Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

VLSI Technology LLC brought a lawsuit against Intel Corporation, alleging infringement of multiple patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,566,836. The patent concerns methods and apparatuses for selecting processor cores in multicore systems to execute tasks based on performance parameters, such as processing speed. VLSI asserted several claims from the patent, including both method and apparatus claims, and introduced expert damages theories to support its case.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California addressed several pretrial issues. It struck certain damages theories from VLSI’s expert Dr. Sullivan, concluding that VLSI had not adequately disclosed these theories in its damages contentions as required under local patent rules. The district court also granted Intel summary judgment of noninfringement on two grounds: first, that the alleged infringing acts occurred outside the United States (extraterritoriality), and second, by rejecting VLSI’s doctrine of equivalents (DOE) theory. The district court’s construction of claim terms, particularly importing an “upon identifying” limitation into an apparatus claim, was central to its resolution of the DOE issue.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s orders. The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment of noninfringement on extraterritoriality grounds, finding that a pretrial stipulation between the parties established a U.S. nexus for infringement, and that the district court erred in its analysis of the apparatus claims’ capability to perform the patented functions. The Federal Circuit also reversed the summary judgment for noninfringement under the DOE theory for certain apparatus claims, holding that the district court improperly construed the claims based on prosecution disclaimer. However, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision to strike Dr. Sullivan’s NPV and VPU damages theories, finding no abuse of discretion. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC v. INTEL CORPORATION " on Justia Law

The dispute concerns patented methods and apparatuses for upgrading software in engine controllers by connecting an external device that can replace and restore software without losing the original version. The patent, with a priority date of March 30, 2001, was asserted by the patent owner against a competitor. The accused infringer responded by alleging that a non-party, Hypertech, had sold a device called the Power Programmer III (PP3) well before the patent’s critical date. The PP3 was alleged to have all features described in the asserted patent claims, based on contemporaneous sales records and analysis of its source code.The United States District Court for the District of Utah reviewed the case. The district court granted summary judgment of invalidity under pre-America Invents Act (AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), finding that the PP3 was on sale more than one year before the patent’s critical date and that it embodied every claim limitation of the asserted patent. In reaching this decision, the district court admitted deposition testimony from Hypertech’s CEO regarding sales records and the device’s code, holding that, at summary judgment, corporate representatives may testify beyond their personal knowledge. The court also found that the source code itself was not hearsay and, even if it were, could be admitted as a business record.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the evidence at summary judgment. The court further clarified that the on-sale bar under pre-AIA § 102(b) does not require a sale to publicly disclose the inner workings of the device; it is sufficient that the sale of a device embodying the patented invention occurred before the critical date. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidation of all asserted patent claims. View "DEFINITIVE HOLDINGS v. POWERTEQ " on Justia Law

A company owned a patent involving technology that allows mobile device applications to be downloaded and installed in the background, without requiring users to visit an application store. Another company, which had previously developed and marketed a product with similar features, initiated a post-grant review proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, challenging the validity of the patent's original claims. During the proceeding, the patent owner sought to amend the claims by proposing substitute claims, which included additional limitations. The challenger argued that the substitute claims were also unpatentable.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted the patent owner’s revised motion to amend, finding that the challenger had not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the substitute claims were unpatentable or patent ineligible. The Board also determined that the original claims were unpatentable based on a prior decision invalidating claims of a related parent patent. The challenger appealed the Board’s decision regarding the substitute claims to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered whether the challenger had Article III standing to appeal. The court found that the challenger failed to demonstrate an injury in fact because it did not provide evidence showing concrete plans to engage in activities that would potentially infringe the substitute claims, nor did it sufficiently link its previous product features to the limitations in the new claims. As a result, the court held that the challenger lacked standing and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court awarded costs to the patent owner. View "IRONSOURCE LTD. v. DIGITAL TURBINE, INC. " on Justia Law

