![Page 1: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009
Alan D. Smith~ Fish & Richardson P.C.
(617) 521-7818 [email protected] email
![Page 2: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction In Patent Cases– U.S. District Courts – PTO’s Board Of Patent Appeals
Currently 11 Judges– Chief Judge Paul Michel
Makes Most Of The Patent Laws Recently, U.S. Supreme Court Getting Involved
![Page 3: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
The nominees are…Exergen v. Wal-Mart575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
Lucent v. Microsoft580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
Cornell v. HP609 F.Supp.2d 279 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2009)
i4i v. Microsoft2009 WL 4911950 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
HP v. Acceleron587 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
![Page 4: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
The nominees are…TS Tech 2009 Progeny
TS Tech – 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008)Genentech – 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)Hoffmann-La Roche – 587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)Nintendo – 2009 WL 4842589 (Fed. Cir. 2009)Volkswagen – 566 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
Abbott v. Sandoz566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
In re Bilski545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
Prometheus v. Mayo581 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
![Page 5: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Inequitable Conduct Allegations In Litigation
Out Of Control??
![Page 6: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Exergen v. Wal-Mart
Duty Of Disclosure To Patent OfficeInequitable Conduct– Material Misrepresentation Or Omission– Intent to Deceive
Plead With Particularity Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b)Common Defense And/Or Counterclaim By Defendants– Adds significant cost, risk, hostility
![Page 7: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Inequitable Conduct With Specificity
Specific Who, What, When, Where and How– Name The Specific Actor (e.g., inventor, prosecuting
attorney)– Specific Claim Limitations– Specific Misrepresentations Or Omitted References
Sufficient Allegations To Reasonably Infer Knowledge And IntentShould Significantly Reduce Inequitable Conduct Allegations
![Page 8: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Damages
Should Royalties Be Based On Entire Product Sold??
Should Lawsuits Focus On Downstream Customers??
![Page 9: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Lucent v. Microsoft
$358M Jury Award Against Microsoft Overturned– “Date-Picker” Feature In Outlook
“Reasonable Royalty”Lucent Relied On Entire Market Value RuleCAFC: Lucent’s Evidence Had Little Connection With The Claim Scope
![Page 10: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Lucent’s Damages Theory
Revenue $8 Billion8% Royalty On RevenueRequested $561.9 MillionJury Awarded Approximately 5.5% On All Revenue
![Page 11: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Lucent v. MicrosoftEntire Market Value Must Make Sense– “For The Entire Market Value Rule To Apply, The
Patentee Must Prove That “The Patent-related Feature Is The ‘Basis For Customer Demand’””
No Evidence That Anyone Bought Outlook Because It Had Date-Picker– Date-Picker Tool In Outlook Is Very Small Component
Of Outlook– Vast Majority Of Outlook Features Do Not Infringe– Email v. Date-Picker Tool
Lucent Did Not Satisfy Burden Of Proving Applicability Of Entire Market Value Rule
![Page 12: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Cornell v. HP
Federal Circuit Judge Rader Sitting By Designation– Northern District Of New York
Jury Awarded $184 Million– .8% Royalty On CPU Bricks
Award Slashed To $53 Million– Royalty Based on Hypothetical Value Of Processors
![Page 13: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Cornell v. HPPatent Relates To Small Part Of MicroprocessorHP Sold Servers And Workstations– Microprocessors Part Of CPU Module, Which Is Part Of
Brick
Rader: Entire Market Value Rule Requires Patented Feature To Be The Basis Of Customer DemandRader: Cornell Expert Could Not Show Patented Component Drove Demand For Servers, Workstations, Bricks
![Page 14: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Injunctions
$240 Million Damages
![Page 15: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
i4i v. Microsoft
$240M Award Against MicrosoftPermanent Injunction– Microsoft Word XML Editor Enjoined– i4i No Longer Practicing Patent
Irreparable Harm – i4i XML Product Obsolete
Money Damages Inadequate– Loss Of Market Share, Brand Recognition, Goodwill
“Minimal” Adverse Effects On Public– Excludes Pre-January 11, 2010 Sales
![Page 16: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
i4i v. Microsoft
Microsoft Did Not File A Pre-Verdict JMOL On DamagesCAFC Could Not Decide Whether There Was A Sufficient Evidentiary Basis For Jury Damages Award“Had Microsoft Filed A Pre-Verdict JMOL, It Is True The Outcome Might Have Been Different”– Lucent And i4i Cases Different Procedurally
![Page 17: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Venue
At The Mercy Of Trolls??
