Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Amgen Inc., a biotechnology company, holds patents in the U.S. and South Korea for denosumab, a drug used in treating certain bone cancers. Amgen filed patent infringement suits against Celltrion Inc. (Celltrion Korea) in both countries. To support its case, Amgen sought discovery from Celltrion Korea’s subsidiary, Celltrion USA, located in New Jersey. Amgen filed an application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in the District of New Jersey to subpoena Celltrion USA for documents and testimony related to Celltrion Korea’s denosumab products.The Magistrate Judge granted Amgen’s § 1782 application, rejecting Celltrion USA’s argument that § 1782 cannot compel it to produce information held by its foreign parent company. The Judge also found the request not unduly burdensome and ordered the parties to meet and confer to agree on a confidentiality agreement. The District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s order, leading Celltrion USA to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case to determine if the order under § 1782 was final and thus appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Court concluded that the order was not final because the scope of permissible discovery had not been conclusively defined. The Court emphasized that without a definite scope of discovery, it could not properly review whether the District Court had abused its discretion. Consequently, the Third Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that an order granting discovery under § 1782 but leaving the scope of discovery unresolved is not a final order under § 1291. View "Amgen Inc v. Celltrion USA Inc" on Justia Law

Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation (Dolby) owns U.S. Patent No. 10,237,577, which is directed to a prediction method using an in-loop filter. Unified Patents, LLC (Unified) filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) challenging claims 1, 7, and 8 of the patent as anticipated and obvious. Unified certified it was the sole real party in interest (RPI). Dolby identified nine other entities it believed should also have been named as RPIs. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) declined to adjudicate whether these entities were RPIs and instituted the review with Unified as the sole RPI. The Board ultimately held that Unified failed to show any of the challenged claims were unpatentable.The Board's final written decision did not address the RPI dispute, explaining that there was no evidence any of the alleged RPIs were time-barred or estopped from bringing the IPR, or that Unified purposefully omitted any RPIs to gain an advantage. Dolby appealed the Board's decision, arguing that the Board's refusal to adjudicate the RPI dispute caused various harms, including potential breaches of license agreements, conflicts of interest, improper estoppel in future proceedings, and disincentivizing Unified from filing IPRs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Dolby failed to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing to appeal. The court found Dolby's claims of harm to be too speculative, noting that Dolby did not provide evidence of any actual or imminent injury. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of standing and did not reach the merits of Dolby's substantive challenges. View "Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation v. Unified Patents, LLC" on Justia Law

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed two lawsuits against Moderna, Inc., ModernaTX, Inc., and Moderna US, Inc. (collectively Moderna) in the District Court for the District of Delaware. Alnylam alleged that Moderna’s mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine SPIKEVAX® infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 11,246,933 and 11,382,979, which cover cationic lipids used for delivering nucleic acids. The dispute centered on the interpretation of the term “branched alkyl” in the patent claims, specifically whether it required a carbon atom bound to at least three other carbon atoms.The District Court for the District of Delaware concluded that Alnylam had acted as a lexicographer in defining “branched alkyl” in the patent specification. The court adopted Moderna’s proposed construction, which required that a “branched alkyl” must have a carbon atom bound to at least three other carbon atoms. Based on this construction, the parties stipulated that Moderna did not infringe the asserted patent claims, as Moderna’s product did not meet this requirement. The district court entered final judgment of noninfringement accordingly.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Federal Circuit agreed that the specification’s definition of “branched alkyl” was clear and unequivocal, requiring a carbon atom bound to at least three other carbon atoms. The court found no evidence in the claims, specification, or prosecution history that specified otherwise for the asserted claims. Consequently, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s claim construction and the resulting judgment of noninfringement. View "ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MODERNA, INC. " on Justia Law

