November 23, 2014

Bad Injector

"Antares is a developer of automatic injection devices used to self-administer pharmaceuticals." It got a patent (7,776,015) that it wanted broadened under reissue (35 U.S.C. § 251), as it had not bothered to file a continuation. Owing to prosecutorial and patent office incompetence, the reissue claims went to a different invention. Asserted in litigation, the CAFC caught the reissue error (district court Judge Sue L. Robinson did not) and pitched the patent (CAFC 2014-1648).

Posted by Patent Hawk at 8:20 PM | Reissue

Stay

Verstata asserted software patents against rival Callidus, which counterclaimed with its own patents. Callidus filed limited reexamination proceedings against the Verstata patents, and asked the court for a stay pending reexam. The district court denied the stay. The CAFC reversed that.

Continue reading "Stay"

Posted by Patent Hawk at 8:07 PM | Case Law

November 17, 2014

Not So Wild Tangent

Ultramercial sued Hulu and WildTangent for infringing 7,346,545, which claims receiving payment for a consumer viewing Internet advertising. The district found the patent invalid under § 101. The CAFC balked at that, but reversed itself after the Supreme Court Alice ruling (CAFC 2010-1544). "We do not purport to state that all claims in all software-based patents will necessarily be directed to an abstract idea," the court stated. But since Alice, not one has yet to pass muster.

Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:56 AM | § 101

November 10, 2014

Wrong Address

Texas gets a lot of patent cases, but the judges there are as incompetent as in the rest of the country. In Azure Networks v. CSR, East Texas Judge Michael H. Schneider got bamboozled into an ersatz claim construction for "MAC address" during an assertion of 7,756,129, claiming a personal network device. Based upon two brief descriptive passages, the district court decided that the patentee had acted as its own lexicographer. On appeal (CAFC 2013-1459), a CAFC panel pointed out how stupid Judge Schneider was: "The statements in the specification relied upon by the district court neither define 'MAC address' nor exclude universal addresses. Nothing in the specification or the prosecution history shows an attempt to distinguish over prior art."

Posted by Patent Hawk at 9:10 PM | Claim Construction

October 22, 2014

Obvious After the Fact

A petition for rehearing en banc at the CAFC for a drug obviousness case (Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Teva - CAFC 2013-1306) was denied. What was remarkable was the inane confusion at the court. Judges Dyk and Wallach stated that "post-invention evidence" is rightly not allowed in considering obviousness. As Judge Newman observed: "Precedent is clear that the information and comparative data presented as evidence of nonobviousness need not have existed before the patent application was filed," noting the secondary consideration of commercial success, and citing several instances where evidence of unexpected results found later were considered relevant to obviousness. The CAFC continues to be an inexcusably pathetic excuse for a patent court: creating self-contradictory precedent and thereby failing to provide guidelines that the patent office and patent community may reasonably rely upon.

Posted by Patent Hawk at 1:09 AM | Prior Art

October 17, 2014

No Means

Robert Bosch sued Snap-On for infringing 6,782,313, which claims a motor vehicle diagnostic tester. Alas, the tester had no specification support for a testing device. The courts found insufficiency under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, even though there was no explicit "means for" element.  Another stupid patent assertion with another stupid patent bites dust. (CAFC 2014-1040). But then, Robert Bosch is a German company, and their nickel-slick lawyers got paid regardless.

Posted by Patent Hawk at 1:31 AM | § 112

October 12, 2014

Bad Medium

EMD Millipore sued Allpure over its device to put "a medium" into and get out of a jar (6,032,543). It lost in summary judgment, for noninfringement, owing to prosecution estoppel. It's easy to tell how lame the assertion was when the claim construction argument went to the meaning of the term "removed." Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds represented the plaintiff. One can only wonder whether they saw it coming, as they should have. (CAFC 2014-1140)

Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:59 PM | Infringement

September 10, 2014

Unobtrusive Manner

In Interval Licensing v. AOL, the CAFC embraced the newly invigorated standard of indefiniteness inaugurated by the Supreme Court in Nautilus v. Biosig. In an unobtrusive manner, the appeals court affirmed invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based upon claiming "an unobtrusive manner."

Continue reading "Unobtrusive Manner"

Posted by Patent Hawk at 6:09 PM | § 112

September 7, 2014

Abstraction Transaction

In buySAFE v. Google (CAFC 2013-1575), a CAFC panel furthers the Supreme Court rulings of Bilski and Alice in finding that software which effects "a contractual relationship" or "commercial transactions" are not patent-eligible subject matter.

Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:31 AM | § 101

August 27, 2014

Not Bingo

Planet Bingo got patents for a computer managing a game of bingo, starting with parent 6,398,646. It assertion against VKGS lasted only until summary judgment, where all claims were found patent ineligible under § 101. Like Alice and Bilski, there is no bingo no more for patents claiming to "organize human activity." The courts consider that too abstract. Speaking of abstraction, try this on for gibberish: "Abstract ideas may still be patent-eligible if they contain an "'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application."" Sounds like organizing case law into coherency ought to be patentable, as it would be novel. (CAFC 2013-1663).

Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:01 AM | § 101

August 16, 2014

Inequitable Conduct

The district court and CAFC found Dr. Bernard Charles Sherman, founder and chairman of Apotex, guilty of inequitable conduct in his patenting of an antihypertensive claimed in 6,767,556. "Dr. Sherman breached his duty of candor, good faith, and honesty before the PTO." Typical CEO behavior, especially in the big leagues. But then, Dr. Sherman was just another crooked player in a very crooked game. Abusing the law is bread-and-butter business for Federal judges, particularly when patents are asserted by small fry against corporate giants.

Posted by Patent Hawk at 10:38 PM | Inequitable Conduct

Collaborative Filtering

I/P engine sued Google, Target, and Gannett (a media conglomerate) over 6,314,420 & continuation 6,775,664. Judge and jury at district court found the patents infringed, and neither anticipated nor obvious. As these were major U.S. corporations, there was no way that those decisions would be upheld on appeal. Sure enough. The CAFC panel majority agreed with Google that "as a matter of law [the claimed invention] simply combines content-based and collaborative filtering, two information filtering methods that were well-known in the art." To rub it in the noses of unreasonable citizens who waste their time on jury duty: "no reasonable jury could conclude otherwise." In concurrence, Judge Mayer thought the claims "fall outside the ambit of 35 U.S.C. § 101."

Posted by Patent Hawk at 10:26 PM | Prior Art

August 11, 2014

Unscripted

In ScriptPro v Innovation Associations, the district court rightly granted summary judgment of invalidity for 6,910,601 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the claims left out sensors that were disclosed as essential, and otherwise the claimed invention simply could not work. Ignoring the facts particular to the technology, the CAFC reversed (2013-1561), blithely stating that "it is common, and often permissible, for particular claims to pick out a subset of the full range of described features, omitting others."

Posted by Patent Hawk at 12:17 AM | § 112

July 13, 2014

§101 Profile

6,128,415 claims a device profile to rid digital image distortion. The courts found it patent ineligible for being an abstraction. The CAFC (2013-1600): "For all categories except process claims, the eligible subject matter must exist in some physical or tangible form." The noose tightens on patenting software.

Posted by Patent Hawk at 1:28 AM | § 101

July 9, 2014

Essential

The U.S. courts have done their best to limit patent scope and validity within the past decade, in reponse to corporate complaint. The sensible formula of writing a specification in problem-solution form turned into a formula for obviousness without evidence after KSR. In X2Y Attenuators v. ITC (2013-1340), the CAFC affirms another trick: terming a feature as "essential" in the disclosure limits any claim to that feature to the embodiment specifically disclosed. X2Y also created a corrupt precedent, in allowing any claim limitations in earlier applications to leak into a later CIP without claim construction, to argue invalidity. With the courts corrupted to mega-corporate interests, the broken U.S. patent system continues to squash invention by inventors and small companies with caprice.

Posted by Patent Hawk at 2:11 PM | Claim Construction

June 19, 2014

Down The Rabbit Hole

The Supreme Court affirmed the CAFC in invalidating financial patents in Alice v. CLS Bank under §101. "The claims at issue are drawn to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and that merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Reading between the plutocratic lines, any claim to computerized finances is going to prove unenforceable. The courts are simply not going to allow financial institutions to be pickpocketed by clever patentees.

Posted by Patent Hawk at 8:50 AM | § 101

June 13, 2014

Drug Obviousness

The CAFC, like other courts, decides how to rule, then fits the law to suit the ruling. The same judges on a CAFC panel that were at diametric ends over the same issue in Allergen v. Apotex were happy to affirm an obviousness finding of the district court in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Teva. In doing so, it summarized case law in this area, if only in this case.

Continue reading "Drug Obviousness"

Posted by Patent Hawk at 2:56 PM | Prior Art

June 12, 2014

Obzilla Amok

The CAFC continues its rampage against the rule of law. In Allergan v. Apotex (CAFC 2013-1245), a panel finds obviousness over the very reference the USPTO carefully considered (Johnstone), finding the reference "does not teach away," and that "there was nothing left for a chemist to do." In dissent, Judge Chen notes: "This is not a situation in which there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. Rather, the single sentence in Johnstone actually proposes hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of variations." Thus, the panel majority - new Chief Judge Prost and Judge Reyna - ignores the repeated precedence of KSR, Ruschig, Eli Lilly and others to achieve a new level of caprice.

Posted by Patent Hawk at 8:15 AM | Prior Art

June 4, 2014

Infringement

Contravening the confused CAFC once again, SCOTUS ruled in Limelight v. Akamai that direct infringement requires a single party. Further, "liability for inducement must be predicated on direct infringement."

Posted by Patent Hawk at 6:13 PM | Infringement

June 2, 2014

Reasonable Certainty

The CAFC's long-standing standard of indefiniteness - that a patent claim was definite unless "insolubly ambiguous" - has been a unreasonable evisiceration of statute. In Nautilus v. Biosig (13-369), the Supreme Court put reason back in.

To tolerate imprecision just short of that rendering a claim 'insolubly ambiguous' would diminish the definiteness requirement's public-notice function and foster the innovation-discouraging 'zone of uncertainty'. A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent's specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. [A] patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed. The standard adopted here mandates clarity, while recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable.

Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:05 PM | § 112