25% “Rule of Thumb” Rejected in Determining Patent Damages

Over the last several years, we have seen more and more damages experts rely on a so-called "25% rule" as a starting point in determining a “reasonable royalty” in patent cases. The 25% rule was applied as a “rule of thumb” that  allowed an accused infringer to retain 75% of the profits and awarded 25% of the infringer's profits to the patent holder. This 25% figure would typically be used as a starting point that would then be massaged using the Georgia Pacific factors to arrive at some final royalty rate, that was often very close to the 25% value. The problem with this approach is that while it sounds like a “reasonable” division of profits at some superficial level, and is certainly expedient in arriving at some starting point for analysis, it is universally divorced from reality in any specific case. Nonetheless, the 25% rule kept finding its way into articles, court decisions and expert reports...until now.

In Uniloc USA v. Microsoft Corp., 2010-1035, a case involving a patent on a software registration and copy protection system for products such as Microsoft Word, the Federal Circuit squarely rejected the use of this analytical fiction as being improper under Daubert. The Court held that:

This court now holds as a matter of Federal Circuit law that the 25 percent rule of thumb is a fundamentally flawed tool for determining a baseline royalty rate in a hypothetical negotiation. Evidence relying on the 25 percent rule of thumb is thus inadmissible under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence, because it fails to tie a reasonable royalty base to the facts of the case at issue. Opinion at 41

         
In criticizing the 25% rule, the court pointed out that “[t]he  rule does not say anything about a particular hypothetical negotiation or reasonable royalty involving any particular technology, industry, or party."  

The Court recognized that the 25% rule was being used as a "starting point" rather than a final calculation but found that this made no difference: 

In short, Gemini’s starting point of a 25 percent royalty had no relation to the facts of the case, and as such, was arbitrary, unreliable, and irrelevant. The use of such a rule fails to pass muster under Daubert and taints the jury’s damages calculation. Opinion at 47

The court specifically reaffirmed use of the Georgia Pacific factors as an analytical tool in determining a reasonable royalty rate but emphasized that “there must be a basis in fact to associate the royalty rates used in prior licenses to the particular hypothetical negotiation at issue in the case.”
The Court also rejected Uniloc’s use of the “entire market rule” as a “check” to show how the royalty rate  arrived at using the 25% rule was "reasonable." In rejecting the use of the entire market value rule in this case, the Federal Circuit again emphasized that “damages based on the entire market value of the accused product [are appropriate] only where the patented feature creates the ‘basis for customer demand’ or ‘substantially create[s] the value of the component parts.’” The court found that Uniloc had offered no evidence that customer demand was driven by the patented software registration feature.


The elimination of the 25% rule may make the damages analysis more complicated in many cases, especially for plaintiff's experts seeking an easy way to justify a high valuation for a particular patent. It will, however, help to insure that the royalty rates that are offered by damages experts are based on facts that are applicable to the case at hand and are rationally based on the value of the patented invention.

The Supreme Court is Set to Significantly Re-Shape Patent Rights and Litigation

The Court Agrees to Hear Three Patent Cases in 2011

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear three patent cases in its upcoming term. The first case touches upon the standard for establishing intent in the context of inducement of infringement. In October, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Global-Tech Appliances Inc. v. SEB S.A. on the question of “whether the legal standard for the ‘state of mind’ element of a claim for actively inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) is ‘deliberate indifference of a known risk’ that an infringement may occur or instead ‘purposeful, culpable expression and conduct’ to encourage an infringement.” The difference in these standards, essentially the difference between “known” and “should have known,” will significantly effect the way that businesses deal with third party patents from the point of conducting clearance searches and obtaining opinions all the way through trial.


The second case on the Supreme Court docket is Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems. In this case, the Supreme Court will consider ownership rights to inventions that were made with government funding under the Bayh-Dole Act. Although this case addresses a fairly narrow question, it could prove to be a significant case to universities and research institutions which rely heavily on federal research grants to sponsor wide ranging research projects which are the source of many inventions.


The third case, Microsoft v. i4i Ltd. 10-290, could prove to have a fundamental impact on every patent case, as it deals with the core issue of the burden of proof for establishing invalidity of a patent claim.


On November 29, 2010, the Supreme Court granted Microsoft’s petition for a writ of certiorari on the question “did the court of appeals [for the Federal Circuit] err in holding that Microsoft’s invalidity defense must be proved by clear and convincing evidence?”  As noted in a previous posting, Microsoft's petition was supported by numerous amici.

 At trial, Microsoft’s invalidity defense was based on a lack of novelty due to a prior sale of the patentee’s own earlier software. This prior art was not before the patent office during examination and was not considered by the patent examiner. Despite the fact the patent office never had the opportunity to consider this prior art, the patent benefited from the “presumption of validity” and the district court (bound by Federal Circuit precedent) rejected Microsoft’s request for a jury instruction seeking to prove invalidity only by a “preponderance of the evidence." The Federal Circuit affirmed, setting the stage for Microsoft's petition.

