Prologue — Charter Communications, Inc. v. Broadcast Innovation, LLC (No. 05-1162)

ag Supreme Cou

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

In The

Supreme Court of the Gnited States

S

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., |

Petitioner,

we

BROADCAST INNOVATION, L.L.C.,

IO RESEARCH PTY LTD.,

Respondents.

+

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Federal Circuit

®

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ie ¢

Davip C. DOYLE BETH S. BRINKMANN

JOSE L. PATINO Counsel of Record

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP SETH M. GALANTER

12531 High Bluff Dr., BRIAN R. MATSUI

Ste. 100 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

San Diego, CA 92130 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

(858) 720-5100 Washington, DC 20006

(202) 887-1500

Attorneys for Petitioner

MARCH 8, 2006

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO (800) 225-6964

OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding,

contrary to the Second, Seventh and Ninth Circuits and its

own predecessor court, that a patent is entitled to the

priority date of an earlier-filed application, and thus is

valid, despite the failure of the patent application to

include a “specific reference” to the earlier-filed

application as plainly mandated by 35 U.S.C. § 120.

2. Whether the court of appeals erred in failing to

defer, contrary to this Court’s governing administrative

deference jurisprudence, to a U.S. Patent and Trademark

Office regulation, 37 C.F.R. § 1.78, which expressly requires

that a patent applicant seeking the priority date of an

earlier international application must include, in the first

sentence of its specification, a reference to the earlier

application by international application number and

international filing date, and indicate the relationship of

the applications.

li

RULE 29.6 CORPORATE

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Petitioner Charter Communications, Inc. has no

parent corporation and no publicly held corporation owns

10% or more of its stock.

ill

‘

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUBSTIONS PREDIC osccccccecesecesovcsssccoscosesesressvees i

RULE 29.6 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE

PE EE sche dk renie dceivisiniashinicseukersanteiiavarianentonaiaks ii

Re PE INE NEED vviceilicvecss: <inicetkcctudacesinecetassecs ili

TAREE OF AUTHOR EC onceccccversosesesevscvossccccccencovezies vi

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI .............«. 1

Ce UR MGA OY side cp tic enccsuravedacsAebcayhantdetacdvgssconmetiess 1

PATRI FAITE bSicciirthvisecichddscivccrtcreutieniGmseducdn 1

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS

METRE cieik ic seta dehaeion cock intesnsacinibeeteuadecs eens ice 1

SEO WPA EWU sick hives irtcanteedcesesanertpucceiniiesiacsaciousaes 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...........cccccscssscsveseossvevorseees 3

1. The Statutory And Regulatory Framework .... 3

2. Factual And Procedural Background............ 7

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION............ 11

I. THE FEDERAL CIRCUITS DECISION CON-

FLICTS WITH LONGSTANDING DECISIONS

OF OTHER CIRCUITS REGARDING THE

CRITICAL QUESTION OF PATENT VALIDITY.. 12

A. The Federal Circuit’s Decision Is In Direct

Conflict With Decisions Of The Second,

Seventh, And Ninth Circuits And The

Federal Circuit’s Predecessor Court.... ...... 13

B. Review Is Necessary To Avoid Inconsistent

Rulings On Patent Validity Because Some

Patent Cases Remain Within The Regional

Civeieita’ BaPieGactaee isc scen cs eb vecdssreabeaniis 18

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

Page

Il. THE COURT OF APPEALS DEFIED THIS

COURTS PRECEDENTS BY FAILING TO

DEFER TO A PTO REGULATION AND

DEFEATS THE INTENT OF THE STATUTE

AND REGULATION THAT A_ PATENT

APPLICATION NOTIFY THE PUBLIC OF THE

BEADS FOE TED PII ES crisescscecenectesscencsvesasiass

A. The Federal Circuit’s Decision Reflects Its

Continued Ad Hoc Approach To Deference

For The PTO, Contrary To This Court’s

POR GIIIER osiccishink Sossiactidtecsashstuetg ennai

B. The Federal Circuit’s Failure To Defer To

The PTO Undermines An_ Important

Congressional Policy To Make Readily

Available In A Patent’s Specification The

Basis Of The Patent’s Priority .....................

CGR NERO iis is tossddowincs Aikesedesucesivadasscanntasaneadtvassatens

APPENDIX A: Opinion of the United States Court

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, dated August

BD IO iia ices pecs ae i eebaar

APPENDIX B: Opinion of the United States

District Court for the District of Colorado, dated

PEG Bs TOG sa shez cccpvscdeisias Go vorstags inde ueniees

APPENDIX C: Order of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit, dated November

APPENDIX D: Office Action from the United States

Patent and Trademark Office, dated September

BR, Be ovig spade pvshesoias seas tes eens :

APPENDIX E: Reply to Office Action mailed

September 20, 1999, dated January 20, 2000.............

