District Court Applies Absolute Intervening Rights to Method Claims

Sep 7, 2020

Reading Time : 3 min

Plaintiff Vocalife LLC (“Vocalife”) sued defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com, LLC (collectively, “Amazon”) for infringement of United States Patent No. RE47,049 (the “’049 Patent”). During the prosecution of the reissue application which resulted in the ’049 Patent, Vocalife amended two of the asserted independent claims to include the following limitation: “wherein said sound source localization unit, said adaptive beamforming unit, and said noise reduction unit are integrated in a digital processor” (the “DSP Limitation”). The DSP Limitation was not present in any of the claims of the original patent.

Amazon moved for partial summary judgement seeking to preclude liability based on intervening rights. Specifically, Amazon sought to preclude liability for (1) acts performed prior to grant of the reissued ’049 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 252; and (2) products that were made, purchased, offered for sale, used or imported prior to the issuance of the reissued patent. Although Vocalife initially argued that its amendments did not substantively change the scope of the claims, it abandoned that response at the hearing, focusing on two alternate lines of attack. First, Vocalife argued that the defense of absolute intervening rights does not apply to method claims. Second, Vocalife argued that Amazon did not carry its burden to identify which of its products were subject to intervening rights.

In maintaining that absolute intervening rights are reserved only for products that infringe product claims and do not apply to method claims, Vocalife argued that the “plain language of Section 252 establishes absolute intervening rights for ‘anything patented’ as long as ‘the specific things’ were made, used, offered for sale, sold or imported before reissue. And because “specific things” implicates only tangible articles, method claims are excluded.”

The District Court disagreed. Because no Federal Circuit precedent squarely addresses the issue, the District Court turned to an opinion issued by Judge Bryson sitting by designation in Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings, Inc. 287 F. Supp. 3d 533 (D. Del. 2017). Sonos held that absolute intervening rights could apply to method claims, reasoning that “[t]he statutory protection offered by absolute intervening rights does not depend on whether the claims at issue are apparatus or method claims,” but rather “absolute intervening rights extend only to those ‘specific’ things in existence before the reissuance or reexamination . . . .” Id at 539. That is, Sonos focused on the “nature of the product or activity in question” to evaluate whether absolute intervening right apply, not on whether the claim is an apparatus or method claim. The District Court found further guidance in Infinity Comp. Products, Inc. v. Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc., No. 12-6796, 2019 WL 920197 (E.D. Penn. Feb. 22, 2019). In that case, the District Court relied on the Federal Circuit’s interchangeable use of the words “product” and “accused product” with Section 252’s use of the phrase “specific things made” to extend intervening rights to method claims. Id at *10.

Finally, the District Court looked to the plain meaning of Section 252, examining the language of both absolute and equitable intervening rights. While noting that process claims are only specifically referenced in the section addressing equitable intervening rights, the court explained this “does not preclude a ‘specific thing’ which practices a claimed method from being protected by absolute intervening rights so long as the ‘specific thing’ was in existence prior to the asserted patents reissuance.” As a result, the District Court concluded that products infringing a method claim can be a “specific thing” within a meaning of Section 252.

Regarding Vocalife’s second argument that Amazon did not identify the “specific things” such as a hardware product, software release or combination of the two that would be protected by such rights, the District Court again sided with Amazon. In reaching this conclusion, the District Court noted that Vocalife’s damages expert was able to specifically identify products made before the issuance of the ’049 Patent and those produced after that date. Moreover, it was Vocalife’s contention that the accused products infringe at the point of manufacture. Thus, products protected by Amazon’s intervening rights could be identified by their date of manufacture.

Practice tip: While the Federal Circuit has not addressed whether absolute intervening rights apply to method claims and there appears to be some split within the District Courts, this decision provides valuable guidance for practitioners. Patent owners seeking a reissue may not be able to avoid a defense of intervening rights by formatting claims as method claims, and should therefore focus on claim scope over form. In a similar vein, defendants seeking to assert a defense of intervening rights to a method claim should confirm the record contains sufficient evidence to show which products are affected.

Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00123-JRG (E.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2020) (J., Gilstrap)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 21, 2025

Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. unanimously construed “defendant’s profits” in 35 USC § 1117(a) to mean that only the named defendant’s profits can be awarded, not the profits of other related corporate entities. The Court, however, left open the possibility that other language in § 1117(a) may allow for damages linked to the profits of related entities, if properly raised and supported.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 13, 2025

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited reference met the test.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 4, 2025

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding former Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The 2022 memorandum effectively narrowed the application of discretionary denials in cases with parallel district court litigation by specifying instances where discretionary denial could not be issued. With the withdrawal of the memorandum, individual PTAB panels will regain flexibility in weighing discretionary denials. While the long-term effect of that increased flexibility is not yet known, the immediate effect is likely to be a shift towards the discretionary analysis applied by PTAB panels before the issuance of the memorandum.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 3, 2025

A District of Delaware judge recently granted a defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in its proposed protective order after determining that litigation counsel’s ability to practice before the Patent Office—without ever having represented the plaintiffs at the Patent Office in the past—weighed heavily in favor of the bar.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit explained that written description and enablement are evaluated based on the subject matter that is claimed, not the products that practice those claims. As a result, the patentee was not required to describe unclaimed, later-discovered features of the accused products despite the broad language in the claims that undisputedly covered the products.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 24, 2025

The District of Delaware recently rejected a patentee’s argument that non-production of an opinion letter from counsel, combined with knowledge of the patent, warranted a finding that defendant induced infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 17, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint involving gene editing technology that sought relief under the Safe Harbor Provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Specifically, the court found the patentee’s complaint sufficiently alleged at least some uses of the claimed technology that, when taken as true, were not solely uses of a “patented invention” that were “reasonably related” to an FDA submission.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.