The Microsoft case has the potential to significantly change the nature of patent litigation and level the playing field between plaintiffs and defendants. If the Supreme Court reduces the burden of proof for proving invalidity on issues that were not before the patent examiner to a preponderance of evidence, defendants will face a far less daunting task in establishing a successful invalidity defense. Considering the less stringent standard for establishing obviousness under the Supreme Court’s holding in KSR, lowering the burden of proof required to establish an invalidity defense would certainly reduce perceived strength of every issued patent.

Another False Marking Case Bites The Dust

False Marking Case Dismissed With Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim under Rule 12(b)(6)

In Shizzle Pop, LLC v. Aviva Sports, Inc. et al., Judge Klausner dismissed Shizzle Pop’s claims for false patent marking, with prejudice. 10-CV-02574 (C.D. Cal., Order dated Nov. 3, 2010. D.I. 54).  Following a first successful motion to dismiss, the plaintiff was given leave to amend its complaint to plead facts that would “state with particularity the ‘intent to deceive’ element of Section 292.” Order at 1. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which had a number of generalized allegations based on “information and belief.” Ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, the court found that “plaintiff has lengthened its conclusory statements, but still fails to allege any facts or information that supports its ‘beliefs.’” Order at 4. The court further found that the complaint

“…contains no information supporting the belief that Defendants were acting with an intent to deceive. Further factual detail is needed to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 9(b). For this reason, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim with prejudice.”  Order at 4.

Congratulations to my Dorsey partner Tom Vitt and his team for a job well done!

Microsoft, and a Large Group of Powerful "Friends," Ask The Supreme Court to Eliminate the Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard for Patent Invalidity

In Microsoft Corp. v. i4i, U.S., No. 10-290, Microsoft is seeking certiorari on the question of whether the "clear and convincing" standard is appropriate in challenging patent validity in civil litigation. For most issues in civil litigation, such as the question of patent infringement, the party asserting the claim only needs to meet the lower “preponderance” standard. The question then, is why should patent validity be treated differently between private litigants, and should this always be the case?  For example, if the presumption of administrative correctness and deference to the USPTO are the justifications for the heightened evidentiary standard, why should the heightened standard apply when the prior art used to challenge a patent’s validity was not considered by the examiner during prosecution? These and other questions are being addressed by a powerful collection of amici that have submitted eleven briefs supporting Microsoft’s bid for high court review of this fundamental question of patent law.


As reported by BNA, the list of amici and their counsel include:

• 36 law, business, and economics professors, filed by Mark A. Lemley of the Stanford Law School;

• Acushnet Co., General Motors LLC, Pregis Corp., and SAP America Inc., by James W. Dabney and John F. Duffy of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, Washington, D.C.;

• Apple Inc., by Deanne E. Maynard of Morrison & Foerster, Washington, D.C.;

• CTIA—The Wireless Association, by Michael K. Kellogg of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, Washington, D.C.;

• Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and the Apache Software Foundation, by Michael Barclay of the EFF, San Francisco;

• Facebook Inc., Intuit Inc., Netflix Inc., Newegg Inc., Toyota Motor Corp., and Trimble Navigation Ltd., by John D. Vandenberg of Klarquist Sparkman, Portland, Ore.;

• Google Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Dell Computer Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co., HTC Corp., and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., by Paul D. Clement of King & Spaulding, Washington, D.C.;

• Intel Corp., by Dan L. Bagatell of Perkins Coie Brown & Bain, Phoenix;

• The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the Clearing House Association, by John A. Squires of Chadbourne & Parke, New York;

• Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, and Cisco Systems, by Henry C. Dinger of Goodwin Procter, Boston; and

• Yahoo! Inc., by William C. Rooklidge of the Howrey law firm in Irvine, Calif.


This is clearly an issue that is worthy of attention as the outcome could represent a fundamental change in patent law.  i4i’s responsive brief is due on October 29, 2010, and a second wave of amicus briefs in support of the clear and convincing standard will likely follow.

A NEW “STANDARD” FOR INFRINGEMENT

Proof of Compliance With A Standard May Establish Infringement

In a decision that will likely impact the wireless and telecom sectors for years to come, the Federal Circuit clearly held that “a district court may rely on a an industry standard in analyzing infringement.” Fujitsu Ltd. et al. v. Netgear, Inc., 2010-1045, September 20, 2010. Rather than requiring proof infringement for each individual accused product,

“if a district court construes the claims and finds that the reach of the claims includes any device that practices a standard, this can be sufficient for a finding of infringement. We agree that claims should be compared to the accused product to determine infringement. However, if an accused product operates in accordance with a standard, then comparing the claims to that standard is the same as comparing the claims to the accused product.”

In other words, the Federal Circuit held that proof a standard compliance can be sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish infringement.