Sigray, Inc. filed a petition with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) requesting inter partes review of all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,400,704, owned by Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc. The patent claims X-ray imaging systems incorporating projection magnification. The PTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted the petition, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims was unpatentable. However, in its final written decision, the PTAB declined to hold any of the asserted claims unpatentable. Sigray appealed the PTAB's decision regarding the unpatentability of claims 1-6 based on the prior art reference Jorgensen.The PTAB found that Sigray had not shown that Jorgensen inherently disclosed projection magnification within the claimed range. The PTAB concluded that there was a dispute about whether Jorgensen taught a diverging X-ray beam and found that Sigray failed to demonstrate that Jorgensen's X-ray beam diverged enough to result in projection magnification between 1 and 10 times.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the PTAB's decision. The court found that the PTAB had implicitly construed the claim limitation "between 1 and 10" to exclude small amounts of magnification, which was an error. The court held that the plain meaning of "between 1 and 10" includes even tiny, undetectable magnification. The court concluded that Jorgensen inherently contained projection magnification, as the evidence showed that Jorgensen's X-ray beams were not completely parallel and must result in some magnification. Therefore, the court reversed the PTAB's decision regarding claims 1, 3, and 4, finding them anticipated by Jorgensen. The court vacated the PTAB's decision regarding claims 2, 5, and 6 and remanded for further proceedings to determine if these claims would have been obvious in light of the opinion. View "SIGRAY, INC. v. CARL ZEISS X-RAY MICROSCOPY, INC. " on Justia Law

The case involves a patent interference proceeding between the Regents of the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively “Regents”) and the Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (collectively “Broad”). The dispute centers on the priority of invention for a CRISPR-Cas9 system that edits DNA in eukaryotic cells using a single-guide RNA.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final decision concluding that Broad has priority over Regents for the CRISPR-Cas9 system. The PTAB determined that Broad reduced the invention to practice by October 5, 2012, when Broad's scientist, Feng Zhang, submitted a manuscript to Science. The PTAB rejected Regents' earlier asserted dates of conception and reduction to practice, which were based on various disclosures and experiments conducted by Regents' scientists. The PTAB also denied Regents' motion to be accorded the benefit of the filing date of its first and second provisional patent applications, determining that they lacked written description support for the claimed invention.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the PTAB legally erred by conflating the standards for conception and reduction to practice, requiring Regents' scientists to know their invention would work to prove conception. The court vacated the PTAB's decision on conception and remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal framework. The court affirmed the PTAB's decision on written description, finding no legal error in the PTAB's analysis. The court dismissed Broad's cross-appeal on claim construction as moot, as the PTAB's denial of Broad's preliminary motions was based on independently sufficient grounds unrelated to claim construction. View "THE BROAD INSTITUTE, INC. v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA " on Justia Law

Incyte Corporation appealed a post-grant review (PGR) final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) which held that Incyte failed to prove claims 1–7 and 9–21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,561,659 were unpatentable. The '659 patent, owned by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., discloses a method of treating hair-loss disorders using deuterium-modified ruxolitinib. Incyte petitioned for PGR, arguing the claims were obvious, but the Board found Incyte's arguments unpersuasive and upheld the claims. Incyte's request for rehearing was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. Sun argued that Incyte lacked Article III standing to appeal. The court noted that standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue that must be addressed before reaching the merits of an appeal. To establish standing, Incyte needed to demonstrate an injury in fact, which it attempted to do by claiming potential infringement liability and invoking the competitor standing doctrine.The court found that Incyte's plans to develop a deuterated ruxolitinib product were too speculative to establish concrete plans for future activity that would create a substantial risk of future infringement. The court also determined that Incyte's reliance on the competitor standing doctrine was insufficient because Incyte did not show it was currently engaging in or had nonspeculative plans to engage in conduct covered by the claims of the '659 patent.Ultimately, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Incyte failed to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. View "INCYTE CORPORATION v. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. " on Justia Law

Ingenico Inc. filed a declaratory judgment action against IOENGINE, LLC, in the District of Delaware, asserting that IOENGINE's patents were invalid. The patents in question, U.S. Patent No. 9,059,969 and U.S. Patent No. 9,774,703, relate to a portable device, such as a USB thumb drive, that includes a processor for network communication. IOENGINE counterclaimed, alleging infringement. Ingenico argued that the patents were invalid due to prior art, specifically a USB device known as the DiskOnKey System, which included a Firmware Upgrader.The District Court for the District of Delaware held a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict finding the claims of the patents invalid as anticipated and obvious. IOENGINE filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and a motion for a new trial, both of which were denied by the district court. IOENGINE then appealed the decision, challenging the jury's findings and the district court's rulings on jury instructions and the introduction of prior art.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict that the DiskOnKey System, including the Firmware Upgrader, was in public use before the critical date, thus invalidating the patents. The court also held that the district court did not err in its jury instructions or in allowing Ingenico to introduce the prior art at trial. The court clarified that IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) did not preclude Ingenico from using the DiskOnKey System to argue that the claimed invention was known or used by others, on sale, or in public use, as these grounds could not have been raised during the IPR.The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the jury's verdict of invalidity. View "INGENICO INC. v. IOENGINE, LLC " on Justia Law

