Signs of things to come?
Just when it appears things can’t get much worse for patent plaintiffs, the Federal Circuit surprises us with a modest string of decisions actually finding in favor of patent holders.
Just one week after Muniauction, Inc. (pdf) took it on the chin by having its $77 Million jury verdict reversed (that’s reversed as in “you get zip, nada, nothing”), the boys in DC actually decided one in favor of the patentee. (pdf) What’s more they did it by upholding a summary judgment finding of infringement. Hmmm, haven’t seen that in quite a while.
On August 1 of this year, they truly outdid themselves by not only reversing summary judgment findings (pdf) of invalidity, noninfringement, and inequitable conduct (with fees thrown in to boot), but directing that the case be reassigned to a different judge on remand as well. I had to pinch myself to make sure I wasn’t dreaming. I wasn’t – six days later they did it again (pdf) (well, almost – no reassignment to a new judge this time).
Then in short order they (1) reined in a potential infringer who filed an early DJ action, (2) partially upheld a jury verdict in favor of an individual patent holder, and (3) vacated a lower court’s summary judgment finding of no infringement and no liability for damages. What’s truly amazing is that in the second of these (Voda v. Cordis), they actually upheld the jury’s finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents – THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS of all things! (For you youngsters who’ve never heard of it, just ask anyone in practice before 2002. He might even be able to tell you about phlogiston too.)
Speaking of ancient history, the Eight Circuit at one time was so anti-patent they had an unbroken string of 18 or 19 decisions, each finding the subject patents invalid. Finally, and no doubt recognizing that this had not gone unnoticed by the bar, they upheld some obscure patent, probably just to get one in the “win” column for a change.
While the cynical side of me says the Federal Circuit is simply doing the same thing here, (after all, even the tightest casinos have to let someone win on occasion) I’d like to think maybe the pendulum is swinging back in favor of patentees once again.
On a serious note, what I’d truly like to think is that the work former Judges Markey, Rich and others did to deliver patent law from an arcane backwater to the forefront of law has not been wasted. There is no doubt in my mind that the law has shifted away from protecting individual inventors in recent years and that some on the Court have an agenda in that direction. Whether they will win out is unclear.
Perhaps this minor string of cases upholding patent rights signals a real change back to strong patents. Perhaps they are only a minor aberration. Or perhaps the real aberration has been the first twenty years of the Federal Circuit’s existence and that what we are witnessing now is merely a reversion of the law back to what it has been all along. I’d like to think not, but the truth is that for most of the Twentieth Century patents weren’t worth much, if anything. We’ve lived through that before and it could easily happen again. Are we heading that direction? Guess time will tell.
The Ultimate Monopoly
We Dodged a Bullet!
Today the Supreme Court decided NOT to hear the LabCorp v. Metabolite case after all.
Good thing!
Patent law is confused enough already without the Good Justices weighing in on matters scientific.
Continue Reading...Promote the Progress?
A recent blog entry at Patently-O discusses the economics of so-called "patent thickets" (which, I gather, is the new name for what used to be called "a crowded art"). There's quite a bit of detailed and fascinating discussion concerning, among other things, the recent ebay decision and how patent owners in such a "thicket" will act, given that injunctions are (supposedly) no longer a foregone conclusion.
As I understand it, the question is whether an extensive "patent thicket" might result in more or less patent litigation and whether the ebay case will reduce or even increase patent litigation where such a thicket exits. While I don't purport to know or understand all the economic theory behind the competing views, I was struck by what I think is a misguided emphasis among the commentators. Why all the theorizing over what effect this will have on litigation and the propensity of patent owners to sue? Why all the concern whether this will encourage or discourage so-called "patent trolls"? Is the goal of the patent system simply to make life easier for lawyers and judges? Is it to let large companies steal technology with impunity? And (to be fair all around) is it simply to provide lucrative opportunities for contingent-fee patent trial lawyers like me?
