BRIEF in OPPOSITION —————♦————— Jason C
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
No. 19-1299 In the Supreme Court of the United States —————♦————— THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., Petitioner, v. TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES CO., TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES NORTH AMERICA, INC., ONE WORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC., OWT INDUSTRIES, INC., RYOBI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Respondents. —————♦————— On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit —————♦————— BRIEF IN OPPOSITION —————♦————— Jason C. White William R. Peterson Michael J. Abernathy Counsel of Record Sanjay K. Murthy MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Nicholas A. Restauri 1000 Louisiana St., Ste. 4000 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Houston, TX 77002 77 W. Wacker Drive, Ste. 500 (713) 890-5188 Chicago, IL 60601 william.peterson (312) 324-1000 @morganlewis.com Julie S. Goldemberg Sean C. Cunningham MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Erin P. Gibson 1701 Market Street Stanley J. Panikowski Philadelphia, PA 19103 DLA PIPER LLP (US) (215) 963-5095 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 699-2700 Counsel for Respondents i QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner The Chamberlain Group (“Chamber- lain”) received a patent covering the idea of wirelessly transmitting information about a garage door opener. Its claims recite a garage door opener (mobile barrier operator), a controller (found in any electric device), and a wireless transmitter—“a handful of generic * * * components configured to implement [this abstract] idea.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 226-27 (2014). At trial, Chamberlain argued that its patent cov- ered all garage door openers with integrated transmit- ters that could communicate with smartphones. In the words of its expert, there are no “acceptable non-in- fringing alternatives.” The Federal Circuit, considering the claims as a whole, concluded that they were directed to the ab- stract idea of wirelessly transmitting information. The panel further noted that Chamberlain failed to de- velop any argument that the claims as a whole include an inventive concept that transforms this abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. If this Court were to grant review, the questions presented would be: 1. Whether the Federal Circuit, on the particular facts of this case, erred in analyzing the claims as a whole. 2. Whether Chamberlain forfeited and is estopped from making its current arguments about the scope and preemptive effect of its claims in view of its incon- sistent arguments below. ii RULE 29.6 STATEMENT The Respondents to the proceedings include those listed on the cover. No parent or publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of the stock of the Respondents. iii RELATED PROCEEDINGS There are no other proceedings in state or federal trial or appellate courts, or in this Court, directly re- lated to this case within the meaning of this Court’s Rule 14.1(b)(iii). iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED.............................................i RULE 29.6 STATEMENT ............................................ ii RELATED PROCEEDINGS ....................................... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.........................................ix INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................... 3 REASONS FOR DENYING CERTIORARI .............. 11 I. The Question Presented Is Not Implicated. ................................................... 11 A. The court below considered “the claims as a whole” in both steps of the Alice analysis. ........................... 12 B. Below, Chamberlain failed to identify any inventive concept in the claims “as a whole.”...................... 13 C. Chamberlain’s claims are broadly preemptive and do not “leave ample room for other inventors” to apply the underlying abstract idea. ................... 15 II. This Case Is a Particularly Unsuitable Vehicle to Consider the Law of Patent Eligibility. ........................... 17 v TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page A. Chamberlain’s patent eligibility arguments have changed materially from its arguments below..................................................... 18 B. Chamberlain’s litigation strategy created significant uncertainty regarding the claim construction. ........................................ 20 III. There Is Nothing Important About the Question Presented by This Petition. ........................................................ 22 IV. Under Any Test, Chamberlain’s Claims Are Ineligible for Patent Protection. .................................................... 26 CONCLUSION ............................................................. 31 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: EXCERPTS FROM BRIEF OF APPELLANTS, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (September 18, 2018).................. 1a APPENDIX B: EXCERPTS FROM BRIEF FOR APPELLEE THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., Court of Appeals for the Fed- eral Circuit (November 28, 2018) ....................... 27a vi TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page APPENDIX C: EXCERPTS FROM DOCU- MENTS DESIGNATED FOR THE REC- ORD ON APPEAL, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2018-2103 EXCERPTS FROM MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (May 23, 2018) (ECF No. 740) (Appx98) ................ 37a EXCERPTS FROM TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS, District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Au- gust 21, 2017) (ECF No. 592) (Appx318- Appx319, Appx332)......................................... 37a EXCERPTS FROM TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS, District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Au- gust 21, 2017) (ECF No. 693) (Appx377)...... 48a EXCERPTS FROM TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS, District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Au- gust 22, 2017) (ECF No. 694) (Appx465)...... 52a EXCERPTS FROM TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS, District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Au- gust 23, 2017) (ECF No. 594) (Appx491)...... 55a vii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page EXCERPTS FROM TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS, District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Au- gust 23, 2017) (ECF No. 695) (Appx558, Appx564) .......................................................... 59a EXCERPTS FROM REPLY TO OFFICE ACTION, District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Dated June 21, 2005 (January 10, 2017) (ECF No. 245) (Appx2172) ....................................................... 67a EXCERPTS FROM PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE, District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Dated December 23, 2016 (February 27, 2017) (ECF No. 286-4) (Appx2914, Appx2944) ........................................................ 68a EXCERPTS FROM DECISION DENY- ING INSTITUTION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW, District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Entered February 21, 2017 (February 27, 2017) (ECF No. 286- 5) (Appx2972-Appx2973) ................................ 70a viii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page APPENDIX D: EXCERPTS FROM DOCU- MENTS DESIGNATED FOR THE REC- ORD ON APPEAL, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2016-2713 EXCERPTS FROM PRELIMINARY IN- JUNCTION HEARING, District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Au- gust 30, 2016) (Appx6255-Appx6256)........... 73a SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX: PATENT US 7,224,275 B2 (May 29, 2007) ...............App. II-1 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016).........................10, 12 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) ........................................ passim Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, No. 2018-1763, 2020 WL 4377542 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................... 25, 26, 27 Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. May o Collaborative, 140 S. Ct. 855 (2020)...................... 24 Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)........ 5, 16, 22, 27 BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F. 3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................... 30 CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020)............................................... 23 Cisco Sys., Inc. v. SRI Int’l, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1108 (2020) ............................................................... 24 Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) ................18, 24 Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commun. Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2020).......................................................................... 23 x TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Hikma Pharm. USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharm. Inc., 140 S. Ct. 911 (2020) ...................................... 24 HP Inc. v. Berkheimer, 140 S. Ct. 911 (2020) ............ 24 In re Jobin, No. 2020-1067, 2020 WL 2298381 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................................ 23 In re Rudy, 956 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................ 23 Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) ................................. 5 O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62 (1853)......................26, 27 Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc., No. 2019-2041, 2020 WL 3966973 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................................ 24 Peters v. Active Mfg., 129 U.S. 530 (1889) .................. 21 Peters v. Active Mfg., 21 F. 319 (W.D. Ohio 1884).......................................................................... 21 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS & STATUTES 35 U.S.C. 101 ........................................................ passim U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 8............................................. 4 1 INTRODUCTION The Petition presents this case as suitable for re- view only by