Download - 2020 FALL NEWSLETTER - staasandhalsey.com

2020 FALL NEWSLETTER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

U.S. SUPREME COURT 1. Google LLC vs. Oracle America, Inc. – U.S. copyright protection for

software interfaces.

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 1. Amgen Inc. v Sanofi, Aventisub LLC – CAFC heard argument that may

influenceCOVID-19drugpatentability. 2. Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC – CAFCappliesLexmarkanalytical frameworkastheapplicablestandardtodeterminewhetherapersonis eligibletobringapetitionforthecancellationofatrademarkregistration. 3. Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC – The CAFC identifiedtheproperstandardforthe“problem”analysisinanalogousart as“theproblemstowhichtheclaimedinventionandreferenceatissue relatemustbeidentifiedandcomparedfromtheperspectiveofaperson havingordinaryskillintheart”. 4. In re Google Technology Holdings LLC - Argumentsregardingpatentability ofaclaim,suchasclaimconstruction,shouldbepresentedtoboththe ExamineraswellasthePTABonceanExaminermakesaprima facie caseforrejectinganapplication. 5. IQASR vs. Wendt - Apatentapplicationmustbedraftedtodefineclaims termssuchthatthatapersonofordinaryskillcanclearlyunderstandthe claimscopewithreasonablycertainty. 6. St. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLC-Thebroadest reasonableinterpretationofaclaimmustbeconsideredinlightofthe specification.

USPTO NEWS 1. USPTOTrademarkFeeIncreaseEffectiveJanuary2,2021 S&H FIRM NEWS 1. S&HCelebrates50Yearsin2021 2. GoingPaperless 3. ContinuingUninterruptedinviewofCOVID-19

1201NEWYORKAVENUE,N.W.WASHINGTON,D.C.

1201NEWYORKAVENUE,N.W.7THFLOORWASHINGTON,[email protected]


UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

U.S. copyright protection for software interfaces.

Background

In2008,GoogleLLC(“Google”)releasedAndroid,“anopen-sourceplatformdesignedtoenablemobiledevicessuchassmartphonesandtablets.TheAndroidplatformwasbuiltusingtheJavaprogramminglanguagedevelopedbySunMicrosystems,whichwaslateracquiredbyOracleAmerican,Inc.(“Oracle”).PriortoOracle’sacquisitionofSunMicrosystems,GooglereplicatedthesyntaxandstructureoftheJavaapplicationprogramminginterface(“API”)withintheAndroidplatformtoensurethird-partydeveloperscouldutilizetheprewrittenmethodsanddeclarationsknownwithinJava’sAPIlibraries.Googlereplicated“37JavaAPIlibrariesthatweredeterminedbyGoogletobe‘keytomobiledevices,’”whichattributedtoonly3%oftheAndroidenvironment.Googleindependentlywrotetheremainderofthecodeto“accommodatetheuniquechallenges”ofthemobiledeviceenvironment.UponitsacquisitionofSunMicrosystems,OraclesuedGoogleintheU.S.DistrictCourtfortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia(“DistrictCourt”),allegingcopyrightinfringementforthereplicatedcode.

Attheendoftrial,theDistrictCourtheldtheJavaAPIwasnotcopyrightableandrejectedGoogle’sfairusedefense,whichpermitstheunlicenseduseofcopyright-protectedworksincertaincircumstances.Onappeal,theU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit(“FederalCircuit”)reversedandremandedthedistrictcourt’sdecision.Specifically,theFederalCircuitfoundtheJavaAPIwassubjecttocopyrightprotectionandremandedthecasebecausetherewasalackofsufficientfactualfindingstoresolvethefairuseissueraisedbyGoogleintheDistrictCourt.Onremand,thejuryconcludedGoogle’suseoftheJavaAPIconstitutedfairuse.Oracletimelyappealed.OnceagainonappealintheFederalCircuit,thecourtoverturnedthejury’sverdict,findingGoogledidnotengageinfairuseasamatteroflaw.Googlesubsequentlypetitionedforcertiorari,whichthe Supreme Court granted.

Oral Argument at the U.S. Supreme Court

Asnoted,thequestionsbeforetheSupremeCourtarewhethercopyrightprotectionextendstoasoftwareinterface,andwhetherGoogle’suseofasoftwareinterfaceinthecontextofcreatinganewcomputerprogramconstitutesfairuse.Initspetitionforcertiorari,GoogleassertsthatiftheFederalCircuit’sapproachisallowedtostand,“developerswillbeforcedtoabandontheirtraditionalbuilding-blockapproachtosoftwareinterfacedevelopment,”andinturn,“wouldhaveadevastatingimpactonthedevelopmentofcomputersoftware.”Nevertheless,OracleassertsthatafindinginfavorofGooglewouldpenalizesoftwaredevelopersforsimplycreatingasoftwareinterfacepopularenoughsincethatwouldallowothercompaniestouseitwithoutconsequenceunderthefairusedoctrine.

TheSupremeCourtheldoralargumentsinthecaseonOctober7,2020.

