Scott McKeown

Subscribe to Scott McKeown's Posts
Contact:Read more about Scott McKeown

515

Managers Amendment S.515 Shows New Momentum

A letter was sent to Majority Leader Harry Reid today (here) by a bipartisan group of senators asking him to bring patent reform legislation to the Senate floor for a vote “as soon as possible.” The argument behind the push was that strengthening our patent system and…

Can Inconsistent Statements Made Outside of the USPTO Surrender Claim Scope for Recapture Purposes?

The recapture doctrine of patent reissue is often a subject of debate before the BPAI. As we discussed last week, the question of the propriety of an intermediate claims scope vis-a-vis recapture was recently decided by the BPAI, and briefing before the CAFC is near complete on the same issue (In re Mostafazadeh). A day after the BPAI decision of last week, the Federal District Court of Ohio considered recapture in the context of statements made outside of the USPTO in Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC, et al v. Haldex Brake Products Corp., 1-09-cv-00176 (N.D.O.H)

As a reminder, the recapture doctrine exists because a deliberate surrender of subject matter is not an “error” that is correctable by patent reissue. The recapture doctrine prevents Patent Holders from broadening claim scope in patent reissue that was deliberately surrendered during original prosecution. In Bendix, the defendant (Haldex) argued that the asserted broadened reissue patent, RE 38,874, (relating to automotive braking equipment) was invalid under 35 USC § 251 due to statements made during an earlier litigation and in a foreign patent office.
Continue Reading Recapture of Subject Matter Through Patent Reissue

Confidential Information & Claim Drafting

As we discussed last March, the Federal District Court of Delaware seems to have a different idea when it comes to patent reexamination concurrent with litigation. In our earlier post we explained that protective order issues can be quite contentious in litigation between direct competitors. In many district courts, the simple solution to this issue is to forbid trial counsel from participating in an ongoing patent reexamination. The concept is simple, since claims are being amended or added in reexamination, confidential product data of competitors can unfairly steer the claim drafting process, providing significant leverage to the Patentee. In Delaware, the protective order issue has been viewed differently. Last week, this trend continued in the case of Xerox Corp. v. Google, Inc. et al. In Xerox, the court once again cited the same familiar local decisions on the issue, all of which appear grounded on arguably flawed perceptions of patent reexamination. …
Continue Reading Delaware District Court Protective Order Practice

JetsThank god football is back, where else but NFL week 1 does blind faith reign supreme and delusional face painters make crazy predictions about future outcomes….but enough about Dallas Cowboy fans. Occasionally, in the otherwise mundane world of patent reexamination, a press release is issued that is so self serving one can only conclude the author spends time face painting on Sundays.

As discussed previously, with so many high profile patent litigations subject to concurrent patent reexamination, it is quite common for self serving press releases to be issued by the participating parties. For public companies, SEC oversight and shareholder law suits tend to keep the release very factual and straightforward. Other less accountable organizations, tend to be a bit more aggressive, like my new all time favorite, Mercury Cable.

Not only is Mercury Cable seemingly guaranteeing a win, they also curiously point out that most patent reexaminations result in confirmed claims. USPTO statistics to the contrary be damned!
Continue Reading Mercury Cable & Patent Reexamination Trash Talk

Does Recapture Include an Intermediate Claim Scope?

In a nutshell, the recapture doctrine prevents Patentees from broadening claims via patent reissue to “re-capture” subject matter intentionally surrendered during original prosecution. The recapture doctrine exists because a deliberate surrender of subject matter is not an “error” that is correctable by patent reissue. MPEP § 1412.02 spells out the 3-part test to identify when subject matter claimed in reissue is subject to recapture.

In 2003, the BPAI issued Ex Parte Eggert, which indicated that an intermediate claim scope presented in reissue (i.e., somewhere between what was surrendered and what was ultimately claimed) would not constitute recapture. Thus for example, if the prior art showed a hard-wired communication and the claim that issued was amended during original prosecution to recite an infrared communication, the intermediate scope sought via a broadening patent reissue might be “wireless communication.”

Back in April of this year, we questioned the continued viability of Ex Parte Eggert in view of the CAFC’s decision in North American Container. While the USPTO had publicly taken the position that Eggert would no longer be followed, some wondered whether that decision was actually consistent with the holding of North American Container. Yesterday, a decision issued, amplifying the USPTO’s reading of North American Container.
Continue Reading BPAI Clarifies Patent Reissue Recapture Doctrine

Cellectis Patent Surrendered by Operation of Inter Partes Reexamination Pendency

Last week, the litigation between Cellectis S.A. and Precision Biosciences Inc., (E.D. N.C) No: 5.08-CV-00119-H was stayed pending the outcome of inter partes patent reexamination proceedings involving the patents at issue in the litigation, namely, U.S. Patents 6,610,545 and 7,309,605. In the decision to stay the case, the same familiar factors were analyzed. Of particular interest is the court’s discussion of the “undue prejudice” factor.