Can You Transfer Out Of EDTex??
![Page 18: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
HP v. Acceleron
Right To File A Declaratory Judgment Action
Supreme Court In Medimmune v. Genentech (2007)– Establish Controversy Between The Parties – No More Magic Words– Objective Test
![Page 19: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Lower DJ Threshold Against Trolls?
Patent Trolls (Non-Practicing Entities)Acceleron (troll) Wrote HP Twice
– Identified Patent– Specific HP Blade Server Products – No Infringement Charge– Imposed Two-Week Response Period– Requested HP “Not File Suit”
Implicit Assertion Of Patent RightsWithout Enforcement, Trolls Get No Benefit From PatentsLetters From Competitors
– “Invoke A Different Reaction”
![Page 20: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
TS Tech And 2009 Progeny
Eastern District Of Texas– No Tech Industry– Yet, Huge Patent Docket– Considered Plaintiff-Friendly
Motions To Transfer Venue – Were Unsuccessful– Evidence Not Located In EDTX– No Witnesses– No Incorporation– No Offices
![Page 21: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
TS Tech And 2009 ProgenyClear Abuse Of Discretion By EDTX Courts– 100-Mile Rule – EDTX’s So-Called “Central Proximity” Not A Factor– “A Fiction … To Manipulate The Propriety Of Venue”
Genentech (5/2009) – Transfer To N.D.Cal.Hoffman-La Roche (12/2009) – To E.D.N.C.Nintendo (12/2009) – To W.D.Was.
Volkswagen (5/2009) – Mandamus Denied– Judicial Economy – Multiple EDTX Cases With Same Patents
![Page 22: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Product By Process Claims
![Page 23: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Abbott v. Sandoz
Product-By-Process Claims– When Products Cannot Be Fully Described By Their Structure– Unknown Composition Or Structure– Common In Life Sciences Arts
Is The Product Defined By The Process?Product-By-Process Claims Must Perform The Process
– Product Made By Recited Y Process – Liable– Product Made By Different Z Process – Not Liable
Narrows Usefulness Of Product-By-Process Claims
![Page 24: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Are Business Methods And Software Patentable??
![Page 25: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
35 U.S.C. § 101– Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter . . . may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Intended to cover “[A]nything under the sun that is made by man.”(Committee Reports, 1952 Patent Act.)
![Page 26: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
In re BilskiBernard L. Bilski Filed A Patent Application Claiming A Method Of Hedging Risk In Energy Commodity TradingFederal Circuit: Not Patentable Subject MatterA Claim Must Satisfy The “Machine-or-transformation” Test To Be Patent-eligible– It Must Be Directed To A Machine, Or– It Must Transform An Article Into A “Different State Or
Thing”
![Page 27: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Bilski v. Kappos
Supreme Court heard appeal on November 9– Case Now Called Bilski v. Kappos
Eighty-One Amicus Curiae Briefs FiledThe Issue: When Can Business Methods Be Patented?Arenas Potentially Affected By Decision: Software Innovations, Financial Services Methods, Diagnostic Tests, Any Process– Significant Problems With Invalid Patents
![Page 28: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Patent-Eligible Or Not?
A Method Of Hedging Risk In Which An Intermediary Sells Commodities At A First Fixed Price And Buys Commodities At A Second Fixed Price.
![Page 29: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Justice Scalia“[T]he Term Useful Arts . . . Meant, Originally, And Still Means Manufacturing Arts, Arts Dealing With Workmen, With --You Know, Inventors, Like Lorenzo Jones, Not -- Not Somebody Who Writes A Book On How To Win Friends And Influence People.”