To defend against an allegation of infringement based on a practicing-the-standard theory, “an accused infringer is free to either prove that the claims do not cover all implementations of the standard or to prove that it does not practice the standard.” Further, the Federal Circuit recognized “that in many instances, an industry standard does not provide the level of specificity required to establish that practicing that standard would always result in infringement.” In some cases, “the relevant section of the standard is optional, and standards compliance alone would not establish that the accused infringer chooses to implement the optional section.” In such cases, the plaintiff cannot rely on the standard alone to establish infringement.



From a plaintiff’s perspective, the cost and complexity of proving infringement when an industry standard is involved may now be greatly reduced. Rather than proving that numerous complex devices meet every element of the claim, the patent owner now must establish that the relevant portion of the standard in question (1) always infringes the claim, i.e. “a patent covers every possible implementation of a standard,”; (2) is mandatory for compliance with the standard,  and (3) the accused device is compliant with the standard. The significant advantage for the plaintiff is that elements (1) and (2) need only be proven once, rather than for each accused product. In cases like Fujitsu, which dealt with the 802.11 wireless standard and involved a large number of accused products, this results in a significantly lower burden for the plaintiff to carry.



Fujitsu reiterates that it is not enough for a plaintiff to establish that an accused device is "capable of infringement; the patent owner must show evidence of specific evidence of direct infringement."  Thus, when a feature in the standard may be switched on and off or is optional for compliance, proof of compliance with the standard is not enough.  The plaintiff must then prove that the switchable or optional feature was actually implemented and used in the accused device.

Since there are a large number of cases pending, and likely many more coming, involving industry standards featuring devices, such as cell phones, Wi-Fi, Wi-Max and Bluetooth compliant devices, this will certainly be an issue presented time and time again in the foreseeable future.

Federal Circuit Holds That “Any Person” Has Standing to Bring False Patent Marking Claims

But Foreshadows Possible Defenses

In Stauffer v. Brooks Brothers, Mr. Stauffer’s claims of false patent marking under 35 U.S.C. 292 were dismissed by the district court for lack of standing.  In a not-so-surprising but long awaited decision, the Federal Circuit held that “even though a relator may suffer no injury himself, a qui tam provision [i.e. 35 U.S.C. 292] operates as a statutory assignment of the Untied States’ rights, and ‘the assignee of the claim has standing to assert the injury in fact suffered in by the assignor.’” Stauffer v. Brooks Brothers, 2009-1428, -1430, -1453 (Fed. Cir., August 31, 2010). What exactly is the necessary “injury in fact” suffered by the United States? “[A] violation of that statute [35 U.S.C. 292] inherently constitutes an injury to the United States… .  Because the government would have standing to enforce its own law, Stauffer, as the government’s assignee, also has standing to enforce section 292.” Opinion at 9 (emphasis added).  To the extent that there remained much doubt, it is now clear - anyone can bring a false marking claim and no specific individualized injury is required.


What is perhaps more interesting than the issues decided in Stauffer are the issues that were mentioned, but left for another day. First, the Stauffer opinion discusses a constitutional challenge to 35 U.S.C. 292 under the “take care” clause of Article II of the Constitution that was raised by amicus Ciba Vision. After introducing this potential challenge, the opinion states:

While Ciba raises relevant points, the district court did not decide, and the parties did not appeal, the constitutionality of section 292. Thus, we will not decide its constitutionality with the issue having been raised or argued by the parties. (emphasis added)

While not clearly foreshadowing the outcome, the Federal Circuit is clearly sending out an invitation to take on this issue head on in future cases.   Given the relatively thin procedural safeguards set out in Section 292, this is certainly a live issue that has the potential to put an end to the continuously growing number of false marking cases as we know them.

Second, in the remand order, the opinion states:

We remand for the court to address the merits of the case, including Brooks Brothers’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) ‘on the grounds that the complaint fails to allege an ‘intent to deceive’ the public – a critical element of a section 292 claim – with sufficient specificity to meet the heightened pleading requirements for claims of fraud imposed’ by Rule 9(b).

As reported previously, a number of district courts have already dismissed cases for failing to meet the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b), so this issue will likely be presented to the Federal Circuit in the not-to-distant future.  If the Federal Circuit ultimately confirms that the heightened pleading standard is indeed required for false patent marking cases, the ability for "any person" to adequately plead a claim of false marking should be greatly diminished.

A “Golden Hour” for Defendants Accused of Joint Infringement

After a 27 page discussion on inequitable conduct, Judge Dyk dedicated a mere two paragraphs affirming a district court grant of JMOL that rejected a jury finding of infringement of both method claims and system claims. Golden Hour Data v. emsCharts, 2009-1306 -1396 (Fed. Cir. August 9, 2010).  For both the method and system claims, the Federal Circuit majority agreed with the district court that “that the evidence of control or direction was insufficient for the jury to infer control or direction.” Opinion at 27.

