Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

The New Federal Circuit Mandamus, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

This Article explores an ongoing revolution in the mandamus jurisprudence of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court of appeals with nearly exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases. Before December 2008, the Federal Circuit had never used the interlocutory writ of mandamus to order a district court to transfer a case to a more convenient forum, denying each one of the twenty-two petitions it had decided on that issue. Since that time, however, the court has overturned eleven different venue decisions on mandamus. Remarkably, ten of those eleven cases have come from the same district court, the …

Acting Like An Administrative Agency: The Federal Circuit En Banc, Ryan G. Vacca

Akron Law Faculty Publications

When Congress created the Federal Circuit in 1982, it thought it was creating a court of appeals. Little did it know that it was also creating a quasi-administrative agency that would engage in substantive rulemaking and set policy in a manner substantially similar to administrative agencies. In this Article, I examine the Federal Circuit's practices when it orders a case to be heard en banc and illustrate how these practices cause the Federal Circuit to look very much like an administrative agency engaging in substantive rulemaking. The number and breadth of questions the Federal Circuit agrees to hear en banc …

Markedly Low: An Argument To Raise The Burden Of Proof For Patent False Marking, Caroline Ayres Teichner

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The Federal Circuit's liberal treatment of the patent false-marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, has created a climate in which opportunistic qui tam plaintiffs facing a low burden of proof can recover potentially enormous sums of money under the statute with no showing of competitive injury. This note argues that the Federal Circuit erred by ruling that plaintiffs must prove the key element of false-marking claims—namely, intent to deceive the public—by a mere preponderance of the evidence, and further contends that the court should have adopted the clear and convincing standard instead. Support for this elevated burden of proof can …

Whose Rules Rule? Federal Circuit Review Of Divergent Uspto And District Court Decisions, Lisa Dolak

College of Law - Faculty Scholarship

The potential utility of reexamination in the context of patent litigation has caught the attention of litigants, commentators, and the courts.  However, concurrent litigation and reexamination proceedings proceed independently.   Thus, in any given situation involving such proceedings, there is the possibility that the Federal Circuit will encounter issues in appeals from determinations of the district court and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office relating to the scope or validity of the same patent claims, which issues have traveled to the court on separate tracks.  And, because the courts and the USPTO approach claim construction and validity determinations differently, they can …

Dependent On The Jury: Anticipation And Obviousness Of Dependent Patent Claims And Irreconcilable Jury Verdicts, Patrick Bickley

Chicago-Kent Law Review

A jury verdict finding an independent claim valid but a related dependent claim either anticipated or obvious is irreconcilable. However, the Federal Circuit has used the inconsistencies between regional circuits on the issue of jury verdicts to reach different outcomes in similar cases based solely on the region in which the patent case originated. This note advocates a modification to the Federal Circuit's rule of deference to consider irreconcilable verdicts of independent and dependent claims under its own independent analysis. A consistent approach allowing for appellate review regardless of post-verdict motions is advocated, although a more modest position of requiring …

What About Know-How: Heightened Obviousness And Lowered Disclosure Is Not A Panacea To The American Patent System For Biotechnology Medication And Pharmaceutical Inventions In The Post-Ksr Era, Yi-Chen Su

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit's rigid application of the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test (TSM test), and replaced it with an expansive and flexible approach, in determining the question of obviousness. Nevertheless, an expansive and flexible approach to obviousness may not be consistent with the international norms of practice if it is applied literally. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's literal application of the decision has essentially created another set of inflexible rules, which is contrary to the Supreme Court's intent. The Federal Circuit's recent decision in In re Kubin cautiously …

Past, Present, And Future In The Life Of The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit, Paul R. Michel

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pioneers Versus Improvers: Enabling Optimal Patent Claim Scope, Timothy Chen Saulsbury

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Arising most commonly as a defense to an infringement claim, enablement requires a patent to describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to permit a person having ordinary skill in the relevant field to replicate and use the invention without needing to engage in "undue experimentation." If a patent claim is not "enabled"--i.e., if a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) who studied the patent cannot make or use the invention without undue experimentation--the claim is invalid and can no longer be asserted. This penalty deters patent applicants from claiming more than they invented and allows others to …