Incyte Corporation and Incyte Holdings Corporation (collectively, Incyte) own U.S. Patent No. 9,662,335, which claims deuterated versions of ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) modulator used to treat autoimmune disorders. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (collectively, Sun) secured FDA approval for an oral deuterated ruxolitinib product, branded as Leqselvi, to treat alopecia areata (AA) and planned to launch it in October 2024. Incyte sued Sun for allegedly infringing the ’335 patent and moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent Sun from launching Leqselvi.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Incyte’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that Incyte would suffer irreparable harm if Sun launched Leqselvi. The district court based its decision on the theory that Sun’s launch would give it an unjust head start in the AA market, diminishing the value of Incyte’s investments in developing its own topical deuterated ruxolitinib product.Sun appealed the district court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit reviewed the grant of the preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion, focusing on whether the district court made a clear error in its irreparable harm analysis. The Federal Circuit found that the district court clearly erred in its finding of irreparable harm, as it was based on the incorrect assumption that Incyte would be first to market if the injunction were granted. The court noted that Sun’s multi-year head start was inevitable regardless of the injunction, as Incyte’s product would not launch until several years after the ’335 patent expired.The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting the preliminary injunction, concluding that Incyte failed to provide non-speculative evidence of irreparable harm. View "INCYTE CORPORATION v. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD. " on Justia Law

Miodrag Kostic and Guy Vandevelde, owners and listed inventors of U.S. Patent No. 8,494,950, appealed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that sustained the examiner’s rejection of claim 3 of their Reissue Application No. 16/667,530. The '950 patent is directed to methods for buying and selling click-through traffic on internet websites, involving a trial process to measure traffic before a bidding process. Claim 3 of the original patent allowed for a direct exchange of click-through traffic without a trial process.The examiner rejected the reissue application, finding that the reissue claim 3 was broader than the original claim 3 and thus constituted an improper broadening reissue application filed outside the permissible two-year period. The examiner also found the reissue claim 3 to be obvious over prior art. The PTAB affirmed these rejections, agreeing that reissue claim 3 improperly broadened the scope of the original claim by making the trial process optional, which was not allowed under 35 U.S.C. § 251(d).The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the scope of reissue claim 3 was indeed broader than the original claim 3 because it allowed for either a trial process or a direct exchange without a trial process, whereas the original claim 3 required both. The court emphasized that the proper inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 251(d) is whether the reissue claim is broader than the actual scope of the original claim, not the intended scope. Consequently, the court affirmed the PTAB’s decision, finding that the reissue application was statutorily barred as it broadened the scope of the original patent claims beyond the permissible period. View "In Re KOSTIC " on Justia Law

Fintiv, Inc. sued PayPal Holdings, Inc. for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserting four patents related to a cloud-based transaction system. The district court determined that certain claim terms in the asserted patents were subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 and held the asserted claims invalid as indefinite.The district court found that the payment-handler terms in the patents invoked § 112 ¶ 6 because they recited function without sufficient structure. The court noted that the terms were drafted in a format consistent with traditional means-plus-function limitations and merely replaced the term "means" with "payment handler" or "payment handler service." The court also found that the specifications of the asserted patents failed to disclose adequate structure corresponding to the claimed functions, rendering the claims indefinite.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's indefiniteness determination. The Federal Circuit agreed that the payment-handler terms invoked § 112 ¶ 6 because they recited function without sufficient structure. The court also agreed that the specifications did not disclose any algorithm to perform the recited functions, and thus, the claims were indefinite. The Federal Circuit concluded that the payment-handler terms were no more than a "black box recitation of structure" and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood how to implement the recited functions based on the specifications. View "FINTIV, INC. v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC. " on Justia Law