DROIT AMERICAIN DES BREVETS Mise à jour GRAPI

DROIT AMERICAIN DES BREVETS
Mise à jour
GRAPI - ASPI
Octobre 2014
Intervenants:
Philippe Signore,
Cabinet Oblon, Spivak
Nicolas Seckel,
Cabinet Westerman, Hattori
1
Source: Patents Post-Grant Blog: October 1, 2014
2
SOMMAIRE
• 1) Exceptions au domaine brevetable: idées abstraites (CLS v. Alice)
• 2) Exceptions au domaine brevetable: produits de la nature et
phénomènes naturels (directives USPTO)
• 3) Clauses fonctionnelles dans les revendications
• 4) Exigence de clarté des revendications (Nautilus v Biosig)
• 5) Contrefaçon par des acteurs multiples (Limelight v Akamai)
•
• 6) Deuxième année des procédures de révision à l’Office US
• 7) Récents développements sur la conduite inéquitable
• 8) Injonctions à l’encontre des contrefacteurs (Apple v. Samsung)
• 9) Frais d’avocats : qui va payer ? (Octane Fitness v Icon Health)
5
SOMMAIRE
• 1)
Exceptions au domaine brevetable: idées abstraites (CLS v. Alice)
6
3
35 USC 101
Patentable Subject
Matter:
machines,
article of
manufactures,
compositions of matter,
processes
7
Laws of Nature
Natural
Phenomena
35 USC 101
Patentable Subject
Matter:
Abstract Ideas
machines,
article of
manufactures,
compositions of matter,
processes
4
Flook
Myriad
Mayo
35 USC 101
Patentable Subject
Matter:
Bilski
Alice
Diehr
Benson
machines,
article of
manufactures,
compositions of matter,
processes
Alice v. CLS Bank
(Sup. Ct., June 2014)
• Claims invalid as not patentable
subject matter because they are
directed to an “abstract idea”
(computerized system for mitigating a
settlement risk)
• Supreme Court refuses to define an
“abstract idea”
– “we do not labor to delimit the precise
contours of the ‘abstract idea’ category”
5
Alice v. CLS Bank
(Sup. Ct., June 2014)
• Court requires a two-step approach:
– Step 1: Is the claim “direct to” an abstract idea
(or a law of nature, a natural phenomenon)?
– Step 2: Do other limitations of the claim
“significantly” limit the scope of the claim
beyond the abstract idea?
Alice v. CLS Bank
(Sup. Ct., June 2014)
• Significant limitations that go beyond
an “abstract ideas”:
– Improvements of technology, including
computers
• Limitations that do not go beyond
“abstract ideas”:
– Conventional components, well-known, routine
steps that do not provide an “inventive concept”
• Generic computer, processor, controller, etc…
6
Consequences of Alice
• Confusion at the USPTO: no clear guidelines for
Examiners
– Only preliminary guidelines of June 2014
• Inconsistent application of new guidelines
• Many more rejections for business methods and
software-related inventions
Source: K. Gaudry from IP360 (Oct 3, 2014)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Digitech Image v. Electronics for Imaging
(CAFC, July 2014)
UbiComm v. WallMArt (CAFC July 2014)
I/P Engine v. AOL (CAFC, August 2014)
Planet Bingo v. VKGS (CAFC August
2014)
buySAFE v. Google (CAFC, Sept 2014)
Comcast IP Holding v. Sprint Comm
(Delaware, July 2014)
Dietgoal v. Bravo Media (NY, July 2014)
CMG Financial v. Pacific Trust (Cal,
August 2014)
Walker Digital v. Google (Delaware, Sept
2014)
Tuxis v. Amazon (Delaware, Sept 2014)
Loyalty Conversion v. American Airlines
(Texas, Sept 2014)
Every Penny Counts v. Wells Fargo
(Florida, Sept 2014)
Eclipse IP v. McKinley Equip (Cal., Sept
2014)
McRO v. Activision Blizzard (Cal, Sept
2014)
…
Consequences
of Alice
• Courts are consistently
invalidating software
patents based on Alice
• Same results for
method, system and
computer-readable
claims
7
Recommendations
• Application Drafting:
– Focus on the technological aspects of the
invention
– Increase the level of specificity in describing the
invention, including detailed description of
hardware components specific to the real
implementation of the invention
– Provide several real-world examples of applications
for the invention
– Revise applications before filing in the US
Recommendations
• Prosecution:
– Diverse Claims
• System vs. method with different limitations
• Include some narrow claims
– components specific and detailed technology for
enabling the implementation of the invention
• Avoid limitations that can be performed by a
human – add apparatus and hardware limitations
– Challenge rejections
– Interview Examiners and supervisors
8
Recommendations
• Enforcement:
– If patent owner:
• Consider Reissue or reexamination
– If accused infringer:
• Consider post grant proceeding
SOMMAIRE
• 1) Exceptions au domaine brevetable: idées abstraites (CLS v. Alice)
• 2) Exceptions au domaine brevetable: produits de la nature et
phénomènes naturels (directives USPTO)
18
9
SOMMAIRE
• 1) Exceptions au domaine brevetable: idées abstraites (CLS v. Alice)
• 2) Exceptions au domaine brevetable: produits de la nature et
phénomènes naturels (directives USPTO)
• 3) Clauses fonctionnelles dans les revendications
19
Means-Plus-Function (MPF)
Limitations
• 35 USC 112(f): MPF limitations are limited to
the structures, corresponding to the claimed
function, disclosed in the specification and
their equivalents
• Two potential problems highlighted by
various court decisions in the past years:
– Narrow scope – if specification discloses
only few examples of structures
– Claim invalid as being indefinite if no
structure is disclosed (35 USC 112(b))
20
10
What is a Means-Plus-Function
(MPF) Limitation?