The claims of Golden Hour’s patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,117,073) are directed to an “integrated data management system for tracking a patient incident.” Claim 1, a system claim, requires (1) a dispatch module and (2) a billing module. Claim 15, a method claim, required steps of (1) collecting flight information, (2) collecting patient information from a clinical encounter, and (3) integrating the patient information and flight information.



The first defendant, emsCharts, developed a client billing module. The second defendant, Softtech, provided a flight dispatch and information module. “The two companies formed a strategic partnership, enabled their two programs to work together, and collaborated to sell the two programs as a unit.” Opinion at 7-8. According to an emsCharts press release, the defendants’ “partnership allows emsCharts to combine their existing product line with Softtech’s CAD [Computer Aided Dispatch] technology, enabling them to deliver a complete pre-hospital data solution for Emergency Medical Services.” J. Newman dissent at 5. Although the press release uses the term “partnership” and the majority refers to it as a “strategic partnership,” the opinion does not further elaborate on any actual legal relationship between Softtech and emsCharts with regard to the integrated system.

With respect to sales of the integrated system, the majority stated that “[s]uch a sale might well create liability on the part of emsCharts for the sale of the patented system, whether or not emsCharts controlled Softtech. The problem is that by agreement, claims 1 and 6-8 were submitted to the jury only on a joint infringement theory. Such a verdict can only be sustained if there was control or direction of Softtech by emsCharts.” Opinion at 28. Despite acknowledging the “strategic partnership” between the parties, the majority held that the necessary “control or direction” was still lacking.

The majority first considered the process claims and relied on Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) and BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P, 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007), for the well established proposition that “control or direction” of one party by another is required for joint infringement of process claims. Without elaboration (or citation), however, the majority then extended this test to the system claims as well.

In her dissent, J. Newman suggests that “a collaborative effort as here, a “strategic partnership” to sell the infringing system as a unit, is not immune from infringement simply because the participating entities have a separate corporate status.” Dissent at 5. Judge Newman does not cite any precedent for this position, however.

Although only two paragraphs long (less than half the length of this post), Golden Hour is interesting for two reasons. First, it clearly applies the “controlling party” or “mastermind” standard for joint infringement to system claims as well as process claims. (This was suggested in BMC Resources, but not clearly part of the holding). Second, it is a case where two parties accused of joint infringement clearly worked closely together to integrate and sell the accused system and yet the resulting “strategic partnership” between the defendants was still not deemed close enough by the majority to support a jury verdict of joint infringement.

Recent District Court Decisions Hold False Marking to Heightened Pleading Requirements

Recent decisions from the Federal Circuit have not provided defendants with any “silver bullets” to obtain early dismissal of cases alleging false patent marking. To the contrary, these decisions (which established that the fine for false marking is based on each article marked and confirmed that a product marked with an expired patent number is indeed an unpatented article), may serve to embolden relators and result in them bringing additional false marking cases. Although the standard for pleading false marking cases has not yet been addressed by the Federal Circuit, recent district court decisions have been holding false marking allegations to a higher pleading standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and dismissing cases that fail to meet this standard. These district court cases may provide some hope to defendants in false marking cases.


In a Memorandum Opinion dated June 17, 2010 in Simonian v. Cisco Systems, 10-CV-1306 (N.D. Ill), Judge Der-Yeghiayan dismissed Mr. Simonian’s complaint on Cisco’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). In dismissing the complaint, the Court acknowledged that there was no binding precedent on point, but reasoned that false marking allegations are fraud-based claims and therefore “are subject to the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b).” Opinion at 6. With respect to the intent prong of the false marking claims, Mr. Simonian alleged, upon information and belief, that Cisco is “a sophisticated company and has many decades of experience applying for, obtaining, and/or litigating patents.” The court found that this general allegation was “unsupported by specific facts,” and that “Simonian has failed to plead specific facts showing Cisco’s knowledge of the mismarking or its intent to deceive the public.” Opinion at 8. As such, the Court held that “Simonian’s complaint does not meet the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b)” and dismissed the complaint. The court dismissed Simonian’s claims without prejudice, however, and specifically provide that Mr. Simonian may file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Simonian has since filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint and Cisco has filed are opposition to this motion, which is now before the court.)

Similarly, in Advanced Cartridge Technologies v. Lexmark, Int’l., Judge Merryday dismissed Advanced Cartridge Technologies’ false marking allegations for failing to meet the pleading requirements with respect to intent under Rule 9(b).  Advanced Cartridge Technologies v. Lexmark, Int’l, 10-CV-486 (M.D. Fl.), see Order dated June 30, 2010 (“Order”).   In this case, the complaint simply stated that “defendant knows, or reasonably should know, that marking the Cartridge Products with patents that do not cover the Cartridge Products, or patents that are invalid or expired, will deceive the public.” See Order at 2. As to this allegation, the court concluded that “[p]roviding only sparse factual detail, the complaint utterly fails to ‘state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.’” Order at 2.  As with the Simonian case, the plaintiff/relator was given leave to file an amended complaint to attempt to remedy the inadequate pleadings.

