Reexamination Disclaimer Effectively Amends Claims Surrendering $29 Million Damage Award
During a post grant proceeding, an amendment of an originally issued claim could create an intervening rights defense for infringers. That is to say if the amended or new claim introduced by the post grant proceeding is not substantially identical in scope relative to a previously issued claim, potential infringers of the amended/new claims may be provided with an absolute and/or equitable intervening rights defense (35 USC § 252). Of course, the conclusion as to whether or not a claim change in patent reexamination/reissue will result in the an intervening rights defense is far from a straightforward determination.
Yesterday, the CAFC considered whether or not intervening rights are created for a claim that is not literally amended in a post grant proceeding by a change in verbiage, but instead, changed in scope by operation of Patentee disclaimer. This “amended in effect” theory has shown up in at least one other case as of late and is likely to gain considerable traction going forward thanks to yesterday’s CAFC decision. Read the rest of this entry »
Delay in Patent Reissue Undermines Equitable Defense
35 U.S.C. 252 presents two flavors of intervening rights in the reexamination/reissue context: absolute intervening rights, and equitable intervening rights. The more common of the two, absolute intervening rights, precludes infringement liability prior to issuance of new/amended claims if such claims are not substantially identical in scope to the claims of the original patent.
Equitable intervening rights are available as a means to balance the public interest in the patent system and the remedial purpose of the reissue statute with the private interest of an infringer who innocently and in good faith has undertaken substantial activities that become infringing with the issuance of a reissue patent. For example, if prior to the issuance of a new/amended claim, a defendant invests in a new manufacturing line to develop products that infringe the new/amended claims, negotiates contracts to deliver infringing goods, and otherwise proceeds in conducting such business in good faith, the court may permit such infringement to continue under terms the court deems as equitable to both parties.
In Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC, et al v. Haldex Brake Products Corp., (NDOH) having lost all previous battles (inequitable conduct in patent reissue here) (recapture in patent reissue here), defendant Haldex argued that they should be allowed to infringe based upon the doctrine of equitable intervening rights. Read the rest of this entry »
Cancellation of Dependent Claim Deemed “Amendment in Effect”
If claims, as amended in a post grant proceeding, are not substantially identical in scope relative to the previously issued claims, potential infringers of the amended claims may be provided with an intervening rights defense (35 USC § 252) Of course, the conclusion as to whether or not a claim change in patent reexamination/reissue will result in the an intervening rights defense is far from a straightforward determination.
As demonstrated recently, even where an amendment is made to overcome a prior art rejection, such a changed claim can still be considered substantially identical to the previously issued claim. Courts have consistently held that it is not the verbiage of a claim that must be substantially identical. Instead, courts look to the difference between originally issued claim scope relative to the scope of claims exiting patent reissue and/or patent reexamination. Adding another layer of complexity to this calculus is the recent case of University of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Electric Company. In University of Virginia (here) an independent claim was considered to be “amended in effect” based upon the cancellation of a dependent claim. Read the rest of this entry »
Substantially Identical…More than Meets the Eye!
An interesting issue raised by any post grant claim amendment (e.g., patent reissue and/or patent reexamination) is: For a given claim, what is the degree of amendment (i.e., change in scope) that will exceed the ”substantially identical” standard of 35 U.S.C. § 252?
This threshold determination will determine the availability of past infringement damages for the amended/new claims, or whether a potential infringer may avoid liability for past damages based on the doctrine of intervening rights. If claims, as amended in a post grant proceeding, are not substantially identical in scope relative to the previously issued claims, potential infringers of the amended claims may be provided with an intervening rights defense. Clearly, Patentees tend to argue that amended/new claims are substantially identical, while infringers argue that the claims are not substantially identical.
Last week, the substantially identical standard of 35 U.S.C. § 252 was analyzed in Aspex Eyewear, Inc., et al., v Marchon Eyewear Inc., et. al., (SDFLA). Interestingly, the court found that claims changed/added in patent reexamination were in fact substantially identical to the previously issued claims. Ordinarily this would be fantastic news for a Patentee, but for Aspex, it was the end of the road. Read the rest of this entry »
Previously, we explored what types of amendments to claims under post-grant review can trigger intervening rights.
As you may recall, claim amendments in current post grant proceedings at the USPTO (i.e., reexamination/reissue) create intervening rights. 35 U.S.C. 307 (ex parte) and 35 U.S.C. 316 (inter partes) describe the impact of amending claims in patent reexamination, incorporating 35 USC 252 (relating to intervening rights in reissue applications). In essence, the doctrine of intervening rights forecloses the recovery of past damages for patent infringement if a claim is amended after issuance of the patent.
The case of Kim v. The Earthgrains Co., k/n/a Sara Lee Bakery Group Inc., 01-cv-3895 (N.D. Ill.), presented the issue of whether a change in the transitional phrase (i.e., legally operative terms) of a patent claim could trigger intervening rights. Read the rest of this entry »
–A Glitch in the Matrix?–
As noted in Part I of our series on intervening rights, claim amendments in reexamination and/or reissue at the USPTO may create absolute and/or equitable intervening rights. Although the doctrine of intervening rights is codified as a component of reissue statute 35 U.S.C. § 252, reexamination statutes 35 U.S.C. § 307 (ex parte) and 35 U.S.C. § 316 (inter partes) incorporate the reissue statute in this regard.
35 U.S.C. § 252 Effect of Reissue.
The surrender of the original patent shall take effect upon the issue of the reissued patent, and every reissued patent shall have the same effect and operation in law, on the trial of actions for causes thereafter arising, as if the same had been originally granted in such amended form, but in so far as the claims of the original and reissued patents are substantially identical, such surrender shall not affect any action then pending nor abate any cause of action then existing, and the reissued patent, to the extent that its claims are substantially identical with the original patent, shall constitute a continuation thereof and have effect continuously from the date of the original patent. (emphasis added)
As can be appreciated, 35 U.S.C. § 252 states that substantially identical claims are treated no differently with respect to liability (damages) than original claims.[1]
Of course, this provision begs the question:
What types of claim changes can be made Read the rest of this entry »
– Reducing Infringement Liability Via
Intervening Rights (PART I)–
As reported last week, USPTO reexamination of Amazon’s “1-click patent” concluded with the amendment of the broadest claims. In response, many Internet news sources, and IP blogs decried the reexamination process and the USPTO as a failed system. Yet, lost in the hysteria and naiveté is a very fundamental concept of post-grant proceedings at the USPTO, namely, the doctrine of intervening rights.
USPTO statistics very clearly bear out that complete cancellation of ALL patent claims via ex parte reexamination, such as was conducted of Amazon’s 1-click patent, is the exceptional case, not the rule. Indeed, as of December 2009, only 11% of ex parte reexaminations conclude with all claims cancelled. Yet, roughly 600 requests for ex parte reexamination have been filed every year since the inception of the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU). With only 11% of patents having all claims cancelled over a 20+ year period, clearly the strategy behind ex parte reexamination requests is something other than outright cancellation.[1]
Certainly, a third party requestor would be pleased with the cancellation of all claims of a patent in reexamination, however Read the rest of this entry »
English