Googlearguedatpages3,4,and5ofthetranscriptthat:

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., Dkt. 18-956 (S. Ct. 2018)



Themergerdoctrineresolvedthecopyrightabilityquestioninthiscase.Oraclehasacopyrighttothe computercodeinJavaSEbutnotapatent.Thatmeansthatthepublic,notOracle,hasthe righttoJavaSE’sfunction,andOraclecannotleverageitscopyrighttocreatepatent-likerights. Specifically,underthemergerdoctrine,thereisnocopyrightprotectionforcomputercodethatis theonlywaytoperformthosefunctions. Here,Javasoftwaredevelopershavetherighttousecertaincommandstocreateapplicationsfor Google’sAndroidsmartphoneplatform,but,towork,thecommandsrequireGoogletoreuseanexact setofdeclarationsfromJavaSE,likeakeythatfitsintoalock.

Becausetherearenosubstitutes,Oracleisimpermissiblyclaimingtheexclusiverightnotmerelyto whatthedeclarationssaybutalsotowhatthedeclarationsdo.Thatisnotacopyright;itisa patent right.

Withrespecttofairuse,thelong-settledpracticeofreusingsoftwareinterfacesiscriticaltomodern interoperablecomputersoftware.Here,reusingtheminimallycreativedeclarationsallowedthe developerstowritemillionsofcreativeapplicationsthatareusedbymorethanabillionpeople.

ButthosepolicyquestionsarealmostacademicbecausetheissueisnotwhetherthisCourtwould findfairuse.Thestandardofreviewasksthemuchnarrowerquestionwhetherthejurycould reasonablyfindfairuse.Oraclenowobviouslyregretsitsdemandthatthejuryweighalltheevidence anddecidefairuseinageneralverdictthatcontainsnosubsidiaryfindings.

Nopreviouscourteverheldthatonlyacourtmaydecidefairuse.Itissofact-boundthatnoprior appellatecourteveroverturnedafairuseverdict.Thisuniquelycontestedcaseshouldnotbe thefirst.

Today,youwillhearthreelawyerspresentlegalargumentsforanhour.In2016,thejuryheardthe starklyconflictingtestimonyofalmost30witnessesandreviewedroughly200exhibitsovertwo-and-a- halfweeks.Thiscaseperfectlyillustrates,asthisCourtrecentlyreiteratedinGeorgiaversusPublic. Resource,thatfairuse“isnotoriouslyfact-sensitiveandoftencannotberesolvedwithoutatrial.”

Oraclearguedatpages38,39,and40ofthetranscriptthat:

Google’swholeargumentthismorningiscodeisdifferent.

Nowafewbasiclegalprinciplesandconcessionscontroltheoutcomeofthiscase.

Legalprinciple1:Congressdefinedliteraryworktoincludesoftwareandgrantedcopyrightprotection aslongasthecodeisoriginal.GoogleconcededOracle’scodeisoriginal.That’stheendof thequestion.

GoogleasksthisCourttocarveoutdeclaringcode,butCongressrejectedtheverycarveoutinmultiple ways,includinginitsdefinitionofcomputerprogramandbynotincludingGoogle’scarveoutamongthe limitationsinSection117.

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., Dkt. 18-956 (S. Ct. 2018) (cont.)



Legalprinciple2:ThisCourtheldinHarperandinStewartthatasupersedinguseisalwaysunfairasa matteroflaw.Nocourthasfoundfairuseorupheldafairuseverdictwhereacopyistcopiedsomuch valuableexpressionintoacompetingcommercialsequeltomeanthesamethingandservethe samepurposeastheoriginal.Googleconcededthepurposeandthemeaningarethe same.That’stheendofQuestion2.

NooneelsethoughtthatinnovatingrequiredcopyingSun’scodewithoutalicense.

AsJusticeAlitonotes,AppleandMicrosoftdidnotcopytocreatetheircompetingplatforms.

NeitherdidotherswhowrotecompetingplatformsintheJavalanguage.

Therewasandstillisahugemarketfordeclaringcode.OthermajorcompanieslikeIBMandSAP werepayingalotofmoneytolicensejusttheSundeclaringcodepreciselybecauseitwascreated. Andthroughoutthislitigation,Googleneverdeniedthis.

IfthisCourtholdsthatajurymayconcludethatcopyingdeclaringcodeisfair,itwillencouragecopying, createlegaluncertainty,anddecimatethebusinessmodelwhichalotofcompaniesdependon, underminingtheveryincentivescopyrightwasdesignedtopromote.

Weawaitadecision.

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., Dkt. 18-956 (S. Ct. 2018) (cont.)


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

OnDecember9,2020,theU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit(FederalCircuit)heardoralargumentinapharmaceuticalpatentcase,AmgenInc.v.Sanofi,AventisubLLC.

