1 P A T E N T D E F E N S E S 2

www.patentdefenses.com 3

current through Nov. 26, 2017 4 Coverage and Caveats 5

Substantive defenses to assertions of infringement of a U.S. utility patent. Hyperlinks to hundreds of S. Ct., 6 Fed. Cir. (mostly since 2004) and CCPA decisions, and some BPAI/PTAB decisions. Developments since July 1, 2017, 7 are highlighted. FITF = applies only to first-inventor-to-file regime patents.1 For other impacts of 2011 Leahy-8 Smith America Invents Act, search AIA. This training document is a running digest and commentary since 2004 9 on new decisions as they issue, with limited later editing. It is not designed to be complete, balanced, or even fully 10 reliable. Citations omitted throughout. (REDACTED replaces internal training tips.) Feedback please to 11 patentdefenses@klarquist.com. 12

Sample Tips 13 1. FITF TIPS: Dont Miss 9-Month-From-Issuance Deadline To File PGR Against FITF Patent: Petition 14

for PGR of a FITF patent (e.g., child of asserted patent) must be filed within 9 months of issuance/re-issuance. 35 15 U.S.C. 321(c). Any patent filed after March 15, 2013, might be an FITF patent. 16

2. TIPS: Do Not Assume Continuation Or Non-Provisional Claims Can Be Backdated: Do not assume 17 that claims can be backdated to filing date of parent or provisional app. under Secs. 119/120, Research Corp. Tech. 18 (Fed. Cir. 12/08/10), e.g., when conducting FITF analysis. 19

3. TIPS: Limit DJ Complaint To Non-Infringement: Asserting invalidity in DJ complaint bars DJ plaintiff 20 from filing for AIA inter partes or post grant review, see 35 U.S.C. 315(a)(1), 325(a)(1); GTNX (Fed. Cir. 21 06/16/15), but raising invalidity as defense to infringement counterclaim in the DJ action does not. 22

4. TIPS: Do More In Markman: Seek construction that claim as a whole is directed to abstract idea, 23 Bilski v. Kappos (U.S. 06/28/2010) (101); claim covers multiple techniques (where Spec. enables or adequately 24 describes only one), Eli Lilly (Fed. Cir. 09/01/10) (112(1/a)); claim language limits claimed method, etc. not just 25 claimed environment, Advanced Software (Fed. Cir. 06/02/11) (271); claim language has no patentable weight, 26 AstraZeneca (Fed. Cir. 11/01/10) (102/103); and/or is indefinite, Interval (Fed. Cir. 09/10/14) (112(2/b)). 27

1 First-to-File Regime Effective Date (FITF): (n) Effective Date- (1) IN GENERAL- Except as otherwise

provided in this section, the amendments made by this section shall take effect upon the expiration of the 18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act [Mar. 16, 2013], and shall apply to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains or contained at any time--

(A) a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date as defined in section 100(i) of title 35, United States Code, that is on or after the effective date described in this paragraph; or (B) a specific reference under section 120, 121, or 365(c) of title 35, United States Code, to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.

(2) INTERFERING PATENTS- The provisions of sections 102(g), 135, and 291 of title 35, United States Code, as in effect on the day before the effective date set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection, shall apply to each claim of an application for patent, and any patent issued thereon, for which the amendments made by this section also apply, if such application or patent contains or contained at any time--

(A) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in section 100(i) of title 35, United States Code, that occurs before the effective date set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection; or (B) a specific reference under section 120, 121, or 365(c) of title 35, United States Code, to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim. (AIA, 3(n)). Cf. Biogen (Fed. Cir. 05/07/15) (the effective date provisions in the AIA are far from a model of clarity; applications filed before March 16, 2013, remain subject to interference proceedings, but pre-AIA 146 (trial court) review was eliminated for interference proceedings declared after September 15, 2012.)

http://www.patentdefenses.com/http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/BILLS-112hr1249eh.pdfhttp://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/BILLS-112hr1249eh.pdfhttp://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/BILLS-112hr1249eh.pdfmailto:patentdefenses@klarquist.comhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/321http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/321http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/10-1037/10-1037-2011-03-27.pdf?ts=1411143777https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/315https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/325http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/15-1349/15-1349-2015-06-16.htmlhttp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdfhttp://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/10-1005/10-1005-1033-2011-03-27.pdf?ts=1411143852http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/09-1585/09-1585-10-1011-2011-06-02.pdf?ts=1411171151http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/09-1381/09-1381-1424-2011-03-27.pdf?ts=1411143805http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/13-1282/13-1282-2014-09-10.htmlhttps://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14320509652696865048&q=Biogen+2015&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38

5. TIPS: Consider Early Disclosure Of No Direct Infringement Grounds In View Of Commil USA and 1 Octane Fitness: Consider early, non-settlement letter to Plaintiff explaining why there is no direct infringement (to 2 help negate scienter element of indirect infringement and/or willful infringement) and other defenses (to support 3 attorney fees award). 4

6. TIPS: Seek Admissions To Trigger i4i Jury Instruction: Seek admissions in RFAs, expert depositions, 5 etc., that our lead invalidity evidence differs from that evaluated by the PTO and/or is materially newall issues 6 the jury may be asked to consider, per i4i (U.S. 06/09/2011). 7

7. TIPS: Take Advantage Of Skeletal Spec.: Failure of Spec. to describe particular implementation of 8 a claim-recited element or result can be used as admission that element or result was conventional, for a Sec. 101, 9 102 or 103 defense. Cf. In re Fox (CCPA 02/01/73) (claim elements not described in detail in the Spec. are presumed 10 to be known to those of ordinary skill in the art). 11

8. TIPS: Explore Immediate Redesign: Promptly adopting safe redesign stops damages period, may 12 cap past damages amount, and may defeat inducement intent under Ricoh (Fed. Cir. 12/23/08). Instructing 13 customers how to avoid infringement also may avoid inducement intent. Id. 14

9. TIPS: Cite 135 Years Of S. Ct. Warnings Of Risk Of Patents Impeding Innovation: Balance 15 presumption of validity with explanation of PUBLIC POLICIES LIMITING PATENTS. 16

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-896_l53m.pdfhttp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1184_gdhl.pdfhttp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-290.pdfhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2862534249882929350&q=471+F.2d+1405&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/07-1567/07-1567-2011-03-27.pdf?ts=1411144536

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

A. PUBLIC POLICIES LIMITING PATENTS ................................................................................................. 1 B. UNDER-UTILIZED DEFENSES ............................................................................................................... 3 C. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 3

1. Who Decides What When?....................................................................................................... 3 2. How Construed? ..................................................................................................................... 7

a) general canons of construction .................................................................................... 9 b) role of other claims ................................................................................................... 11 c) role of specification ................................................................................................... 12 d) role of prosecution history ......................................................................................... 21 e) role of prior art, experts, and extrinsic evidence .......................................................... 24 f) claim preamble ......................................................................................................... 25 g) claim transition ......................................................................................................... 25 h) method claims .......................................................................................................... 26 i) non-method claims ................................................................................................... 26 j) particular claim language ........................................................................................... 27

3. Content And Form Of A Claim Construction ............................................................................. 29 4. Relationship To Certain Defenses ........................................................................................... 33 5. 112(6/f) Claim Language ....................................................................................................... 34

a) whether 112(6/f) treatment invoked .......................................................................... 34 b) construction of 112(6/f) claim element ....................................................................... 38 c) relationship to claim differentiation ............................................................................ 40

