Today’s Agenda

Week 4 - 9/23/03Adv.Pat.Law Seminar - rjm 1

Today’s Agenda

•Comments-Visual Cues

•Prosecution

•The Duty of Candor

•Rule 56, then and now

•Molins PLC

•Next Week


• LABELS. Please use labels [and ALL CAPS – to defeat coursetools hatred of formatting]. Don’t rely only on the question number. Also include INTERNAL labels. They will help me, or any reader, the first time through as well as when skimming back looking for some gem. For example:

TWO MUST-READ CASES

MOLINS’ BEST FACT

TEXTRON’S COUNTER TO MOLINS

BEST JUDGE FOR ai’s DEFENSE COUNSEL

•MAKE EVERY WORD COUNT. Your comment^2 should have something NEW that you did not say in your comment^1! It should also have some genuine content. “I agree” doesn’t.

Your Comments


Try – I know it’s hard - to Stop writing or saying or even thinking

“I would argue that” or equivalents. As Senior Judge Tom Buiteweg ‘93 said to his writing class: Think Nike. Just do it.

In writing, it just wastes space. And we KNOW you’re arguing, because you’re communicating and it’s law …

A Note from the Word Police


Know what a ‘conclusory statement’ is, and don’t proffer it as a FACT.Example

The pedestrian was careless. CONCLUSORY

The pedestrian crossed when the light was red. FACT.

You can summarize with a conclusory statement (CLEARLY!) but you should first give us the facts, with as many heavily loaded verbs and nouns (and failing that, adjectives) as you can find.

A Note from the Thought Police

Instead of ‘pedestrian,’ you could say the ‘aged, blind crone’ or the ‘unemployed drunken lout’


•Who is/was Kayton•The Duty of Candor can skewer anybody

•Sure the sky has fallen, but is it that much closer to the ground than it was 10 years ago?

Kayton & Gardner on PROSECUTION


•Who is/was Kayton•The Duty of Candor can skewer anybody

•Sure the sky has fallen, but is it that much closer to the ground than it was 10 years ago?

•The Certification Story

Fed. Cir. Decisions


Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, 138 F.3d 1448 (1998)■NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, with whom Chief Judge MAYER joins; additional views.

[*1479] Most of the shortfalls between expectation and reality arise from the manner of implementation of our de novo authority for claim interpretation. I cite three principal areas. The first area relates to the treatment of certified questions. Although the district courts have extended themselves, and so-called "Markman hearings" are common, this has not been accompanied by interlocutory review of the trial judge's claim interpretation. The Federal Circuit has thus far declined all such certified questions. Indeed, the certified question issue was an early warning of the difficulties that could flow from premature claim interpretation, for it was often apparent from the petition that the claims could not be finally and correctly interpreted without evidence beyond the patent documents. The absence of extrinsic evidence, of resolution of conflicting positions, and of detailed analysis and findings by the trial judge, inhibited claim interpretation by certified[**98] question. Thus, instead of conducting the expected dispositive de novo review, we simply declined the question. The possibility of early finality to claim interpretation has not materialized, with two untoward consequences….

FIVE YEARS LATER: NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

The

Fed

Cir

doe

s no

t lik

e to

hav

e to

in

terp

ret c

laim

s th

e w

ay th

ey’v

e to

ld

Dis

tric

t Cou

rt ju

dges

to d

o it?


•Limitations: Do ‘accused devices’ have LIMITATIONS?

•How do we talk about INFRINGEMENT? Let’s make sure we all know the words. (And how to use a claim chart!)

UWA=use words accurately. It’s worthwhile to leave blanks and then fill in the RIGHT word. Being scrupulous about using the right word will ABSOLUTELY improve the quality of your thinking, as well as your writing. Or your money back!

Claim Interpretation Lingo


Rule 56

• Marshall Dann, PTO Commissioner: Know anything else about rules he promulgated?

• Old Rule 56

• The ABDick Story (what WOULD a decent prosecutor do after that?)

• Dates!

• Judgment v. Risk Aversion {why are they paying you the big bucks?}


§ 1.56 Duty to disclose information material to patentability. (a) [1]A patent by its very nature is affected witha public interest. [2]The public interest is best served,and the most effective patent examination occurswhen, at the time an application is being examined,the Office is aware of and evaluates the teachings ofall information materialmaterial to patentability. [3]Eachindividual associated with the filing and prosecutionof a patent application has a duty of candor and goodfaith in dealing with the Office, which includes a dutyto disclose to the Office all information known to thatindividual to be material to patentability as defined inthis section. [continued on next slide]

Rule 56 – The Duty of Candor


Elements of Inequitable Conduct

Materiality

Intent

They should be ADDED (earlier cases said they should be

BALANCED, but that made no sense).