Because these cases were dismissed without prejudice, the plaintiff/relator has been given a second bite at the apple. It remains to be seen whether these plaintiff’s will be able to plead sufficient facts, even upon information and belief, to meet the heightened pleading requirement under Rule 9. It will also be interesting to see if other courts follow these cases in holding false marking cases to the heightened pleading standards under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and whether this will provide a substantial change in litigating false marking cases.

Federal Circuit Further Refines Design Patent Analysis Post-Egyptian Goddess

Over the last few months, the Federal Circuit has issued three precedential opinions that provide further guidance (or some might say misguidance) regarding the analysis of design patents in the post Egyptian Goddess era.

Claim Construction and Functional Elements in Design Patents

NO INFRINGEMENT

On March 9, 2010, the Federal Circuit decided David A. Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc. (2009-1354) and addressed the manner in which functional elements of a design patent should be addressed in claim construction and infringement of design patents. The patented design and a representative drawing of the accused "fubar" product are illustrated above. The district court construed Richardson's design patent by noting that what was claimed was that "shown and described in the '167 patent." The district court then continued by identifying those elements that were ornamental and excluding those elements that were deemed functional. Having so construed the claim, the district court held that the accused "fubar" did not infringe Richardson's design patent.

The Federal Circuit affirmed. With respect to claim construction, the Federal Circuit rejected the Richardson's position that Egyptian Goddess effectively overruled cases such as OddzOn Prods. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997) where the court held that "[w]here a design contains both functional and non-functional elements, the scope of the claim must be construed in order to identify the non-functional aspects of the design as shown in the patent." The court further stated that "[a] claim to a design containing numerous functional elements, such as here, necessarily mandates a narrow construction." The court went on to discount the contribution of a myriad of functional elements in the claimed design and agreed with the district court's conclusion that "[f]rom the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art, the overall visual effect of the Fubar is significantly different from the Stepclaw [patented design]."  From this ordinary observer's point of view, this holding had way more analysis than was needed to affirm - the two designs shown above are just too different.

Invalidity of Design Patents
On December 17, 2009, the court decided International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp. (2009-1237), and held that the test for anticipation of a design patent is the same as the test for infringement, which is the "ordinary observer" test. The point of novelty test, abolished from the infringement analysis in Egyptian Goddess, is now a thing of the past in the validity context as well.  As a result, a piece of prior art need not be exact to anticipate a design patent claim, it must only satisfy the standards of the "ordinary observer" test.  "Just as 'minor differences between a patented design and an accused article's design cannot, and shall not, prevent a finding of infringement,' [cite omitted] so too minor differences cannot prevent a finding of anticipation."

Although dicta, the International Seaway court also discussed the test for obviousness of design patents. Here, the court stated that '[f]or design patents, the role of one skilled in the art in the obviousness context lies only in determining whether to combine earlier references to arrive at a single piece of art for comparison with the potential design or to modify a single prior art reference. Once that piece of prior art has been constructed, obviousness, like anticipation, requires application of the ordinary observer test, not the view of one skilled in the art." This sounds like something new. Indeed, in setting out this proposition, the court did not cite any precedent. Further, the "ordinary observer" test in this context may be viewed as inconsistent with the language of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which states that a "patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains." As noted above, the discussion regarding obviousness is properly viewed as dicta.  It will be interesting to see how the law of obviousness of design patent claims develops in future cases, or if it become essentially moot in view of the broader play that the "ordinary observer" gives to the anticipation analysis.

Will differences in the insole design prevent anticipation?

The subject matter in Int'l Seaway was a design for foam clogs. The Federal Circuit held that the district court incorrectly omitted certain features (the insole design illustrated above) from its validity analysis, based on whether those features would be visible during "normal use." The Federal Circuit held that "normal use should not be limited to only one phase or portion of the normal use lifetime of an accused product," such as the time when a shoe is being worn. Instead, "normal use in the design patent context extends form the completion of manufacture or assembly until the ultimate destruction, loss, or disappearance of the article." Noting that the insole design depicted in the patent would be visible at various points in the life cycle of the article, the Federal Circuit found that it was an error for the district court to ignore these features in the validity analysis simply because they were not visible when the shoe was being worn. The court remanded for the district court "for further proceedings on the limited issue of whether the differences in the insole patterns between the prior (Crocs) are and the patented designs bar a finding of anticipation or obviousness." This remand order is somewhat troubling. As noted in J. Clevenger's dissent, "the ordinary observer test requires assessment of the designs as a whole." "[T]he differences in the inner sole designs must be appreciated in conjunction with all of the design differences." J. Clevenger aptly concludes that "[p]artial judgments of anticipation on segments of a design prohibit assessment of designs as a whole, in violation of long-standing law... ."  Although preaching a "design as a whole" analysis, the majority's holding and remand order is clearly fostering an approach that will encourage a district court's "dissection of a design as a whole into its component pieces."

