patent

Subscribe to patent via RSS

By: Audrey A. Millemann

On January 22, 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided that a patent owner has the burden of proving infringement in an action filed by a licensee for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement. This case, Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 788 (2014), reversed a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that in such a case, the burden of proof shifts to the licensee to prove it did not infringe.

In 1991, Medtronic and Mirowski entered into a license. Medtronic made medical devices, including cardiac devices, and Mirowski owned patents covering heart simulator implants. The license provided that if Mirowski believed that a new product of Medtronic was covered by the patents, Mirowski would give notice to Medtronic. Medtronic could then choose one of three options: agree to pay royalties for the new product, pay royalties and also challenge Mirowski’s finding of infringement, or not pay royalties, when which would allow Mirowski to terminate the license and sue Medtronic for patent infringement. The parties later modified the license to allow Medtronic to pay royalties into an escrow account if it decided to challenge Mirowski’s finding of infringement, with the winner receiving those royalties.Continue Reading Patent Owners have Burden of Proof in Declaratory Judgment Actions

By Audrey A. Millemann

            The Federal Circuit has loosened the standard for recovering attorneys’ fees in patent infringement cases, making it easier for winning defendants to obtain their fees from plaintiffs. 

            The case is Kilopass Technology, Inc. v. Sidense Corp. (Fed. Cir. Dec. 26, 2013), 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25671. Kilopass and Sidense were competitors in the market for memory cells used in transistors. Kilopass obtained several patents on its technology. After reviewing a published patent application of Sidense for its memory cells, Kilopass embarked on an interesting course of conduct.

            First, Kilopass engaged counsel to determine whether Sidense infringed Kilopass’ patents. Based on the product described in Sidense’s patent application, Kilopass’ counsel believed that there might be an infringement case, and sent Sidense a letter inviting Sidense to license Kilopass’ patents or explain why Sidense’s products did not infringe Kilopass’ patents. Sidense replied with a specific explanation of why its products did not infringe Kilopass’ patents. Sidense also offered to subject its products to a confidential infringement analysis by a third party expert to prove its position. Kilopass then obtained a diagram of Sidense’s product and provided it to Kilopass’ counsel.  Counsel then concluded that Sidense had designed around Kilopass’ patents and that its products probably did not literally infringe the patents. In response, Kilopass retained a second counsel to analyze infringement. The second counsel made a preliminary finding that Sidense’s products probably did not literally infringe the patents, but might infringe under the doctrine of equivalents, and said that further investigation was needed to confirm this. Kilopass did not conduct further investigation with this counsel, but instead engaged a third counsel to analyze infringement. Then, based primarily on Kilopass’ own engineer’s findings, Kilopass concluded that Sidense infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. 

 Continue Reading Patent Infringement: Attorneys’ Fees A Little Easier to Get

By Audrey A. Millemann

A patent must sat­­isfy several requirements in order to be valid. One of these is the written description requirement, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶1. That subsection requires that a patent:

”contain a written description if the invention…in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains… to make and use the same…”

The purpose of the written description requirement is to demonstrate that the inventor is in possession of the invention (i.e., actually invented the claimed invention) as of the date the patent application was filed. In Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held that a specification that is a “mere wish or plan” does not satisfy the written description requirement. The case is a strong reminder to patent applicants and practitioners that the written description requirement is critical.Continue Reading You Must Describe What You Actually Invented

By Audrey Millemann

In Tokyo Keiso Company, v. SMC Corporation, 2009 WL 59769 (Fed. Cir. 2009)the Federal Circuit has again relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR in invalidating a patent for obviousness.

The plaintiff, Tokyo Keiso, is the owner of a patent that covers a volume flow meter that measures the volume of a fluid flowing through a pipe or measuring line. The patent describes the prior art devices as having two measuring heads, one on each end of the measuring line, and using an acoustic signal transmitted through the metal measuring line. The problem with the prior art devices was that the sound travelled faster through the metal than through the fluid, resulting in inaccurate measurements. The invention in Tokyo Keiso’s patent used a measuring line made of plastic, instead of metal, which caused the acoustic signal to travel more slowly through the plastic than the fluid and made the flow meter more accurate. Continue Reading Federal Circuit Relies on KSR (Again)

By Audrey A. Millemann  

In another attempt to address the question of the patentability of business methods, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated its September 2007 decision in In re Comiskey (499 F.3d 1365).

  

The patent application filed by Comiskey, in 1999, claimed a method for mandatory arbitration and a system, using a computer, for performing the method. The PTO examiner rejected both the method and system claims as obvious under § 103. Comiskey appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, who affirmed the rejections. 
 Continue Reading Federal Circuit Revisits Comiskey