Falana v. Kent State Univ.

Last updated

Falana v. Kent State University
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Full case nameOlusegun Falana v. Kent State University and Alexander J. Seed
DecidedJanuary 23 2012
Citation(s)669 F.3d 1349; 101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1414
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Richard Linn, Sharon Prost, Jimmie V. Reyna
Case opinions
MajorityLinn

Olusegun Falana v. Kent State University and Alexander J. Seed, 669 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012), [1] was a notable case precedent in the United States patent law decided by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2012 that deals with the questions of inventorship and attorney's fee shifting in patent lawsuits.

Contents

Background

In January 1998 Kent State University hired Falana to develop new additives for liquid crystal displays. In March 1999, Falana developed a method for making a novel genus of chemical compounds and synthesized several new molecules using his method. Notably, Falana did not disclose his method publicly, thus this information was not available as a prior art to later filed patent applications. In September 1999, Falana left Kent State for another job. Dr. Seed continued the research and synthesized several more molecules using Falana's method, several of which turned out to be promising for the use in liquid crystal displays. In June 2000, Kent State and its spin-off (Kent Displays, Inc.) filed a provisional application for a US patent claiming compositions of matter comprising molecules prepared by Falana's method. After the patent eventually became issued and published in 2004, Falana learned about the omission of his name on the list of inventors. After Kent State failed to provide a satisfactory answer, Falana filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Kent State University and the inventors named on U.S. Patent No. 6,830,789 [2] seeking correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256.

District court

At the bench trial, the District Court concluded that Falana contributed to the conception of the claimed compositions –of-matter by developing a previously unknown method for their preparation and ordered the USPTO to correct the inventorship (the USPTO records as of 16 June 2016 are still not corrected at and the patent maintenance fee lapsed on December 14, 2012). [3]

The District Court also found the case to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 on three grounds: 1) that defendants engaged in inequitable conduct, 2) that they took an untenable position in defending this case, and 3) that their continued defense of this case in the face of testimony that lacked credibility and veracity was frivolous and bordered on bad faith and awarded attorney fees to Falana.

Appeal

Kent State and other Defendants appealed to the CAFC and the case was decided on January 23, 2012. The CAFC affirmed the decisions of the District Court on both inventorship and attorney fees. The Federal Circuit found that where the method of synthesizing the claimed compound requires more than the exercise of ordinary skill in the art, the discovery of that method is as much a contribution to the compound as the discovery of the compound itself. It established a binding precedent that the conception a synthetic method can make a person an inventor on a composition-of-matter claim, even if the person did not actually make the compound in question but only developed a method for making the compound, provided that the method was not publicly known previously. [4]

Significance

This case was decided after an earlier 2001's Chou v. University of Chicago and had similar circumstances and outcome, suggesting that university faculty and administration need to be better educated on the principles of Intellectual Property Law. [5] It also established a currently binding precedent in regard to joint inventorship and attorney fee-shifting in the US Patent Law. [6] [7] According to Google Scholar, it has been cited in 35 legal decisions of the U.S. federal court system by June 20, 2016, and 67 times by June 11, 2024. [8]

Similar cases

Related Research Articles

Within the context of a national or multilateral body of law, an invention is patentable if it meets the relevant legal conditions to be granted a patent. By extension, patentability also refers to the substantive conditions that must be met for a patent to be held valid.

Neither software nor computer programs are explicitly mentioned in statutory United States patent law. Patent law has changed to address new technologies, and decisions of the United States Supreme Court and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) beginning in the latter part of the 20th century have sought to clarify the boundary between patent-eligible and patent-ineligible subject matter for a number of new technologies including computers and software. The first computer software case in the Supreme Court was Gottschalk v. Benson in 1972. Since then, the Supreme Court has decided about a half dozen cases touching on the patent eligibility of software-related inventions.

Business method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking and tax compliance etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the appropriateness of patenting business methods. Nonetheless, they have become important assets for both independent inventors and major corporations.

The United States is considered to have the most favorable legal regime for inventors and patent owners in the world. Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limited time from profiting from a patented technology without the consent of the patent holder. Specifically, it is the right to exclude others from: making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, inducing others to infringe, applying for an FDA approval, and/or offering a product specially adapted for practice of the patent.

In patent law, an inventor is the person, or persons in United States patent law, who contribute to the claims of a patentable invention. In some patent law frameworks, however, such as in the European Patent Convention (EPC) and its case law, no explicit, accurate definition of who exactly is an inventor is provided. The definition may slightly vary from one European country to another. Inventorship is generally not considered to be a patentability criterion under European patent law.