Claim Construction and Domestic Industry for Design Patents
On February 24, 2010, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Crocs, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Commission (2008-1596). In this case, the court reversed ITC determinations of no infringement and no domestic industry of Crocs' design patent. Despite earlier warnings from the Federal Circuit that construing a design patent claim in words, rather than by simple reference to the figures, was a risky proposition, the ITC issued a narrow claim construction that focused on areas of difference between the claimed design and the accused product. The Federal Circuit criticized the commission’s "concentration on small differences in isolation distracted from the overall impression of the claimed ornamental features." Instead, "[t]he proper construction requires a side-by-side view of the drawings of the [patent design] and the accused products." Despite some obvious differences apparent (to me at least) in some to these comparisons, the court found that "these side-by-side comparisons...suggest that an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs would be deceived into believing the accused products are the same as the patented design."  Unfortunately, the Federal Circuit opinion does not reference the "prior art designs," so it is not clear how to evaluate the differences between the claimed design and the accused products.  (An example of the images shown in the Federal Circuit opinion are shown below in the first two images (side view).  The top view illustrated below as compared with Fig. 6 of the patent where not part of the Federal Circuit's side-by-side comparison.  I don't know that I would be deceived here, but I suppose that reasonable "ordinary observers" are free to differ.) 

"NEARLY IDENTICAL" - DESIGN PATENT INFRINGED

With respect to the domestic industry requirement, the court found that Crocs' products were indeed within the scope of the design patent and those products therefore satisfied the "technical prong" of the domestic industry requirement.

Fine for False Marking: Per offense = $$ Per Article

False marking gained a bit of publicity this year with a number of qui tam suits being filed against companies who allegedly violated 35 U.S.C. 292 by marking products with expired patents. (See e.g., Public Patent Foundation, Inc v. Cumberland Packing Corp, 09-cv-04360. S.D.N.Y.; Perquignot v. Solo Cup Co., 07 cv 897, E.D.Va.).

The elements of a false marking claim are fairly straight forward: (1) marking an unpatented article with the word “patent” or other indication that the article is patented and (2) intent to deceive the public. Under Section 292, the penalty for false marking is that the party “shall be fined not more than $500 for every such offense.” Section 292 also includes a qui tam provision that provides that “any person may sue for the penalty, in which event one-half shall to the person suing and the other to the use of the United States.” What was unclear, until now, was whether “every such offense” was to be applied on a per article basis or as a single fine for a continuous act of marking. The difference is clearly huge. Would a defendant such as Cumberland Packing Corp. be facing a single fine of up to $500 or facing this fine for each and every one of the billions of packets of Sweet n’ Low that it sold?

In The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Company, 2009-1044, the Federal Circuit resolved the debate and held that “per offense” means per article marked, and not a single fine for continuous false marking. In tempering this holding somewhat, the Federal Circuit noted the statute requires a fine of “not more than $500” and “by allowing a range of penalties, the statute provides district courts the discretion to strike a balance between encouraging enforcement of an important public policy and imposing disproportionately large penalties for small, inexpensive items produced in large quantities. In the case of inexpensive mass-produced articles, a court has the discretion to determine that a fraction of a penny per article is a proper penalty.”

Even with the guidance provided that would support fines of only “a fraction of a penny per article,” the holding in the Forest Group may still create an incentive for more qui tam actions being brought for false marking. After all, even a fraction of a penny applied to a billion items can still amount to millions of dollars in potential recovery. With the new year approaching, and new guidance from the Federal Circuit that may invigorate a new class of litigation prospectors, the time is right to review your patent marking and clean up any marking that may no longer be applicable.

The 5 W’s (and How) – Not Just for Journalism Anymore

The Federal Circuit Heightens the Pleading Requirement for Inequitable Conduct

Sometime during grade school we learned that good journalistic writing needed to address “the five Ws”- who, what, when, where and why – and sometimes how. This is still true for good journalism. It is now also true for pleading the defense of inequitable conduct.

In Excergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al. the Federal Circuit recently addressed the requirements for pleading inequitable conduct under the heightened specificity requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). (2006-1491, 2007-1180, August 4, 2009, http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/06-1491.pdf). The two elements of inequitable conduct are that (1) an actor within the duty of candor committed a material omission or made a materially false statement to the patent office, and (2) the omission or false statement was made with the specific intent to deceive the patent office. With respect to the first element, materiality, the Excergen court held “that in pleading inequitable conduct in patent cases, Rule 9(b) requires identification of the specific who, what, when, where and how of the material misrepresentation or omission committed before the PTO.” In addition, the Excergen court held that “a pleading of inequitable conduct under Rule 9(b), must include sufficient allegations of underlying facts from which a court may reasonably infer that a specific individual (1) knew of the withheld material information or of the falsity of the material misrepresentation , and (2) withheld or misrepresented this information with a specific intent to deceive the PTO” (emphasis added).