Optimal Fines For False Patent Marking, Thomas F. Cotter

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

This Essay proposes that, in order to avoid imposing arbitrary (and perhaps unnecessarily large) fines for false patent marking, courts should seek guidance in the law of remedies for false advertising and copyright infringement. In particular, courts should attempt to approximate the social harm caused by actionable false marking by taking into account (1) the plaintiff's loss (if any) and the defendant's gain (if any) attributable to the false marking at issue; (2) the plausibility of substantial but less easily quantifiable harms to consumers and to nonparty competitors; and (3) the risks, on the one hand, of underdeterring statutory violations …

Not So Technical: An Analysis Of Federal Circuit Patent Decisions Appealed From The Itc, Holly Lance

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

A widespread perception among the patent law community is that the patent system would be more effective if judges with technical backgrounds and patent law experience decided patent disputes. Proponents believe that if judges all had similar baseline knowledge of technological analysis, there would be more consistency in decision-making, leading to more predictability for parties. Some district courts have unofficially become semi-specialized in patent law disputes, and Congress is debating whether to institute a more formalized Patent Pilot Program in which district court judges specialize in patent law cases. This Note joins the debate and examines patent law cases at …

Panel I: The Patent Landscape With Bilski On The Map, Jeanne C. Fromer, James W. Dabney, Clarisa Long, Brian P. Murphy

Faculty Scholarship

Welcome to the 2009 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal’s Symposium titled, “Functionality: At the Crossroads of IP.” My name is Regina Schaffer-Goldman, and I am the Editor-in- Chief of the 20th Volume of the Journal, which is more affectionately known as the IPLJ.

We are so pleased to see the culmination of many months of preparation today. It is the IPLJ’s 20th Anniversary Edition, and we wanted to commemorate this occasion with a fantastic Symposium. As you will see, we have assembled a truly all-star group of legal scholars and practitioners today.

Determining Uniformity Within The Federal Circuit By Measuring Dissent And En Banc Review, Christopher A. Cotropia

Law Faculty Publications

This Article adds to the empirical literature examining how the Federal Circuit treats patent-law issues internally by comparing the decision making of the Federal Circuit with that of other courts of appeals. It does so by measuring two statistics from overall written opinions: the percentage of dissents and the percentage of en bane reviews. The data is taken from the Third, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia, and Federal Circuits between 1998 and 2009. The data in the study show that the Federal Circuit has the second-highest percentage of dissents among the circuits studied (behind only the Ninth Circuit) and …

Rethinking Patent Fraud Enforcement In A Reform Era, Kali Murray, Dmitriy Vinarov

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

This Article contends that, while the defense of inequitable conduct offers an avenue to combat fraudulent patent applications, the doctrine suffers from shortcomings that spring from two compromises. First, the amorphous nature of the equitable defense prompts institutional conflict between the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Federal Circuit. Second, by relegating enforcement solely to a patentee's market competitors, the defense fails to protect the public interest adequately. In light of these compromises, the authors propose two goals to guide current reform efforts in Congress. Initially, Congress's attempt to reform patent fraud enforcement should relieve the aforementioned institutional …

Willful Patent Infringement After In Re Seagate: Just What Is "Objectively Reckless" Infringement?, Randy R. Micheletti

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Recently the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dramatically change the rules for proving willful patent infringement—and justifying enhanced damages—in In re Seagate Technology. A patentee alleging willful infringement must now first prove "by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent." He must then show that the objectively defined risk was "either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer." The court expressly delegated substantive development of the new test to future cases. Because district …

Who's At The Helm - The Federal Circuit's Rule Of Deference And The Systemic Absence Of Controlling Precedent In Matters Of Patent Litigation Procedure, Peter J. Karol

