Phillips v. AWH Corp.

Last updated

Phillips v. AWH Corp.
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Full case nameEdward H. Phillips v. AWH Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation
DecidedJuly 12 2005
Citation(s)415 F.3d 1303; 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321
Holding
The most important source in the evidentiary hierarchy of claim construction is the ordinary meaning of the language of the claims themselves and other intrinsic sources like the prosecution history. Extrinsic evidence like dictionaries and expert testimony are of secondary importance.
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingEn banc Court: Chief Judge Paul Redmond Michel; Circuit Judges Pauline Newman, Haldane Robert Mayer, Alan David Lourie, Raymond C. Clevenger, Randall Ray Rader, Alvin Anthony Schall, William Curtis Bryson, Arthur J. Gajarsa, Richard Linn, Timothy B. Dyk, and Sharon Prost
Case opinions
MajorityBryson, joined by Michel, Clevenger, Rader, Schall, Gajarsa, Linn, Dyk, and Prost
Concur/dissentLourie, joined by Newman
DissentMayer, joined by Newman
Laws applied
35 U.S.C.   § 112

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), [1] was a case decided by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit en banc, that clarified the hierarchy of evidentiary sources usable for claim construction in patent law. [2]

Contents

Factual background

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 4,677,798, was for modular steel shell panels that could be arranged into vandalism resistant walls. The panels interlocked by means of steel baffles - internal barriers meant to create fillable compartments or to deflect projectiles that penetrate the outer wall. Defendant AWH Corporation distributed similar modular panels, and Plaintiff, Phillips, sued AWH for patent infringement. AWH asserted that its panels did not meet all of the limitations of Phillips' patent claims. The District Court granted AWH's summary judgment motion for noninfringement because it read the term "baffles" in the claims to mean internal barriers angled at angles other than 90 degrees. AWH's panels had baffles angled at 90 degrees. [3] Phillips appealed to the Federal Circuit. A 3-judge panel affirmed the judgment of noninfringement, but on different grounds from the District Court. The Federal Circuit then agreed to rehear the case en banc. [4]

Decision

Majority opinion

The majority opinion, written by Judge Bryson, began by clarifying the hierarchy of evidentiary source usable for claim construction. Most importantly, the words of the claims should be given their ordinary meaning in the context of the patent documents, as interpreted by a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the patent pertains. The court recognized that the patentee can act as his own lexicographer, and that the other claims and the specification can provide important clues to the intended meaning of the claim language. Also of importance in interpreting claim language is the prosecution history and other documents in the file wrapper. The prosecution history, however, should be viewed with more skepticism than the plain language of the claims themselves, because the prosecution represents a back and forth between the Patent Office and the inventor and lacks the clarity of the final claim language.

Other than the above cited intrinsic sources of evidence courts may also look to extrinsic evidence, though it is of secondary importance. Extrinsic evidence includes scholarly journal articles and expert testimony. Dictionaries may also be used, but the Federal Circuit repudiated the holding of an earlier case, Texas Digital, that suggested dictionaries could be accorded weight tantamount to the claim language itself.

Turning to the facts of the case at hand, the court held that the claim limitations did not indicate that the baffles could not be situated at 90 degree angles. The case was remanded to the District Court. [5]

Lourie's concurrence in part and dissent in part

Judge Lourie praised the majority's analysis of the evidentiary hierarchy for claim construction. Lourie, however, thought that the District Court applied these principles correctly and that its claim construction should be affirmed. [6]

Mayer's dissent

Judge Mayer, joined by Judge Newman, dissented asserting that the majority endorsed the problematic idea that claim construction is a matter of law reviewed de novo on appeal. Mayer argued that claim construction is similar to an obviousness determination, which is considered a factual finding (and thus subject to a "clear error" standard for appellate review). [7]

On 20 January 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in an unrelated case, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. The opinion held that the Federal Circuit court must apply a "clear error" standard to review questions of fact. In accordance with Mayer's dissent in Phillips, this opinion ended de novo review by the Federal Circuit when reviewing the meaning of claim terms.

Related Research Articles

In a patent or patent application, the claims define in technical terms the extent, i.e. the scope, of the protection conferred by a patent, or the protection sought in a patent application. In other words, the purpose of the claims is to define which subject-matter is protected by the patent. This is termed as the "notice function" of a patent claim—to warn others of what they must not do if they are to avoid infringement liability. The claims are of paramount importance in both prosecution and litigation.

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.

Festo Corp. v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law that examined the relationship between the doctrine of equivalents and the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel.

Under United States patent law a prosecution disclaimer is a statement made by a patent applicant during examination of a patent application which can limit the scope of protection provided by the resulting patent. It is one type of file-wrapper estoppel, the other being prosecution history estoppel.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pauline Newman</span> American judge (born 1927)

Pauline Newman is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. She has been called "the heroine of the patent system", "the Federal Circuit's most prolific dissenter", and "the greatest ally to inventors with respect to [calling out] the ignorance of the CAFC, district courts, and at times even the Supreme Court". Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore commented of Newman that "many of her dissents have later gone on to become the law—either the en banc law from our court or spoken on high from the Supremes".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Piano roll blues</span>

The Piano Roll Blues or Old Piano Roll Blues is a figure of speech designating a legal argument made in US patent law relating to computer software. The argument is that a newly programmed general-purpose digital computer is a "new" machine and, accordingly, properly the subject of a US patent.

