Last week’s non-precedential decision by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Cioffi v. Google LLC, No. 2018-1049, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 9142 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2023) serves as a warning for both holders of reissue patents and patent owners considering filing a reissue. The Court held that the “original patent” requirement is the standard for support in the specification for claims in a reissued patent under 35 U.S.C. §251. In order for a claim to be supported under the original patent requirement, there must be an express disclosure of the exact embodiment claimed on reissue. This requirement for reissue claims is more stringent than the written description requirement for obtaining a U.S. Patent under 35 U.S.C. §112, which is satisfied if those skilled would understand the specification to be disclosing the claimed subject matter, and may be even higher than the written description requirements before the European Patent Office (EPO).
Specifically, in Cioffi, the Court found four separate patent claims invalid under the original patent requirement of 35 U.S.C. §251. Each of the asserted claims stems from reissue patents of U.S. Patent No. 7,484,247 (‘the 247 Patent”). The asserted claims and the ‘247 patent are all directed to the use of multiple processors or processes in a computer system to prevent malware obtained over a network from accessing certain data stored on a computer. Cioffi v. Google LLC, , at *12-13.
At trial, Google argued that the asserted claims failed to satisfy the original patent requirement because there was no clear and equivocal disclosure of an embodiment containing two “web browser processes” in the ‘247 patent. In response, Cioffi’s expert explained that “those skilled in the art … would understand that P1 and P2 can refer to two processes, both of which are accessing data from the Internet, which thus meets the Court’s construction of ‘web browser process.’” Further, although Cioffi acknowledged that the specification of the ‘247 patent does not use the term “web browser process,” it argued that “web browsing is clearly within the scope and definition of ‘interactive applications’ and thus the ‘interactive network process’” disclosed in the ‘247 patent.
However, the Court found those facts to be insufficient to satisfy the “original patent” requirements under 35 U.S.C. §251. Specifically, the Court concluded that the expert testimony “serves to “assert[] what a person of ordinary skill in the art would purportedly understand” from the specification rather than what is apparent “from the face of the instrument and is therefore “insufficient to comply with the standard set forth in Industrial Chemicals and Antares.” Id, at *15.
Instead, the Court “interpreted the original patent requirement to require that ‘the exact embodiment claimed on reissue be expressly disclosed in the specification.’” Id, at *12-13 (Internal citation omitted). Therefore, “[i]n order to satisfy the original patent requirement, the invention claimed on reissue must be ‘more than merely suggested or indicated’ by the specification of the original patent” and instead, “[t]here must be an express disclosure of the exact embodiment claimed on reissue.” Id, at *12-13
By contrast, the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. §112(a) does not require an express disclosure of the exact embodiment claimed. Instead, the Federal Circuit expressly holds that “the description requirement does not demand any particular form of disclosure ... [n]or that the specification recite the claimed invention in haec verba, Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal citation omitted). The flexible nature of the written description requirement is codified in the MPEP, which states “there is no in haec verba requirement” and instead explains that “newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure.” (MPEP 2163). Therefore, to comply with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), the specification may support the claims through implicit or inherent disclosure
Even under the more stringent written description requirements before the EPO, express disclosure of the exact embodiment claimed is not required. Under Art. 123(2) of the European Patent Convention(“EPC”), “it is impermissible to add to a European application subject-matter which the skilled person cannot derive directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge and also taking into account any features implicit to a person skilled in the art in what is expressly mentioned in the document, from the disclosure of the application as filed.” As a result, the EPO does not require express disclosure of the exact embodiment claimed and instead allows for implicit features that are apparent to a person skilled in the art.
Yet in Cioffi, the Court held that the implicit disclosures as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as permitted under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and EPC Art. 123(2), “is more lenient than the one we have adopted in our cases applying the original patent requirement” under 35 U.S.C. §251 Cioffi v. Google LLC, at *16 .