6. No Patentable Weight; Not A Claim Limitation ......................................................................... 40 a) preamble .................................................................................................................. 41 b) printed matter and instructions on use ....................................................................... 42 c) non-functional descriptive material ............................................................................. 42 d) intended use ............................................................................................................. 43 e) wherein and whereby clauses .................................................................................... 43 f) intended result.......................................................................................................... 44 g) process portion of product-by-process claim ............................................................... 44 h) source or process restrictions in product claim ............................................................ 44 i) optional, conditional steps ......................................................................................... 44 j) input signals in a circuit ............................................................................................. 45 k) theory of operation ................................................................................................... 45

D. NON-INFRINGEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 45 1. Literal And Reverse Doc. Equivalents ...................................................................................... 45

ii

a) 112(6/f) element....................................................................................................... 46 b) product-by-process claim ........................................................................................... 46 c) reverse doctrine of equivalents .................................................................................. 47

2. Equivalents ........................................................................................................................... 47 a) required evidence ..................................................................................................... 48 b) matter of law restrictions ........................................................................................... 49 c) prosecution history estoppel ...................................................................................... 51 d) dedication to public ................................................................................................... 52 e) relationship to 112(6/f) ............................................................................................. 54

3. 271(a) (Direct) Infringement Of Any Type Of Claim ................................................................. 54 4. 271(a) (Direct) Infringement Of Method Claim ........................................................................ 54

a) use of claimed method .............................................................................................. 55 b) offer to sell a method ................................................................................................ 56

5. 271(a) (Direct) Infringement Of Non-Method Claim ................................................................. 56 a) makes claimed invention ......................................................................................... 57 b) uses claimed invention............................................................................................ 59 c) sells claimed invention ............................................................................................ 60 d) offers to sell claimed invention ................................................................................ 61

6. 271(a) (Direct) Multi-Actor (Divided; Joint) Infringement ......................................................... 61 7. 271(a) (Direct) Infringement To Support Indirect Infringement ............................................... 63 8. Indirect Infringement Requires Knowledge Of Patent .............................................................. 64 9. 271(b) (Inducement) Infringement ........................................................................................ 65

a) communication to direct infringer ............................................................................... 66 b) knowledge of infringement ........................................................................................ 66 c) relevance of litigation defenses .................................................................................. 68 d) relevance of clearance opinion ................................................................................... 68 e) relevance of non-infringing uses ................................................................................ 69 f) relevance of instructions to users ............................................................................... 70 g) relevance of efforts to avoid infringement................................................................... 70

10. 271(c) (Contributory) Infringement ........................................................................................ 70 a) knowledge of infringement ........................................................................................ 71 b) offers to sell or sells ............................................................................................... 71 c) component, material or apparatus ........................................................................ 71 d) material part of the invention .................................................................................. 71 e) substantial non-infringing use .................................................................................... 72

11. Sec. 271(e)(2) Infringement .................................................................................................. 73 12. Sec. 271(e)(1) Safe Haven .................................................................................................. 74

iii

13. Sec. 271(f) Infringement ....................................................................................................... 75 a) component ............................................................................................................ 75 b) sec. 271(f)(1) ........................................................................................................... 75 c) sec. 271(f)(2) ........................................................................................................... 76

14. Sec. 271(g) Infringement ...................................................................................................... 76 a) a product ............................................................................................................... 77 b) made by a patented process ................................................................................... 77 c) sec. 295 shifting burden of proof ............................................................................... 77 d) sec. 287(b) restriction on damages ............................................................................ 77

15. Reissue/Reexam/IPR/PGR: Relation Back; Intervening Rights .................................................. 77 a) abatement ................................................................................................................ 77 b) intervening rights ...................................................................................................... 78 c) substantially identical claim scope ........................................................................... 79 d) relationship to pending litigation ................................................................................ 80

E. INVALIDITY ...................................................................................................................................... 80 1. Presumptions And Burdens .................................................................................................... 80 2. Assignor Estoppel .................................................................................................................. 82 3. Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art (PHOSITA) .............................................................. 82 4. Patent-Eligible Subject Matter (Sec. 101) ................................................................................ 83

a) Alice step one ........................................................................................................... 86 b) improvement to computer or machine functionality ..................................................... 95 c) categories of patent-ineligible subject matter .............................................................. 97 d) McRO ..................................................................................................................... 103 e) Alice step two ......................................................................................................... 104 f) ideas breadth immaterial ........................................................................................ 112 g) ideas novelty immaterial ......................................................................................... 113 h) ideas utility immaterial ............................................................................................ 114 i) preemption of idea .................................................................................................. 115 j) machine-or-transformation test ............................................................................. 116 k) non-method claims ................................................................................................. 117 l) when decided? ........................................................................................................ 118

5. Utility (Sec. 101) ................................................................................................................. 119 6. Regards As The Invention (Sec. 112(2/b)) ............................................................................ 120 7. Particular And Distinct Claims (aka Indefiniteness)

(Sec. 112(2/b)) Other Than Sec. 112(6/f) .......................................................................... 120 a) post-Nautilus decisions ............................................................................................ 123 b) ambiguous claims ................................................................................................... 125

iv

c) unclear how to test for compliance ........................................................................... 127 d) requiring forward-looking assessments of likely future results .................................... 127 e) terms of degree ...................................................................................................... 127 f) functional (and result) claims ................................................................................... 129 g) coined terms ........................................................................................................... 131 h) hybrid claims .......................................................................................................... 131 i) correction of errors in claim ..................................................................................... 132 j) who decides what when .......................................................................................... 132

8. Particular And Distinct Claims (aka Indefiniteness) (Sec. 112(2/b) Sec. 112(6/f)) ................. 133 9. Written Description (Sec. 112(1/a)) ...................................................................................... 137

a) which disclosure governs ......................................................................................... 140 b) support full scope of claim .................................................................................... 140 c) omission of non-optional element............................................................................. 141 d) original claims ......................................................................................................... 143 e) functional claims ..................................................................................................... 143 f) genus claims ........................................................................................................... 143 g) relationship to enablement ...................................................................................... 144

10. Enablement (Sec. 112(1/a)) ................................................................................................ 145 a) which disclosure governs ......................................................................................... 146 b) enable full scope of claim ...................................................................................... 146 c) undue experimentation............................................................................................ 147 d) teaching away ........................................................................................................ 148

11. Best Mode (Sec. 112(1/a))................................................................................................... 148 12. Effective Filing Date; Right Of Priority (Secs. 100 AIA (FITF)) 119, 120, 365 ........................... 149

a) filed before .......................................................................................................... 150 b) patent owners burden ............................................................................................ 151

13. Invention Date (Sec. 102 (g)) ........................................................................................... 152 14. (FITF) U.S. Patents/Published Apps Qualifying As Prior Art ( 102(a)(2) (AIA)) ....................... 154 15. (FITF) Other Prior Art ( 102(a)(1) (AIA)) ............................................................................ 154 16. On Sale Bar ........................................................................................................................ 155

a) ready for patenting ................................................................................................. 155 b) commercial offer for sale ......................................................................................... 155 c) may be secret ......................................................................................................... 156 d) method claims ........................................................................................................ 157

