Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

The case concerns the validity of certain claims in two patents owned by a pharmaceutical company, which relate to methods of treating multiple sclerosis (MS) using oral administration of cladribine according to a specific dosing regimen. Before the patents’ priority date, cladribine was already known as a treatment for MS, but was typically administered intravenously or subcutaneously due to safety concerns. The patent owner, in partnership with another company, developed an oral formulation and dosing schedule for cladribine. During this collaboration, confidential information was exchanged, and a third party later filed a patent application (the Bodor reference) disclosing a similar dosing regimen. Another prior publication (Stelmasiak) described different cladribine regimens for MS.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reviewed two inter partes review petitions challenging the patents’ claims as obvious over the combination of the Bodor and Stelmasiak references. The Board determined that the Bodor reference qualified as prior art, finding no complete overlap in inventors between the patents and the reference, and concluded that the patent owner failed to show that all named inventors of the patents contributed to the relevant disclosure in Bodor. The Board also found that the combination of Bodor and Stelmasiak rendered all challenged claims obvious, and rejected arguments that the claims required weight-based dosing or that the prior art failed to teach the claimed regimen.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decisions. The court clarified that, under pre-AIA law, a reference is “by another” and thus prior art unless the inventive entity is identical to that of the challenged patent. The court held that the Board did not err in its legal analysis, factual findings, or claim construction, and that substantial evidence supported the Board’s obviousness determination. The Board’s unpatentability findings were affirmed. View "MERCK SERONO S.A. v. HOPEWELL PHARMA VENTURES, INC. " on Justia Law

Aortic Innovations LLC owns four related patents concerning devices used in transcatheter aortic valve replacement, a procedure for treating diseased aortic valves. The patents share a common specification and claim priority to the same provisional applications. The claims focus on a transcatheter valve assembly featuring an “outer frame” and an “inner frame.” Aortic alleged that Edwards Lifesciences’ SAPIEN 3 Ultra valve, which uses a single balloon-expandable frame, infringed these patents.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware presided over the initial litigation. Edwards Lifesciences petitioned for inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which instituted review for three of the patents but not the ’735 patent. The district court stayed the case except for the ’735 patent. During claim construction, the parties disputed the meaning of “outer frame.” The district court found that the patentee had acted as their own lexicographer, redefining “outer frame” to mean “a self-expanding frame.” The court applied this construction to all asserted patents and, following a joint stipulation, entered judgment of non-infringement because Edwards’ accused product did not have a self-expanding frame.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s claim construction de novo. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s construction, holding that the specification consistently and interchangeably used “outer frame” and “self-expanding frame,” thereby redefining the term. The court affirmed the judgment of non-infringement for three patents and dismissed the appeal as to the fourth patent (’538) for lack of jurisdiction, as its claims had been cancelled by the Patent Office. The Federal Circuit also found that Aortic’s judicial estoppel argument was forfeited. View "AORTIC INNOVATIONS LLC v. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION " on Justia Law

Centripetal Networks LLC owns a patent related to rule-based network threat detection for encrypted communications. In November 2021, Palo Alto Networks petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of certain claims of Centripetal’s patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted the IPR with a panel of three administrative patent judges (APJs). Subsequently, Cisco Systems and Keysight Technologies filed similar petitions and sought to join the proceedings. During the process, Centripetal discovered that one APJ, McNamara, owned Cisco stock and moved for the recusal of the panel and vacatur of the institution decision, arguing a conflict of interest. After rehearing requests and additional disclosures, APJ McNamara and another APJ withdrew from the panel, but the Board denied Centripetal’s recusal motion as untimely and found no violation of ethics rules or due process.The PTAB, in its final written decision, held claims 1, 24, and 25 of Centripetal’s patent unpatentable as obvious. Centripetal appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging both the merits of the Board’s obviousness determination and the handling of the recusal issue. The Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s recusal analysis for abuse of discretion and its legal conclusions de novo, finding that Centripetal’s recusal motion was untimely and that the APJ’s stock ownership did not violate applicable ethics regulations. The court also determined that Centripetal’s due process rights were not infringed and that the Board’s actions did not warrant vacatur based on recusal concerns.However, the Federal Circuit found that the PTAB failed to adequately consider evidence of copying presented by Centripetal as part of the obviousness analysis. The court vacated the Board’s final written decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the Board to properly address the evidence of copying. The disposition by the Federal Circuit was “vacated and remanded.” View "CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC. " on Justia Law

Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. owns several related patents describing fencing assemblies that use connectors to attach pickets to rails, allowing the pickets to pivot and slide for easier installation and improved racking ability. The patents describe connectors with “bosses,” “projections,” “nubs,” or “series of axles” that engage holes in the pickets, purportedly providing a fastener-less, pivotal connection. Barrette alleged that products sold by Fortress Iron, LP and Fortress Fence Products, LLC infringed claims of these patents.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas construed the terms “boss,” “projection,” and related terms as requiring the structures to be both integral and fastener-less, based on the patent specification and prosecution history. The court also found that the claim terms related to “sliding” and “causes” were not indefinite, concluding that the specification and prosecution history provided sufficient guidance for a skilled artisan to understand the scope of the claims. Following these constructions, Barrette stipulated it could not prove infringement, and the court entered judgment of non-infringement and no invalidity for indefiniteness.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment of non-infringement, but clarified that while the claims should not be limited to fastener-less bosses, Barrette had clearly disclaimed non-integral bosses during prosecution. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s finding that the claims were not indefinite, holding that the specification and prosecution history provided reasonable certainty as to the meaning of the “sliding” and “causes” terms. The court thus affirmed the district court’s judgment of non-infringement and no invalidity for indefiniteness. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. View "BARRETTE OUTDOOR LIVING, INC. v. FORTRESS IRON, LP " on Justia Law

Brita LP held a patent for a gravity-fed water filter system designed to remove contaminants, particularly lead, from water using filter media that included activated carbon and a lead scavenger. The patent claimed that the filter would achieve a specific performance metric, the Filter Rate and Performance (FRAP) factor, of about 350 or less. Although the patent described various types of filter media, such as carbon blocks and mixed media, it only provided working examples and detailed formulations for carbon-block filters that met the claimed FRAP factor. The patent also included test results showing that only carbon-block filters achieved the required performance, while mixed media filters did not.Brita filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) under section 337, alleging that several companies imported and sold water filters infringing its patent. After a Markman hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the asserted claims met the written description and enablement requirements and determined there was a violation of section 337. Upon review, the ITC reversed the ALJ’s findings, concluding that the claims were invalid for lack of written description and enablement as to any filter media other than carbon blocks, and that the term “filter usage lifetime claimed by a manufacturer or seller of the filter” was indefinite.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s decision. The court held that the patent’s specification did not adequately describe or enable the full scope of the claimed invention, specifically for non-carbon-block filter media, and that substantial evidence supported the ITC’s findings. The court did not reach the issue of indefiniteness, as the claims were already found invalid. The disposition was affirmed. View "BRITA LP v. ITC " on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, a patent holder, brought an infringement suit against the defendant, alleging that certain claims of two patents were infringed. Previously, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) had conducted inter partes reviews (IPRs) of both patents. In those IPRs, the Board found some claims unpatentable but determined that the specific claims asserted in this litigation (the Asserted Claims) had not been proven unpatentable. The Asserted Claims all depended from claims that the Board had found unpatentable. The Board’s decisions were not appealed.After the plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Asserted Claims were invalid for obviousness. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant, holding that issue preclusion applied to the limitations of the Asserted Claims that were shared with the previously invalidated claims. The court reasoned that, because the Board had already found the parent claims unpatentable, the plaintiff could not relitigate those issues, and the defendant did not need to independently prove invalidity for those limitations. The court then found the remaining limitations obvious in light of the prior art and granted summary judgment of invalidity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case. The Federal Circuit held that issue preclusion did not apply because the standard of proof in IPRs (preponderance of the evidence) is lower than the standard required in district court (clear and convincing evidence). Therefore, factual findings made by the Board in the IPRs could not have preclusive effect in the district court’s invalidity analysis. The court instructed that any summary judgment of invalidity must be based on evidence and argument presented in court, not on issue preclusion from the IPRs. View "INLAND DIAMOND PRODUCTS CO. v. CHERRY OPTICAL INC. " on Justia Law