The constitutional justification for the patent system is, of course, to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" -- not to provide patent lawyers with a comfortable living or to make life easier for federal judges. The question I have (and I really don't know) is whether the patent system is or is not fulfilling its mission of promoting the progress of science and useful arts. Has anyone actually done a scientific study of whether patents do promote scientific progress and whether the profound changes in the patent system over the past twenty four years have been effective in actually achieving that goal?
There's no question that the explosion in patent and IP growth has been great for lawyers. It's also been good for companies (both large and small) and even individuals able to exploit their patents. But again, the question is whether progress in science and useful arts has actually been promoted by what has gone on and what is presently going on. Frankly, I'm not sure anyone actually cares about this anymore.
Citation To "Non-Precedential" Opinions To Be Permitted. It's About Time.
One of my pet peeves has been the rule against even mentioning so-called "non-precedential" or "unpublished" opinions in briefs filed with federal appellate courts. Dennis Crouch and Law.com are both reporting that the Supreme Court has now voted to change long-standing rule and allow citation to such previously off-limits decisions. It's about time.
This whole business of "non-precedential" decisions has always struck me as both silly and dishonest. It's like saying certain historical facts and events are "non-citable" and hence off-limits for inclusion in the history books. Either something happened or it didn't. Either the court decided something or it didn't. If we are going to pay heed to the idea of stare decisis -- and there are serious questions whether we even should -- it's intellectually dishonest to gut the principle by simply pretending certain inconvenient cases were never decided.
Surprisingly, Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit -- a judge whom I respect and usually agree with -- opposes the rule change and supports keeping things the way they are. In his words, "When the people making the sausage tell you it's not safe for human consumption, it seems strange indeed to have a committee in Washington tell people to go ahead and eat it anyway." True. But the real problem lies not with the committee but with the faulty sausage itself. If future litigants shouldn't have to consume the "sausage" of an ill-considered decision, why should the parties to that particular case have to eat it either?
As also reported in the Law.Com article, "Judge Alex Kozinski, the leading opponent of the rule change, said unpublished opinions were so designated for a reason: They are drafted 'entirely' by law clerks and staff attorneys." Thanks for the explanation, Judge. I'm sure that brings great comfort to whoever lost big as a result. (Personally, I suspect this procedure is also true for even the published opinions, but that's a matter for another day.)
Fundamentally, however, the problem is not with who writes the decisions and in what level of detail. The real question is whether all cases, or just some, are going to be decided on the basis of the law and facts by the people entrusted, not to mention paid, by society to do so. Or are we going to tolerate cutting corners and sweeping the problem under the rug by designating the more embarrassing results "non-precedential"? If it's ultimately a matter of overburdened courts -- and it may well be -- then we either have to provide the resources to do the job right or perhaps rethink, and cut back on, what matters should even be delegated to the courts in the first place.
Mr. Bolt Speaks His Mind
Hmmm, here's an interesting comment I received today from concerned reader, john.bolt@gmail.com:
"And how does your view relate to the millions you spent of LizardTech's money on patent litigation, which was unjustified to begin with and a complete loss anyway? Can you spell hypocrisy?"
Well, I can spell a number of words, but I don't think that's Mr. Bolt's real question.
The truth of the matter is that I handled LizardTech's most recent appeal on a contingency and didn't make a dime on it. (When the company was paying, I was part of another firm and the decisions to proceed were made by others.) I took the case because I believed and continue to believe that the underlying findings of non-infringement and invalidity are wrong. I don't see the need to spell hypocrisy. I put my time, effort and money where my mouth is and came away with nothing. I'm a big boy and those are the risks in this business. But please don't accuse me of ripping-off a client.
As to the merits of the case, I don't see that the case was "unjustified," particularly in light of the fact that the Federal Circuit went LizardTech's way in the first appeal three years ago. Appellate courts don't usually rule in your favor in completely "unjustified" cases.
As to today's decision not to re-hear the case en banc, I still think the Federal Circuit is wrong and failed to follow its own precedent. But that happens. Most lawyers with experience can tell you stories of cases where courts sidestep issues and more-or-less make up facts to support the decision they want to reach. But no one has to take my word for it. The briefs are public record, and anyone who's interested can read them and decide for himself -- assuming he needs a cure for insomnia.