Background

AmgensuedSanofiandRegeneronPhamaceuticals,Inc.,allegingtheircompetingdrug,PRALUENT,infringedAmgen’spatentsforREPATHA.Amgen’spatentsarerelatedtoagenusofantibodiescalledPCSK9inhibitors,whichhelppatientswithLDL,abadcholesterol,whohavedifficultygettingtheirconditionundercontrolwithwidelyusedstatinssuchasPfizerInc.’sLIPITOR.

AlowerfederaltrialcourtfoundAmgen’stwopatentsshouldneverhavebeengrantedbecauseitwouldtakeanundueexperimentandwouldnotenableaskilledartisantorecreatethegenusofantibodiesclaimedbythepatentsatissue.

Oral Argument at Federal Circuit

Thecourtconsideredargumentsfrombothpartiesregardingtheenablementrequirementwithrespecttoantibodyclaims.

BeforeAmgen’spresentationofarguments,JudgeLouriecommentedthattheclaimsaredirectedtocompositionofmatterclaimsthatwereclaimedbyfunctionratherthanstructure.Further,JudgeLourieindicated,thedistrictcourtfoundthatnostructure-functionrelationshipwouldeliminatetheneedforundueexperimentationandthereforelackofenablement.

Disagreeingthattheclaimswereclaimedbyfunctionandnotstructure,Amgenrespondedthatitisunrelatedtotheissue.Amgenassertedthattwo“anchorantibodies”spannedthefullareaofonespotinthePCSK9antibodyandarguedthatoneofordinaryskillintheartcanidentifyalloftheatmost400distinctantibodiesthatbindanywhereonthatonespot.”Further,heargued,identifyingtheantibodiestothosethatbindtothesweetspotcouldbedonewithoutundueexperimentation,withcommonlyavailablelaboratoryresourcesandthebasicresearchtoolsofthefieldofantibodyresearch.

“I’mhavingtroubleseeingwhereyourroadmapandyourexamplesgetyoutoenablementofthefullscopeoftheclaims,”ChiefJudgeSharonProstsaid.

JudgeLourieemphasizedthatthedistrictcourtwasconcernedthattheclaimdidnotprovideguidanceonpredictingwhetheranantibodywouldbind.Amgenrespondedthatantibodyscientistsaspersonswithordinaryskillintheartwouldunderstandthatonceyoumakethesequenceyouknowtowhichsitetheywillbind,andthatthespecificationprovidedguidanceonhowtomakeeachofthe400distinctantibodies.

JudgeProstalsoaskedhowthepatentroadmapencompassedSanofi’sallegedinfringingantibodies.JudgeProstsaidtheseinfringingantibodiesseemedtofunctiondifferentlyfromthoseclaimedbybindingadifferentnumberofantibodies.Amgenrespondedthatexperttestimonyindicatednoantibodyscientistwouldconsiderthecompetitorantibodiestobeofadifferentclassfromthosecreatedbythepatentroadmap.

AMGEN INC. V. SANOFI, AVENTISUB LLC



Sanofiemphasizedthenumber“400”wasunsupported,respondingtoAmgen’sarguments,andarguedthatthis“400”numberwasnotinthedistrictcourt’sopinionbecausethisnumberwasneverpresentedtothedistrictcourt.Whenaskedhowmanyantibodieswouldaccomplishthefunctionifthepatentroadmapwasused,SanofiarguedAmgen’sinventorreplied“Idon’tknowaspecificnumber”andAmgen’sexpertanswered“Ican’tgiveyouanumberonwhatthetotalis.” JudgeLourieaskedtoSanofionwhytheenablementrequirementwouldnothavebeenmetinthiscasewhenthewrittendescriptionrequirementhasbeenmet.Sanofirespondedbyarguingthatwhenyouhaveafunctionallimitation,toomanycandidates,andyouwouldhavetotesteachandeveryonetoseewhichoneswork,whichisatypicalexampleofundueexperimentation.Accordingtothedistrictcourt,Sanofiargued,“thefactthatyouknewthere[was]goldinthehillsandthatyouknewhowtouseapantofindit,[that]doesn’tmeanyouareentitledtoeveryounceofgoldineverysquaremileoftheCaliforniacountryside.” JudgeHughesaskedwhyrequiringalargequantityofexperimentationwouldbeconsideredundueexperimentationifqualitativelytheexperimentationrequiredcouldbeminimalandeasy.SanofirespondedbyarguingthatAmgen’sownexperttestifiedthattesting“millionsandmillionsofantibodiestoseewhethertheywouldwork...wouldbe‘anenormousamountofwork’andmorethananyscientistwouldevencontemplatedoing.” JudgeHughesthenaskedwhetheragenusclaimwithregardtoantibodiesshouldbeabletobeclaimedfunctionallyinanyway.Sanofididnotgiveadefinitepositiontotheinquiry.Sanofiarguedthattheremaybeacasewherefunctiondictatesstructuresufficientlyintheantibodyfieldtocrossthethresholdofpredictability,butthatitwasnotthecaseinthissetoffacts. Amgenrepliedthat,giventhestructureandthespecificonespotinthePCSK9antibody,onewouldexpectthatalimitednumberofantibodycandidateswouldresultfromthepatentroadmap.Amgenalsoarguedthatanexpertestimatedsomewherearound100antibodies,andAmgenconservativelyarguedthatthisnumbercouldbe400. JudgeHughesaskedwhy,ifmillionsandmillionsoftestswererequiredtoseeiftheantibodybindsandblocks,thatsituationwouldnotbeundueexperimentation.Amgenrepliedthat,whilehebelievedthatnumberappearstobeextreme,experimentationwouldnotbeunduebecauseofthelowriskofexperimentalfailures.Inthiscase,theenablementofaprocessisdefeatedonlywhensuchfailuresarepervasiveandfrequent.Incomparisontopriorcases,Amgenargued,claimsfailedwhenthousandsoftestswereexpectedtofail,andyouweresearchingforonethatmightwork.Here,thousandsoftestswouldbeexpectedtosucceedwithapossibilityofafewvariations.“It’sonlywhenyouhavefailuresthatimpedeyourabilitytomakeandusetheinventionthatyouhaveundueexperimentation,”Amgenargued.“Beingabletosuccessfullymaketheseproductsisn’tundueexperimentation,it’sproduction.” S&H’s Analysis Thiscaseisinterestinginpartbecauseitmayhaveimplicationsforthepatentabilityofananti-bodydrug,includingantibodiestotreatCOVID-19. WeawaitadecisionbytheFederalCircuit.