NTP, Inc. is a Virginia-based patent holding company founded in 1992 by the late inventor Thomas J. Campana Jr. and Donald E. Stout. The company's primary asset is a portfolio of 50 US patents and additional pending US and international patent applications. These patents and patent applications disclose inventions in the fields of wireless email and RF Antenna design. The named inventors include Andrew Andros and Thomas Campana. About half of the US patents were originally assigned to Telefind Corporation, a Florida-based company partly owned by Campana.

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a process claim directed to a numerical algorithm, as such, was not patentable because "the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself." That would be tantamount to allowing a patent on an abstract idea, contrary to precedent dating back to the middle of the 19th century. The ruling stated "Direct attempts to patent programs have been rejected [and] indirect attempts to obtain patents and avoid the rejection ... have confused the issue further and should not be permitted." The case was argued on October 16, 1972, and was decided November 20, 1972.

Pro se legal representation means to argue on one's own behalf in a legal proceeding, as a defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, or a defendant in criminal cases, rather than have representation from counsel or an attorney.

<i>In re Bilski</i>

In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, was an en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on the patenting of method claims, particularly business methods. The court affirmed the rejection of the patent claims involving a method of hedging risks in commodities trading, as non-patentable subject matter. Most importantly, the Court concluded, that machine-or-transformation test "was proper test to apply to determine patent-eligibility of process", and that the “useful, concrete and tangible result” of State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group and AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc. should no longer be relied upon.

Ecolab v. FMC, 569 F.3d 1335, is a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).

Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66 (2012), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that unanimously held that claims directed to a method of giving a drug to a patient, measuring metabolites of that drug, and with a known threshold for efficacy in mind, deciding whether to increase or decrease the dosage of the drug, were not patent-eligible subject matter.

Abbott v. Sandoz, 566 F.3d 1282, was a US patent law case argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that established a bright-line ruling regarding claims of patent infringement relating to disagreements over so-called “product-by-process” claims. The case was decided on May 18, 2009.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kara Farnandez Stoll</span> American judge (born 1968)

Kara Ann Farnandez Stoll is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965), was a 1965 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held, for the first time, that enforcement of a fraudulently procured patent violated the antitrust laws and provided a basis for a claim of treble damages if it caused a substantial anticompetitive effect.

Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, is a 2015 en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on remand from a 2014 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court reversing a previous Federal Circuit decision in the case. This is the most recent in a string of decisions in the case that concern the proper legal standard for determining patent infringement liability when multiple actors are involved in carrying out the claimed infringement of a method patent and no single accused infringer has performed all of the steps. In the 2015 remand decision, the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of vicarious liability in such cases, holding that one actor could be held liable for the acts of another actor "when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance." In addition, the court held that where multiple "actors form a joint enterprise, all can be charged with the acts of the other[s], rendering each liable for the steps performed by the other[s] as if each is a single actor."

Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, is a controversial decision of the Federal Circuit in which the court applied the Mayo v. Prometheus test to invalidate as patent-ineligible a patent said to "solve ... a very practical problem accessing fetal DNA without creating a major health risk for the unborn child." The rationale for denying patent-eligibility in this case allegedly stems from claims being directed toward non-eligible subject matter , "if the APPLICATION [of this discovery] merely relies upon elements already known in the art."

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013), was a Supreme Court case, which decided that "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” However, as a "bizarre conciliatory prize" the Court allowed patenting of complementary DNA, which contains exactly the same protein-coding base pair sequence as the natural DNA, albeit with introns removed.

<i>Czarnik v. Illumina Inc.</i>

Czarnik v. Illumina Inc., 437 F. Supp. 2d 252, was a United States patent law case heard before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In its ruling, the district court was the first court to hold that reputational harm could be sufficient to establish standing in an action for correction of named inventor under 35 U.S.C. § 256. That ruling led to a split among district courts that has yet to be definitively resolved.

Peter v. NantKwest Inc., 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2019 term.

References

  1. ↑ Falana v. Kent State Univ., 669F.3d1349 ( Fed. Cir. 2012).
  2. ↑ "ѕатент US6830789 - Chiral additives for cholesteric displays - Google ѕатенты". Google.com. Retrieved July 26, 2016.
  3. ↑ "ѕатент US6830789 - Chiral additives for cholesteric displays - Google ѕатенты". Google.com. Retrieved July 26, 2016.
  4. ↑ "Falana v. Kent State University". Patently O. January 24, 2012. Retrieved July 26, 2016.
  5. ↑ "A VICTORY FOR THE STUDENT RESEARCHER: CHOU V. UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO". Scholarship.law.duke.edu. Retrieved July 26, 2016.
  6. ↑ Case Study: Falana V. Kent State Law 360, May 7, 2012
  7. ↑ Paul R. Coble and Carrie C. Ruzicka "Deconstructing Inventorship: A Method to the Madness" American Bar Association, Intellectual Property Litigation Committee. September 12, 2012 Accessed July 31, 2016
  8. ↑ "Google Scholar".
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.