• General rule: The presence of the word
“means” creates a presumption that the
limitation is an MPF and that 112(f) applies
– Means for recording images …
• Presumption rebutted: when the limitation
describes sufficient structure to perform the
function (112(f) does not apply)
– Means for recording images including a
camera …
21
What is a Means-Plus-Function
(MPF) Limitation?
• General rule: The absence of “means” creates
a presumption that the limitation is NOT an MPF
and that 112(f) does not apply
– A camera configured to record images …
• Presumption rebutted: when the word is a mere
placeholder that does not connote any structure
to one of ordinary skill in the art (112(f) applies)
– A unit for recording images …
22
11
Scope of non-MPF Limitation
• Specification identifies only a digital
video camera for recording images that
is remotely operable
• Claim 1. A recording system,
comprising … a camera for recording
images …
• Broad scope: covers all cameras
23
Narrow scope of MPF Limitation
• Specification identifies only a digital video
camera for recording images that is remotely
operable
• Claim 1. A recording system, comprising …
means for recording images …
• Narrow scope: covers only a digital
video camera remotely operable and
equivalents
24
12
25
Source: www.patentlyO.com
13
Bosch v. Snap-On
(CAFC, October 14, 2014)
• Bosch claim: “program recognizing
device”
• Court: presumption is rebutted: the
limitation is purely functional and thus
invokes 112(f)
•
•
•
•
Court: “the patent’s specification does not contain a single reference
to the structure of the ‘program recognition device’ itself; the
specification merely explain its function”
Court: “the specification does not teach how the ‘program recognition
device’ receives and processes signals
Expert declaration (it’s an electronic device) not enough
Claim invalid
27
Claim invalid as being indefinite if
no structure is disclosed
Augme v. Yahoo (CAFC June 2014)
• 19. A system comprising … means
for assembling a second module …
• The Court: “means for assembling” is
a means-plus-function limitation
implemented by a computer
• For this claim to be valid under 35
USC 112(b), the specification must
disclose a computer and an algorithm
for performing the claimed function
14
Claim invalid as being indefinite if
no structure is disclosed
Augme v. Yahoo (CAFC June 2014)
•
Figure 5 describes a process for
providing a service response, not for
assembling the second module
•
The single step 238 labeled “assemble
second module” merely restates the
recited function
•
The specification explains that “code
assembler instructions do the
assembling, but it does not include
any algorithm for how the second
module is actually assembled
Claim invalid as being indefinite if
no structure is disclosed
Augme v. Yahoo (CAFC June 2014)
• “Simply disclosing a black box
that performs the recited function is
not a sufficient explanation of the
algorithm required to render the
means-plus-function term definite.”
