Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Published on
By
In 2008, Fairchild charged Power Integrations with infringement of patents, including the 972 patent. The jury rejected an argument that the 972 patent claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of prior art and found that the claims had been infringed. The Federal Circuit upheld the obviousness determination but reversed as to infringement, and remanded for proceedings unrelated to the 972 patent claims. In 2012, Power Integrations requested inter partes reexamination of the 972 patent. The examiner rejected all of the claims in the reexamination, including claims raised in the litigation, under section 103(a). The Federal Circuit remanded to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board with instructions to vacate portions of its final decision in the inter partes reexamination. Under 35 U.S.C. 317(b), no inter partes reexamination proceeding can be “maintained” on “issues” that a party “raised or could have raised” in a civil action arising under 28 U.S.C. 1338 once “a final decision has been entered” in the civil action that “the party has not sustained its burden of proving the invalidity” of the patent claim. There is a final judgment against Power Integrations, holding that it failed to prove four claims were obvious. View "Fairchild (Taiwan) Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc." on Justia Law

Published on
By
IntegraSpec’s 933 Patent originally issued in 1995 and underwent ex parte reexaminations before the Patent & Trademark Office in 2010 and 2014. The patent is directed to ICFs, which are expanded polystyrene foam blocks used as molds to cast concrete walls. The ICFs are stacked to form a hollow wall which is then filled with concrete. The ICFs remain in place after the concrete sets to serve as insulation for the building. The ICFs consist of two parallel foam panels that form sidewalls. The top and bottom edges of the sidewalls have interconnecting means used to connect one ICF to another when they are stacked. In an infringement action, the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement, based on a finding that IntegraSpec’s claims were precluded by a 2014 Federal Circuit decision based on the same claims. View "Phil-Insul Corp. v. Airlite Plastics C0." on Justia Law

Published on
By
Rembrandt sued for infringement of two patents that share a specification and claim priority to a provisional application filed in 1997, describing “a system and method of communication in which multiple modulation methods are used to facilitate communication among a plurality of modems in a network, which have heretofore been incompatible.” The patents explain that in the prior art “a transmitter and receiver modem pair can successfully communicate only when the modems are compatible at the physical layer,” so that “communication between modems is generally unsuccessful unless a common modulation method is used.” The patents propose using the first section of a transmitted message (header) to indicate the modulation method being used for the substance of the message (payload). A jury found that Samsung infringed the patents, which were not invalid over prior art, and awarded Rembrandt $15.7 million in damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction of “modulation method of a different type” as “different families of modulation techniques, such as the FSK family of modulation methods and the QAM family of modulation methods.” The court vacated and remanded an order denying Samsung’s motion to limit Rembrandt’s damages for alleged failure to mark patented articles. View "Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Published on
By
Core’s 143 patent recites a mobile station, such as a mobile telephone, that is connected to a cellular system or network. It is directed to means for sending packet data from the mobile station to the network using a selected channel. In prior art, the mobile station would send the network information about the data packet so that the network could make the channel selection decision. Selection by the network wastes system resources, because it requires the mobile station to send a message to the network regarding the data packet the mobile station wants to transmit, and then requires the network to make the channel selection decision. The 143 patent describes the mobile station, not the network, making the uplink channel selection decision; the network provides the mobile station with parameters that the mobile station applies in determining whether to use a dedicated channel or a common channel, which reduces “the signaling load associated with the allocation of packet data transfer” and “the delay associated with the starting of data transfer.” The Federal Circuit affirmed a verdict that Apple did not infringe, based on a holding that the claim requires that the mobile station “must have the capability to perform ‘channel selection,’ even if that capability was not used during the actual alleged performance of the claimed method.” View "Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc." on Justia Law

Published on
By
The consolidated appeals involve allegations that the companies holding the patents for Lipitor and Effexor XR delayed entry into the market by generic versions of those drugs by engaging in an overarching monopolistic scheme that involved fraudulently procuring and enforcing the underlying patents and then entering into a reverse-payment settlement agreement with a generic manufacturer. In 2013, the Supreme Court recognized that reverse payment schemes can violate antitrust laws and that it is normally not necessary to litigate patent validity to answer the antitrust question. The district judge dismissed most of plaintiffs’ claims. The Third Circuit remanded after rejecting an argument that plaintiffs’ allegations required transfer of the appeals to the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from civil actions “arising under” patent law, 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1). Not all cases presenting questions of patent law necessarily arise under patent law; here, patent law neither creates plaintiffs’ cause of action nor is a necessary element to any of plaintiffs’ well-pleaded claims. The court remanded one of the Lipitor appeals, brought by a group of California pharmacists and involving claims solely under California law, for jurisdictional discovery and determination of whether remand to state court was appropriate. View "In re: Lipitor Antitrust Litigation" on Justia Law