§ 1.56 Duty to disclose information material to patentability. (a) cont’d: [4]The duty to disclose information exists with respect to each pending claim until the claim is cancelled or withdrawn from consideration, or the application becomes abandoned. [5]Information material to the patentability of a claim that is cancelled or withdrawn from consideration need not be submitted if the information is not material to the patentability of any claim remaining under consideration in the application. [6]There is no duty to submit information which is not material to the patentability of any existingexisting claim.



§ 1.56 Duty to disclose information material to patentability. (a) cont’d: [7]The duty to disclose all information known to be material to patentability is deemed to be satisfied if all information known to be material to patentability of any claim issued in a patent was cited byby the Office or or submitted to to the Office in the manner prescribed by §§ 1.97(b)-(d) and 1.98. [8]However, no patent will be granted on an application in connection with which fraud on the Office was practiced or attemptedor the duty of disclosure was violated through badfaith or intentional misconduct.


How

wou

ld t

he P

TO

fin

d o

ut?


§ 1.56 Duty to disclose information material to patentability. (a) cont’d:

[9]The Office encourages applicants to carefully examine: (1) prior art cited in search reports of a

foreign patent office in a counterpart application, and (2) the closest information over which individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application believe any pending claim patentably defines, to make sure that any material information contained therein is disclosed to the Office.



What is the duty?To whom is it owed?Who has it?How do you fulfill it?When do you fulfill it?Is it ongoing? Does it end? What if you violate it?

what happens to the patent?to related patents?to the Patent Owner (in litigation)?to YOU, if you are a patent agent/attorney?


Where do you find the answers?


Does the DUTY OF CANDOR mean you have a duty to SEARCH (for prior art)?

NOBut SHOULD you search?

Why?And if you do search, what is your duty then?

Do you fulfill your duty of candor by filing an IDS with 60 items on it? (See Molins)

If you review 60 pieces of prior art while drafting the application, what should you do?

Let’s look at SB 08 (formerly PTO1449)




MPEP: 2001.04: The term "information" as used in 37 CFR 1.56 means all of the kinds of information required to be disclosed and includes any information which is "material to patentability." Materiality is defined in 37 CFR 1.56(b) and discussed herein at MPEP §2001.05. In addition to prior art such as patents and publications, 37 CFR 1.56 includes, for example, information on possible prior public uses, sales, offers to sell, derived knowledge, prior invention by another, inventorship conflicts, and the like.


Result of finding of INEQUITABLE CONDUCT

Future Dollars:

Current Dollars:

Molins

§ 285. Attorney fees

The court in exceptional cases may award reasonableattorney fees to the prevailing party.

patent is unenforceable: no more litigation, no more licensing,

MAYBE lose royalties in existing licenses

exceptional (when AI

wins) ~ IN

EQ COND

exceptional (when PO

wins) ~~ WILLFULNESS


Molins – The Judges

Lourie http://www.fedcir.gov/judgbios.html#Lourie

Newman http://www.fedcir.gov/judgbios.html - Newman

Nies http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1767

http://www.fedcir.gov/judgbios.html#Lourie








http://www.fedcir.gov/judgbios.html#Newman







http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1767












The patent is 99 pages.

This application is a continuation-in-part of my copending application Ser. No. 695,817 filed Dec. 4, 1967, now abandoned, which in turn is a continuation-in-part of my copending applications Ser. No. 578,318 filed Sept. 9, 1966, and Ser. No. 636,993 filed May 8, 1967, both of which applications are now abandoned.


On October 29, 1970, Molins filed United Statesapplication serial number 85,289 (hereinafter, "CaseIV") as a continuation of the Case III applicationpreviously filed in December of 1967. The BatchProcess claims (claims 79 and 80) that appeared inthe Case IV application were identical to originalBatch Process claims 2 and 4 which appeared in theSeptember 1966 Batch Process patent application, andBatch Process claims 66 and 67 from the Case IIIapplication. K-59A, pp. 124-148; Stipulation 10.48. On December 29, 1971, the U.S. PTO issued anOffice Action rejecting Batch claims 79 and 80. Tr.,pp. 136-137; K-59B, pp 203-208. … because the examiner concluded that they were directed to an invention other than that disclosed in the Case III parent application.

Excerpts from Trial

Court Opinion,

D.Del., Farnan.

821 F.Supp.

1551 (1992).

What kind of rejection (§?) is that?


Whitson and Smith met in April of 1972 torespond to the December 1971 Office Action. Tr.,pp. 137, 163-167. In their response, filed April 27,1972, [**17]Whitson and Smith amended theapplication adding new claims 176 through 185. It isclear from a statement prepared by Whitson andSmith that the new claims were included todistinguish the invention over Lemelson Reissuepatent RE 26,770 … “the single prior art reference ofrecord." K-59B, p. 239. … n9

n9 The other Lemelson patents (the '014 and'501 patents) had previously been distinguished in theprosecution of Case III. K-28, pp. 209-212 and Tr.pp. 1039-1040.


