Patent Law Practice Center

Resolving Differences: How the Federal Circuit Treats Divergent USPTO and District Court Rulings

The following article discussing what happens when the Federal Circuit is faced with conflicting USPTO and district court determinations comes courtesy of Lisa Dolak, Professor of Law at Syracuse University and Practice Center Contritor.

Concurrent litigation and reexamination proceedings, although related in that they concern the same patent(s) and (typically, presumably) at least some of the same claims, proceed independently. And, different standards govern validity and claim construction in the two venues. As the Federal Circuit explained in In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008):

In civil litigation, a challenger who attacks the validity of patent claims must overcome the presumption of validity with clear and convincing evidence that the patent is invalid. . . . In [USPTO] examinations and reexaminations, the standard of proof – a preponderance of evidence – is substantially lower than in a civil case; there is no presumption of validity.

Id. at 1376. Additionally, “unlike in district courts, in reexamination proceedings ‘[c]laims are given ‘their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification. . .’’” Id. at 1377-78 (quoting In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1296-97 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984))). Accordingly, as the Federal Circuit has noted, “the two forums take different approaches in determining validity and on the same evidence could quite correctly come to different conclusions.” Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1428 (Fed. Cir. 1988). (more…)

Facebook’s Inequitable Conduct Case After Therasense

Our friends at Reexamination Alert sent in this article discussing the Tele-Publishing, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., et al..  Has Facebook figured out a way to successfuly prove inequitable conduct even in light of the but-for standard for materiality now required by Therasense?

In January, Reexamination Alert reported on the case Tele-Publishing, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., et al., No. 1:09-cv-11686-DPW, in which Facebook is accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,253,216 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Providing a Personal Page.”  Facebook defended by requesting reexamination of the ‘216 patent, asserting that it was invalid over an earlier patent to de Hond.  The PTO granted reexamination.  An initial rejection of all claims issued in April, 2010, and a final rejection issued in August of that year. An appeal is currently pending at the PTO Board.

What will interest reexamination lawyers, however, is Facebook’s allegation that the ‘216 patent is unenforceable because of applicant’s inequitable conduct during the prosecution of that patent.  Facebook asserts that the ‘216 applicant was aware of the de Hond patent because that reference was cited and distinguished in several related applications, and that the applicant intentionally withheld de Hond in the ‘216 prosecution.

How does Facebook’s inequitable conduct defense stand up in light of the but-for standard for materiality now required by Therasense?  Pretty well, actually.   The CAFC described the materiality standard inTherasense as calling for a court to “determine whether the PTO would have allowed the claim if it had been aware of the undisclosed reference.”  The CAFC seemed almost to have reexamination in mind when it added that “the court should apply the preponderance of the evidence standard and give the claims their broadest reasonable construction” (emphasis added).  The closest answer to the CAFC’s hypothetical question – what would the PTO have done with the undisclosed reference – might be found in reexamination. (more…)

PATENT REFORM–THE REMIX

TiVo Attack On Four Verizon Patents Among Reexamination Requests Filed Week Of 5/30/11

Here is the latest installment of Reexamination Requests from Scott Daniels, of Reexamination Alert and Practice Center Contributor….

On Thursday, TiVo requested reexamination of three Verizon cable box patents, and on Friday, of a fourth Verizon patent (see ex parteRequest Nos. (9) through (12)).  These requests are only the latest development in an on-going patent war between the two companies that includes fronts at the ITC and in two District Courts.

Reexamination was requested for SynQor’s U.S. Patent No. 7,272,021 for power converters (see inter partes Request No. (1)).  In January, Judge Ward enjoined Artesyn/Astec and a series of other companies from infringing four SynQor patents, among them the ‘021 patent.  It is not yet clear from the PTO records who filed the request.

And Abbott Diabetes Care requested reexamination of three DexComanalyte-sensor devices in the long-term patent dispute between the companies (see ex parte Request Nos. (4), (5) & (6)). (more…)

Cost Benefits Of Concurrent Patent Reexamination

The following post comes from Scott A. Mckeown, Partner at Oblon Spivak, Practice Center Contributor and writer for Patents Post Grant.

Court Lists Practical Efficiencies of Patent Reexamination

In attempting to stave off a motion to a district court litigation pending patent reexamination, the opposing party (almost always the Patentee) will often characterize a parallel patent reexamination as an “all or nothing proposition.” That is to say, in the face of the argument that the patent reexamination is likely to simplify issues for trial (almost always a defendant argument), the opponent will insist that USPTO statistics demonstrate that it is very unlikely that all claims will be canceled.

In Genzyme Corp., v Cobrek Pharmaceuticals Inc., (NDIL, Order 2/17/11), the relatively rare case of a Patentee requested stay was at issue. In deciding to stay the district court proceeding based on the familiar factor based analysis, the court found that simplification of issues was likely. In doing so, the court created a list of discovery efficiencies, potential cost savings, and case management benefits to be gained from awaiting the outcome of the USPTO action. (more…)