Published on
By
Navartis’s 283 patent relates to a solid pharmaceutical composition suitable for oral administration, comprising a sphingosine-1 phosphate (S1P) receptor agonist and a sugar alcohol, which the patent explains is useful for the treatment of certain autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis. According to the specification, S1P receptor agonists generally exhibit properties that make formulations suitable for oral administration of a solid composition difficult to create. However, “solid compositions comprising a sugar alcohol provide formulations which are particularly well suited to the oral administration of S1P receptor agonists." They also “provide a convenient means of systemic administration of S1P receptor agonists, do not suffer from the disadvantages of liquid formulations for injection or oral use, and have good physiocochemical and storage properties.” On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found all original claims of the 283 patent and proposed substitute claims unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board discussed independent grounds supporting the motivation to combine prior art, fingolimod and mannitol, in a solid oral composition. View "Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Limited" on Justia Law

Published on
By
Bivalirudin is a synthetic peptide used to prevent blood clotting in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Bivalirudin’s pharmacological properties were known before the filing of Medicines’ 727 and 343 patents and were covered by Medicines’ 404 patent, which expired in 2015. The claimed inventions of the 727 and 343 patents are directed to minimizing impurities in batches of bivalirudin, an active ingredient, typically distributed as a dry powder that must be compounded with a base before being administered to a patient as an intravenous injection. Medicines received FDA approval to market a base-compounded bivalirudin drug product in 2000, and has sold the approved product since 2001 under the tradename ANGIOMAX®, before the critical date of the 727-343 patents. Mylan submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application, seeking to market a generic version of ANGIOMAX. The district court held that the 343 patent was not infringed because Mylan did not satisfy the “efficient mixing” limitation of asserted claims and that the 727 patent was infringed because its asserted claims did not include an “efficient mixing” limitation. Without addressing the validity of the patents, the Federal Circuit reversed as to the 727 patent and affirmed as to the 343 patent. Both include a “batches” limitation that requires batch consistency, which, according to the patents, is achieved through efficient mixing. Efficient mixing is required by the asserted claims of both patents. View "The Medicines Co. v. Mylan, Inc." on Justia Law

Published on
By
The Novartis Patents-in-Suit belong to the same patent family, entitled “TTS Containing an Antioxidant,” and disclose a “[p]harmaceutical composition comprising” a compound commonly known as rivastigmine “in free base or acid addition salt form and an antioxidant,” “useful . . . for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease.” The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found that various claims would have been obvious over prior art, 35 U.S.C. 103(a). The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument challenging the PTAB’s conclusion that prior judicial opinions did not control its inquiry and the PTAB’s factual findings in support of its obviousness conclusion. The court concluded that the record here was differed from that in the prior litigation cited by Novartis and that substantial evidence supported the PTAB’s findings with respect to motivation to combine prior references. View "Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc." on Justia Law

Published on
By
Wasica’s (now-expired) 524 patent describes systems for monitoring tire pressure in vehicles. The patent addresses problems with inaccuracy in prior art by synchronizing components of the tire pressure system. In two inter partes review proceedings, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board found certain claims unpatentable as anticipated or obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Wasica Finance GMBH v. Continental Automotive Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

Published on
By
The 631 application, entitled “Glenoid Implant for Minimally Invasive Shoulder Replacement Surgery,” describes an invention related to “rotator cuff sparing procedures and associated devices for shoulder replacement surgery.” The application improves on the prior art by offering “simple and less invasive perpendicular access to the humeral and glenoid joint surfaces,” which “spares the rotator cuff tendons and allows for a quicker and more functional recovery.” The surgery described in the application involves two main steps. First, the surgeon removes “a minimal amount of bone from the peripheral surface of the glenoid”—a process called reaming. Second, the surgeon places an implant in the reamed cavity. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that several claims were anticipated by prior art, 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The Federal Circuit reversed; the finding of anticipation was not supported by substantial evidence. View "In re: Chudik" on Justia Law