Fortress Iron, LP developed a pre-assembled vertical cable railing system for outdoor spaces, collaborating with two Chinese companies for its manufacture and quality control. Fortress's owner originated the idea, and an employee prepared initial sketches. Employees of the quality control company, HuaPing Huang and Alfonso Lin, contributed critical refinements to the design. After incorporating these suggestions, Fortress filed for and obtained two patents, listing only its owner and employee as inventors, omitting Lin and Huang. Huang later left his company and could not be located.Fortress sued Digger Specialties, Inc. for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. During litigation, it emerged that Lin and Huang were coinventors. Fortress successfully added Lin to the patents under 35 U.S.C. § 256(a), but was unable to add Huang due to his unavailability. Fortress then moved for partial summary judgment to correct inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), while Digger Specialties moved for summary judgment asserting patent invalidity due to incorrect inventorship. The district court denied Fortress’s motion to correct inventorship, holding that notice and an opportunity for hearing must be given to all parties concerned—including Huang—before correction could be ordered. The court granted summary judgment to Digger Specialties, holding the patents invalid for omission of an inventor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Federal Circuit held that an omitted coinventor is a “party concerned” under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b) and must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before inventorship can be corrected. As Fortress could not satisfy this statutory requirement, correction was unavailable and the patents were invalid. The Federal Circuit thus affirmed the grant of summary judgment of invalidity. View "FORTRESS IRON, LP v. DIGGER SPECIALTIES, INC. " on Justia Law

Two pharmaceutical companies developing treatments for achondroplasia, a genetic disorder, became involved in litigation after one company (Ascendis) filed a New Drug Application (NDA) for its product. The other company (BioMarin), holding a relevant patent, filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging patent infringement by Ascendis’s product. Shortly afterward, Ascendis filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking a judgment of non-infringement and arguing that its activities were protected under the statutory “safe harbor” for regulatory approval.More than thirty days after filing its district court complaint, Ascendis moved for an expedited hearing. BioMarin responded by seeking to dismiss or stay the district court action pending the ITC’s investigation. Ascendis voluntarily dismissed its complaint without prejudice and promptly refiled a nearly identical complaint, this time moving for a mandatory stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a)(2), which requires a district court to stay its proceedings if requested within thirty days of the action’s filing or of being named as a respondent in the ITC. BioMarin opposed, contending Ascendis’s request was untimely, and sought a discretionary stay instead.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted BioMarin’s motion for a discretionary stay and denied Ascendis’s motion for a mandatory stay as moot. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that § 1659(a)(2) does not permit a litigant to restart the thirty-day period for a mandatory stay by voluntarily dismissing and refiling a substantially identical action. The court reasoned that the statutory deadline applies to the original action and that allowing refiling would circumvent the statute’s purpose. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "ASCENDIS PHARMA A/S v. BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL INC. " on Justia Law

Apple Inc. launched the Apple Watch Series 6, featuring technology to estimate the wearer’s blood oxygenation level. Masimo Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories, Inc. alleged that Apple’s importation and sale of the device infringed on several Masimo patents related to wearable blood oxygen measurement technology. Masimo filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission, asserting that Apple’s actions violated § 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which prohibits importation of infringing articles if a related domestic industry exists. The patents at issue, called the Poeze Patents, cover user-worn devices utilizing optical emitters and photodetectors for physiological measurements.Following an investigation, an administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing and concluded that Masimo had established a domestic industry, Apple’s devices infringed some asserted claims, and several claims were not proven invalid. The ALJ found Masimo was not barred from enforcement by prosecution history laches. The ALJ’s decision led to a limited exclusion order barring importation of infringing Apple Watches. Both Apple and Masimo sought review by the Commission. The Commission affirmed the finding of infringement and the existence of a domestic industry, as to certain claims, and maintained the exclusion order.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Commission’s determinations under the Administrative Procedure Act, affirming its findings as reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The Federal Circuit held that Masimo satisfied both the technical and economic prongs of the domestic industry requirement, that the Apple Watch infringed valid claims of the asserted patents, and that Apple failed to prove invalidity or prosecution laches. The Commission’s judgment and the exclusion order were affirmed. View "APPLE INC. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION" on Justia Law

Columbia University sued Gen Digital Inc., which markets Norton antivirus software, alleging infringement of certain claims in two patents related to methods for detecting anomalous program executions. These patents described techniques using an emulator to execute portions of software and compare function calls against models created from multiple computers, aiming to detect malicious activity. Columbia also sought to correct inventorship on a third patent owned by Norton. Norton’s products, including the SONAR/BASH feature, were sold both domestically and internationally. Columbia claimed that these products infringed the asserted patent claims by utilizing the patented detection methods.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia construed disputed claim terms largely in Columbia’s favor and denied Norton’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under 35 U.S.C. § 101, ruling that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea at Alice step one. Prior to trial, the district court struck Norton’s § 101 defense. At trial, the jury found willful infringement of four claims and awarded substantial damages, including damages based on Norton’s foreign sales. The district court denied Norton’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law regarding infringement, willfulness, and foreign sales damages. It also awarded enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees, partly relying on a contempt finding against Norton’s counsel.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment. The Federal Circuit held that the asserted claims are abstract at Alice step one and remanded for the district court to address step two. The court found no error in claim construction or in the denial of judgment as a matter of law for infringement and willfulness, but concluded that damages for foreign sales were improperly awarded. The contempt finding having been reversed in a companion case, the enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees awards must also be reconsidered. The disposition was reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY v. GEN DIGITAL INC. " on Justia Law

