FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 1 The Case Therasense ǀ Federal Circuit (en banc) ǀ May 25, 2011 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 2 Therasense ǀ Issue What must be shown in order to prove inequitable conduct? 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 3 Therasense ǀ Facts  Abbott filed a U.S. patent application for a disposable blood glucose test strip.  During prosecution, Abbott submitted a declaration to overcome a prior art rejection.  Declaration allegedly was contradicted by arguments that Abbott previously made during prosecution of European counterpart.  Abbott did not tell the PTO examiner about the earlier arguments. 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 4 Therasense ǀ Holding  Inequitable conduct requires clear and convincing evidence that: (1)the applicant specifically intended to deceive the PTO, e.g., the applicant knew of an undisclosed reference, knew that it was material, and made a deliberate decision to withhold it; and (2)the alleged misconduct was but-for material, e.g., if the PTO had been aware of an undisclosed reference, it would not have allowed at least one claim.  Exception to but-for materiality in cases of affirmative egregious misconduct. 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 5 Therasense ǀ Lessons #1 #1Patent owners: Use Therasense and Exergen to dispose of unfounded inequitable conduct allegations early in the case. #2 #2Accused infringers: Inequitable conduct is still a potent defense, but some discovery may be needed before it can be adequately pled. #3 #3Patent applicants: Duty of disclosure is alive and well. Familiarize yourself with PTO’s proposed new rule. When in doubt, disclose. #4 #4Supreme Court may have the last word. 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 6 The Case CyberSource ǀ Federal Circuit ǀ Aug. 16, 2011 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 7 CyberSource ǀ Issue Whether claims 2 and 3 of CyberSource’s ’154 patent recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101? 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 8 CyberSource ǀ Claim 3 Holding  Claim 3 fails the Bilski “machine- or-transformation” test.  “All of claim 3’s method steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.”  A method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under § 101. 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 9 CyberSource ǀ Claim 2 Holding  Claim 2 is a “Beauregard” claim, i.e., a claim to a computer readable medium (e.g., a disk, hard drive, or other data storage device) containing program instructions for a computer to perform a process.  Court rejected CyberSource’s argument that coupling the method of claim 3 with a manufacture or machine renders it patent-eligible.  Must look to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes. 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 10 The Case Ultramercial ǀ Federal Circuit ǀ Sep. 15, 2011 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 11 Ultramercial ǀ Issue Whether Ultramercial’s ’545 patent claims patent- eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101? 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 12 Ultramercial ǀ Holding  § 101’s expansive categories of patent eligible subject matter―process, machine, article of manufacture and composition of matter―are no more than a “coarse eligibility filter.”  Patent claims a practical application of the abstract idea that advertising can serve as currency, including steps likely to require “intricate and complex computer programming.” Thus, patent- eligible.  “Unlike the claims in CyberSource, the claims here require, among other things, controlled interaction with a consumer via an Internet website, something far removed from purely mental steps.” 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 13 Cybersource & Ultramercial ǀ Lessons #1 #1Substance matters more than form: Beauregard claims do not necessarily recite patent-eligible subject matter. #2 #2DO NOT claim methods that can be readily performed entirely in one’s head. DO claim methods directed to specific, practical applications or improvements to technologies in the marketplace. #3 #3Ultramercial’s pro-software lean: “The digital computer may be considered by some the greatest invention of the twentieth century, and both this court and the Patent Office have long acknowledged that ‘improvements thereof’ through interchangeble software or hardware enhancements deserve patent protection. Far from abstract, advances in computer technology—both hardware and software—drive innovation in every area of scientific and technical endeavor.” #4 #4Differing views of § 101’s role among Federal Circuit judges. 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 14 The Case Akamai v. Limelight ǀ Federal Circuit (en banc) ǀ 2012 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 15 Akamai v. Limelight ǀ Issue Rehearing en banc to take place on November 18, 2011 concerning the following issue: 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 16 Akamai v. Limelight ǀ Facts  Akamai sued competitor Limelight for patent infringement.  Claimed methods recited some steps performed by Limelight, and an embedded object tagging step performed by Limelight’s customers.  Divided process was explicitly set forth in Limelight’s standard customer contract.  Limelight provided customers with instructions explaining how to utilize its content delivery service. 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 17 Akamai v. Limelight ǀ Vacated Panel Decision  Direct infringement requires single party to perform every step of a claimed method.  There can only be joint infringement: (1)when there is an agency relationship between the parties who perform the method steps; or (2)when one party is contractually obligated to the other to perform the steps.  No joint infringement because customers are not Limelight’s agents and contract does not obligate customers to perform any of the method steps. 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 18 The Case McKesson v. Epic ǀ Federal Circuit (en banc) ǀ 2012 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 19 McKesson v. Epic ǀ Issue Rehearing en banc to take place on November 18, 2011 concerning the following issues: 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 20 McKesson v. Epic ǀ Facts  McKesson sued Epic for inducing infringement of a patent directed to an electronic method of communication between healthcare providers and patients involving personalized web pages for doctors and their patients.  Epic licensed accused MyChart software to healthcare providers, who offered the software as an option for their patients. No healthcare providers required their patients to use the MyChart software.  Undisputed that asserted claims required at least one step performed by MyChart users, with other steps performed by the MyChart provider. 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 21 McKesson v. Epic ǀ Vacated Majority Decision  Followed Akamai and found no infringement because the MyChart users did not perform the claimed steps as agents for the MyChart providers, nor were they contractually obligated to perform the steps.  Rejected McKesson’s argument that the special nature of the doctor-patient relationship is something more than a mere arms-length relationship and is sufficient to attribute the patient’s actions to the doctor. 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 22 McKesson v. Epic ǀ Dissenting Opinion  Judge Newman: “A patent that cannot be enforced on any theory of infringement, is not a statutory patent right. It is a cynical, and expensive, delusion to encourage innovators to develop new interactive procedures, only to find that the courts will not recognize the patent because the participants are inde- pendent entities. From the error, confusion, and unfairness of this ruling, I respectfully dissent.” 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 23 Akamai & McKesson ǀ Lessons #1 #1Patent applicants: Draft claims to capture infringement by a single party. #2 #2Patent owners: Consider reissue for patents issued within the last two years. #3 #3Accused infringers: If a claim implicates multiple parties, you may have a good noninfringement argument … at least for now. 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 24 NEW YORK 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY WASHINGTON 975 F Street, NW Washington, DC CALIFORNIA 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 2000 Costa Mesa, CA 我们即知产 飞泽知识产权律师所 Thank You 谢谢