17. Public Use Bar .................................................................................................................... 158 18. Experimental Sale Or Use .................................................................................................... 158 19. Prior Art ............................................................................................................................. 159

v

a) third-party on sale/public use .................................................................................. 159 b) printed publication (102(a), (b)) ............................................................................ 160 c) 102(e) prior art ....................................................................................................... 161 d) applicants publications/disclosures ........................................................................ 162 e) patent owners other patents ................................................................................... 162 f) prior invention (102(g)) [by one of the co-inventors] ................................................ 162 g) prior invention (102(g)) [by third party] ................................................................... 163 h) derivation from others (102(f)) ................................................................................ 164 i) known or used by others in U.S. (102(a)) .............................................................. 164 j) admitted prior art .................................................................................................... 165 k) overcoming putative prior art ................................................................................... 165

20. Anticipation (Sec. 102) ........................................................................................................ 165 a) inherent disclosure .................................................................................................. 167 b) genus - species ....................................................................................................... 168 c) method claims ........................................................................................................ 168 d) apparatus claims ..................................................................................................... 169 e) reference enabling .................................................................................................. 170 f) single reference ...................................................................................................... 170 g) expert testimony ..................................................................................................... 170 h) relationship to written description support ................................................................ 171

21. Obviousness (Sec. 103) ....................................................................................................... 172 a) analogous art ......................................................................................................... 178 b) what a reference teaches ........................................................................................ 179 c) teaching away ........................................................................................................ 179 d) motivation to combine or modify art ......................................................................... 180 e) reasonable expectation of success ........................................................................... 182 f) the manner in which the invention was made ........................................................... 182 g) objective indicia of non-obviousness (secondary considerations) ................................ 183 h) nexus to claimed invention ...................................................................................... 184 i) objective indicia of obviousness ............................................................................... 186 j) admissions and omissions supporting obviousness .................................................... 187 k) genus species ...................................................................................................... 187 l) method claims ........................................................................................................ 188 m) obvious as a matter of law....................................................................................... 188

22. Sec. 135 Repose ................................................................................................................. 190 23. Double Patenting ................................................................................................................ 190

a) same invention ....................................................................................................... 190

vi

b) non-statutory .......................................................................................................... 191 c) terminal disclaimer .................................................................................................. 192 d) safe harbor for divisionals ..................................................................................... 192

24. Broadening Reissue, Reexam, IPR Or PGR (Secs. 251, 305, 314, 316, 326) ............................ 193 25. Inventorship (Secs. 102(f), 256) .......................................................................................... 194 26. Oath Defect ........................................................................................................................ 195 27. Other Defects ..................................................................................................................... 195

F. INEQUITABLE CONDUCT; UNCLEAN HANDS ..................................................................................... 196 1. Therasense ......................................................................................................................... 196 2. Likely Survives Therasense .................................................................................................. 198 3. Pleading Requirements ........................................................................................................ 199 4. Effect Of Finding Inequitable Conduct .................................................................................. 199

G. OWNERSHIP/STANDING .................................................................................................................. 199 1. Assignments ....................................................................................................................... 200 2. Constitutional Standing........................................................................................................ 202 3. Co-Ownership Of Patent ...................................................................................................... 202

H. LICENSE/EXHAUSTION .................................................................................................................... 203 1. Exhaustion; First Sale Doctrine ............................................................................................ 204 2. Implied License ................................................................................................................... 207 3. Shop Right ......................................................................................................................... 208

I. ACQUIESCENCE .............................................................................................................................. 208 J. LACHES, ESTOPPEL, WAIVER, SEC. 273 PRIOR COMMERCIAL USE .................................................... 208

1. Laches ............................................................................................................................... 208 2. Legal Estoppel .................................................................................................................... 210 3. Equitable Estoppel .............................................................................................................. 210 4. Waiver ............................................................................................................................... 211 5. Sec. 273 ............................................................................................................................. 211

K. MISUSE .......................................................................................................................................... 211 L. INCREASED DAMAGES; NON-WILLFULNESS ..................................................................................... 213

1. Willfulness .......................................................................................................................... 214 2. Pre-Halo Willfulness And Increased Damages ....................................................................... 214 3. Opinion Of Counsel ............................................................................................................. 217 4. Waiver Of Privilege .............................................................................................................. 218 5. Who Decides Willfulness Or Misconduct ................................................................................ 218 6. Enhancement of Damages ................................................................................................... 219

M. DAMAGES AND OTHER MONETARY REMEDIES ................................................................................. 219 1. Limitations On Damages ...................................................................................................... 220

vii

a) time limitation on damages ...................................................................................... 220 b) sec. 287 marking; notice of claim; impact on damages .............................................. 220 c) indirect-infringement damages limited to extent of direct infringement ....................... 222 d) apportionment ........................................................................................................ 223 e) limits re: extraterritorial reach (foreign activities) ...................................................... 224 f) failure to mitigate damages ..................................................................................... 224 g) benefit rule in mitigation of damages ..................................................................... 225

2. Lost Profits ......................................................................................................................... 225 a) lost sales ................................................................................................................ 227 b) reduced prices/price erosion .................................................................................... 229

3. Lost Royalties ..................................................................................................................... 229 4. Established Royalty ............................................................................................................. 230 5. Reasonable Royalty ............................................................................................................. 230

a) Georgia-Pacific factors ............................................................................................. 231 b) hypothetical negotiation .......................................................................................... 232 c) royalty base; entire market value rule ...................................................................... 233 d) royalty rate ............................................................................................................. 235 e) rejected reasonable royalties methodologies ............................................................. 237 f) FRAND standard essential patents ............................................................................ 237

6. Supplemental Damages ....................................................................................................... 237 7. Prejudgment Interest .......................................................................................................... 238 8. Provisional Rights; Pre-Issuance Reasonable Royalty (154(d)) ............................................... 238 9. Post-Judgment Royalties ..................................................................................................... 238

N. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ........................................................................................................................ 239 1. Equitable Principles Governing Injunctions ............................................................................ 239 2. Irreparable Harm ................................................................................................................ 240 3. Legal Remedies Inadequate ................................................................................................. 243 4. Balance Of Hardships .......................................................................................................... 243 5. Serves Public Interest .......................................................................................................... 243 6. Preliminary Injunction ......................................................................................................... 243 7. Scope Of Injunction ............................................................................................................ 244 8. Contempt Of Injunction ....................................................................................................... 245

O. ITC REMEDIES ................................................................................................................................ 245 P. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ........................................................................................................... 247 Q. ISSUE AND CLAIM PRECLUSION; KESSLER DOCTRINE; JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL ..................................... 248

1. Claim Preclusion.................................................................................................................. 248 2. Issue Preclusion .................................................................................................................. 249

viii

3. Kessler Doctrine .................................................................................................................. 251 4. Judicial Estoppel ................................................................................................................. 252

R. OTHER DEFENSES .......................................................................................................................... 253 1. Prosecution History Laches .................................................................................................. 253 2. Reissue Recapture Rule ....................................................................................................... 253 3. Reissue/Reexamination Defects ........................................................................................... 253 4. Improper Claim Structure Under Sec. 112(4/d) ..................................................................... 254 5. Improper Adjustment Or Extension Of Patent Term............................................................... 254 6. Cross-Appeal Rule ............................................................................................................... 254 7. Mandate Rule ..................................................................................................................... 255 8. State Immunity ................................................................................................................... 255 9. Spoliation ........................................................................................................................... 255 10. Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction................................................................................................ 255 11. Improper Venue .................................................................................................................. 256

S. SANCTIONS AND FEES AGAINST PATENT OWNER ............................................................................ 256 1. Cases Awarding Fees .......................................................................................................... 257 2. Cases Denying Fees ............................................................................................................ 258 3. Exceptional Case: Factors For And Against ......................................................................... 258 4. Prevailing Party ................................................................................................................... 259 5. Amount Of Fees Award........................................................................................................ 259 6. Rule 11 Sanctions ............................................................................................................... 259