Anyone else...
getting the sense that the patent system is facing serious problems these days?
When I got into this game in 1983, the then-newly-formed Federal Circuit was supposed to bring uniformity, predictability and even respectability to the patent system. And it did -- for a while.
Under former Chief Judge Markey, the Federal Circuit's decisions made sense. They applied and relied on written statutes -- you know, the kind actually passed by Congress and signed by the President and all. They addressed important issues of patent law and provided clear, practical answers that could be understood and applied in the future. (I didn't always agree with them, but at least you could understand and apply them.) And, most importantly, the decisions appeared to be part of a genuine effort to build a consistent, workable and fair body of law that would resolve disputes justly and promote innovation as intended by the Constitution.
Over the last several years, however, I've wondered whether we are going forward or backward. Is it just me, or is anyone else going crazy trying to figure out what the Federal Circuit is doing?
The good news is that the Supreme Court has taken up the eBay case and granted cert. The question, as I understand it, is whether courts should automatically grant permanent injunctions when infringement is found. Personally, I think they should -- exclusive use is the essence of any property right. But the real significance is the Supreme Court's willingness to provide oversight over the Federal Circuit.
Recently, too, a petition for cert was filed in the Phillips case. Dennis Crouch has a copy of the petition at his Patently-O blog. It's interesting reading. I sincerely hope the Supreme Court takes the case. The reality that any three judge panel of the Federal Circuit can effectively overrule the factual findings of a lower court without any showing of clear error and simply because the panel wants a different result, runs counter to the idea that we are a nation of laws. The petition, in what I see as a courageous move, actually notes that, having appropriated for itself the sole power ultimately to decide what patent claims mean, the Federal Circuit is unlikely on its own to give up that power -- hence the need for Supreme Court intervention. (I love it when other people have the courage to say what the rest of us are thinking!) The idea that claim construction is solely a matter of law devoid of factual underpinnings is a farce and a fraud and should be discarded. (In my view, it also runs counter to the Seventh Amendment but that's another matter. And yes, I'm aware that the Supreme Court in Markman said otherwise.)
Finally, in my own small way, I am, on behalf of one of clients, seeking en banc reconsideration [Download file] of an adverse ruling I received from the Federal Circuit last month. In that case, the Federal Circuit shot down one of our patent claims as lacking written description, even though the claim elements themselves were all indisputably described and the claim itself was an originally filed claim that was allowed and issued without amendment. I'm admittedly biased, but honestly think the Federal Circuit's ruling simply can't be reconciled with prior CCPA precedent holding that originally filed claims automatically satisfy the written description requirement and that "nothing more is necessary." See In re Gardner, 475 F.2d 1389, 1391 (CCPA 1973). The good news is that the petition has not been denied summarily as usually happens. The Federal Circuit has requested and received a response from my worthy opponents. So far, there's been no decision yet on whether to grant the petition. Given that the current law regarding the "written description" requirement is, to put it politely, confused, I am hopeful the Court will soon take the matter up en banc, preferably in my case, but if not, in another.
Thoughts on Lemelson
So the Federal Circuit has spoken. The late Jerome Lemelson gets his comeuppance. And companies around the country breathe a sigh of relief.
Whether Mr. Lemelson goes down in history as a modern day Thomas Edison (and I've sometimes had my doubts about Tom) or as just a shrewd manipulator of the legal system, remains to be seen. But whatever your views, last week's decision in Symbol Technologies v. Lemelson is significant and may well mark the end of an era.
If you haven't already done so, I strongly recommend spending some time at the Squire Sanders lemelsoninfo.com site and poking around the history of this fascinating case. One blog entry cannot begin to cover what's available or address the issues raised. But I'll share what I think are some highlights.
The trial transcripts -- all twenty-seven days' worth -- are instructive. First, it's genuinely refreshing to run across a judge who, in open court, says things like "I really don't give a damn what his knowledge was at the time of the deposition" and "Mr. Fey, what in the hell is going on here?" (Transcript Day 9 p. 20, lines 3-4, and p. 66, line 20.) Admittedly, this was a bench trial, but I think we need a bit more of that. (I like a judge who has the nerve to say what the rest of us are thinking.)
