JOLT Digest

Stanford University Patent Infringement Case Is Dismissed and University Learns Lesson in Drafting Assignment Agreements
By Adrienne Baker – Edited by Anthony Kammer

Bd. of Trs. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 2008-1509, -1510 (CAFC Sept. 30, 2009) Opinion

On September 30, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions the District Court for the Northern District of California decision. The lower court’s decision held several Stanford University patents invalid for obviousness, dismissed Roche’s counterclaim for judgment on ownership, and declined to consider Roche’s affirmative defense based on ownership.  The CAFC vacated the lower court’s decision that Stanford’s patents were invalid and ruled that the University did not have standing to sue, because of contract language indicating that the patent rights belong to an outside corporation. Additionally, the CAFC affirmed the lower court’s decision that Roche’s counterclaim for judgment on ownership was barred due to a four-year statute of limitations.  However, unlike the lower court, the CAFC held that statute of limitations does not preclude a party from raising affirmative defenses.

PatentlyO provides an overview of the case.  Inside Higher Ed expressed surprise that the case turns on the language of Stanford’s assignment agreement and not on other substantive issues, such as the interplay with federal Bayh-Dole Act and the bona fide purchaser arguments. (more…)

Public Accessibility Prior to Patent
By Stuart K. Tubis – Edited by Caity Ross

In re Lister, No. 2009-1060 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 22, 2009)
Slip Op.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, siding with Dr. Lister, vacated and remanded the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decision, which had affirmed an examiner’s rejection of Dr. Lister’s patent application under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

The Federal Circuit held that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences erred in affirming the patent examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). In so holding, the court determined that “persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence” could have located the disputed reference by using either the Westlaw or Dialog commercial databases, which permit keyword searches of reference titles. The court found that this provided sufficient support for a finding of public accessibility under § 102(b).  However, the court also found insufficient evidence that the reference “was in fact included in either Westlaw or Dialog prior to the critical date” of one year before application for patent, as required under § 102(b).

Patentcastle, Patently-O, and Patent Prospector provide overviews of the case, including some historical background. (more…)

The Federal Circuit Provides Protection to Medical Diagnostics
By Brittany Blueitt – Edited by Caity Ross

Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., Case No. 2008-1403 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2009)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (”Federal Circuit”) reversed the ruling of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patents 6,355,623 (”the ‘623 patent”) and 6,680,302 (”the ‘302 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Circuit Judge Lourie delivered the opinion of the court, holding that patents claiming a method of treatment were drawn to patentable subject matter based on transformative administering and determining steps of the process. In so holding, the court noted that the “key issue for patentability” is “whether a claim is drawn to a fundamental principle or an application of a fundamental principle.” Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., No. 2008-1403, slip op. at 8 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2009).

Patently O provides an overview of the case. Patent Docs features a thorough analysis of the decision. (more…)

CAFC Requires a Clear and Convincing Intent to Deceive
By Adrienne Baker – Edited by Stephanie Young
In re Bose Corp., No. 2008-1448, 2009 WL 2709312 (Fed. Cir., Aug. 31, 2009).
Opinion

On August 31, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (”CAFC”) reversed and remanded the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (”TTAB”) decision, which ruled that fraud is committed when a registrant or applicant makes material misrepresentations it knows or should have known to be false or misleading.  The CAFC held the TTAB applied the should-have-known standard too broadly and thus ruled a registrant or applicant must have specific intent to deceive the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in order to fraudulently acquire a trademark.  The evidence supporting the registrant’s or applicant’s intent to deceive must be clear and convincing.  The CAFC ruling significantly limits, if not overturns, Medinol v. Neuro Vasx, Inc., 67 U.S.P.Q.2d 1205 (T.T.A.B. 2003), in which the TTAB adopted the should-have-known standard.

The TTABlog provides an overview of the case.  Allen’s Trademark Digest, in addition to providing a detailed history of trademark fraud, criticizes the decision and asserts that the Bose holding implies that registrants and applicants have no duty of candor.  Furthermore, the article asserts the CAFC ruling is contrary to the Lanham Act and the Trademark Law Revision Act (”TLRA”) statutory definitions of “use.” (more…)

Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova Inc.

By Debbie Rosenbaum – Edited by Stephanie Young
Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova Inc., 2008-1459, -1476 (CAFC Sept. 3, 2009)
Opinion

On September 3, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s jury verdict finding that Martek’s patents were valid and infringed, but reversed the points of error Martek asserted on cross appeal. The Federal Circuit (”CAFC”), sitting as an expanded five-member panel: 1) upheld the district court’s denial of Lonza’s motions for judgment as a matter of law (”JMOL”); 2) found that the district court’s exclusion of Lonza’s prior inventorship evidence was appropriate; 3) upheld the district court’s construction of the term “non-chloride sodium salt”; 4) reversed the district court’s finding that two claims of the ‘567 patent were invalid as a matter of law; and 5) expanded the district court’s limited construction of the claim term “animal” in the ‘244 patent to include humans.

Briefs and relevant court documents are available here. The District Court’s 2007 decision may be found here. Patently-o and Patent Hawk both provide a discussion of merits. Patently-o and IP Watchdog discuss the significance of the five-judge panel. (more…)