T. COUNTER-ATTACKS ........................................................................................................................ 260

1

A. PUBLIC POLICIES LIMITING PATENTS 1 Imitation Is Necessary To Invention: Patent law reflects a careful balance between the need 2

to promote innovation through patent protection, and the importance of facilitating the imitation 3 and refinement through imitation that are necessary to invention itself and the very lifeblood of a 4 competitive economy. Halo (U.S. 06/13/2016). 5

Must Carefully Guard The Publics Right To Use Unpatentable And Formerly Patented 6 Inventions: This Court has carefully guarded that [patent-expiration] cut-off date, just as it has 7 the patent laws subject-matter limits: In case after case, the Court has construed those laws to 8 preclude measures that restrict free access to formerly patented, as well as unpatentable, 9 inventions. Kimble (U.S. 06/22/2015) (6-3). 10

Public Interest In Limiting Patents To Legitimate Scope: The public interest, of course, 11 favors the maintenance of a well-functioning patent system. But the public also has a paramount 12 interest in seeing that patent monopolies . . . are kept within their legitimate scope. Precision 13 Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U.S. 806, 816 (1945). A 14 patentee should not be . . . allowed to exact royalties for the use of an idea . . . that is beyond the 15 scope of the patent monopoly granted. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Ill. 16 Foundation, 402 U.S. 313, 349350 (1971). Medtronic (U.S. 01/22/2014) (patent owner has 17 burden of persuasion in a licensees DJ action seeking to avoid royalty payments on certain 18 products), revg, Medtronic (Fed. Cir. 09/18/12). 19

Patents Are A Two-Edged Sword: Patent protection is, after all, a two-edged sword. On the 20 one hand, the promise of exclusive rights provides monetary incentives that lead to creation, 21 invention, and discovery. On the other hand, that very exclusivity can impede the flow of 22 information that might permit, indeed spur, invention, by, for example, raising the price of using 23 the patented ideas once created, requiring potential users to conduct costly and time-consuming 24 searches of existing patents and pending patent applications, and requiring the negotiation of 25 complex licensing arrangements. Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs. (U.S. 03/20/2012) 26 (unanimous). 27

Patents On Obvious Combinations Harm Public: For over a half century, the Court has held 28 that a patent for a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective 29 functions . . . obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its monopoly and 30 diminishes the resources available to skillful men. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket 31 Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152 (1950). This is a principal reason for declining to allow patents 32 for what is obvious. Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary 33 course without real innovation retards progress and may, in the case of patents combining 34 previously known elements, deprive prior inventions of their value or utility. KSR (U.S. 04/30/2007) 35 (unanimous). 36

Clear Claiming Is Essential: The patent laws promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts 37 by rewarding innovation with a temporary monopoly. U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 8. The monopoly 38 is a property right; and like any property right, its boundaries should be clear. This clarity is 39 essential to promote progress, because it enables efficient investment in innovation. A 40 patent holder should know what he owns, and the public should know what he does not. For this 41 reason, the patent laws require inventors to describe their work in full, clear, concise, and exact 42 terms, 35 U.S.C. 112, as part of the delicate balance the law attempts to maintain between 43 inventors, who rely on the promise of the law to bring the invention forth, and the public, which 44 should be encouraged to pursue innovations, creations, and new ideas beyond the inventor's 45 exclusive rights. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 150 (1989). Festo 46 (U.S. 05/28/2002) (unanimous) (but also noting shortcomings of language creates need for 47 doctrine of equivalents). 48

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1513_db8e.pdfhttp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-720_jiel.pdfhttp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1128_h315.pdfhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1209713945471780432&q=Medtronic&hl=en&as_sdt=4,131http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdfhttp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/04-1350.pdfhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7598167634613863091&q=344+F.3d+1359+&hl=en&as_sdt=2,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8250508786110786578&q=344+F.3d+1359+&hl=en&as_sdt=2,38

2

A Carefully Crafted Bargain: . . . the patent system represents a carefully crafted 1 bargain that encourages both the creation and the public disclosure of new and useful advances 2 in technology, in return for an exclusive monopoly for a limited period of time. The balance between 3 the interest in motivating innovation and enlightenment by rewarding invention with patent 4 protection on the one hand, and the interest in avoiding monopolies that unnecessarily stifle 5 competition on the other, has been a feature of the federal patent laws since their inception. Pfaff 6 (U.S. 11/10/1998) (unanimous). 7

Patent System Has Three Purposes: [W]e reviewed the purposes of the federal patent 8 system. First, patent law seeks to foster and reward invention; second, it promotes disclosure of 9 inventions to stimulate further innovation and to permit the public to practice the invention once 10 the patent expires; third, the stringent requirements for patent protection seek to assure that ideas 11 in the public domain remain there for the free use of the public. Aronson (U.S. 02/28/1979) (patent 12 law does not preclude contract requiring indefinite royalties on product incorporating invention is 13 that subject of pending patent application, if a patent is not granted.) 14

Patents Are Monopolies Which Must Be Kept Within Their Legitimate Scope: Although 15 recognizing the patent systems desirable stimulus to invention, we have also viewed the patent as 16 a monopoly which, although sanctioned by law, has the economic consequences attending other 17 monopolies. A patent yielding returns for a device that fails to meet the congressionally imposed 18 criteria of patentability is anomalous. This Court has observed: A patent by its very nature is 19 affected with a public interest. . . . [It] is an exception to the general rule against monopolies and 20 to the right to access to a free and open market. The far-reaching social and economic 21 consequences of a patent, therefore, give the public a paramount interest in seeing that 22 patent monopolies spring from backgrounds free from fraud or other inequitable conduct and 23 that such monopolies are kept within their legitimate scope. Blonder Tongue (U.S. 24 05/03/1971) (unanimous) (citations and fns omitted). 25

Public Policy Encourages Challenges To Patents: [T]he equities of the licensor do not weigh 26 very heavily when they are balanced against the important public interest in permitting full 27 and free competition in the use of ideas which are in reality a part of the public domain. 28 Licensees may often be the only individuals with enough economic incentive to challenge the 29 patentability of an inventor's discovery. If they are muzzled, the public may continually be required 30 to pay tribute to would-be monopolists without need or justification. Lear (U.S. 06/16/1969); see 31 MCM Portfolio (Fed. Cir. 12/02/15) (IPR statute constitutional; Congress saw powerful reasons to 32 utilize the expertise of the PTO for an important public purposeto correct the agencys own errors 33 in issuing patents in the first place.); Pope Mfg. (U.S. 04/04/1892) (It is as important to the public 34 that competition should not be repressed by worthless patents, as that the patentee of a 35 really valuable invention should be protected in his monopoly.) 36

Prerequisites And Limitations On Patents Are Strictly Observed And Enforced: But in 37 rewarding useful invention, the rights and welfare of the community must be fairly dealt with and 38 effectually guarded. To that end the prerequisites to obtaining a patent are strictly 39 observed, and when the patent has issued the limitations on its exercise are equally 40 strictly enforced. To begin with, a genuine invention or discovery must be demonstrated lest 41 in the constant demand for new appliances the heavy hand of tribute be laid on each slight 42 technological advance in an art. Once the patent issues, it is strictly construed, it cannot be used 43 to secure any monopoly beyond that contained in the patent, the patentees control over the 44 product when it leaves his hands is sharply limited, and the patent monopoly may not be used in 45 disregard of the antitrust laws. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (U.S. 03/09/1964) (citations omitted). 46