In discussing the undue prejudice factor, the court noted that both of the patents at issue will expire in May of 2012. By pointing this out, the court surmised that should the case be stayed, any improper shifting of market share (due to infringement) would be transient at best in view of the relatively imminent patent expiration. Thus, the court found that the balance of equities favored staying the case. With regard to patent expiration, the court explained:

[I]t is uncertain whether the PTO’s reexamination will be completed before the patents expire and highly unlikely that any appeal of the PTO’s decision will be resolved prior to the expiration of the patents.

In pointing out this fact, the court unknowingly emphasized a sad reality for Cellectis. By amending the ‘605 Patent, Cellectis has effectively surrendered this patent by operation of USPTO pendency.
Continue Reading Death by Amendment, Practical Impacts of Patent Reexamination Pendency

flailing-swimmer-300x220The seemingly never ending Microsoft v. i4i dispute continued on to the doorstep of the Supreme Court last week. In 2009, Microsoft was found to have infringed i4i’s 5,787,449 patent, which allegedly claims certain XML translation features of Microsoft Word. An appeal to the CAFC earlier this year was unsuccessful. On August 27th, Microsoft filed a petition for certiorari questioning the lower court’s use of the clear and convincing standard relative to art not before the USPTO during prosecution of the original patent application.

Along the way, Microsoft sought ex parte reexamination of the ‘449 Patent (90/010,347), largely as an afterthought to hedge against a willfulness finding. Not surprisingly, since the request ignored definitions of certain claim terms of the ‘449 Patent specification, the reexamination attempt was unsuccessful and all claims exited reexamination in July of this year. With the trail now over, and appeal options exhausted (save the last ditch appeal to the Supreme Court), it would seem that at least the patent reexamination chapter of this saga was complete.

Yet, as reported by IPWatchdog yesterday, Microsoft has filed a second request for ex parte reexamination of the ‘449 patent (90/011,198) just last Tuesday. So, what exactly is Microsoft hoping to accomplish? 
Continue Reading Microsoft Files Another Patent Reexamination Request Against i4i

copycatGEOSPAN Corporation filed a lawsuit in March 2008 in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that Pictometry infringed  GEOSPAN’s U.S. Patent No. 5,633,946.

In a separate action on November 11, 2008, GEOSPAN requested the U.S Patent Office to reexamine Pictometry’s U.S. Patent Number 7,424,133, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Capturing, Geolocating and Measuring Oblique Images.” This action is a procedure used by the U.S. Patent Office to allow the claims in existing patents to be contested (Ref. No. 95/001,110)

In its request, GEOSPAN set forth substantial new questions of patentability based upon  a September 5, 2002 printed publication by David Rattigan, a reported for a Boston newspaper. The USPTO ordered inter partes reexamination of the ‘133 Patent, and subsequently issued a Non-Final Office Action on February 2, 2009 rejecting claims 17-24 on anticipation and obviousness grounds. Currently, the rejections are on appeal to the BPAI.

On May 25, 2010, the patent owner filed its brief. On the appeal, the Patent Owner is contesting  the USPTO’s conclusion that the submitted declaration evidence filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 (swear behind) is insufficient as well as the conclusion that declaration evidence filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 is insufficient to disqualify the Rattigan publication based upon attribution. (MPEP 716.10). Of particular interest is the dispute between the USPTO and the Patent Holder as to whether declaration evidence can be used to disqualify a prior art reference as “attributed” to the  inventors’ work where none of the inventors is an author of the printed publication used to reject the claims. 
Continue Reading Reporter’s Description of Invention at Issue in Patent Reexamination

