion, or any other generic abstract mathematical or conceptual idea. To allow a patent on an abstract idea would preempt everyone else from using that idea, greatly discouraging innovation, which is contrary to the primary goals of the patent system. The issue is which software claims, or whether software claims in general, are made patent-ineligible by the Alice decision.
By Chris Reaves A recent appeal of a lengthy prosecution ended last week, when the Federal Circuit in In re Hyon, 102 USPQ2d 1889 (Fed. Cir. 2012) upheld the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) findings that a person of ordinary skill would have reason to combine two references to create the invention at issue. The Board’s decision, though possibly “flawed,” could not be found unreasonable under the applicable standard of review, emphasizing the challenge that patent prosecutors face in overcoming a factual finding. Background The applicants, Suong-Hyu Hyon and Masanori Oka, were granted U.S. Patent No. 6,168,626 on a specific type of “Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene” (abbreviated throughout the patent and the opinion as “UHMWPE”), and on the method for creating these material. The inventors intended the material to be used for artificial joints although the claims were not limited to this embodiment. The patent had only eleven claims, with limitations such as thickness of the UHMWPE
James Jang In Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court that the patent was not obvious based on prior art evidence, nor the asserted claims were invalid for nonstatutory double patenting. The Defendants are drug manufacturers who submitted ADNA filings to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an approval to manufacture, use, or sale of generic aripiprazole products. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Corporation brought action against the drug manufacturers for infringement of patent on the compound claimed in Patent No. 5,006,528, aripiprazole, an atypical antipsychotic compound approved by the FDA for the treatment of schizophrenia. The Defendants counterclaimed that the patent was invalid for obviousness and nonstatutory double patenting. The Federal Circuit analyzed three ‘lead compounds’ asserted by the Defendants, unsubstituted butoxy compound, 2,3-dichloro propoxy compound, and OPC-4392 compound. A ‘lead compound’ means “a compound in the prior art that would be most promising to modify
By Charles Pierce In Ex Parte Evans et al. (Appeal 2011-004119; Application serial no. 11/823,993), the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences reversed examiner rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for indefiniteness, and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness. Claim 1 of the patent states: A method for cooling an internal combustion engine using a reduced toxicity, ethylene glycol and water based heat transfer fluid, said method comprising the steps of: (a) formulating a heat transfer fluid comprising (1) a glycol component consisting of ethylene glycol and propylene glycol, wherein the weight of the propylene glycol is between 5% less to less than 30% of the total weight of the glycol component and wherein the glycol component is less toxic than 10,000 mg/kg on an acute LD50(rat) oral toxicity basis, and (2) water, wherein the water comprises between 40% and 70% by weight of the total weight of the heat transfer fluid; and (b) substantially filling the cooling system of
In Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 95 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 2010), plaintiff Philip W. Wyers (Wyers) sued defendant Master Lock Company (Master) for infringement of its patents for hitch pin locks. Hitch pin locks are typically used to secure draw bars or tow-ball mount to a hitch receiver attached to a motor vehicle. Wyers’ patents describe a barbell-shaped lock with a stop portion on one end, a locking head on the other end, and a shank portion which passes through the aligned apertures of the hitch receiver and the tow-ball mount. The use of barbell-shaped locks and locks on trailer hitch receivers was well known in prior art. Specifically, the prior art had examples of locks with a lock head, a shackle having a stop member, a shank, and a latch. Moreover, the prior art also had examples of barbell-shaped locks being used as a trailer hitch receiver lock. Wyers’ patents claim improvements to the prior art locks; mainly
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
Federal Circuit Confirms the Need For Evidence to Support Use of Common Sense During Obviousness Determinations In Perfect Web Techs. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 92 U.S.P.Q.2d 1849 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit expounded on the use of common sense in the determination of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Supreme Court looked favorably upon the use of a common sense approach in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct 1727; 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) decision. The Federal Circuit, in Perfect Web Techs. v. InfoUSA, Inc. relied upon that decision in finding that a bulk E-mailing patent was obvious in light of the prior art reference and the common sense of a person of ordinary skill.
Also Finds Time to Appeal Begins From the Mailing Date as Opposed to Date Printed On Opinion In In re McNeil-PPC, Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 2009), McNeil owns U.S. Patent 6,310,269, which claims a tampon for feminine hygiene with a solid fiber core, where the core is denser than the radially projecting “ribs” and the ribs are narrower at their base than at their distal end. McNeil requested that the PTO re-examine its patent on the basis of unexamined Japanese application No. 55-168330 by Tetsu Sasaki (hereinafter “Sasaki”). Sasaki discloses the process of making a tampon blank via stitching layers of material and then molding the blank into a finished tampon. The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3 as anticipated by Sasaki and claim 4 as obvious over Sasaki. McNeil appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), arguing that Sasaki failed to disclose key elements of his claim (the relative densities and coarseness of the
In Ritchie v. Vast Resources, Inc., 563 F.3d 1334 (Fed Cir. 2009), Steven D. Ritchie and H. David Reynard own a medical device patent, U.S. Patent No. Re 38,924, which is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,132,366 (hereinafter the ‘924 patent). They also own a device manufacturer, Know Mind Enterprises, that manufactures medical devices for sexual purposes. The defendant, Vast Resources, Inc., owns Topco Sales, a manufacturer producing the same category of medical devices. The devices manufactured by the two parties are generally shaped into a rod made of rubber, plastic, glass or other similar materials or a combination of such materials. Prior to the plaintiff manufacturing the device of the ‘924 patent, such glass devices were typically manufactured from soda-lime glass. However, the plaintiff manufactures such devices using an “oxide of boron” or borosilicate glass as the ‘924 patent claims a device “fabricated of generally lubricious glass-based material containing an appreciable amount of an oxide of boron to
In DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Civ. Case Nos. 90 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2009), DePuy owns U.S. Pat. No. 5,207, 678 (the ‘678 patent). The ‘678 patent is directed to a medical device that is a pedicle screw used in spinal surgeries. DePuy sued Medtronic, accusing Medtronic of infringing the ‘678 patent with Medtronic’s Vertex pedicle screws. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Medtronic’s ensnarement defense, found that Medtronic engaged in litigation misconduct, with both decisions being appealed before the Federal Circuit Court. Additionally, DePuy cross-appeals from the District Court’s granting of Medtronic’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of no willful infringement and from the denial of DePuy’s motion for a new trial for reasonable royalty damages. In a prior appeal, the Federal Circuit Court upheld the District Court’s granting of summary judgment as per Medtronic not literally infringing the ‘678 patent with Medtronic’s Vertex pedicle screws. However, the Federal