Balancing Inducement To Invention Vs. Embarrassment Of A Private Monopoly: 47 According to Thomas Jefferson, the patent monopoly was not designed to secure to the inventor 48 his natural right in his discoveries. Rather, it was a reward, an inducement, to bring forth new 49

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18370402052575590678&q=Pfaff+on+sale&hl=en&as_sdt=2,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3272869600785657356&q=440+U.S.+257,+262+(1979).&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/402/313/case.htmlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17410003028876563679&q=Lear+Atkins&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1091.Opinion.11-30-2015.1.PDFhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1934380010493363406&q=144+U.S.+224&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/225/case.html

3

knowledge. The grant of an exclusive right to an invention was the creation of societyat odds 1 with the inherent free nature of disclosed ideasand was not to be freely given. Only 2 inventions and discoveries which furthered human knowledge, and were new and useful, justified 3 the special inducement of a limited private monopoly. Jefferson did not believe in granting patents 4 for small details, obvious improvements, or frivolous devices. His writings evidence his insistence 5 upon a high level of patentability. As a member of the patent board for several years, Jefferson 6 saw clearly the difficulty in drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the 7 embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. The inherent problem 8 was to develop some means of weeding out those inventions which would not be disclosed or 9 devised but for the inducement of a patent. Graham (U.S. 02/21/1966). 10

Functional Patent Claims And Unclear Claims Impede Progress: The statutory 11 requirement of particularity and distinctness in claims is met only when they clearly distinguish 12 what is claimed from what went before in the art and clearly circumscribe what is foreclosed from 13 future enterprise. A zone of uncertainty which enterprise and experimentation may enter only at 14 the risk of infringement claims would discourage invention only a little less than unequivocal 15 foreclosure of the field. United Carbon (U.S. 12/07/1942) (unanimous); accord Halliburton Oil 16 (U.S. 11/18/1946) (unless frightened from the course of experimentation by broad functional 17 claims like these, inventive genius may evolve many more devices to accomplish the same 18 purpose. A patentee cannot obtain greater coverage by failing to describe his invention than by 19 describing it as the statute commands.) 20

Patents Can Create A Class Of Speculative Schemers: The design of the patent laws is to 21 reward those who make some substantial discovery or invention, which adds to our knowledge and 22 makes a step in advance in the useful arts. Such inventors are worthy of all favor. It was never 23 the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of 24 a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled 25 mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate 26 creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a 27 class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave 28 of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable 29 them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, without contributing anything 30 to the real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears 31 and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities to lawsuits and vexatious accountings 32 for profits made in good faith. Atlantic Works (U.S. 1883) (unanimous). 33

TIPS: 34 o REDACTED 35

B. UNDER-UTILIZED DEFENSES 36 Below are nine under-utilized possible substantive defenses to a charge of patent infringement, 37

described herein. Some are well-established; others are theories. 38 TIPS: 39

o REDACTED 40

C. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION 41 1. Who Decides What When? 42 BASICS: Who Decides What?: 43

o Trial Stage: The construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim, is 44 exclusively within the province of the court, not a jury. Markman (U.S. 04/23/1996), affg, 45

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9105652591497305710&q=Graham+Deere&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/228/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/329/1/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/107/192/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/517/370/

4

Markman (Fed. Cir. 04/05/95) (en banc) (in a case tried to a jury, the court has the power 1 and obligation to construe as a matter of law the meaning of language used in the patent 2 claim.); Teva Pharm. II (U.S. 01/20/2015) (7-2) (in construing a claim, courts may have 3 to resolve subsidiary factual disputes, but the ultimate question of construction will 4 remain a legal question even if a factual finding may be nearly dispositive.); Winans 5 (U.S. 1854) (construing the patent . . . is a question of law.). The presentation of expert 6 testimony on the meaning of a claim term does not transform the question from one of 7 law to one of fact. Lighting Ballast II (Fed. Cir. 02/21/14) (en banc) (6-4) (revg trial 8 courts claim construction and reversing trial courts holding that claim not indefinite), 9 vacated ivo Teva (U.S. 01/26/2015), on remand); Lighting Ballast III (Fed. Cir. 06/23/15) 10 (affg trial courts claim construction that claim term did not trigger Sec. 112(6/f) and claim 11 is not indefinite). 12

o Appellate Stage: Review is de novo except for fact findings, if any, regarding disputed 13 extrinsic evidence, which facts the appellate court must accept unless clearly erroneous. 14 Teva Pharm. II (U.S. 01/20/2015) (7-2) (in context of defense that claim language 15 molecular weight of 5 to 9 kilodaltons, is indefinite: overturning Fed. Cir.s long-standing 16 purely de novo review of claim constructions (e.g., Cybor (Fed. Cir. 03/25/98) (en banc); 17 Lighting Ballast II (Fed. Cir. 02/21/14) (en banc), vacated ivo Teva (U.S. 01/26/2015), on 18 remand Lighting Ballast III (Fed. Cir. 06/23/15) (affg trial courts claim construction that 19 claim term did not trigger Sec. 112(6/f) and claim is not indefinite). When evidence is 20 extrinsic to the patent and its prosecution history, such as the background science or the 21 meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period, a trial courts 22 subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence must be reviewed for clear error 23 on appeal, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6). Teva Pharm. II (U.S. 01/20/2015) (also 24 mentioning credibility judgments about witnesses.) While the ultimate conclusion 25 about claim meaning in the context of th[e] patent, is a legal question what a person 26 of ordinary skill would understand vitamin B12 to mean in different contexts is a question 27 of fact. Eli Lilly (Fed. Cir. 01/12/17) (affg vitamin B12 not indefinite); Apple VI (Fed. 28 Cir. 10/07/16) (en banc) (7-3) (The Supreme Court made clear that the factual 29 components [of claim construction] include `the background science or the meaning of a 30 term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.) 31 Note: Teva Pharm. Fact Dispute vs. Legal Conclusion: The meaning of molecular 32

weight in the claim depended in part on graphs in the Spec. The experts disputed 33 whether a skilled artisan would understand that converting data from a 34 chromatogram to molecular weight distribution curves like those in patent cause 35 the peak on each curve to shift slightly. District court credited patent owner 36 experts testimony and based on that factual finding, the District Court reached 37 the legal conclusion that figure 1 did not undermine Tevas argument that 38 molecular weight referred to the first method of calculation (peak average 39 molecular weight). 40

Note: Fed. Cir. Mostly Bypasses Clear Error Review, E.g. By Deeming Extrinsic 41 Evidence Immaterial: See Unwired Planet (Fed. Cir. 11/21/16) (non-precedential) 42 (although trial court discussed extrinsic evidence it made no reviewable factual 43 findings regarding that evidence, so de novo review); Wundaformer (Fed. Cir. 44 02/16/17) (non-precedential) (de novo review because the district courts claim 45 construction mentioned a subsidiary fact finding based on extrinsic evidence, but 46 the district courts construction did not rely on that extrinsic evidence.); Profectus 47 (Fed. Cir. 05/26/16) (dictionary definition of claim term mountable does not 48 inform the analysis. We see no reason to depart from the intrinsic record); 49 Cardsoft (Fed. Cir. 12/02/15) (remand from S. Ct.) (again revg trial court 50