AMGEN INC. V. SANOFI, AVENTISUB LLC (cont.)



OnOctober27,2020,theU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit(CAFC)affirmedaTrademarkTrialandAppealBoard(“TTAB”)decisionthatSFMwasentitledtobringandmaintainapetitionunder35U.S.C.§1064. Background SFMownsU.S.trademarkregistrationsforthemarkSPROUTStobeusedwithretailgrocerystoreservices.SFMfiledapetitiontocancelCorcamore’smarkSPROUTforusewithvendingmachineservicesallegingalikelihoodofconsumerconfusion. TheTTABreliedonEmpresa Cubana del Tabaco v. General Cigar Co.,753F.3d1270(Fed.Cir.2014)todenyCorcamore’smotiontodismissthecancellationpetitionforlackofstandingastheTTABconcludedSFMhadstandingduetoitsrealinterestinthecancellationproceedingandareasonablebeliefofdamagecausedbytheSPROUTmarkcontinuingtoberegistered. CorcamoreappealedthattheTTABerredinapplyingEmpresea Cubana ratherthanfollowingtheanalyticalframeworkestablishedinLexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,572U.S.118(2014)fordeterminingwhethertherequirementsformaintainingastatutorycauseofactionhavebeensatisfied. CAFC’s Analysis The CAFC agreed with Corcamore that Lexmark’s“analyticalframeworkistheapplicablestandardfordeterminingwhetherapersoniseligibleunder§1064tobringapetitionforthecancellationofatrademarkregistration”andexplainedthattheSupremeCourtinLexmarkestablishedapartyisentitledtobringastatutorycauseofactionifitdemonstrates“(i)aninterestfallingwithinthezoneofinterestsprotectedbythestatuteand(ii)proximatecausation.”Thus,theCAFCconcludedtheLexmarkanalyticalframeworkappliesto§1064. AlthoughtheTTABappliedthestandardofEmpresa Cubana rather than Lexmark,theCAFCassertedtherewas“nomeaningful,substantivedifferencebetweentheanalyticalframeworksexpressedinLexmark and Empresa Cubana”;therefore,theTTABstillreachedthecorrectresult. S&H’s Analysis The Corcamore decision appears to show that Lexmark’sanalyticalframeworkthatapartyisentitledtobringastatutorycauseofactionifitdemonstrates(i)aninterestfallingwithinthezoneofinterestsprotectedbythestatuteand(ii)proximatecausation,andthatthisistheapplicablestandardfordeterminingwhetherapersoniseligibleunder§1064tobringapetitionforthecancellationofatrademarkregistration.