• “We affirm the district court’s
conclusion of indefiniteness
because the ‘691 patent does not
disclose any algorithm for
assembling the second module”
15
New 2014 USPTO Guidelines
for MPF Limitations
• USPTO Guidelines now require examiners to
indicate:
– whether a limitation is a MPF and why
– Whether there is enough structure disclosed to
perform the claimed function
• Repeating the function without any structure is not
enough
– A “black box” is not enough
• Structure to perform only part of the claimed function is
not enough
– A computer implemented MFP requires both a
computer and an algorithm that causes the
computer to perform the function
31
New USPTO Guidelines for
MPF Limitations
• USPTO Guidelines requires examiners to
indicate:
– whether the structure is linked to the claimed
function
32
16
New 2014 USPTO Guidelines
for MPF Limitations
• Not enough structure linked to the claimed
function = rejections
• USPTO Guidelines: Showing that one of
ordinary skill in the art would know how to
perform the claimed function does not
overcome the rejections
33
Recommendations
• Disclose structure, hardware, algorithms
for claimed functions
– Avoid “black box”
– Disclose exhaustive list of structures
• Disclose links between structure and
claimed functions
• Revise applications before filing in the US
• Address examiner’s comments on MPF
34
17
Recommendations
• Include non-MPL limitations
– Especially when specification does not provide
much structure
– Use terms that suggest structure to one skilled in
the art
• Circuitry, detector, connector, processor,
displays
– Avoid overly generic placeholders
• Unit, device, module, element, member, etc
• But keep some MPF claims
• Narrow can be good
• Equivalents never lost by estoppel
35
SOMMAIRE
• 1) Exceptions au domaine brevetable: idées abstraites (CLS v. Alice)
• 2) Exceptions au domaine brevetable: produits de la nature et
phénomènes naturels (directives USPTO)
• 3) Clauses fonctionnelles dans les revendications
• 4) Exigence de clarté des revendications (Nautilus v Biosig)
36
18
35 USC 112(b): Indefiniteness
Nautilus v. Biosig (Sup. Ct. April 2014)
• 35 USC 112(b) requires claims to be definite
• Some ambiguity is unavoidable
– How much ambiguity is acceptable?
• CAFC: A claim is sufficiently clear if it is not
“insolubly ambiguous”
– Cannot interpret the claim
– Relatively easy standard to meet
• Sup. Ct: That’s too easy!
37
35 USC 112(b): Indefiniteness
Nautilus v. Biosig (Sup. Ct. April 2014)
• Sup Ct: 35 USC 112(b) requires that a
claim, viewed in light of the
specification and prosecution history,
inform those skilled in the art about the
scope of the invention with
“reasonable certainty”
• The claims must provide objective
boundaries for those skilled in the art
38
19
35 USC 112(b): Indefiniteness
Nautilus v. Biosig (Sup. Ct. April 2014)
• Consequence: more claims will be
invalidated by courts for being indefinite
– Interval Licensing v. AOL, Apple, Google and Yahoo (CAFC, Sept 2014)
• Potential weak claims:
– Subjective language
– Terms of degree
– Reference to a human, a user
– Broad, vague terms
39
35 USC 112(b): Indefiniteness
Nautilus v. Biosig (Sup. Ct. April 2014)
• Recommendations:
– Include some claims with precise,
narrower terms
– Include in the specification some
definitions for the intended meaning
of the claimed terms
• Ranges, results, examples
– Objectively define the invention
– Revise applications before filing in
the US
40
20
SOMMAIRE
• 1) Exceptions au domaine brevetable: idées abstraites (CLS v. Alice)
• 2) Exceptions au domaine brevetable: produits de la nature et
phénomènes naturels (directives USPTO)
• 3) Clauses fonctionnelles dans les revendications
• 4) Exigence de clarté des revendications (Nautilus v Biosig)
• 5) Contrefaçon par des acteurs multiples (Limelight v Akamai)
41
SOMMAIRE
• 1) Exceptions au domaine brevetable: idées abstraites (CLS v. Alice)
• 2) Exceptions au domaine brevetable: produits de la nature et
phénomènes naturels (directives USPTO)
• 3) Clauses fonctionnelles dans les revendications
• 4) Exigence de clarté des revendications (Nautilus v Biosig)
• 5) Contrefaçon par des acteurs multiples (Limelight v Akamai)
•
• 6) Deuxième année des procédures de révision à l’Office US
42
21
SOMMAIRE
• 1) Exceptions au domaine brevetable: idées abstraites (CLS v. Alice)
• 2) Exceptions au domaine brevetable: produits de la nature et
phénomènes naturels (directives USPTO)
• 3) Clauses fonctionnelles dans les revendications
• 4) Exigence de clarté des revendications (Nautilus v Biosig)
• 5) Contrefaçon par des acteurs multiples (Limelight v Akamai)
•
• 6) Deuxième année des procédures de révision à l’Office US
• 7) Récents développements sur la conduite inéquitable
43
Inequitable Conduct
• Therasense v. Becton (CAFC 2011)