20

20

TABLE OF CONTENTS -— Continued

APPENDIX F: Relevant statutory and regulatory

ITIL t sock crpuaconvndesiseiieedueyhnidekdadeedcusiebkepeieineareniits 52a

APPENDIX G: U.S. Patent No. 6,076,094. Pursuant

to Rule 33(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court,

the patent documents are contained in a

separately bound Supplemental Appendix................. 56a

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997)........cccesccsseceereseeees 24

Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998)... eee 21

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense

Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)............ cc passim

Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486

Fe eC ai ikn Soe raed onsoudp pteeandiacas 19

Dethmers Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Automatic Equip. Mfg.

Co., 272 FS 1365 (Fed. Cis, SOGD) conser aciecnectcetecasgee 24

Dethmers Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Automatic Equip. Mfg.

Co., 293 F.3d 13964 (Ped. Cir, 2002) «0... céscsccesescrnsccescccrses 24

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. $50 (1999)........... cee cece 22

Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers

Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1 (1983)................ 19

Gonzales v. Oregon, 126 S. Ct. 904 (2006) ........ eee. 25

Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft v. Quigg, 917 F.2d 522

CPE Ce Fe id ic ees 23

Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys.,

FN Ee MR REE ancicstevtccisess sonurconsanncncdnamindenns 18, 19

Hovlid v. Asari, 305 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1962)... 14, 15, 16, 17

In re Henricksen, 399 F.2d 253 (C.C.P.A. 1968).........0...... 16

Lacavera v. Dudas, __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 266061

CU, Se me Te, ace cece retusa estas cone’ 23

Merck & Co., Inc. v. Kessler, 80 F.3d 1543 (Fed. Cir.

RIED SI SNARES PASAT ANN OPINNE SANE IHD A NPLNON MOOT TER RI CI ce 22

Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d

Se re SAE Fe eh iA cider 30

JT “LE OF AUTHORITIES -—- Continued

Page

Sampson v. Ampex Corp., 463 F.2d 1042 (2d Cir.

RETA) siitticianmpplicemaamabamonn ai 15, 16, 17, 28, 29

Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)........... passim

Stickler Industrial Supply Corp. v. Blaw-Knowx

Co., 405 F.2d 90 (7th Cir. 1968)................... 15, 16, 17, 29

Ulead Systems, Inc. v. Lex Computer & Management

Corp., 351 F.3d 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2003).............cececsseocesess 23

United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218

(ROOD) vise cccesscscscssssveavivisiactsevacssnasicsiverea 21, 22,25, 26, 27

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

DIAS FOO siiscsnicida cdi 22

WUC 4. eS 1

BO UBS. 3 FGI oes scsstssvesserveirivens RO SEINE Mei oat ao Be estes OEE 18

96 8.00. b RUG ci eich am ee 18

DO EG BS wivvsikcsnizitinseitssthasietysic dai ae en 5

SOU BO: 4 icine 10, 23, 25

oo UC. FR) Ge) ais dtr een 25

Ge UA OIG) once eee 3

BEE Eee Bh ii 7. 1 SBRpa wR M a Mare eae MEAL SOW RV 4,10, 14,17

ee eRe: SEO rice ender dct eee passim

De Ws SOREN 5 5 icc cess sansvabecarincccanmtoaueameleaen 3,5

Bie As SO sas ectsinesictvs bd ate ae a a ee 30

De Ui ease B BOR oi ieiisiadieaps inde bend eons 5

DO GPAs GO ners sa dulce do tsendondoniustinbendnccaninen ansehen 1,27

Vili

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

a a ccc aenn ceupndebevanhabonsesesens 7

oc sncdnbuepavdveowncpribanoscdeken 28

| shssipe cdmabicavarvokiseaavensied 8

I EN sarc cisivcdsycadersvrsveusvevecucvsessiceccarsesssies 7, 28

NI Foca sect cpu pesnchevdnevsgpsenbacnievchenverésecarvenconsnsens 6

Edis n as ans cus dctcbnt snes pcas¥ssanaeecestivessnevetevedg passim

13 Fed. Reg. 9580 (Dec. 31, 1948)..............ccccccsceeesesseees 5, 27

13 Fed. Reg. 9580-9581 (Dec. 31, 1948)............. eee 25

69 Fed. Reg. 56541 (Sept. 21, 2004)... ecceeceeeesseees 26

2 BOG, MOE. GEOL WON. 27, ZOOS) .........ccecccvesesecscovsasssesenes 26

70 Fed. Reg. 30365 (May 26, 2005)...............cceceseseeeeeeeeee 26

MISCELLANEOUS

4A David S. Chisum, Chisum on Patents (2004)