CORCAMORE, LLC v. SFM, LLC



OnNovember9,2020,theU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit(CAFC)vacatedandremandedaninterpartesreview(IPR)decisionfromtheU.S.PatentTrialandAppealBoard(PTAB)forProStageGear’spatentforguitareffectspedals.ThePTABhadrejectedobviousnesschallengesbyDonneronthegroundthatDonnerdidnotprovethatapriorartreferenceisanalogousart. Background ProStageGear’spatentU.S.PatentNo.6,459,023(’023patent)describesimprovementstoguitareffectspedals.The“BackgroundoftheInvention”portionofthespecificationofthe’023patentstatesapriorartsolutionforaproblemofcablemanagementistocoverthecablesbyfoamsothatthecablesarenotexposed,butthatthispriorartsolution“restrictstheabilitytochangeoutoroneeffectforanotheroraddanadditionaleffectbecausethefoammustberemovedtouncoverthecableconnections,theeffectremovedfromtheboard,thecablesrepositionedfortheneweffect,theneweffectpositionedontheboard,thecablesrerouted,andthefoamre-cutorreplacedfortheneweffect.” The“SummaryoftheInvention”portionofthe‘023patentdescribes“a cable connection opening which isadaptedtoallowthecabletopassfromtheadapterontheguitareffectthroughtheeffectmountingsurfaceintoacableroutingandstorageareawhichallowsforthecabletobekeptcontainedandoutofthewayduringuseoftheeffectpedals”. InthePTABIPRproceeding,Donnerchallengedvariousclaimsofthe‘023patentasobviousinviewofU.S.PatentNo3,504,311(Mullen).Mullenisdirectedtoproviding“animprovedsupportforsupportingoneormorerelaystructuresandforprovidingwiring-channelspaceforreceivingwiresthatwouldbeconnectedtotherelaystructurestoconnecttherelaystructuresinvariouscontrolcircuits.”DonnerassertedMullen’sstructureisanalogoustotheclaimedstructureinthe‘023patent.ThePTABdeterminedthatDonner’sobviousnesschallengefailedbecauseDonnerhadnotproventhatMullenisanalogousart. CAFC’s Analysis TheCAFCstated“Itisundisputedthatthe’023patentandMullenarenotfromthesamefieldofendeavor.Therefore,theonlyquestioniswhetherMullenisreasonablypertinenttooneormoreoftheparticularproblemstowhichthe’023patentrelates.”TheCAFCidentifiestheproperstandardforthe“problem”analysisas“theproblemstowhichtheclaimedinventionandreferenceatissuerelatemustbeidentifiedandcomparedfromtheperspectiveofapersonhavingordinaryskillintheart”. TheCAFCthenstatedthePTABmaynothave“meaningfullyconsideredallofDonner’sargumentsandevidence”includingdetailedexperttestimony,and“failedtoproperlyidentifyandcomparethepurposesorproblemstowhichMullenandthe’023patentrelate”.Accordingly,theCAFCconcludedthat“becausetheBoardfailedtoidentifyandcomparetheproblemstowhichthe’023patentandMullenrelate,theBoardfailedtoapplytheproperstandard.” S&H’s Analysis TheprecedentialDonnerdecisionreinforcesthepropositionthatthePTAB“mustexaminetherelevantdataandarticulateasatisfactoryexplanationforitsactionincludingarationalconnectionbetweenthefactsfoundandthechoicemade.”.InDonner,theCAFCidentifiedtheproperstandardforthe“problem”analysisinanalogousartas“theproblemstowhichtheclaimedinventionandreferenceatissuerelatemustbeidentifiedandcomparedfromtheperspectiveofapersonhavingordinaryskillintheart”.Therefore,ApplicantsmaywishtotaketheDonnerdecisionintoconsiderationwhendraftingaspecificationtoavoidpotentiallyanalogousart,orwhenmakingnon-analogousartargumentsduringprosecutionofanapplication.

DONNER TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. PRO STAGE GEAR, LLC (precedential)