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10285146068541901213&q=52+F.3d+967+&hl=en&as_sdt=4,60,131http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-854_o7jp.pdfhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9010231886914607926&q=winans+denmead&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3296455634670817829&q=Lighting+Ballast&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4516952367305432890&q=Lighting+Ballast+2015&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-854_o7jp.pdfhttp://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/138/1448/473704/http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3296455634670817829&q=Lighting+Ballast&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4516952367305432890&q=Lighting+Ballast+2015&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_52http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-854_o7jp.pdfhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-2067.Opinion.1-10-2017.1.PDFhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1171.Opinion.9-30-2016.1.PDFhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1966.Opinion.11-17-2016.1.PDFhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1301.Opinion.2-13-2017.1.PDFhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1016.Opinion.5-24-2016.1.PDFhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1135.Opinion.11-30-2015.1.PDF

5

construction of virtual machine as too broad; no deference because no fact 1 finding based on extrinsic evidence; despite panel relying on prior case decisions 2 defining the claim term.); Avid Tech. (Fed. Cir. 01/29/16) (reviewing de novo 3 because decision based on intrinsic record, not on any evidence about extra-4 patent understandings of language or about other facts). Post-Teva, Fed. Cir. 5 disregards subsidiary fact findings, and reviews de novo, when it can construe 6 claims based on intrinsic evidence alone. Microsoft (Proxyconn) (Fed. Cir. 7 06/16/15) (reviewing PTAB constructions de novo: To the extent the Board 8 considered extrinsic evidence when construing the claims, we need not consider 9 the Boards findings on that evidence because the intrinsic record is clear.); Eidos 10 Display (Fed. Cir. 03/10/15) (because the meaning of the claim at issue is clear 11 in view of the intrinsic record and undisputed facts, we also review [claim 12 construction] de novo. To the extent the district court considered extrinsic 13 evidence in its claim construction order or summary judgment order, that evidence 14 is ultimately immaterial to the outcome because the intrinsic record is clear.); 15 Shire Dev. II (Fed. Cir. 06/03/15) (despite district court having heard expert 16 testimony, there is no indication district court made fact findings and we review 17 the district courts constructions de novo, as the intrinsic evidence fully determines 18 the proper constructions.) But, it has also reviewed for clear error or substantial 19 evidence findings based on extrinsic evidence. In re Nuvasive (Fed. Cir. 05/31/17) 20 (non-precedential) (vacating obviousness decision for too broad construction; the 21 Board relied on expert testimony in reaching its claim construction, and we review 22 its interpretation of that testimony, a factual matter, for reasonableness under the 23 substantial evidence standard.); E2Interactive (Fed. Cir. 05/11/17) (non-24 precedential) (affg PTAB broad construction based in part on substantial 25 evidence review of findings based on extrinsic evidence); Lighting Ballast III (Fed. 26 Cir. 06/23/15) characterizing as fact findings: (1) PHOSITA understood term 27 voltage source means to connote a class of structures, namely a rectifier, or 28 structure to rectify the AC power line into a DC voltage for the DC input terminals; 29 (2) PHOSITA would understand that rectifier is, at least in common uses, the only 30 structure that would provide the function recited after word means); Cephalon 31 (Fed. Cir. 06/17/15) (non-precedential) (reviewing for clear error, and affg 32 findings about widely accepted meaning of the claim term in technical field); 33 Enzo II (Fed. Cir. 03/16/15) (2-1) (reversing broad construction; dictum that 34 expert testimony regarding meaning of example in Spec. would trigger clear-error 35 review.) 36

Note: Substantial Evidence Review Standard (From PTAB) vs. Clear Error 37 Review Standard (From Trial Court): Substantial evidence is something less than 38 the weight of the evidence but more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It is such 39 relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 40 conclusion." In re Nuvasive (Fed. Cir. 12/07/16). A finding is `clearly erroneous' 41 when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire 42 evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 43 committed." This standard plainly does not entitle a reviewing court to reverse the 44 finding of the trier of fact simply because it is convinced that it would have decided 45 the case differently. The reviewing court oversteps the bounds of its duty under 46 Rule 52(a) if it undertakes to duplicate the role of the lower court. In applying the 47 clearly erroneous standard to the findings of a district court sitting without a jury, 48 appellate courts must constantly have in mind that their function is not to decide 49 factual issues de novo. If the district court's account of the evidence is plausible 50 in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse 51

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1246.Opinion.1-27-2016.1.PDFhttp://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/14-1542/14-1542-2015-06-16.htmlhttp://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/14-1254/14-1254-2015-03-10.htmlhttp://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/14-1254/14-1254-2015-03-10.htmlhttp://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/13-1409/13-1409-2015-06-03.htmlhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1841.Opinion.5-25-2017.1.PDFhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1775.Opinion.5-8-2017.2.PDFhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4516952367305432890&q=Lighting+Ballast+2015&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/14-1411/14-1411-2015-06-17.htmlhttp://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/14-1321/14-1321-2015-03-16.htmlhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1670.Opinion.12-5-2016.1.PDF

6

it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have 1 weighed the evidence differently. Where there are two permissible views of the 2 evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous. 3 Anderson (U.S. 03/19/1985). 4

Note: Fed. Cir. Sometimes Engages In Own Extrinsic Evidence Fact Finding: In 5 re LF Centennial (Fed. Cir. 06/29/16) (non-precedential) (revg PTAB BRI and 6 anticipation decision, in part on non-technical dictionary definition of spine: 7 review PTABs construction de novo where not based on any outside-the-patent 8 understandings of technical language or other facts); HBAC Matchmaker (Fed. 9 Cir. 05/31/16) (non-precedential) (revg narrow construction of head-end system 10 (not used in Spec.) as limited to television systems (as in all embodiments), relying 11 in large part on dictionary and other extrinsic evidence that trial court had not 12 cited, and noting that Spec. does not disclaim use with Internet). 13

Note: Impact On Appeals From PTAB Similar: Substantial evidence standard will 14 apply wherever clear error would apply if appeal from district court. In re Cuozzo 15 (Fed. Cir. 02/04/15) (2-1) (We review underlying factual determinations 16 concerning extrinsic evidence for substantial evidence and the ultimate 17 construction of the claim de novo.; supporting broadest reasonable 18 interpretation standard in inter partes reviews), rehearing en banc denied (Fed. 19 Cir. 07/08/15) (6-5) (five Judges against applying broadest reasonable 20 interpretation in PTAB trials); new panel opinion (Fed. Cir. 07/08/15), affd on 21 other grounds (U.S. 06/20/2016) (affg PTO has authority to apply its broadest 22 reasonable construction standard in IPRs per statutes grant to PTO to issue rules 23 governing inter partes review, which is not limited to procedural rules; affg 24 statute bars review of PTO determination that petition presents reasonable 25 likelihood of success or objection grounded in a statute closely related to that 26 decision to institute IPR); but see Oracle (Fed. Cir. 03/20/15) (non-precedential) 27 (we need not consider whether Teva also changes our standard of review on 28 appeals from the Board.) 29