In addition to adding claims 176 through 185,Molins copied claims from patent number 3,575,540("Fair patent") which, by assignment, was held by theSundstrand Corporation. The Fair patent disclosed acomputer controlled machining system and containedfeatures common to[**18] the Case IV application.The purpose of copying the claims was to provoke aninterference …(2) Perry/Fair/Williamson Interference On January 31, 1973, the U.S. PTO declared aninterference proceeding. At issue in theinterference were the Case IV application(Williamson patent application), the Fair patent, andthe Perry patent application, a patent directed to acomputer controlled machining system which hadbeen assigned to Defendant Cincinnati Milacron.


On April 4, 1977, the U.S. PTO awarded Molins priorityon all principal counts … The continued prosecution of the Case IVapplication in the United States required an additionalseven years before a patent was issued. During thistime the patent office examiner and Smith exchangedseveral office actions [**19] and responses thereto.n10 Eventually, [*1561] on January 25, 1983, theCase IV application matured into the issuance of the'563 apparatus patent. The corresponding '410method patent {called “batch” by the Fed. Cir. - RJM}, was issued on November 11, 1986.

n10 On June 27, 1978, the patent examiner issued an office Action rejecting all pending Molinsclaims on a variety of grounds including vagueness,indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior artreferences, which principally included a combinationof Lemelson references …. In this Office Action the examiner alsocited, as secondary references related to ancillaryclaims, the Kumagai patent 3,245,144 and Riedel


patent 3,010,371. (Stipulation 9.30). During 1978, 1979, and early 1980, the examinerand Smith exchanged several Office Actions andresponses, in the course of which Smith submittedclaim amendments directed at meeting the examiner'sobjections to the claims as then presented. Stipul9.31.■ In April of 1980, the examiner notified Molinsthat he was prepared to allow some of the Molinsclaims then presented, except for claims that Molinhad copied in 1973 from a Perry application.Stipulation 9.32. This refusal on the part of theexaminer was upheld by the appeals Board on May17, 1982. Stipulation 9.33.

***Who is Wagenseil? Possibly Ludwig W, a German, with quite a few US patents, but only one, and a recent one, explicitly on machine tool technology. http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-adv.htm

http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-adv.htm











Why didn’t Hirsh highlight Wagenseiland why does Lourie think it was so important to highlight it?

MPEP v. CFR in Molins The point is the DATES. The MPEP of 1980, which was the version that Smith (and Hirsh?) would have had at their desks, mentioned BURYING. The 1992 CFR made it UNNECESSARY to explain relevance for English language references.

Some more Molins things to ponder

hindsight highlight?


•What should SMITH have done about the Williamson/Lemelson situation?

•What do CLIENTS want when they look for a patent lawyer?

• Patent law conflicts – how are they handled?•Prosecution? •Litigation?

Some more Molins things to ponder -2

Ruhi:•Inequitable Conduct (centered on recent case? Dayco maybe?) Pandya and Durham have both abandoned IC as a topic??•Conflicts v. Expertise


Next Week – New Reading Material?•HISTORY: Another Article by Walterscheid, or possibly

one of his legal historian competitors [see next slide]

•HISTORY/CASES• DOE (Westinghouse? or the OTHER Graver Tank decision

[really validity, but key background to Graver Tank-DOE])• The ancient misuse/antitrust cases: universal talking

pictures, morton salt (or: start with Dawson v. Rohm & Haas, if you never read that)

• Precision Instruments (duty of candor & interference and what to do with slimebucket clients)

• THE HUMAN SIDE OF PATENT LAW; THE JUDGES (handout)

•CASES IN CONFLICT: a pair of cases you identified from Kayton? (Am I right that you contrasted Corning with Dolly last term?)

•Some BRIEFS (_Festo_ amici): 2 or 4 students on each c:\usr\patent.all\festo2003


Next Week – New Reading Material?

• Another Article by Walterscheid, or possibly one of his legal historian competitors. Some contenders:

•ECW: The Use And Abuse Of History: The Supreme Court's Interpretation Of Thomas Jefferson's Influence On The Patent Law (1999 Idea)

•ECW: Within The Limits Of The Constitutional Grant: Constitutional Limitations On The Patent Power (2002 JIPL)•Malla Pollack, Nebraska L.Rev. 2001: What Is Congress Supposed To Promote?: Defining "Progress" In Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 Of The United States Constitution, Or Introducing The Progress Clause

Documents

Today’s Agenda