OnNovember13,2020,theU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit(CAFC)affirmedadecisionbythePatentTrialandAppealBoard(PTAB)sustainingtherejectionoftheExaminer’sfinalrejectionofvariousclaimsunder35U.S.C.§103inanapplicationbyGoogle.Inclarifyingthedifferencebetweenthedoctrinesof“waiver”and“forfeiture,”theCAFCheldthatGooglehadforfeitedtheargumentsputforthonappealbecausethoseargumentswerenotpresentedtotheExaminerorPTAB.Therefore,theCAFCaffirmedthePTAB’sdecision. Background Google’sapplicationrelatedto“distributedcachingforvideo-on-demandsystems,andinparticulartoamethodandapparatusfortransferringcontentwithinsuchvideo-on-demandsystems.”Independentclaim1wasdirectedtoamethodtorespondingtorequeststostreamcontenttoset-topboxesfromvariouscontentservers.Inappealingtherejectionofindependentclaim1tothePTAB,Googlebroadlyarguedinlengthyblockquotesthatthecitedreferencesdidnotdisclosemostofthefeaturesfromclaim1.Googlealsoarguedthatthecitedreferencesdidnotdisclosethefeaturesofevictingitemsfromacacheinamannerwhichminimizeda“networkpenalty,”asrecitedindependentclaim2. ThePTABwasnotpersuadedbyGoogle’sarguments,andfoundthatthecitedreferencestaughttheconceptofdistributingcontentbasedona“cost”whichwas“basedonanetworkimpact.”ThePTABfoundtheExaminer’sbroadinterpretationoftheterm“cost,”inviewofthecitedreferences,wasconsistentwiththeapplication’sspecification.Furthermore,thePTABnotedthatGooglehadnotcitedtoadefinitionof“cost”or“networkimpact,”inthespecificationwhichwouldhaveprecludedtheExaminer’sinterpretation.Finally,thePTABalsosustainedtherejectionofclaim2,findingthatGoogle’sattempttoattackcertainreferencesindividuallydidnotconsidertheteachingsofthereferencesincombination. CAFC’s Analysis Onappeal,GooglearguedthatthePTABhaderredinitsconstructionoftheterms“cost”and“networkpenalty”inviewoftheexplicitdefinitionsinthespecification.GoogledarguedthatbecausethePTABhadreliedonincorrectinterpretationsoftheclaimterms,thePTAB’sdecisionwasincorrect.ThePTABarguedthatGooglehadwaiveditsargumentsregardingclaimconstructionofthosetermsbecausethoseargumentswerenotpresentedtothePTAB. Inaddressingeachparty’sarguments,theCAFCfirstnotedthedistinctionbetweenwaiverandforfeiture.TheCAFCstated“forfeitureisthefailuretomakethetimelyassertionofaright,”while“waiveristhe‘intentionalrelinquishmentorabandonmentofaknownright.’”Here,theCAFCfoundGooglehadfailedtoraiseitsargumentsregardingclaimconstructionoftheterms“cost,”and“networkpenalty,”totheExaminerortothePTAB.ThereforetheCAFCfoundthat,intentionalornot,Googlehadforfeitedthosearguments,statingthat“apositionnotpresentedinthetribunalunderreviewwillnotbeconsideredonappealintheabsenceofexceptionalcircumstances.”Accordingly,theCAFCdeclinedtohearGoogle’snewargumentsastotheproperconstructionof“cost,”andfoundthatGooglehadnotprovidedanyreasonableexplanationastowhyitneverarguedtotheExaminerortothePTABwhyaparticularconstructionshouldbeaffordedtotheterm.Similarly,theCAFCheldthatGooglehadnotsuggestedanyparticulardefinitionof“networkpenalty,”totheExaminerorPTABandhadalsoforfeiteditsargumentspertainingtoclaim2. S&H’s Analysis TheCAFC’sdecisionservesasaremindertoapplicantsthatargumentsregardingpatentabilityofaclaim,suchasclaimconstruction,shouldbepresentedtoboththeExamineraswellasthePTABonceanExaminer makes a prima faciecaseforrejectinganapplication.Insteadofpresentingnewargumentsonappeal,theCAFCencouragedapplicants“toavoidwasteofappellateresourcesandinsteadtaketheintra-PTOrouteoffilingneworamendedclaims(perhapsthroughacontinuationapplication)containinglanguagethatmakesthedesiredscopeclear,therebyservingthegoaloffacialclarityofpatentclaims.”

IN RE GOOGLE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LLC, 2019-1828 (precedential)



InIQASR vs Wendt,theU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit(CAFC)affirmedadistrictcourt’sdecisiontoinvalidatedUSPatent.No.9,132,432duetoindefiniteness.Atissueinthecasewastheterm“magneticfuzz”. Background U.S.Patent9,132,432(‘432patent)isdirectedtoaprocessforautomobilescraprecycling.Claim1isreproducedbelow: Amethodofseparationofautomobileshredderresiduecomprisingthestepsof: providingautomobileshredderresidueasaresultformaferroussortingrecoverysystem; introducingsaidautomobileshredderresidueintoanautomobileshredderresiduesorting,non-ferrous recoverysystem; non-magneticallysortingmagnetic fuzzfromsaidautomobileshredderresiduewithsaidautomobile shredderresiduesorting,non-ferrousrecoversystem; whereinsaidsortedmagneticfuzzissubstantiallyfreeofrecyclablematerials. InBiosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.theCourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuitstatedthat“inthefaceofanallegationofindefinites,generalprinciplesofclaimconstructionapply”.Applyingthesegeneralprinciples,thedistrictcourtfoundthatthetermmagneticfuzzinthe‘432patenthadnoordinaryandcustomarymeaning.Assuch,thedistrictcourtheldthattheterm“magneticfuzz”wasacoinedterm. Havingestablished“magneticfuzz”asacoinedterm,thedistrictcourtreliedonintrinsicevidence,(i.e. claimlanguage,thespecification,andtheprosecutionhistory)andextrinsicevidence(i.e.expertwitnesses)toattempttoassignmeaningformagneticfuzz. Inanalyzingtheintrinsicevidenceofthe‘432patent,thedistrictcourtfoundthat“magneticfuzz”wasnotclearlydefinedandnotenoughofanexplanationwasgivensothatanartisancouldinferwithreasonablecertaintyobjectiveboundariesfortheterm.Thedistrictcourtalsoweighedextrinsicevidencetodetermineadefinitionformagneticfuzz. CAFC’s Analysis TheFederalCircuitfoundthatthespecificationofthe‘432patentincludedopen-endeddefinitionformagneticfuzzandthispreventedareasonableboundonthescopetheterm.Also,inviewoftheintrinsicevidence,theFederalCircuitagreedwiththedistrictcourtthatextrinsicevidencebyitselfcannotdeemaclaimdefinite.Infact,theFederalCircuitstatedthat“aclaimtermdoesnotbecomereasonablycertainsimplybecauseaskilledartisan,whenpressed,managedtoarticulateadefinitionforit”.Assuch,theFederalCircuitaffirmedthedistrictcourt’sdecisiontoinvalidatethe‘432patent.