TIPS Re TEVA: 30 o REDACTED 31

Trial Court Must Resolve Construction Dispute For The Jury: Trial courts have a duty to 32 inform jurors of the courts claim-construction rulings on all disputed claim terms and of the jurys 33 obligation to adopt and apply the construction during deliberations. Sulzer Textil (Fed. Cir. 34 12/09/03); NobelBiz (Fed. Cir. 07/19/17) (non-precedential) (2-1) (vacating jury verdict of 35 infringement, and construing three disputed claim terms, and remanding for new trial; error to 36 instruct jury that the claim terms had plain and ordinary meaning and allow experts to testify to 37 the parties different constructions: the district court must provide a construction because the 38 parties disputed not the meaning of the words themselves, but the scope that should be 39 encompassed by th[e] claim language.); O2 Micro (Fed. Cir. 04/03/08) (When the parties raise 40 an actual dispute regarding the proper scope of these claims, the court, not the jury, must resolve 41 that dispute.); Eon (Fed. Cir. 02/29/16) (2-1) (revg denial of JMOL of no infringement; error to 42 instruct jury to give terms mobile and portable their plain and ordinary meaning where there 43 was an unresolved contested dispute over whether that meaning included fixed or stationary 44 products that are only theoretically capable of being moved); Clare (Fed. Cir. 03/31/16) (rejecting 45 argument that meaning was readily apparent to a layperson; district court properly resolved 46 fundamental dispute between parties about meaning of term external appearance); Creative 47 Internet (Fed. Cir. 04/22/11) (non-precedential) (The district courts refusal to instruct the jury on 48 the question whether the claim required all three elements to operate on the same message had 49

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4660598599950299463&q=%22firm+conviction%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,60http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1931.Opinion.6-27-2016.1.PDFhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1931.Opinion.6-27-2016.1.PDFhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1447.Opinion.5-26-2016.1.PDFhttp://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/14-1301/14-1301-2015-02-04.htmlhttps://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2599761992885515376&q=In+re+Cuozzo+Speed+Techs.,+LLC&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5880056352937933132&q=In+re+Cuozzo+Speed+Techs.,+LLC&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-446_ihdk.pdfhttp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-446_ihdk.pdfhttp://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/14-1351/14-1351-2015-03-20.htmlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8259474858891625729&q=Sulzer+Textil&hl=en&as_sdt=2,38http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1104.Opinion.7-17-2017.1.PDFhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9522452718487390996&q=o2+micro&hl=en&as_sdt=400000000002http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1237.Opinion.2-25-2016.1.PDFhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1199.Opinion.3-30-2016.1.PDFhttp://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/10-1215/10-1215-2011-04-22.pdf?ts=1411156211http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/10-1215/10-1215-2011-04-22.pdf?ts=1411156211

7

the effect of leaving a critical question of claim construction to the jury. The court erred in leaving 1 a central question of claim construction to the jury over Yahoo!s objection.); Every Penny 2 Counts (Fed. Cir. 04/30/09) ([T]he courts obligation is to ensure that questions of the scope of 3 the patent claims are not left to the jury.) Court must give parties opportunity to be heard on 4 proper claim construction. TNS Media (Fed. Cir. 09/16/15) (non-precedential) (vacating sua sponte 5 construction of term used in parties stipulated construction). But see Emerachem (Fed. Cir. 6 10/23/17) (non-precedential) (Claim terms, however, are construed to resolve a controversy, and 7 only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.); Nuance (Fed. Cir. 02/22/16) (no need 8 to resolve parties dispute over meaning of an agreed construction); Summit 6 (Fed. Cir. 09/21/15) 9 (court need not construe for jury words in common parlance and no special meaning in the art); 10 Finjan (Fed. Cir. 11/04/10) (where plaintiff argues ordinary meaning and defendant offers a 11 contruction that the trial court rejects in favor of ordinary meaning, and then defendant offers 12 same construction at trial (to explain the ordinary meaning), O2 Micro does not govern: By doing 13 so, Defendants attempted to resurrect a claim construction that the district court already rejected, 14 without offering a new definition. Restating a previously settled argument does not create an actual 15 dispute regarding the proper scope of the claims within the meaning of O2 Micro. In this situation, 16 the district court was not obligated to provide additional guidance to the jury.); ActiveVideo (Fed. 17 Cir. 08/24/12) (rejecting argument that trial court violated O2 Micro: The district court did not err 18 in concluding that these terms have plain meanings that do not require additional construction.); 19 LifeNet (Fed. Cir. 09/16/16) (no O2 Micro issue where party failed to request district court to modify 20 the claim construction to the one advocated on appeal). Cf. Homeland Housewares (Fed. Cir. 21 08/04/17) (2-1) (reversing anticipation decision; PTAB must construe claim disputed claim term 22 before deciding no anticipation). 23

May Revise Construction During Trial: Permissible to revise claim construction at trial, e.g., 24 based on experts testimony about the technology. Pressure Prod. (Fed. Cir. 03/24/10). 25

Trial Court Cannot Change Claim Construction Post Verdict: Post-verdict, court may make 26 explicit what should have been obvious to the jury, but cannot change or add to the construction. 27 Wi-LAN (Fed. Cir. 01/08/16) (reinstating jury verdict of invalidity); see Akamai Tech. V (Fed. Cir. 28 11/16/15) (party cannot seek narrower construction during jury instruction phase, after most of 29 trial completed, having stipulated to construction during Markman stage). 30

Give Non-Construed Claim Language Its Lay Meaning: where the parties and the district 31 court elect to provide the jury only with the claim language itself, and do not provide an 32 interpretation of the language in the light of the specification and the prosecution history, [the] 33 verdict must be tested by the charge actually given and by giving the ordinary meaning of the 34 language of the jury instruction. Hewlett-Packard (Fed. Cir. 08/07/03); Asetek I (Fed. Cir. 35 12/06/16), modified on other grounds, Asetek II (Fed. Cir. 04/03/17) (affg infringement judgment; 36 quoting with approval Hewlett-Packard); Koninklijke Philips (Fed. Cir. 07/28/16) (non-precedential) 37 (where court did not construe claim language, whether prior art discloses element is a factual 38 question left to the jury for resolution based on the ordinary meaning of the claims); but see Ceats 39 (Fed. Cir. 04/26/13) (non-precedential) (affg jury verdict of anticipation by analyzing how jury was 40 permitted to understand unconstrued term set in view of the Spec.s use of that term). 41

Give Construction Language Its Lay Meaning?: Yes: Cordis (Fed. Cir. 09/28/11) (citing 42 Hewlett-Packard for support); cf. Mformation Tech. (Fed. Cir. 08/22/14) (affg JMOL of no 43 infringement based on trial courts clarification of construction given to jury; citing Cordis with 44 approval). No: Power-One (Fed. Cir. 03/30/10) (upholding claim construction as sufficiently precise 45 because it would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art reading the Spec.). 46

2. How Construed? 47 BASICS: How Construed?: the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning 48

that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the 49

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8802671825718193996&q=Every+Penny+Counts&hl=en&as_sdt=4,131http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8802671825718193996&q=Every+Penny+Counts&hl=en&as_sdt=4,131http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1668.Opinion.9-11-2015.1.PDFhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1629.Opinion.2-17-2016.1.PDFhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/13-1648.Opinion.9-16-2015.1.PDFhttp://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/09-1576/09-1576-2011-03-27.htmlhttp://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/11-1538/11-1538-2012-08-24.htmlhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1549.Opinion.9-14-2016.1.PDFhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1511.Opinion.8-3-2017.1.PDFhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16580066862026725682&q=Pressure+Prod.&hl=en&as_sdt=4,131http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1437.Opinion.1-6-2016.1.PDFhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/9-1372.Opinion.11-12-2015.1.PDFhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17431560685090722662&q=Hewlett-Packard+2003&hl=en&as_sdt=2,38http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1026.Opinion.12-2-2016.1.PDFhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1026.Order.3-30-2017.1.PDFhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1026.Opinion.3-30-2017.1.PDFhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1764.Opinion.7-26-2016.1.PDFhttp://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/12-1614/12-1614-2013-04-26.pdf?ts=1411158868http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16869248525243215360&q=Cordis&hl=en&as_sdt=4,131http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1913009537278387551&q=Mformation+Tech&hl=en&as_sdt=4,131http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1489946315499155886&q=Power-One&hl=en&as_sdt=4,131

