Beware Reexamination Amendments

6 October 2015 PharmaPatents Blog

 

In R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of R+L’s infringement claims against Qualcomm, finding that the claims issued after reexamination were not “substantially identical” to the original claims. Considering the claim language at issue and the court’s comments, this decision suggests that almost any reexamination amendments could be found to be narrowing if the examiner cites them as supporting allowance.

The Patent at Issue

The patent at issue was R+L’s U.S. Patent No. 6,401,078, directed to an improved method of consolidating freight into trailers to optimize delivery efficiencies of the loads in each trailer.  The patent issued on June 4, 2002, with a single claim:

  1. A method for transferring shipping documentation data for a package from a transporting vehicle to a remote processing center:
    placing a package on the transporting vehicle;
    using a portable document scanner to scan an image of the documentation data for the package, said image including shipping details of the package;
    providing a portable image processor capable of wirelessly transferring the image from the transporting vehicle;
    wirelessly sending the image to a remote processing center;
    receiving the image at said remote processing center; and
    prior to the package being removed from the transporting vehicle, utilizing said documentation data at said remote processing center to prepare a loading manifest which includes said package for further transport of the package on another transporting vehicle.

(emphasis added)

The Reexamination Amendments

While R+L’s infringement suit against Qualcomm was pending, R+L sought ex parte reexamination of the ’078 patent based on prior art identified by a third party.  The reexamination certificate issued with the following amendments to the preamble and final clause:

  1. A method for transferring shipping documentation data for a package from a transporting vehicle to a remote processing center comprising the steps of: . . .
    prior to the package being removed from the transporting vehicle, utilizing said documentation data at said remote processing center to prepare [[a]] an advance loading manifest document for another transporting vehicle which includes said package for further transport of the package on another transporting vehicle.

Qualcomm had ceased its allegedly infringing activity before the reexamination certificate issued. Thus, it only could be liable for infringement if the claims granted after reexamination were “substantially identical” to the original claims. The district court determined that they were not. The Federal Circuit affirmed, but focused on different claim language.

Substantial Identity Under 35 U.S.C. § 252

As discussed by the Federal Circuit, 35 U.S.C. § 252 governs infringement damages associated with reexamined patent claims:

A patentee of a patent that survives reexamination is only entitled to infringement damages for the time period between the date of issuance of the original claims and the date of issuance of the reexamined claims if the original and the reexamined claims are “substantially identical.”

Thus, if the original claims are substantively changed during reexamination–regardless of why or whether the patentee intended to narrow the claim–a patentee is not entitled to damages for infringement that occurred before the reexamination certificate was issued.

In the case at hand, the Federal Circuit compared the original and reexamined claim language, and evaluated “whether there was any product or process that would infringe the original claim, but not infringe the amended claim.” Although the district court had focused on the addition of the term “advance,” the Federal Circuit determined that that claim amendment did not alter the scope of the claims (i.e., it was added only to improve clarity). However, the Federal Circuit found that the phrase “document for another transporting vehicle” did substantively change the claim scope:

R+L amended “loading manifest” to claim an “advance loading manifest document for another transporting vehicle.” …. R+L made this amendment after the PTO rejected original claim 1 over various pieces of prior art …. The examiner expressly stated he was allowing amended claim 1 because “the manifest discussed by [the prior art] is a manifest for the current shipping vehicle and not an advance loading manifest document for another transporting vehicle.” …. In other words, the examiner’s focus in allowing the claims was … on the additional limitation that the advance loading manifest be “for another transporting vehicle.”

The Federal Circuit therefore concluded that “amended claim 1 is not ‘substantially identical’ to original claim 1 because original claim 1 encompassed scope that amended claim 1 does not.” Accordingly, R+L was not entitled to damages for the time period prior to issuance of the reexamination certificate.

Were the Reexamination Amendments Narrowing?

Although the Federal Circuit applied a “normal claim construction analysis” to conclude the term “advance” did not substantially change the claim scope, the court appears to have given more weight to the examiner’s comments than the claim language itself when it concluded that “for another transporting vehicle” did effect such a change. In particular, the court seems to have relied heavily on the examiner’s comments that he was allowing the claims because of that amendment, and seems to have assumed that the amendment narrowed the claims to distinguish the prior art. But did it?

As shown by the highlight language in original claim 1, the original claim already recited that the loading manifest was for “another transporting vehicle.” Reviewing the clause at issue as a whole, the added phrase regarding “another transport vehicle” seems clarifying at best and redundant at worst:

prior to the package being removed from the transporting vehicle, utilizing said documentation data at said remote processing center to prepare an advance loading manifest document for another transporting vehicle which includes said package for further transport of the package on another transporting vehicle.

While a court might believe that any amendment required by an examiner to overcome a prior art rejection necessarily must be narrowing, examiners frequently suggest amendments that clarify or emphasize features already recited in the claims. While applicants may agree to such amendments to obtain allowance, this case underscores the risks of doing so during a reexamination proceeding.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Insights

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.