S&H’s Analysis

TheFederalCircuit’sdecisionservesasreminderthattherearelimitstotheuseofextrinsicevidencetocureindefinitenessandthatapoorlywrittenspecificationcannotsimplybesavedbyanexpertwitness.Apatentapplicationmustbedraftedtodefineclaimstermssuchthatthatapersonofordinaryskillcanclearlyunderstandtheclaimscopewithreasonablecertainty.Thecourtwilllookattheclaimlanguage,specification,andprosecutionhistorytodeterminethescopeofclaimterms.

IQASR vs WENDT



TheCourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit(FederalCircuti)inSt. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLCheldthatthebroadestreasonableinterpretationofaclaimmustbeconsideredinlightofthespecification. Background St.JudeMedical,LLCpetitionedtwiceforinter partesreviewofapatentownedbySnydersHeartValveLLC.Theclaimatissuewasdirectedtoanartificialheartvalveandasystemforinsertingthevalve.Theheartvalvecanbeinstalledviacatheterwithoutinvasivesurgeryandwithoutaneedforremovalofthepatient’sdiseasedheartvalve. Inresponsetothepetitionatissue,thePTABfoundthatfouroftheseclaimswereanticipatedbytheprior art. Infindingthepriorart’santicipationofthesefourclaims,theclaimrecitationsatissuewasa“framesizedandshapedforinsertionbetweentheupstreamregionandthedownstreamregion”,andthePTABappliedthe“broadestreasonableinterpretation”oftheseclaimrecitations.Basedonthepriorartdisclosedavalveinsertsizedtofitthevalveafterthedamagednativevalvewasremoved,thePTABunderthebroadestreasonableinterpretationinterpreted“framesizedandshaped”asalsocoveringaframethatfitsinplaceafterremovalofadamagedheartvalve.Therefore,thePTABfoundthatthepriorartanticipatedtheclaims. CAFC’s Analysis TheFederalCircuitreversed.TheFederalCircuitheldthatthepriorartrequiredremovalofadamagednativeheartvalvebeforeplacingtheartificialvalve.Incontrast,theSnydersHeartValveLLCpatentspecificationdisclosedthatthedisclosedartificialheartvalvecanbeinsertedwithoutremovingthenativevalveandexpresslyindicatedthatthisfeaturewasanimprovementoverthepriorart.TheFederalCircuitfoundthatthePTABfailedtotakesuchlanguageinthespecificationintoconsiderationforthebroadestreasonableinterpretation.Accordingly,thePTABimproperlyconstruedthe“sizedandshaped”limitationascoveringanartificialvalvefittedforthespaceleftafterremovingthenativevalve.Instead,theFederalCircuitheldthat,inlightofthespecificationdisclosurediscussed,theclaimatissuewasnotanticipatedbythepriorart. S&H’s Analysis Thiscasereconfirmsthepatentpolicythatthebroadestreasonableinterpretationoftheclaimsshouldstillbeinterpretedinlightofthespecification.

ST. JUDE MEDICAL, LLC V. SNYDERS HEART VALVE LLC


USPTO NEWS

TheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO)issettoincreasecertaintrademarkfeeseffectiveJanuary2,2021. Thetrademarkfeeincreasesrelatetoapplicationfiling,postregistrationfeesfortrademarkmaintenance,petitions,andTrademarkTrialandAppealBoardfees. Ofparticularinteresttoownersofregisteredtrademarks,anewfeeisbeingimplementedforcertainrequeststodeletegoodsandservicesfromaregistration.Thenewfeeappliesifarequesttodeletegoods,services,orclassesfromatrademarkregistrationisfiledafteraSection8oraSection71declarationofcontinueduseisfiled.Thenewfeewillnotapplyifarequestforsuchdeletionisfiledbefore,orattimeoffiling,ofaSection8oraSection71declarationofcontinueduse.AccordingtotheUSPTO,thenewfeeistoencouragetrademarkownerstodeterminesoonerthanlaterwhetheragood,serviceorclassinatrademarkregistrationisnolongerinuseandneedstoberemoved. TrademarkownersintendingtoregisteratrademarkwiththeUSPTOcanconsiderwhethertofileatrademarkapplicationbeforethetrademarkfeeincreases. ForregisteredtrademarkswhichrenewalwindowsareopenbeforeJanuary2,2021,thetrademarkownerscanconsiderwhethertofilearenewalbeforethetrademarkfeeincreases. YoumayfollowthelinksbelowtoUSPTO’sbreakdownoftheadjustmentstothetrademarkfeesincludingacomparisonwiththeoldtrademarkfees. TableofTrademarkFees–Current,FinalTrademarkFeeSchedule,andUnitCost. FeeSettingandAdjusting|USPTO FormoreinformationabouttheUSPTOadjustmentstothetrademarkfees,orIfyouhaveanyquestion,pleasecontactus.