8

invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application. Phillips (Fed. Cir. 07/12/05) 1 (en banc). See Teva Pharm. II (U.S. 01/20/15) (7-2) (if a district court resolves a dispute between 2 experts and makes a factual finding that, in general, a certain term of art had a particular meaning 3 to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, the district court must then 4 conduct a legal analysis: whether a skilled artisan would ascribe that same meaning to that term 5 in the context of the specific patent claim under review.); on remand Teva Pharm. III (Fed. Cir. 6 06/18/15) (2-1) (The meaning one of skill in the art would attribute to the term molecular weight 7 in light of its use in the claims, the disclosure in the specification, and the discussion of this term 8 in the prosecution history is a question of law; accepting but discounting trial court finding that 9 statement in prosecution history was scientifically incorrect.) While the patents prosecution history 10 and dictionaries may be helpful, the Spec. is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed 11 [claim] term. Phillips (Fed. Cir. 07/12/05) (en banc). Court may not rely on dictionary or treatise 12 to contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents. Id. 13 Wasica Finance (Fed. Cir. 04/04/17) (affg PTABs broad Phillips construction of expired claims: If 14 the intrinsic record supports several definitions of a term, the term may be construed to encompass 15 all such consistent meanings.); Virginia Innovation (Fed. Cir. 06/09/15) (non-precedential) 16 (vacating and remanding sum. jud. for more record evidence of how skilled artisans would have 17 understood what appears to be a term with an established technical meaning in the art.). 18

Generally, Claim Terms Given Their Ordinary Meaning To Skilled Artisan At Effective 19 Filing Date After Reading Intrinsic Evidence: Properly viewed, the ordinary meaning of a 20 claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent. Phillips (Fed. Cir. 21 07/12/05) (en banc); United Video (Fed. Cir. 04/08/14) (non-precedential) (The words of a claim 22 are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the meaning that a term would 23 have to a person of ordinary skill in the art after reviewing the intrinsic record at the time of the 24 invention.); Lexion Med. (Fed. Cir. 04/22/11) (The customary meaning of a claim term is not 25 determined in a vacuum and should be harmonized, to the extent possible, with the intrinsic record, 26 as understood within the technological field of the invention.); Kaneka (Fed. Cir. 06/10/15) 27 (rejecting dictionary-definition construction of claim term sealed, even though term not defined 28 or used in Spec., because inconsistent with all disclosed embodiments in Spec. and thus contrary 29 to meaning ascertainable from Spec.) 30

Unclear How Phillips Differs From Broadest Reasonable Interpretation: Fed. Cir. panels 31 insist that BRI standard in PTO and PTAB differs from Phillips construction, but have not clearly 32 defined how. Even under BRI, interpretation must be reasonable ivo the Spec., must consider the 33 prosecution history, must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach 34 and may not be unreasonable under general claim construction principles. Microsoft (Proxyconn) 35 (Fed. Cir. 06/16/15) (vacating PTABs BRI as too broad ivo Spec.); Intertainer (Fed. Cir. 09/26/16) 36 (non-precedential) (affg PTAB broad construction, relying heavily on the prosecution history.) But 37 BRI may be broader then the correct construction. PPC Broadband (2015-1361) (Fed. Cir. 38 02/22/16) (affg PTAB obviousness decision and broader BRI interpretation of continuity member 39 (as needing only to make contact with two members to establish an electrical connection between 40 them, rather than requiring consistent or continuous contact) based on some language in Spec. 41 and some ordinary meanings of the term, despite that correct construction under Phillips would 42 have been narrower (requiring that members be always connected) based on another dictionary 43 definition and multiple statements in the Spec. and fundamental purpose of the invention). See 44 Cuozzo (U.S. 06/20/2016) (affg PTO has authority to apply its broadest reasonable construction 45 standard in IPRs, noting that it is different from Phillips, without addressing how it is different); 46 Veritas (Fed. Cir. 08/30/16) (affg PTAB construction, concluding it would not be unreasonable for 47 a relevant skilled artisan to read the claims to have that scope). 48

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2207195741320793153&q=Phillips&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-854_o7jp.pdfhttp://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/12-1567/12-1567-2015-06-18.pdf?ts=1434641479http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2207195741320793153&q=Phillips&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-2078.Opinion.3-31-2017.1.PDFhttp://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/14-1477/14-1477-2015-06-09.htmlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2207195741320793153&q=Phillips&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/13-1396/13-1396-2014-04-08.pdf?ts=1411173234http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7181418630756661879&q=Lexion+Med&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/14-1373/14-1373-2015-06-10.htmlhttp://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/14-1542/14-1542-2015-06-16.htmlhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-2065.Opinion.9-21-2016.1.PDFhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1361.Opinion.2-18-2016.1.PDFhttp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-446_ihdk.pdfhttp://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1894.Opinion.8-26-2016.1.PDF

9

TIP Re Preserving Position On Plain Meaning Claim Construction Principles For En Banc Or Cert. 1 Review: 2 o REDACTED 3

a) general canons of construction 4 Construe Claim Terms In Context Of Entire Claim: Phillips (Fed. Cir. 07/12/05) (en banc) 5

(Quite apart from the written description and the prosecution history, the claims themselves 6 provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms. [T]he context in which 7 a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.); Kyocera (Fed. Cir. 10/14/08) (in 8 context of entire claim and Spec., different first and second wireless communications refers to 9 two different methods of communication: this court does not interpret claim terms in a vacuum, 10 devoid of the context of the claim as a whole.); ACTV (Fed. Cir. 10/08/03) (the construction of 11 URL is principally informed by the plain language and surrounding context of the claims 12 themselves. While certain terms may be at the center of the claim construction debate, the 13 context of the surrounding words of the claim also must be considered in determining the ordinary 14 and customary meaning of those terms.) 15

Seek Not To Render Any Claim Language Superfluous Or Redundant: Akzo Nobel (Fed. 16 Cir. 01/29/16) (affg trial court rejection of proposed construction of pressurized collection vessel 17 that would render word collection entirely superfluous ; such a result is disfavored); TMI 18 Products (Fed. Cir. 04/02/15) (non-precedential) (affg trial court rejection of proposed construction 19 that would render other claim language redundant); but see Simpleair (Fed. Cir. 04/01/16) (revg 20 trial courts construction: The preference for giving meaning to all terms, however, is not an 21 inflexible rule that supersedes all other principles of claim construction.) 22

Generally, Different Terms Have Different Meanings: Linguistic differentiation canon of 23 construction: the general assumption is that different terms have different meanings, but it is 24 less applicable (or does not apply) to terms used in a preamble because the purpose of a preamble 25 is to set forth the general nature of the invention being claimed. It is generally not used as or 26 intended to be a limiting factor in delineating boundaries of the scope of the invention as claimed. 27 PPC Broadband (2015-1364) (Fed. Cir. 02/22/16) (vacating PTAB BRI as too broad); CAE 28 Screenplates (Fed. Cir. 08/24/00) (In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must 29 presume th