Under this heightened pleading standard, a general allegation against all individuals within the scope of the duty of candor, such as “Excergen, its agents and/or attorneys,” fails to address the “who” element with sufficient specificity and was deemed inadequate. In short, the court wants names (but also noted that these may be redacted from the public filing, if appropriate). For the “what” and “where” requirements, the pleading must now specifically identify not just a withheld reference, but those specific portions of the withheld reference that are considered material. General averments of “materiality” or that a reference is “not cumulative to the information already of record,” are insufficient. For materiality, the pleading now must “identify the particular claims limitations, or combination of claim limitations, that are supposedly absent from the information of record.” This, the court says, is “necessary to explain both ‘why’ the withheld information is material and not cumulative, and ‘how’ an examiner would have used this information in assessing the patentability of the claims.” Finally, the pleading must allege that the specific individual(s) identified “knew of [the] specific information that is alleged to be material [to the asserted patent] and then decided to deliberately withhold it from the relevant examiner.”

It is not news that inequitable conduct is a defense that requires pleading with specificity. Nonetheless, the heightened pleading requirements outlined in Excergen that provide a framework for meeting this requirement will be welcomed by many who view inequitable conduct as a defense that is raised too often, too early, and many times too vaguely. In practice, however, rather than significantly limiting the number of inequitable conduct allegations being made, Excergen is more likely to impact the timing and scope of these allegations. To address the five W’s (and “how”), defendants will require additional fact discovery before filing the amended pleading with the inequitable conduct defense. The allegations will still come, they will likely come later in the case and should be more thoroughly defined.

A Holding of Invalidity Deserves a Complete Analysis

Last week, in Steven Ritchie et al. v. Vast Resources, Inc. (2008-1528, -1529) the Federal Circuit summarily reversed the findings of the district court and held that the asserted patent (RE 38,924, http://www.google.com/patents?id=LasVAAAAEBAJ&dq=RE38924) was invalid as being obvious. (Yes, I know that it is far more appropriate to say that the asserted or challenged claims were found invalid, but in this case, the Court doesn't mention which claims were on appeal or which claims were actually held to be invalid.)

The subject matter of the patent is somewhat low tech –OK, its a sex toy made of a type of slippery glass known as “borosilicate glass.” Notwithstanding the apparent simplicity of the underlying . . . umm . . . technology, before reaching the Federal Circuit, the patent survived both initial examination and re-issue proceedings at the USPTO and was found to be valid and infringed at the district court.

Judge Posner, sitting by designation, wrote the opinion that was joined by Chief Judge Michel and Judge Bryson. (The opinion can be found at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1528.pdf). Judge Posner clearly had some fun writing this opinion, which includes a number of jokes directed at the subject matter of the patent. I enjoyed reading the opinion. Unfortunately, in the end, the opinion is long on wit and generalities about obviousness, but is extremly limited with respect to providing any real guidance on the application of the obviousness inquiry post-KSR.

In this opinion, there is very little discussion of the actual claim limitations in question, how the prior art was applied to those limitations, or the actual basis for deciding why a person of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the conclusion that the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention were indeed obvious. From the opinion, the reader merely knows that both sex toys and borosilicate glass are well known. It is quite possible that the conclusion reached by the Federal Circuti is correct, but that conclusion simply does not flow from the information provided in the opinion.

Finding a patent claim invalid is a significant holding. As such, a finding of invalidity in the first instance by the Federal Circuit should be supported by a more thorough analysis that clearly supports the holding. Even patents directed to sex toys deserve an informed analysis regarding the Graham factors before finding a patent invalid! In my own humble opinion, the obviousness inquiry should not be relegated to an amorphous analysis akin to pornography, e.g., an “I know it when I see it” approach.

Without question, some patents are directed to subject matter that is obvious and those claims should be invalidated. When those cases are presented, the Federal Circuit would better serve patent owners, defendants, district courts and the patent bar by providing an analysis that informs the process and clearly justifies the result.

TransCore LP v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp.

Patent Exhaustion and Legal Estoppel

Previous Settlement Leaves Patent Owner “Exhausted”

In June 2008, the Supreme Court decided Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics and reaffirmed that the doctrine of patent exhaustion is alive and well and is fully applicable to method claims. (For a more thorough discussion on Quanta, see http://www.dorsey.com/eupdate_quanta_v_lg_electronics_inc_070108/). The Federal Circuit has now taken the opportunity to further bolster the patent exhaustion doctrine in the recently decided case of TransCore LP v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp., 2008-1430.