USPTO TO ADJUST TRADEMARK FEES EFFECTIVE JANURY 2, 2021

https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Trademark-Fees-Current-Final-Unit-Cost-2020.xlsx

https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting#tmfee-info


S&H FIRM NEWS

Specializingexclusivelyinintellectualproperty,Staas&HalseyLLPbringstogethertechnicalandlegalexpertiseinourcommitmenttoprovidequalitylegalrepresentation.

Since1971,wehaveprovidedclientswithtechnicalexpertiseandintellectualpropertyprotection.

WeprovideourclientswithhighqualityandhighvalueintellectualpropertyprotectionthroughpatentapplicationandtrademarkapplicationpreparationandprosecutionservicesbeforetheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice,understandandcareforourclients’concernsbydevelopinglong-termandcloserelationshipswithourclients,andprovideourclientswithtrainingtounderstandthecomplexitiesandnuancesof U.S. patent prosecution. Wethankallofourclientsforbeingpartofourjourney!

STAAS & HALSEY LLP CELEBRATES 50 YEARS in 2021


S&H FIRM NEWS

Sinceabouttheyear2010,ourfirmhasmaintainedduplicativepaperandelectronic“official”filesforeachofourclient’smatters.EffectiveJanuary1,2020,ourfirmdiscontinuedmaintenanceanduseofour“official”paperclientfiles,andinsteadreliesonlyonourelectronicofficialclientfiles.Thischangeinproceduretakesadvantageofadvancesintechnologytoreducecostsandimproveefficiency.

Staas & Halsey LLP Has Gone Paperless!


S&H FIRM NEWS

Staas&HalseyLLP(S&H)continuestomonitortherapidlychangingcircumstancessurroundingCOVID-19,theillnesscausedbyanovelcoronavirus.WehavetakenmeasurestocontinuetoprovideuninterruptedservicetoourclientsduringtheCOVID-19outbreakintheUSAandothercountries.

BeginningMonday,March16th2020,weimplementedtheS&Hbusinesscontinuityplanthatallowsourattorneysandstafftoworkremotelywhennecessary.Byadoptingadocumentmanagementsystemtenyearsagoandgoingcompletelypaperlessinearly2020,thetransitiontoremoteworkinghasbeenrelativelysmooth.

TheS&HremoteworksystemforemployeesusesanencryptedtunneltoprovideconnectivitytotheS&HserversstoringtheS&Hdocumentanddocketingmanagementsoftware,andaccesstoemailservers.Staas&HalseyisincompliancewiththeUKDataProtectionAct2018,asamendedin2019;theEuropeanUnion’sGeneralDataProtectionRegulation(GDPR);andtheCaliforniaConsumerPrivacyAct(CCPA).

Theabovementionedbusinesscontinuityplanisanticipatedtocontinueuntilfurthernotice,andmaybeupdated,includinganyupdatestakingintoconsiderationrecommendationsofU.S.localandfederalgovernmentsandtheWorldHealthOrganization.

Wecontinuetoaskthatcommunicationtoourfirmbeelectronic,viae-mail,facsimile,portals,orsimilarmeans.IfphysicalitemsneedtobesenttoStaas&HalseyLLP,pleaseprovideS&HpriornotificationandatleastinformDocketing@s-n-h.comofanysuchanticipateddeliveryofphysicalitemssothatS&Hcanmakearrangementforreceiptofsuchphysicalitems.Ifwenormallysendyoupackagesofphysicalitems,likepapercopiesofcommunication,pleasenotethatattimesthesemaybedelayed.

WehavepostponedalltravelplansasaprecautionbasedontherecommendationoftheU.S.localandfederalgovernmentsandtheWorldHealthOrganization.

WesendourbestwishesandthoughtstoeveryonethathavebeenaffectedbytheCOVID-19virusandhopeforahealthytomorrow.

Ifyouhaveanyquestions,[email protected].

Continuing Uninterrupted In View of COVID-19

http://[email protected]

http://[email protected]


Staas&HalseyLLP1201NewYorkAvenue,N.W.

7thFloorWashington,D.C.20005Telephone:202.434.1500Email:[email protected]:202.434.1501

www.staasandhalsey.com

ThismaterialhasbeenpreparedbyStaas&HalseyLLPforinformationalpurposesonlyandisnotlegaladvice.Consultwithanattorneyforlegaladvicepertinenttoyourcircumstancesbeforerelyingonanyinformationcontainedhereinorobtainedfromanyothersource.Youmayfeelfreetoforwardthisemailintacttoanyoneyouwish,butanyalterationofthisemailanditsdistribution,forremuneration,

withouttheexpresswrittenpermissionofStaas&HalseyLLP,areprohibited.@2020Staas&HalseyLLPEditor-In-Chief:GeneM.Garner

[email protected]

Ifyoureceivedthise-mailfromsomeoneotherthanusandwouldliketobeaddedtoourdistributionlist,[email protected]