Expanded BPAI Panel Shoots Down Repackaged SNQSince In re Swanson, the standard for establishing a Substantial New Question of Patentability (SNQ) in a patent reexamination has been quite liberal. A requester need only establish that the submitted art be presented in a new light. Thus, previously considered prior art can be re-used, if applied to the claims in a slightly different manner than that of the original prosecution. Understandably, since Swanson, arguing that a rejection adopted by the Office in patent reexamination does not in fact present the previously considered art in a new light has been an uphill battle.Yesterday, the USPTO found a rare SNQ it didn’t like….and pigs were seen flying down Dulany Street.U.S. Patent 6,780,079 is the subject of litigation styled MuzzyProducts Corporation v. Primos Inc., U.S. District Court of Georgia 4:05cv182. This case was stayed in 2007 pending the outcome of the reexamination, 90/008,081. The ‘079 Patent relates to a devices used in hunting for attracting game (game calling).Original ProsecutionDuring the original examination of the ‘868 application which eventually issued as the ‘079 patent, the claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over prior art Patent No. 5,607,091 “Musacchia”. The Examiner stated that while Musacchia does not disclose a hunting device for producing sounds that has a unitary construction, “unitary construction of the hunting device would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since this would aid in the portability and usage of the device.”In response, the inventor, Mr. John Musacchia Jr., (prior art invented by his father) filed a Declaration seeking to establish non-obviousness through long-felt need.After extensive prosecution, the original Examiner maintained the rejection of the claims over Musacchia stating that “Musacchia discloses the claimed invention except for the game call device constructed as one piece” and that “[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the game call device as one piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).”After further prosecution, the Applicant appealed to the Board. The original Board panel reversed the original Examiner’s rejection stating that there is no per se rule that “forming several pieces integrally as a one-piece structure would have been obvious . . . [,]” and “in this case, one must determine if it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make Musacchia’s separate call and platform as a one-piece structure.” Subsequently, the application was then allowed by the examiner.Request for ReexaminationIn the request for reexamination, the Requester argued that the Declaration filed during the prosecution of the ‘079 patent was only considered as to whether it demonstrated long-felt need, and not considered by either the original Examiner or the original Board panel as including admissions.The USPTO adopted this reasoning explaining the admissions to be statements made by the Patent Owner in his declaration and remarks that identify the long-unfelt need. Specifically, these remarks explain that a one piece design was considered desirable by those of skill in the art and would predictably result in preventing the loss of game calls, maintaining a true sound, and reducing the cost of the game call.In this regard, the Office stated that, when considered as admissions, the statements of the Declarationprovide evidence of obviousness, which was specifically pointed out as missing in the prior examination, and therefore, cast Musacchia ‘091 in a new light. The teachings of Musacchia ‘091 considered in conjunction with the admissions are a new question of patentability not previously considered. As such, the teachings of Musacchia ‘091, in conjunction with the admissions in the record, raise a substantial new question of patentability.Board DecisionThe Board remanded (decision here) the reexamination back to the Central Reexamination Unit for termination explaining that:While the CRU Examiner may be correct in asserting that the original Examiner and the previous Board panel considered the statements in the Declaration only in the context of long-felt need, these statements do not alter the purpose for which the CRU Examiner now relies on the Musacchia reference for finding the existence of a SNQ. In particular, the CRU Examiner does not apply the statements in the Declaration to gain any new understanding as to the teachings of the Musacchia reference, but rather, uses the statements merely to reach a different legal conclusion as to obviousness. While the CRU Examiner asserts that the statements in the Declaration casts Musacchia in a “new light,” the CRU Examiner’s position suggests that the CRU Examiner is viewing the Declaration, not the Musacchia reference, in a new light.PPG Comment : The Requester gets an “A” for effort.Essentially, this reexamination was pursued to leverage the perceived change in obviousness standards caused KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc (‘079 Patent issued pre-KSR). Ths request was submitted under the guise of declaration admissions in the hopes that applying KSR to the same art would yield different results. Of course, MPEP 2216 makes it very clear that KSR does not impact the SNQ analysis.**Fortunately for the patent owner, as of June 25, 2010, the Board may now properly review the examiner’s determination that a SNQ exists. Prior to June 25, 2010 the Patent Owner’s argument would have been rejected by the BPAI as a petitionable issue.

Since In re Swanson, the standard for establishing a Substantial New Question of Patentability (SNQ) in a patent reexamination has been quite liberal. A requester need only establish that the submitted art be presented in a new light. Thus, previously considered prior art can be re-used, if applied to the claims in a slightly different manner than that of the original prosecution. Understandably, since Swanson, arguing that a rejection adopted by the Office in patent reexamination does not in fact present the previously considered art in a new light has been an uphill battle.

Yesterday, the USPTO found a rare SNQ it didn’t like….and pigs were seen flying down Dulany Street.
Continue Reading Patent Reexamination Effectively Terminated by BPAI for Lack of SNQ

MIB coverass=”alignleft size-full wp-image-3515″ title=”MIB cover” src=”https://www.patentspostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/MIB-cover.bmp” alt=”MIB cover” />The recently published Volume 2, Issue 2 of the journal Medical Innovation & Business focused entirely on patent reform’s potential impact on medical innovation.  Special guest editors Renee Kaswan, David Boundy, and Ron Katznelson express particular concern that patent reform will weaken the investment incentive for innovations with high development costs and low production costs, notably including medical innovations.  Numerous articles in this issue discuss the effects that proposed post-grant review might have on the value of smaller companies’ patents and therefore on the incentives to invest in such companies. The articles in this patent reform issue of Medical Innovation & Business that are relevant to post-grant procedures for assessing validity fall roughly into three categories based on three different perspectives: venture capitalists’ perspective, the perspective of attorneys in private practice, and judicial perspective. Across these categories, post-grant discussions repeatedly highlight several sources of uncertainty that may apply to small companies relying on their intellectual property investments. We provide the following review of the articles in this issue that pertain to post-grant review.
Continue Reading Potential Impact of Patent Reform on Medical Innovation