Coalition of University TTOs File Amicus Brief in Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp.

by McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

PUBPATIn his novel My Summer in a Garden (1870), Charles Dudley Warner famously said "Politics makes strange bedfellows."  That aphorism is illustrated once again in the joining of the Public Patent Foundation with eight technology transfer organizations and the Association of University of Technology Managers,* urging the Federal Circuit to overturn its decision in Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc), that claim construction by a district court is entitled to no deference.

The brief (~7 page) amicus brief addresses the three questions posed by the Federal Circuit for en banc review:

1) Should [the] court overrule Cybor []?

2) Should [the] court afford deference to any aspect of a district court's claim construction?

3) If so, which aspects should be afforded deference?

As to the first question, the brief answers in the affirmative, simply stating that Cybor should be overruled to the extent it places factual determinations "outside the realm of deferential review" for reasons set forth in the remainder of the brief.

AUTMRegarding the second question, the brief notes that claim construction is a mixed question of law and fact, a situation not unusual in patent law, citing obviousness and enablement as being questions of law based on frequently disputed facts.  A district court's factual determination relating to these questions is reviewed under a "substantial evidence" standard (e.g., Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (enablement); Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1292, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (obviousness).  The brief also notes that the Supreme Court's decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments does not mandate the approach taken by the Federal Circuit in Cybor.  Even certain members of the Court (former Chief Judge Michel, current Chief Judge Rader) don't agree with the Court's approach in Cybor:

It seems to me that the claim construction question often cannot be answered without assessing, at least implicitly, what the average artisan knew and how she thought about the particular technology when the patent claims were written.  To make such determinations, the trial judge necessarily relies upon prior art documents and other evidence concerning the skill of the ordinary artisan at the relevant time.  Indeed, trial judges are arguably better equipped than appellate judges to make these factual determinations, especially in close cases.  In such instances, perhaps we should routinely give at least some deference to the trial court, given its greater knowledge of the facts.

Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 469 F.3d 1039, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Michel, C.J. and Rader, J., dissenting).

And other members of the Court have gone further, citing Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 52(a); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (Mayer, J., and Newman, J., dissenting).  The TTO's amicus brief states:

The Amici agree with these dissenting opinions -- there is no reason to treat the appellate review of factual underpinnings related to claim construction any differently than any other factual determinations.  The resulting deference will ensure a greater predictability for the claim construction proceeding, and will avoid having to "re-try" the factual underpinnings of claim construction on appeal.

The advantages of adopting this standard of review would include "a greater predictability for the claim construction proceeding" and "avoid[ing] having to 're-try' the factual underpinnings of claim construction on appeal."  The resulting "[p]redictability and avoidance of duplicative effort are of particular importance to universities, related institutions, and the organizations to which such institutions belong," according to the brief, "particularly since patent litigation, with its attendant costs and uncertain outcome already places such institutions in a disadvantaged position."

Finally, the brief argues that a district court's factual determinations incident to claim construction should be reviewed under a "substantial evidence" standard.  The brief illustrates the consequences and justifications of their approach using the case at bar:

In resolving this question [i.e., the meaning of a disputed claim term], the district court evaluated evidence in the form of expert deposition testimony (and the parties' arguments thereon) regarding how persons skilled in the art would understand the limitation[].  After such evaluation, the district court found that such limitation indeed "corresponds to a class of structures."

The district court's finding regarding the meaning of [the disputed claim term] to those of ordinary skill in the art was indisputably one of fact.  The subject patent itself contained no evidence of how such hypothetical persons would understand that term, and the parties were consequently required to rely upon extrinsic evidence in the form of expert depositions in order to support their respective positions on the subject.  As with any other factual finding regarding claim construction, this factual finding is entitled to deference in the appellate review thereof.

One relevant argument in favor of discarding the claim construction analysis from Cybor is that in so doing the Federal Circuit might avoid the high percentage of reversals of district court claim construction (~30-40% according to some legal academics).  The counter-argument is that often, and perhaps the majority of the time, a district court's factual determinations can be dispositive of the claim construction exercise.  In these circumstances, giving even a "substantial evidence" level of deferential review to these factual determinations may vitiate any de novo review by the Federal Circuit of how the claims are properly construed as a matter of law.

The Federal Circuit is scheduled to hear the appeal en banc on September 13, 2013.

* The amici are: Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), NUtech Ventures, Inc. (University of Nebraska – Lincoln), UNeMED Corporation (University of Nebraska Medical Center), STC.UNM (University of New Mexico), Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (University of Wisconsin), Colorado State University Research Foundation, Public Patent Foundation, Tec Edmonton (University of Alberta and City of Edmonton), The University of Pittsburgh of The Commonwealth System of Higher of Education, and Newsouth Innovations (University of New South Wales, Australia)

Hat tip to Gray on Claims for providing the amicus brief


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.

© McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff 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.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

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.


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 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:

- 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.