The facts of TransCore can be briefly summarized as follows. The patent owner, TransCore, was involved in a litigation in 2000 against Mark IV Industries. That action was resolved by a settlement agreement in which Mark IV paid TransCore $4.5M in exchange for an “unconditional” covenant not to sue under a denominated list of ten (10) U.S. Patents and the foreign counterparts thereof. After listing the specific patents within the covenant, the settlement agreement provided that “This Covenant Not To Sue shall not apply to any other patents issued as of the effective date of this Agreement or to be issued in the future.” The defendant, Electronic Transaction Consultants (ETC), purchased product from Mark IV and was sued for infringement of three patents that were previously asserted against Mark IV as well as one later issued patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,653,946 (“the ‘946 patent”). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of ETC finding that patent exhaustion precluded the assertion of the previously litigated patents and that TransCore was legally estopped from asserting the later issued ‘946 patent.

TransCore presents two significant issues. First, does a covenant not to sue that was provided as part of an earlier settlement agreement create an “authorized sale” that triggers patent exhaustion? Second, should the patent owner be estopped from asserting a later-issued patent, if that later-issued patent would limit the value of a right previously granted for valuable consideration?

With respect to the first issue, the Federal Circuit held that the fact that the right conveyed was described as a covenant not to sue, rather than a license grant, was a distinction without a difference in the context of the exhaustion analysis. By granting an unconditional covenant not to sue, the patent owner authorized the original defendant, Mark IV, to make, use and sell products under the asserted patents without threat of suit. This authorization was sufficient to exhaust TransCore’s rights against downstream purchasers, such as ETC. The comparative analysis between a covenant not to sue and a patent license provided in the TransCore opinion is worth reading, but the result, which favors substance over form, is not particularly controversial in view of Quanta.

The second issue is somewhat more problematic. The ‘946 patent was described by the Court as “a related patent that was pending before the Patent and Trademark Office but had not yet issued at the time of the TransCore-Mark IV settlement.” In the district court, “TransCore did not dispute that…the ‘946 patent was broader than, and necessary to practice, at least [one patent] that was included in the TransCore-Mark IV settlement agreement.” On this basis, the Federal Circuit held that “in order for Mark IV to obtain the benefit of its bargain with TransCore, it must be permitted to practice the ‘946 patent to the same extent it may practice [the patents listed in the settlement agreement].” As a result, TransCore was “legally estopped from asserting the ‘946 patent against Mark IV in derogation of the authorizations granted to Mark IV [under the settlement agreement].” Thus, the Corut held that Mark IV had an implied license to the later issued ‘946 patent and this implied license inured to the benefit of ETC.

Given the unambiguous language of the covenant not to sue, this result is somewhat troubling. The “benefit” Mark IV bargained for in the settlement agreement was TransCore’s forbearance of suit under a clearly defined set of patents. The parties certainly could have included language that would have embraced related patents, such as continuations, continuations-in-part and divisional applications, but chose not to do so. The parties also could have agreed to include pending applications, but chose not to do so. To the contrary, the parties expressly agreed to a covenant not to sue covering a closed-end list of U.S. and foreign patents and included language expressly excluding later issued patents. The parties valued this agreement at $4.5M.

The patent owner certainly received consideration for the covenant that was granted. However, it is entirely reasonable to believe that the amount of consideration was determined after a thoughtful analysis by both parties as to what was, and was not, included in the agreement. Was there a “derogation of rights” in this case that needed to be cured by imposing an implied license, or simply a party disappointed at the result of the limited bargain that it entered into? What is troubling here is that the Court’s holding in this case seems to result in a significant expansion of the rights that were actually conveyed, contrary to the express language of the agreement.

Can patent owners avoid this result in the future? In drafting language for license agreements and covenants not to sue, parties, especially patent owners, must take heed of the recent decisions in Quanta and TransCore, and use carefully crafted language in order to specifically define what is, and is not, authorized activity. Even then, there is clearly a risk that the doctrines of patent exhaustion or implied license may be imposed to limit the patent owners actions against third parties.

POINT OF NOVELTY

The world of patent law is in transition. The last few years have seen unprecedented levels of patent litigation spurred on by many substantial verdicts and an increase in the number of non-practicing entities looking to acquire and assert patent rights.

In what would appear to be a response to this trend, the Supreme Court has, among other things, made it easier to invalidate patents and harder to get injunctions when a patent is found to be infringed. As a trial lawyer who represents both patent owners and companies that need to defend themselves against accusations of infringement, this trend cannot be considered either clearly bad or good- but it is a significant legal and economic issue and must be understood.

This blog will follow and evaluate current trends in patent law and policy and try to offer insight as to how these trends impact the ability to obtain and enforce patents.


(Yes, I know that there is no longer a "point of novelty" test in patent law. But the concept, a single differentiating point, seemed to be as a good title for this blog as any.)

The views expressed in this blog are mine alone and should not be attributed to Dorsey & Whitney LLP, its attorneys, or its clients.