Ress ca cacsuacsedaiunvagibaveaviegvecsovars 16

A Bill to Revise and Codify the Laws Relating to

Patents and the Patent Office, and to Enact into

Law Title 35 of the United States Code Entitled

“Patents”: Report on H.R. 7794 from the House

Comm. on the Judiciary, 82d Cong. 20 (1952).............. 25

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Charter Communications, Inc. respectfully petitions

for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the Federal Circuit (App., infra, la-9a)

is reported at 420 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The opinion

of the district court granting petitioner’s motion for

summary judgment (App., infra, 10a-35a) is unreported.

JURISDICTION

The court of appeals entered its judgment on August 19,

2005. A petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc was

denied on November 8, 2005. The Chief Justice, on January

25, 2006, granted an extension of time for filing a petition for

a writ of certiorari to and including March 8, 2006. This

Court’s jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).-

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Section 120 of Title 35 of the United States Code as

currently codified is reproduced in the appendix to this

brief at App., infra, 52a, and as codified in 1999 at App.,

infra, 53a. Section 1.78 (2005 and 1999) of Title 37 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is reproduced in relevant part

in the appendix to this brief at App., infra, 53a-55a.

INTRODUCTION

This case presents two important legal questions

regarding the construction of the Patent Act of 1952 and

the PTO’s regulations.

First, the Federal Circuit, in conflict with the

precedents of multiple courts of appeals and of its

predecessor court, ruled that an inventor, who files for a

patent asserting a priority date based upon the filing date

of an earlier-filed application, need not cite to the actual

earlier-filed application upon which the inventor relies for

the patent’s validity. The court of appeals reached this

conclusion despite a statutory requirement, 35 U.S.C.

- § 120, that the inventor include a “specific reference” to

that earlier-filed application to which he claims priority.

Thus, the decision below can lead only to uncertainty,

because the public can no longer determine from the face

of an application, without the aid of any extrinsic material,

the earlier application to which the new application claims

priority. Instead, it becomes the burden and obligation of

the public to search through multiple records of the PTO

to determine the earliest possible application upon which

the inventor bases priority, even though the applicant can

easily disclose that information in the application.

Second, the Federal Circuit’s ruling is contrary to the

PTO’s duly promulgated notice-and-comment regulation

which has existed for nearly 60 years, 37 C.FR.

§ 1.78(a\(2)(i). That regulation requires that a specific

reference, to each earlie- application to which the later

application seeks priority, must be included in the first

sentence of the later application’s specification. The

earlier-filed applications must be identified by application

number, or, for international applications, by application

number and international filing date, and the relationship

of the applications must be indicated. The court of appeals

rejected these regulatory requirements and the well-

established law of this Court with respect to deference in

judicial review of agency regulations. As this Court has

made plain, a regulation can possess the force of law and

merely the power to persuade, but courts are not

empowered to disregard wholesale the agency’s position

even if it is entitled to lesser deference. Review here is

critical because the Federal Circuit’s effective invalidation

of the PTO’s regulation is part of a continuing pattern and

practice of inconsistent degrees of deference conferred by

the Federal Circuit to the PTO.

3

The implications of this case are far reaching and will

have a profound effect on patent law and, by implication,

innovation. The Federal Circuit’s decision fundamentally

shifts the burden to the public, rather than the applicant;

to review a patent to determine the earliest filing date to

which it claims priority. The earliest filing date a patent

claims is of substantial import to the public, including

other inventors and licensees, because it helps determine a

patent’s validity and the term of the patent, including its

expiration date. Prior to the court of appeals’ ruling, the

earliest application whose filing date a patent could claim

was required, by statute, to be identified in the application

and, by regulation, to be printed in the first sentence of

the specification. And, with respect to a patent based upon

an earlier-filed international application, the inventor was

required to disclose the international filing date. The Federal

Circuit’s ruling, in conflict with the other courts of appeals that

have considered this issue, now obviates these requirements

and their benefits to the public. This case presents a

particularly good opportunity for the Court’s resolution of the

issue because the petition does not involve any issues of claim

construction or examination of technology regarding the

underlying patent. This Court should grant rev._w to resolve

the conflict of authority and the confusion concerning the

proper deference to be accorded the PTO’s regulations.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. The Statutory And Regulatory Framework

a. Congress has authorized the PTO to grant a

patent to anyone who “invents or discovers any new and

useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of

matter, or * * * improvements thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. A

patent affords the inventor “the right to exclude others

from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the

invention throughout the United States” for a limited

period, currently set at 20 years from the time of the

application filing date. 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2).