• The accused infringer must prove
inequitable conduct by clear and
convincing evidence by showing:
– 1) a failure to disclose information material to
patentability, and
– 2) a specific intent to deceive the USPTO
22
Therasense v. Becton
(CAFC 2011)
• Undisclosed prior art is material if the
PTO would not have allowed a claim
had it been aware of it (“but-for”
materiality)
• Intent can be proved indirect
evidence, only if such intent is the
“single reasonable inference”
Therasense v. Becton
(CAFC 2011)
• Since the Therasense decision, few
decisions resulted in inequitable
conduct
• Two recent cases remind us of the
importance of full disclosure
– American Calcar v. Honda (CAFC, Sept 2014)
– Apotex v. UCB (CAFC, Sept 2014)
23
American Calcar v. Honda
(CAFC, Sept 2014)
• Patent directed to a
multimedia system for a car
to access vehicle information
and control vehicle function
• Patent identifies and
describes the prior art: an
Acura 96RL system
American Calcar v. Honda
(CAFC, Sept 2014)
• Appeals Court finds:
– Applicant’s description of the Acura system did not
sufficiently describe the similarities with the
invention
– Applicant had the Acura system owner’s manual
and photos of the system, which was “material” and
should have been disclosed
– Inventor/CEO was not credible because of
inconsistent testimonies = intent to deceive
24
Avoiding Inequitable Conduct
Recommendations
• File prior art documents in IDS
– Description of the prior art is dangerous (Calcar & Apotex)
• Can be considered “misleadingly incomplete”
• Present only arguments that are technically accurate
– Can be an advocate for a preferred interpretation of the prior art
– But, cannot make factual statements known to be untrue
(Apotex)
• Applies to specification, response to rejections and
declarations
– Avoid implying that experiments or methods were performed
when they were not
• Avoid past tense (Apotex)
50
Source: www.patentlyO.com
25
26
SOMMAIRE
• 1) Exceptions au domaine brevetable: idées abstraites (CLS v. Alice)
• 2) Exceptions au domaine brevetable: produits de la nature et
phénomènes naturels (directives USPTO)
• 3) Clauses fonctionnelles dans les revendications
• 4) Exigence de clarté des revendications (Nautilus v Biosig)
• 5) Contrefaçon par des acteurs multiples (Limelight v Akamai)
•
• 6) Deuxième année des procédures de révision à l’Office US
• 7) Récents développements sur la conduite inéquitable
• 8) Injonctions à l’encontre des contrefacteurs (Apple v. Samsung)
53
Injunctions
• Remember eBay v. MercExchange (Sup Ct
2006): patentee must show:
– 1) patentee suffered irreparable harm,
– 2) monetary damages are inadequate to compensate
for the harm,
– 3) balance of hardship favors patentee, and
– 4) public would not be harmed by injunction
• Since eBay, patentees who lose market
shares to infringer/competitor usually
obtain injunctions
27
Apple v. Samsung I
• 2011: First lawsuit between Apple and Samsung
– $930M judgment against Samsung being appealed
• 2012: CAFC denies Apple’s request for an injunction
– A “causal nexus” is required between the alleged
infringement and the irreparable harm
• If the irreparable harm is a loss of market share,
then patentee must show a link between the
patented features and the consumer demand for
the infringing product
Apple v. Samsung II
• 2012: Second lawsuit: Apple sues Samsung in
N.D.Cal. for infringement of 3 patents:
– “quick links,” “slide to unlock,” and “auto correct”
– May 2014: Jury finds Samsung infringed and
awarded $120M to Apple
• Not $2.2B requested by Apple
– May 2014: Apple requests for an injunction
28
Apple v. Samsung
N.D.Cal, August 2014
• District Court: Denies Apple’s request for
an injunction because Apple failed to show
that the patented features drove demand
for Samsung’s smartphones
• Apple appealed in October 2014
– Apple argues that it should be entitled to an
injunction preventing Samsung from using the
infringing features, not an injunction against
sales of the entire Samsung smartphones
SOMMAIRE
• 1) Exceptions au domaine brevetable: idées abstraites (CLS v. Alice)
• 2) Exceptions au domaine brevetable: produits de la nature et
phénomènes naturels (directives USPTO)
• 3) Clauses fonctionnelles dans les revendications
• 4) Exigence de clarté des revendications (Nautilus v Biosig)
• 5) Contrefaçon par des acteurs multiples (Limelight v Akamai)
•
• 6) Deuxième année des procédures de révision à l’Office US
• 7) Récents développements sur la conduite inéquitable
• 8) Injonctions à l’encontre des contrefacteurs (Apple v. Samsung)
• 9) Frais d’avocats : qui va payer ? (Octane Fitness v Icon Health)
58
29
DROIT AMERICAIN DES BREVETS
Mise à jour
GRAPI - ASPI
Octobre 2014
Intervenants:
Philippe Signore,
Cabinet Oblon, Spivak
Nicolas Seckel,
Cabinet Westerman, Hattori
30