Law Faculty Scholarship

This article considers the Federal Circuit’s rule of deference to the law of the regional circuits in matters of procedure as that rule approaches its twenty-fifth anniversary. Using the recent Bell Atlantic v. Twombly pleading case as an illustration, the article observes that the structure of the current appellate review scheme creates a systemic absence of controlling precedent relating to patent litigation procedure. Moreover, the arguments usually advanced for the rule’s existence, including efficiency gains and legislative history, are doubtful. As prior scholarship has shown, the rule is not a natural byproduct of the appellate structure created by Congress when …

Appellate Review Of Patent Claim Construction: Should The Federal Circuit Be Its Own Lexicographer In Matters Related To The Seventh Amendment, Eileen M. Herlihy

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

The Federal Circuit stated in an en banc decision in Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc. that the construction of patent claims is "a purely legal issue," and is therefore subject to de novo review on appeal. The Cybor decision reaffirmed the position of the majority of the Federal Circuit which had been announced in its en banc Markman decision, and proclaimed that the de novo standard of review is supported by the Supreme Court's Markman decision, a Seventh Amendment opinion. However, Cybor included strong opposition to a de novo standard of review from some of the judges of the …

Practice Makes Perfect? An Empirical Study Of Claim Construction Reversal Rates In Patent Cases, David L. Schwartz

Michigan Law Review

This Article examines whether U.S. district court judges improve their skills at patent claim construction with experience, including the experience of having their own cases reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In theory, higher courts teach doctrine to lower courts via judicial decisions, and lower courts learn from these decisions. This Article tests the teaching-and-learning premise on the issue of claim construction in the realities of patent litigation. While others have shown that the Federal Circuit reverses a large percentage of lower court claim constructions, no one has analyzed whether judges with more claim construction appeal …

Heightened Enablement In The Unpredictable Arts, Sean B. Seymore

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

A bedrock principle of patent law is that an applicant must sufficiently disclose the invention in exchange for the right to exclude. The essential facet of the disclosure requirement is enablement, which compels a patent applicant to enable a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Enablement problems may arise when the applicant claims an invention broadly with a dearth of supporting data or examples. This is problematic in unpredictable fields like chemistry because a PHOSITA often needs a specific and detailed teaching in …

2007 Patent Law Decisions Of The Federal Circuit, Dean L. Fanelli, Victor N. Balancia, Robert J. Smyth, Carl P. Bretscher, Arthur M. Antonelli, Mark J. Sullivan, Kent E. Basson

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Re Seagate: Did It Really Fix The Waiver Issue? A Short Review And Analysis Of Waiver Resulting From The Use Of A Counsel's Opinion Letter As A Defense To Willful Infringement, Dov Greenbaum

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

The Federal Circuit, through its decision in Seagate, sought to clarify and definitively establish various consequences of an assertion of willful infringement by a patentee. This comment discusses the history and potential outcomes of the Seagate decision; first, by outlining basic issues of privilege and immunity and examining the history of uncertainty regarding waiver leading up to the Seagate decision. The remainder of the comment examines the potential outcomes of the decision, and presents possible resolutions to further resolve the issue and more fully repair attorney-client privilege and immunity.

The Claim Construction Effect, Lee Petherbridge

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Claim construction refers to the task of construing, or interpreting, the words of patents' claims to establish the metes and bounds of a patent. Theoretically, the task of claim construction serves to operationalize the concept of "invention," which lies at the heart of the U.S. patent system.[...] Rather than focusing on the set of cases in which the Federal Circuit addresses claim construction, this study focuses on a set of cases defined by a different patent doctrine. The basic idea is to explore the impact of claim construction on other areas of patent law.[...] The hypothesis of the claim construction …

Sandisk Corp. V. Stmicroelectronics, Inc., Patrick R. Colsher

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pharma's Nonobvious Problem, Rebecca S. Eisenberg