![Page 30: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Justice SotomayorSo How Do We Limit It To Something That Is Reasonable? Meaning, If We Don't Limit It To Inventions Or To Technology, As Some Amici Have, Or To Some Tie Or Tether, Borrowing The Solicitor General's Phraseology, To The Sciences, To The Useful Arts, Then Why Not Patent The Method Of Speed Dating?
![Page 31: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Justice Kennedy“[The Diehr Case Involved] Something That You Could Touch, That You Could See, That Looked Like A Machine, The Substance Was Different Before The Process And After The Process. And -- And None Of That's Applicable Here.”
![Page 32: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
Justice Breyer“I Have A Great, Wonderful, Really Original Method Of Teaching Antitrust Law, And It Kept 80 Percent Of The Students Awake. They Learned Things . . . . It Was Fabulous. And I Could Probably Have Reduced It To A Set Of Steps And Other Teachers Could Have Followed It. That You Are Going To Say Is Patentable, Too?”
![Page 33: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
Justice Stevens
But Is It Correct That There's None --None Of Our Cases Have Ever Approved A Rule Such As You Advocate?
![Page 34: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
Justice Roberts“[T]he Physical Step That Your Process Involves Is Picking -- Picking Up The Phone And Calling People On Both Sides Of The Transaction.”
![Page 35: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
Justice Alito“[N]ear The End Of Your Brief You Argue That . . . The Patent Here . . . Is Unpatentable On The Independent Ground That It Would Preempt The Abstract Idea Of Hedging . . . Consumption Risk. . . . [I]f You Are Right About That, Is This A Good Case For Us To Get Into The -- Into The Very Broad Issue That Petitioner Has Raised?”
![Page 36: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
Justice Ginsburg“[I]f You Read Judge Mayer's Opinion, It Has A Simplicity To It. It Says, If It's Technology, Then Its Within The Realm Of Patent, And If It's Not Technology, It Isn't . . . .”
![Page 37: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
Predictions for Business MethodsBilski’s Claims Will Not SurviveSupreme Court Seems Inclined To Limit The Ability To Patent “Inventions” That Are IntangibleBusiness Methods That Do Not Satisfy The Machine-or-transformation Test Are Not Patentable
– Problem With “Machine” Prong
Using Old Machines To Perform Business Method Not Enough
– Using Computer To Perform Calculations– Using Telephone To Call People
![Page 38: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Is A Medical Treatment Method Patentable Subject Matter??
Or Unpatentable Algorithm??
![Page 39: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Prometheus v. MayoManaging Intellectual Property Named This One Of The Top Ten IP Trials Of 2009Fish & Richardson Represented Mayo In District Court And At The Federal CircuitPetition To Supreme Court Being Held Pending Bilski Decision
![Page 40: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
Prometheus v. MayoDistrict Court Held Claim Not Patentable Subject Matter (§101)– Claims Only Cover Natural Phenomenon
Claim (paraphrased): Method Of optimizing Efficiency Of Treatment– (a) Administering A Drug To A Subject– (B) Determining The Level Of The Drug In The Subject
• Wherein The Level Of The Drug Less Than X Indicates A Need To Increase The Drug
• Wherein The Level Of The Drug Greater Than Y Indicates A Need To Decrease The Drug
CAFC Applied In re Bilski (Federal Circuit)“Machine Or Transformation Test”– Typically, Software And Business Methods
![Page 41: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
Human Body Can Transform
Method Of Treatment– “Administering” A Drug– “Determining” Effects Of The Drug
Treating The Human Body Requires Transformation Of Drug In The BodySatisfies MOT Test From BilskiNatural Phenomena?– All Transformations In Body Are Based On Natural
Principles
![Page 42: 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith · Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - 1 - Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009 - Smith.ppt Author: csb Created Date: 3/4/2010](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052104/603f2c8d882e2831092660ff/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Important U.S. Patent Decisions From 2009
Alan D. Smith~ Fish & Richardson P.C.
(617) 521-7818 [email protected] email