An inventor and his exclusive licensee filed a lawsuit alleging patent infringement against a manufacturer, asserting claims of a patent related to an apparatus for maintaining a crop harvester’s header at a designated height above the soil. The patent described a device using a controller interface, head controller, and hydraulic control system. The parties agreed that the “control means” term in the patent invoked means-plus-function claiming under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and further agreed on the basic claimed function and the corresponding structures described in the specification. However, they disagreed over whether the specification sufficiently disclosed the structure for “control means,” particularly regarding whether the disclosure required an algorithm for microprocessor-based controllers.After the case was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, the district court concluded that the patent’s “control means” limitation was indefinite. The district court found that the only sufficiently disclosed controllers were microprocessor-based versions, which would require a disclosed algorithm that the patent did not provide. The court excluded an earlier version of the controller that used logic circuitry, not a microprocessor, from the corresponding structure. Based on this, the district court held the asserted claims invalid as indefinite and entered judgment for the defendant.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed. The appellate court held that the district court erred by excluding the non-microprocessor-based controller from the corresponding structure, as it performed the claimed function and did not trigger the algorithm disclosure requirement. The Federal Circuit clarified that a means-plus-function limitation need only be supported by one embodiment of corresponding structure. Therefore, the judgment of indefiniteness and invalidity was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Costs were assessed against the manufacturer. View "GRAMM v. DEERE & COMPANY" on Justia Law

Implicit, LLC owned two patents that named Edward Balassanian and Scott Bradley as the only inventors. Both men worked for BeComm Corporation, Implicit’s predecessor. Sonos, Inc. filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, arguing that the claims in both patents were unpatentable due to prior art, specifically referencing a patent by Janevski. Implicit responded that the inventions were conceived and reduced to practice before the Janevski filing date, involving work by engineer Guy Carpenter. The Board found Implicit’s evidence insufficient to establish Carpenter’s role or that any reduction to practice benefited the named inventors, and determined the challenged claims were unpatentable.After the Board’s final written decisions in 2019, Implicit appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, raising Appointments Clause challenges based on Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent with Arthrex. After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the case was again remanded to allow for Director Review, which was denied. During this period, Implicit sought and obtained certificates of correction to add Carpenter as an inventor. The case was remanded to the Board to consider whether these corrections affected the prior IPR decisions. The Board held that judicial estoppel, waiver, and forfeiture barred Implicit from relying on the corrections to revisit the prior decisions.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that forfeiture can apply even when inventorship is corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256. The court found no abuse of discretion by the Board in determining that Implicit forfeited its new inventorship arguments by waiting until after final decisions to seek correction. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decisions. View "IMPLICIT, LLC v. SONOS, INC. " on Justia Law

Exafer Ltd. owns two patents related to optimizing communication paths in virtual network environments. Exafer brought suit against Microsoft, alleging that Microsoft’s Azure Platform, specifically its Smart Network Interface Cards and Virtual Filtering Platform Fastpath technology, infringed these patents. To support its damages claim, Exafer submitted expert reports quantifying the technical and financial benefits Microsoft allegedly obtained through the accused features. The damages expert, Mr. Blok, based his analysis on the value of additional virtual machine hours made possible by the accused features.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas excluded Mr. Blok’s damages testimony, reasoning that his use of unaccused virtual machines as the royalty base improperly included non-infringing activities, relying on Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co. The district court also denied Exafer’s motion to reopen discovery to present an alternative damages theory and granted Microsoft’s motion for summary judgment due to an absence of a remedy, entering final judgment against Exafer.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in excluding the damages expert’s testimony. The appellate court found that Mr. Blok’s methodology—linking the value of the accused features to the additional virtual machine hours they enabled—was sufficiently tied to the patented inventions and did not improperly expand the patent’s scope. The court clarified that there is no categorical bar against using an unaccused product as the royalty base if there is a causal connection to the alleged infringement. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s exclusion of Mr. Blok’s testimony, vacated the orders denying reopening of discovery and granting summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "EXAFER LTD v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION " on Justia Law