JOLT Digest

Federal Circuit Holds That a Computer-Aided Clearinghouse is a Patent-Ineligible Abstract Idea
By Laura Fishwick – Edited by Adam Lewin

Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, Nos. 2009-1566, 2009-1588, 2012 WL 164439 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2012)
Slip Opinion

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California’s grant of summary judgment regarding the invalidity of Dealertrack’s U.S. Patent 7,181,427 (filed Sep. 3, 1997) (“the ’427 patent”), which had claims that covered an automated clearinghouse system for car dealerships. The district court had applied the then-definitive “machine-or-transformation” test from In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“Bilski I”), requiring the claimed process either to be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or to transform an article into a different state or thing. Dealertrack had not argued that its claim effected a transformation, and the district court found that Dealertrack’s patent did not involve a particular machine as required by Bilski I’s test because the computer involved was a general purpose computer that was not “specially programmed.” For this reason, the district court held that the subject matter of Dealertrack’s patent was not eligible for protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of the Patent Act because Dealertrack had claimed an abstract idea.

Reviewing the patentable subject matter issue de novo, the Federal Circuit held that Dealertrack had claimed “an abstract idea preemptive of a fundamental concept or idea that would foreclose innovation in this area,” and therefore its patent was invalid. The court found that the claim’s language was too broad in scope, and that neither including a general computer to the method nor restricting the method to a particular field of use saved the patent’s validity.

PatentlyO provides an overview of the case and discusses the case in context of other recent Federal Circuit decisions.  (more…)

Federal Circuit Clarifies the Level of Contribution Required for Joint Invention of a Chemical Compound
By Yana Welinder – Edited by Adam Lewin

Falana v. Kent State Univ., No. 2011-1198, 2012 WL 171550 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 23, 2012)
Slip Opinion

The Federal Circuit affirmed in part the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, which held that Dr. Olusegun Falana should have been listed as co-inventor on a patent that described the use of his protocol for controlled synthesis of a category of chemical compounds for use in liquid crystal displays (“LCDs”).

Judge Linn, joined by Judge Prost and Judge Reyna, affirmed the district court’s order to add Falana as co-inventor to U.S. Patent No. 6,830,789 (filed Sept. 24, 2001) (“the ’789 patent”). The court found that Falana “envisioned the structure of a novel chemical compound and contributed to the method of making it” because he developed a procedure for synthesizing a new class of compounds that was later used to synthesize a compound that exhibited a desired temperature independence. Slip op. at 13. In so holding, the court considered Falana’s contribution to “the entire class of compounds covered by the plain language of the claims” and rejected the defendants’ narrow reading of the claims to be limited to compounds that can perform “across a temperature range of +10°C to +50°C.” Id. at 7, 9.

PatentlyO provides an overview of the case. IP Frontline criticizes the decision because as applied to patents “with countless claims [it] opens the door to the possibility that at least one of the claims was jointly invented by someone not named in the patent,” which might enable patent defendants to recruit unlisted co-inventors as part of a patent litigation defense strategy.  (more…)

Federal Circuit Holds that Typhoon’s Patents Are Valid, but Not Infringed
By Marsha Sukach – Edited by Andrew Crocker

Typhoon Touch Techs. v. Dell, Inc., No. 2009-1589 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2011)
Slip Opinion

The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the ruling of the U. S.District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which held that Typhoon’s patents that cover its “keyboardless” touch-screen computing system are invalid and not infringed.

Federal Circuit Continues to Evade Addressing Intra-Circuit Split Regarding Claim Construction
By Katie Cohen – Edited by Albert Wang

Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., No. 2010-1402 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 31, 2011)
Slip Opinion

The Federal Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc of Retractable Technologies, Inc.’s patent infringement suit against Becton, Dickinson and Company.

Notably, there were two dissents filed in the court’s decision. Judge Moore, joined by Chief Judge Rader, expressed frustration that, despite claim construction’s critical role in patent litigation, the Federal Circuit applies its rules in this area unpredictably. Judge Moore would have reheard this case to address the role of the specification in construing claims. In a separate dissent, Judge O’Malley urged that rehearing en banc should have been granted to revisit and reverse the court’s decision in Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc), which held that claim construction is a matter of law reviewed without deference to a district court’s conclusions.

Patent Docs provides an overview of the case. IPWatchdog and PatentlyO outline the nature of the court’s split on claim construction issues.  (more…)

Federal Circuit Jettisons the Presumption of Irreparable Harm in Injunctive Relief
By Charlie Stiernberg – Edited by Abby Lauer

Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., No. 2011-1096 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2011)
Slip Opinion

The Federal Circuit reversed the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, which had denied plaintiff Bosch’s post-trial motion for a permanent injunction, and remanded the case with instructions to enter appropriate injunctive relief.

Judge O’Malley, writing for a divided panel, held that the district court had abused its discretion in denying Bosch’s request for a permanent injunction of Pylon’s infringing windshield wiper blade products. Previous cases had not clarified whether the presumption of irreparable harm in the context of injunctive relief remained intact following the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006). In Bosch, the Federal Circuit “put the question to rest” and confirmed that eBay “jettisoned” the presumption of irreparable harm in determining the appropriateness of a permanent injunction. Slip op. at 10. The court then held that the district court had erred in its analysis of the irreparable harm factor by relying exclusively on the presence of additional competitors in the market and on the “non-core” nature of Bosch’s wiper blade business. Id. at 13.

IPBiz provides a summary of the case. PatentlyO examines the decision and applauds the Federal Circuit’s recognition of patents as property rights when performing an injunction analysis. Patent Prospector criticizes the court for putting the injunction in place without remanding to the district court.

(more…)