<i>United States v. Weitzenhoff</i>

United States v. Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d 1275 is a legal opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that addresses the confusing mens rea requirement of a federal environmental law that imposed criminal sanctions on certain polluters. The main significance of the court's opinion was that it interpreted the word "knowingly" in the statute to mean a general awareness of the wrongfulness of one's actions or the likelihood of illegality, rather than an actual knowledge of the statute being violated. Circuit Court Judge Betty Binns Fletcher authored the majority's legal opinion in this case.

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

<i>Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.</i>

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, was a case for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in which Lawrence B. Lockwood sued American Airlines, Inc for patent infringement for their reservation system, SABREvision. The case was first heard by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, which ruled in favor of American Airlines, Inc. In the summary judgment for that case, the court ruled that American Airlines, Inc's SABREvision system did not infringe on U.S. Patent Re. 32,115, U.S. Patent 4,567,359, and U.S. Patent 5,309,355 held by Lockwood. Furthermore, the court ruled that the '355 patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and the asserted claims of the '359 patent were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld these rulings in favor of American Airlines, Inc. based on the fact that district court determined there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute.

TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. is a case stretching from 2004 to 2011, which took place in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. TiVo Inc. sued EchoStar Corp. claiming patent infringement of a DVR technology. The issues addressed during litigation included patent infringement, wording of injunctions, infringing product redesign, contempt of court orders, and contempt sanctions. Ultimately, the court held that EchoStar Corp. had indeed infringed TiVo Inc's patent and was in contempt of court for noncompliance of an injunction. The parties reached a settlement wherein EchoStar Corp. paid TiVo Inc. a licensing fee. Further, the court replaced the established contempt test with a single step test. The simplified test makes it more difficult for patent holders to prove contempt as a result of repeat infringement.

Lizardtech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, LizardTech sued Earth Resource Mapping (ERM) for patent infringement related to taking discrete wavelet transforms (DWTs) in their ER Mapper program. The court ruled in ERM's favor, finding that some of the claims were invalid, and that ER Mapper did not infringe the other claims. The case has been viewed as an example of the "written description doctrine" which courts may use when applying 35 U.S.C. § 112 to decide the validity of patent claims.

CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, is a United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case that disputed patent eligibility for the '154 patent, which describes a method and system for detecting fraud of credit card transactions through the internet. This court affirmed the decision of United States District Court for the Northern District of California which ruled that the patent is actually unpatentable.

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), was a 2014 United States Supreme Court decision about patent eligibility of business method patents. The issue in the case was whether certain patent claims for a computer-implemented, electronic escrow service covered abstract ideas, which would make the claims ineligible for patent protection. The patents were held to be invalid, because the claims were drawn to an abstract idea, and implementing those claims on a computer was not enough to transform that abstract idea into patentable subject matter.

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.

Princo Corp. v. ITC, 616 F.3d 1318 was a 2010 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, that sought to narrow the defense of patent misuse to claims for patent infringement. Princo held that a party asserting the defense of patent misuse, absent a case of so-called per se misuse, must prove both "leveraging" of the patent being enforced against it and a substantial anticompetitive effect outside the legitimate scope of that patent right. In so ruling, the court emphasized that the misuse alleged must involve the patent in suit, not another patent.

The term course of dealing is defined in the Uniform Commercial Code as follows:

A "course of dealing" is a sequence of conduct concerning previous transactions between the parties to a particular transaction that is fairly to be regarded as establishing a common basis of understanding for interpreting their expressions and other conduct.

Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, is a 2016 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in which the court, for the second time since the United States Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank upheld the patent–eligibility of software patent claims. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment ruling that all claims were patent–ineligible abstract ideas under Alice. Instead, the claims were directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in the claimed "self-referential table" for a database, which the relevant prior art did not contain.

The reverse doctrine of equivalents is a legal doctrine of United States patent law, according to which a device that appears to literally infringe a patent claim, by including elements or limitations that correspond to each element or limitation of the patent claim, nonetheless does not infringe the patent, because the accused device operates on a different principle. That is, "it performs the same or a similar function in a substantially different way." It has been said that "the purpose of the 'reverse' doctrine is to prevent unwarranted extension of the claims beyond a fair scope of the patentee's invention."

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

References

  1. ↑ Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415F.3d1303 ( Fed. Cir. 2005).
  2. ↑ Adelman, M.J., Rader, R.R., and Klancnik, G.P. Patent Law In A Nutshell. Thomson West, St. Paul, MN. 2008, p. 301
  3. ↑ Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1309-11.
  4. ↑ Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1310.
  5. ↑ Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-1328
  6. ↑ Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1329-30 (Lourie, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
  7. ↑ Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1333-34 (Mayer, J., dissenting)
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.