Dennis Crouch's Patently-O: 1 new topics, including “Google Looks to Narrow both Copyrights and Patents through Supreme Court Action” |  |
|
Posted: 13 Jan 2015 03:38 PM PST
by Dennis Crouch
Two pending Supreme Court now have higher profiles with the Supreme Court’s invitation to the Solicitor General to provide views of the administration. In both cases, the petitioners have set-up the Federal Circuit as a misguided court. The focus of Google v. Oracle (Sct. Docket No. 14-410) is the extent that software is eligible for copyright protection. The petition asks: Whether copyright protection extends to all elements of an original work of computer software, including a system or method of operation, that an author could have written in more than one way.Unlike patent law, the copyright eligibility statute includes a set of express exclusions. In particular, although “original works of authorship" are generally eligible for copyright protection, "[i]n no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). In its decision the Federal Circuit found Oracle’s Java API taxonomy copyrightable as a whole. In particular, the appellate panel led by Judge O'Malley rejected the idea/expression merger doctrine since there are many other ways that functionally equivalent method-calls could have been constructed besides those found in Java. "Merger cannot bar copyright protection for any lines of declaring source code unless Sun/Oracle had only one way, or a limited number of ways, to write them." [Read my prior discussion here and here] The second case – also involving Google – is Google v. Vederi (Sct. Docket No. 14-448). In that case, the Google raises the following question: Whether, when an applicant for a patent amends a claim to overcome the PTOs earlier disallowance of the claim, a court should (i) presume that the amendment narrowed the claim and strictly construe the amended claim language against the applicant, as this Court has held; or (ii) presume that the claim scope remained the same and require that any narrowing be clear and unmistakable, as the Federal Circuit has held.Although the first part of the question is interesting, the second part appears quite misguided as Federal Circuit law does not presume that claims maintain the identical scope following an amendment to overcome a rejection by the PTO. That said, the Federal Circuit has strayed significantly from Pre-1952 disclaimer law exemplified by cases such as Supply Co. v. Ace Patents Corp., 315 U.S. 126, 137 (1942); Keystone Driller Co. v. Nw. Eng'g Corp., 294 U.S. 42, 48 (1935); Smith v. Magic City Kennel Club, Inc., 282 U.S. 784, 789–90 (1931); I.T.S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co., 272 U.S. 429, 443–44 (1926); and Hubbell v. United States, 179 U.S. 77, 84 (1900).  |
|
Posted: 13 Jan 2015 10:21 AM PST
By Jason Rantanen
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) 14-1114.Opinion.1-7-2015.1 Panel: Prost (author), Hughes (concurring), Newman (dissenting) Professor Tom Cotter has an excellent write-up of this opinion over on his blog, Comparative Patent Remedies. The main issue involves willful infringement: applying the de novo standard of review to the objective prong of the willfulness inquiry, as per Seagate and the earlier Bard decision, the majority affirmed the district court’s conclusion that Bard willfully infringed because its noninfringement defense is not “susceptible to a reasonable conclusion of no infringement. ” Judge Hughes wrote separately to reiterate his “belief that the full court should review our willfulness jurisprudence in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions” in Highmark and Octane Fitness. Judge Newman dissented; in her view, the majority failed to apply the de novo standard of review required by Seagate; applying that standard, the district court erred. Judge Newman also questioned the imposition of double damages. Judge Hughes’ concurrence, like Judge O’Malley’s concurrence in Halo v. Pulse last fall, suggests that the Federal Circuit remains divided on the appropriate legal standard for willful infringement post-Highmark and Octane Fitness. Panels remain bound by the de novo standard set out in Seagate, but Judges Hughes and O’Malley strongly believe that the court should reconsider that precedent. It may be only a matter of time before the Federal Circuit either addresses this divide en banc or the Supreme Court grants cert. It’s also possible that the Court will provide some guidance on the issue in Commil v. Cisco; we’ll know later this year.  |