Lemelson attorney Gerry Hosier is one of the best in the business and has a reputation for great cross-examinations. I wasn't disappointed, and thought his cross of Plaintiff's patent expert, Martin Adelman, was pretty humorous. (Transcript Day 19 pages 131-138.) Guess the lessons for experts are: (1) avoid comparing yourself to God, and (2) be careful who you accuse of being a bank robber.
On a more serious note, this case raises important issues of patent law that, frankly, I'm not sure how should be resolved. Lemelson is correct that nothing in the statutory law limits the right to file continuing applications. He is right that procedurally he has done nothing wrong. If his original disclosure supports his later filed claims, the mere passage of time should not render those claims unenforceable (at least under the pre-1995 scheme). If his originally filed specification does not support those claims, that is a defense the accused infringers should prove with clear and convincing evidence.
And yet, there is something inherently strange about introducing claims 39 years after an application is filed. While it's hard to find anything in the statutory law that Mr. Lemelson violated, most observers will sympathize with his opponents here. I wonder if that might be the reason the Federal Circuit, in my opinion, drafted its decision to address the limited, and probably unique, circumstances of the particular case. With patent terms now limited to 20 years from the date of first filing, it's likely we will never see the Lemelson situation again. Perhaps that is what the Federal Circuit is banking on.
Another issue I find significant is Lemelson's objection to the Federal Circuit's practice of prohibiting citation to or consideration of unpublished decisions. He argues persuasively that prohibiting citation to unpublished opinions runs contrary to the idea that similarly situtated litigants should be treated the same and is inherently wrong and unconstitutional. I agree. This business of pretending that unpublished decisions never happened is a dirty little secret and has no place in a nation of laws and open courts. Precedent is precedent, and you can't avoid creating history by saying in advance, "This doesn't count."
Finally, I think Lemelson's arguments against the participation of numerous supposed amici were well taken. Basically, Lemelson argued that, far from being "friends" of the court, the amici were in fact well-coordinated participants in a coalition to defeat the Lemelson patents and that their participation was a thinly-disguised way of beating the page limitation that ordinarily applies to appellate briefs. Although I agree that a weak argument is not likely to get stronger simply by being repeated a dozen times, I do think that Lemelson's objections to the participation of so many "outsiders" had significant merit.
Again, the entire Lemelson saga is something that is probably unique and may well never be seen again, at least not in the same form. Still, I can't help asking whether last week's decision was, in fact, based on sound law. Or whether, collectively, the courts simply decided that, "Well, Jerry, you may be right but we're going to rule against you anyway, because we just don't like what you're doing." Kind of brings us face-to-face with the question of whether we truly do believe in the rule of law, or whether we pick and choose depending on who is involved.
Reform, Reform, Reform
Yet another article on "Patent Reform" today. To listen to some of these guys, you'd think the Microsofts, Intels, Googles and IBMs of the world are at risk of being bankrupted by small patent holders.
In case you missed it the first time, let's try this again.
Continue Reading...Have We Made Ourselves Clear?
Who says claim construction is difficult? Who says it's unpredictable? Nonsense! Claim construction is easy! Anyone can do it. You simply follow the clear guidelines set out by the Federal Circuit.
And where do you find those?
That's easy too. The Federal Circuit has helpfully set them out in today's en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corporation. Just read it -- all fifty-six pages of it.
Start with the majority opinion by Judges Bryson, Michel, Clevenger, Rader, Schall, Gajarsa, Linn, Dyk and Prost. And check out the additional views of Judge Lourie, who joins with respect to parts I, II, III, V and VI, and those of Judge Newman who joins with respect to parts I, II, III, and V. But don't forget Judge Lourie's dissent-in-part in which Judge Newman joins. And then there's the dissent from Judge Mayer, in which Judge Newman joins. But trust me, it makes sense. It really does. I'm so grateful the court has made things clear.
Continue Reading...