The dispute centers on allegations by a manufacturer of semiconductor wafers that it developed a novel porous silicon technology in 2018 and entered into a non-disclosure agreement with a group of semiconductor companies and their executives. The parties discussed a potential collaboration, during which the manufacturer claims it disclosed proprietary trade secrets. While negotiations were ongoing, the semiconductor companies filed a series of patent applications, which the manufacturer alleges incorporated its confidential technology without crediting its inventors. The negotiations ultimately failed, and the manufacturer was not included as an inventor on any of the resulting patents.The manufacturer filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, asserting federal claims for trade secret misappropriation and correction of inventorship, as well as several California state law claims, including trade secret misappropriation and interference with economic advantage. The defendants moved to dismiss and also filed a special motion to strike the state law claims under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which is designed to quickly dismiss lawsuits targeting protected speech or petitioning activity. The district court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, and denied the anti-SLAPP motion to strike. The defendants appealed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the denial of a California anti-SLAPP motion to strike is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine as a matter of Federal Circuit law. The court found that the district court erred by conflating the two steps of the anti-SLAPP analysis, improperly considering the merits of the trade secret claims at the first step. The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of the motion to strike and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "IQE PLC v. NEWPORT FAB, LLC " on Justia Law

Causam Enterprises, Inc. owns several patents related to “demand response” technology, which allows electrical utilities to reduce power demand in response to certain conditions. Causam filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC), alleging that Resideo Smart Homes Technology (Tianjin) and its affiliate Ademco, Inc. were importing and selling internet-connected smart thermostats that infringed method claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,394,268, which Causam claimed to own. Causam sought to exclude these products from importation. During the ITC investigation, respondents argued that Causam did not own the patent and that Resideo’s products did not infringe the asserted claims.The assigned administrative law judge (ALJ) at the ITC found that Causam did not own the ’268 patent and that Resideo’s products did not infringe the claims. The full Commission, upon review, adopted only the noninfringement finding and did not address the ownership issue. Causam appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging the noninfringement determination and seeking a ruling on ownership. Meanwhile, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held, in a separate inter partes review, that claim 1 of the ’268 patent was unpatentable, and the Federal Circuit affirmed that decision in a companion case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Causam owns the ’268 patent, interpreting the relevant assignment agreements to exclude continuations-in-part from a prior assignment, thus leaving ownership with Causam. However, the court did not reach the noninfringement issue because its affirmance of the PTAB’s finding that claim 1 is unpatentable rendered the appeal moot. The court therefore dismissed the appeal as moot. View "CAUSAM ENTERPRISES, INC. v. ITC " on Justia Law

Causam Enterprises, Inc. owns a patent related to methods for managing electric power flow within a grid, specifically focusing on demand response load management, where utilities can control customer appliances to reduce power consumption during peak periods. Ecobee Technologies ULC filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, challenging all but one claim of the patent on grounds of obviousness, citing prior art references. Causam did not dispute its ownership of the patent in the IPR, though ownership had been contested by ecobee in a separate International Trade Commission (ITC) proceeding.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) instituted the IPR and ultimately found all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness, determining that ecobee had properly served the patent owner of record, Causam, and that the statutory requirements for institution were met. The Board also construed a key claim limitation to include both actual measurements and estimates of power savings, rejecting Causam’s narrower interpretation. The Director of the PTO denied further review, and Causam appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.The Federal Circuit first determined that Causam had constitutional standing to appeal, based on its status as the assignee of record and its unequivocal assertion of ownership. The court rejected Causam’s argument that the Board’s failure to resolve ownership denied due process to a potential third-party owner, holding that Causam could not assert the constitutional rights of others. On the merits, the court upheld the Board’s claim construction and its finding of obviousness, concluding that the Board committed no reversible error. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision, leaving the challenged patent claims unpatentable. View "CAUSAM ENTERPRISES, INC. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC " on Justia Law

Two advocacy organizations submitted a petition to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) seeking a rule that would limit the PTO’s discretion to institute inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings under the America Invents Act. Their proposed rule would have prevented institution of such proceedings in certain circumstances when the patent owner objected and met specific criteria, such as being the original applicant and having small entity status. The PTO denied the petition, stating that the issues overlapped with topics already under consideration in a separate request for public comment and that the suggestions would be considered in any future rulemaking.After the denial, the organizations filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the PTO’s denial violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the America Invents Act. They argued that the PTO failed to act within a reasonable time, did not provide adequate reasons for denial, and was required to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking. The PTO moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing. The district court granted the motion, finding that the organizations lacked both organizational and associational standing because they failed to show that any member faced a concrete, non-speculative injury as a result of the PTO’s denial.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that the organizations lacked associational standing because they did not demonstrate that any member suffered an actual or imminent injury traceable to the PTO’s denial of the petition. The court found the alleged injury too speculative, relying on a chain of uncertain future events involving third-party actions. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing. View "US INVENTOR, INC. v. PTO " on Justia Law