Be Careful What You Wish For: Federal Circuit Says Statements Made During IPR Can Limit Scope of Patent

by K&L Gates LLP
Contact

K&L Gates LLP

Introduction
The Federal Circuit on May 11, 2017, addressing the question for the first time, held that statements made by a patent owner during inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) can constitute prosecution disclaimer in subsequent district court proceedings.  In making this determination, the Federal Circuit clarified that patent owner filings in the increasingly popular IPR proceedings are, for the purposes of prosecution disclaimer, treated as any other official paper before the United States Patent Office (“PTO”) where a patent owner or applicant makes representations to the public about the scope of their claims. [1]  Notably, the Federal Circuit clarified that a patent owner’s IPR preliminary response is part of the record that can be considered.  Practitioners and patent owners alike should take note of this decision and the consequences resulting from it, as the decision underlines the interplay between IPR proceedings and district court litigation.

Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2016-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017)
Aylus sued Apple in the Northern District of California, alleging that Apple’s CarPlay system infringed various claims of U.S. Patent No. RE 44,412 (the “‘412 Patent”).  The ‘412 Patent “teaches various network architectures for streaming and displaying media content using combinations of network components,” including media servers, media renders, control point logic, and control point proxy logic. [2]  When various configurations of these network components are in communication with a “user endpoint device,” either or both of the control point and control point proxy logics are invoked. [3]

Following the filing of the lawsuit, Apple filed two IPR petitions against the ‘412 Patent. [4]  The first challenged claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 15, 20, 21, 27, 29, and 33 and was denied, while the second challenged all claims and was instituted as to all claims except claims 2 and 21. [5]  Apple then sought summary judgment of noninfringement of those same claims 2 and 21 in the district court in view of the distinguishing remarks made by Aylus regarding the scope of those claims to save them from institution. [6]

The court granted Apple’s motion, construing the claim limitation “wherein the CPP logic is invoked to negotiate media content delivery between the MS and the MR” to “require that only the CPP logic is invoked to negotiate media content delivery between the MS and the MR, in contrast to claims 1 and 20 which require both the CP and CPP to negotiate media content delivery.” [7]  Aylus appealed, arguing that the court’s construction was erroneous. [8]

The Federal Circuit upheld the decision. [9]  In construing the relevant claim limitation, the district court had relied on statements made by Aylus in its IPR filings, concluding that they were “akin to prosecution disclaimer.” [10]  On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed that the public is “entitled to rely on those representations when determining a course of lawful conduct.” [11]

The Federal Circuit outlined the importance of prosecution disclaimer among the pillars of patent law, highlighting the public interests involved when a patent owner makes statements regarding the scope of its patent’s claims. [12]  The doctrine, the court noted, “ensures that claims are not construed one way in order to obtain their allowance and in a different way against accused infringers.” [13]

In coming to their conclusion, the Federal Circuit noted that prosecution disclaimer has applied to statements made by patent owners not only during prosecution, but also during other post-issuance proceedings, including reissue and reexamination proceedings. [14]  The Federal Circuit stated that “[b]ecause an IPR proceeding involves reexamination of an earlier administrative grant of a patent, it follows that statements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding can be…relied upon to support a finding of prosecution disclaimer. [15]  Aylus’s argument that IPR is unlike reissue or reexamination proceedings was unavailing and, in fact, foreclosed by the Supreme Court in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee where the Court had already found that IPRs are, at their essence, reexamination proceedings. [16]  In fact, the Federal Circuit noted that several district courts had already extended prosecution disclaimer to IPR proceedings and endorsed such a conclusion. [17]

In a second effort to salvage its position, Aylus argued that its statements were not made “in an IPR proceeding” because the statements had been made in a preliminary response prior to institution. [18]  In making this argument, Aylus cited the Federal Circuit’s own language: the court had earlier stated that an “IPR does not begin until it is instituted.” [19]

The court rejected this argument, [20] stating that for the purposes of prosecution disclaimer, the differences between pre-institution and post-institution filings are “a distinction without a difference.” [21]  In either case, the filings represent “official papers filed with the PTO and made available to the public” and the public is entitled to rely on them; therefore, prosecution disclaimer applies equally to both. [22]

The Federal Circuit turned to an examination of the relevant statements made by the patent owner and concluded that the statements were sufficiently “clear and unmistakable” and, as such, constituted prosecution disclaimer. [23]

Practical Implications
Patent practitioners and litigators should take note of the Federal Circuit’s decision in this case as it further reinforces the importance of post-grant proceedings such as IPR, covered business method review, and post-grant review.  For accused infringers, the utility of post-grant proceedings as a defense strategy grows ever larger, opening the door for both non-infringement-based claim constructions as well as invalidity findings.  For patent owners, this represents another instance of the importance of clearly defining the scope of a patent both in prosecution as well as when asserting and defending that patent.  Going forward it will be interesting to see how the “clear and unmistakable” standard for prosecution disclaimer is applied or measured by the courts.

The takeaways of the Federal Circuit’s decision are important.  Statements made to the PTO both in prosecution and in PTAB proceedings in an effort to obtain (or save) a patent will be used in claim construction.  This is now confirmed for all post-grant proceedings, which patent practitioners and litigators should not lose sight of.  It is imperative for district court litigation teams to work closely with their counterparts before the PTO to ensure that the impact of statements made in one proceeding are fully understood by those involved in the other.  Litigators (on either side) should seriously consider the place of post-grant proceedings in their litigation strategy, either as a defensive mechanism or in planning how to defend against one before filing a case; an experienced post-grant team should work in tandem to ensure a successful result.

Notes:
[1] Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2016-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017), slip op. at 13.

[2] Id. at 2–3.

[3] Id. at 3.

[4] Id. at 6.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. (citing Aylus Networks, Inc. v Apple Inc., No. 13-cv-04700, 2016 WL 270387, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2016) (Summary Judgment Order)).

[8] Id. at 7.

[9] Id. at 8.

[10] Id. (citing Summary Judgment Order, at *5).

[11] Id. at 14.

[12] Id. at 8–9.

[13] Id. at 9 (citing Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

[14] Id.

[15] Id. at 12.

[16] Id. at 11–12 (citing Cuozzo Speed Techs., 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144 (2016).

[17] Id. at 12 (citing Ilife Techs., Inc. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., No. 3:13-cv-04987, 2017 WL 525708, at *7 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2017); Signal IP, Inc. v. Fiat U.S.A., Inc., No. 14-cv-13864, 2016 WL 5027595, at *16 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 20, 2016)).

[18] Id. at 13.

[19] Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., 817 F.3d 1293, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

[20] Aylus Networks, Inc., slip op. at 13.

[21] Id.

[22] Id. at 13–14.

[23] Id. at 14–18.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© K&L Gates LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

K&L Gates LLP
Contact
more
less

K&L Gates LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.