Articles

This Article considers the effect of the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. on the nonobviousness standard for patentability as applied to pharmaceutical patents. By calling for an expansive and flexible analysis and disapproving of the use of rigid formulas in evaluating an invention for obviousness, KSR may appear to make it easier for generic competitors to challenge the validity of drug patents. But an examination of the Federal Circuit's nonobviousness jurisprudence in the context of such challenges reveals that the Federal Circuit has been employing all along the sort of flexible …

Exclusion Confusion? A Defense Of The Federal Circuit's Specific Exclusion Jurisprudence, Peter Curtis Magic

Michigan Law Review

Specific exclusion has become a controversial limitation on the doctrine of equivalents, which is itself an essential and controversial area of patent law. The doctrine of equivalents allows a patentee to successfully claim infringement against devices that are outside of the literal reach of the language used by the patentee in her patent to describe what she claims as her invention. The Supreme Court has prescribed some of the outer limits of the doctrine of equivalents and articulated the underlying policy concerns that inform its analysis-noting that courts should balance protection of the patentee's intellectual property with the public's reasonable …

Extraterritorial Reach Of U.S. Patent Law: Has The Federal Circuit Gone Too Far?, Robert W. Pierson, Jr.

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Survey Of The Federal Circuit's Patent Law Decisions In 2006: A New Chapter In The Ongoing Dialogue With The Supreme Court, Gregory A. Castanias, Lawrence D. Rosenberg, Michael S. Fried, Todd R. Geremia

American University Law Review

In 2006, the Federal Circuit decided only one portion of one patent case en banc, and that was done mainly as a procedural matter (the entire case was not argued to an en banc court) in order to reconcile prior conflicting precedent on the issue of induced patent infringement with the recent Supreme Court decision in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., involving induced copyright infringement. But in light of the Supreme Court’s much more muscular review of the Federal Circuit’s patent cases—which may not even reflect the full extent of the Court’s interest in the Federal Circuit’s patent decisions—the …

Ksr V. Teleflex: Predictable Reform Of Patent Substance And Procedure In The Judiciary, John F. Duffy

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Though KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. is now widely acknowl-edged in the bar and the academy to be the most significant patent case in at least a quarter century, that view dramatically underestimates the impor-tance of the decision. The KSR decision has immense significance not merely because it rejected the standard of patentability that had been applied in the lower courts for decades, but also because it highlights many separate trends that are reshaping the patent system. This Commentary will touch upon four such trends that are clearly evi-dent in KSR. First, the case was a predictable continuation of …

Ksr's Effect On Patent Law, Stephen G. Kunin, Andrew K. Beverina

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. clarified its 1966 decision in Graham v. John Deere, avoiding the sea change to a synergy- based standard that many had expected—and perhaps feared. KSR has raised the bar set in Graham for seeking patent protection—by providing a flexible test for obviousness—while simultaneously making it easier for accused infringers to defend themselves. Moreover, KSR will change the strategies of both patent prosecutors and litigators. Before KSR, the Supreme Court’s last major decision on nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was Graham, in which the Court established three factual inquiries for …

Making Sense Of Ksr And Other Recent Patent Cases, Harold C. Wegner

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

The recent Supreme Court review of KSR International Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, and Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. manifests the Court’s current interest in the patent jurisprudence of the Fed-eral Circuit. Now it is evident that the Court has a level of concern sufficient to guarantee the possibility of grant of certiorari—whereas formerly a case could rarely generate sufficient interest for review. For long-range impor-tance in patent law, KSR stands alone as the single most important Supreme Court patent decision on the bread and butter standard of “obviousness” in the more than forty years since …

Patent Injunctions And The Problem Of Uniformity Cost, Michael W. Carroll

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

In eBay v. MercExchange, the Supreme Court correctly rejected the Federal Circuit's general rule requiring that a permanent injunction follow from a finding that a patent is valid and infringed. Recognizing that one size does not fit all in patent law, the Court returned traditional equitable discretion to the district courts. With this discretion, district courts can now deploy remedies for patent infringement that are sensitive to relevant differences among industries, technologies, and entities. This Essay sets the Court's rejection of a uniform remedial regime in a larger context concerning the role of uniformity in patent law. It then explores …