For Patent Owners
Under the standard for complying with the original patent requirement in 35 U.S.C. §251, as applied in Cioffi, Patent Owners should carefully consider the risks and benefits of surrendering their patent in order to re-open prosecution in a reissue. Under Cioffi, the claims in the resulting reissued patent would require express disclosure of the exact embodiment claimed on the reissue. Failing to meet 35 U.S.C. §251’s higher standard could result in a situation, where an otherwise patent that complied with 35 U.S.C. §112(a) was surrendered in order to obtain a patent with claims that are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §251.
In addition, Cioffi is a non-precedential decision. Under Federal Circuit Rule 32.1, the Court “may look to a nonprecedential or unpublished disposition for guidance or persuasive reasoning but will not give one of its own nonprecedential dispositions the effect of binding precedent.” (FederalCircuitRulesofPractice.pdf (uscourts.gov)). Accordingly, Patent Owners can argue Cioffi’s is not a binding precedent and articulates a different standard for satisfying the “original patent” requirements under 35 U.S.C. §251 than previously applied in the precedential decisions of the Court.
For example, the Court previously held that “the “essential inquiry under the ‘original patent’ clause of § 251 . . . is whether one skilled in the art, reading the specification, would identify the subject matter of the new claims as invented and disclosed by the patentees.” Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, Ltd. Liab. Co., 926 F.3d 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (internal citation omitted). As the Court explained, “the inquiry that must be undertaken to determine whether the new claims are for the invention originally disclosed, .... is to examine the entirety of the original disclosure and decide whether, through the ‘objective eyes’ of the hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art, an inventor could fairly have claimed the newly submitted subject matter in the original application, given that the requisite error has been averred. In re Amos, 953 F.2d 613, 618 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (internal citation omitted).
In addition, in Revolution Eyewear, the Court further explains that “[t]his inquiry is analogous to the written description requirement under § 112.” Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc., 563 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal citation omitted). In fact, in Antares, the case in which Cioffi relies upon for providing the standard under 35 U.S.C. §251, the Court expressly states that “the Industrial Chemicals standard is analogous to the written description requirement, which... requires that the patent description ‘clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed.’” Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc., 771 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As a result, the Court has previously held that the satisfaction of the requirements under 35 U.S.C. §251 is analogous to the requirements under 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Therefore, a Patent Owner may argue that the non-precedential decision in Cioffi requiring ‘the exact embodiment claimed on reissue be expressly disclosed in the specification” did not supplant the Court’s previous holdings that the requirements under 35 U.S.C. §251 are analogous to 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
For Patent Challengers
For Patent Challengers looking to invalidate a reissued patent, Cioffi represents another potential arrow in the quiver to attack the validity of a patent. Like Google, in Cioffi, a Patent Challenger can invalidate a reissued patent under 35 U.S.C. §251’s original patent requirement simply by showing that the original patent did not have an express disclosure of the exact embodiment claimed on the reissue.
- Shareholder
Brandon is a technology-first patent attorney with extensive experience in the complete patent lifecycle, from prosecution before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office through monetization and post grant challenges.
In his ...
- Associate
Michael focuses primarily on patent prosecution in the electrical and mechanical technology spaces.
He assists clients with preparing patent applications, drafting office action responses, and conducting IP related due ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Artificial Ingenuity: Is Generative AI the New 'Person of Ordinary Skill' in Patent Law?
- The Expiration of the After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 (AFCP 2.0)
- Patently Unclear: Why Result-Oriented Claims Don’t Make the Cut Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
- Make Your Invention The Priority, What Track-1 Can Do For You!
- Navigating Final Rejections in Patent Prosecution: AFCP 2.0 vs. 37 CFR § 1.116
- A Clear POV on Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101: Contour’s Claims Zoom Back Into Focus in Contour v. GoPro
- Understanding the Recent Federal Circuit Decision in Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. on Patent Ineligibility
- Federal Circuit Clarifies Obviousness-Type Double Patenting in Allergan v. MSN Laboratories: The Impact of Patent Term Adjustments on First-Filed Patents
- The Risks and Rewards of Using Open Source Software
- Don't Let Your Trade Secrets Walk Out the Door With Your Employees: Patent Them!
Archives
- November 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- October 2022
- August 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- October 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017