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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0924%3A0

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Prologue
- **Published:** January 1, 2006

## Text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0924%3A0. Public record. Not legal advice.