Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

ParkerVision, Inc. sued Qualcomm Inc. in 2014, alleging infringement of patents related to wireless communications technology. This followed a 2011 lawsuit where ParkerVision claimed Qualcomm infringed on different but related patents. In the 2011 case, the court granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of non-infringement, which was affirmed on appeal. In the 2014 case, the district court granted Qualcomm’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement based on collateral estoppel from the 2011 case and excluded certain expert testimonies from ParkerVision.The district court for the Middle District of Florida granted Qualcomm’s motions, concluding that the claims in the 2014 case were materially similar to those in the 2011 case, thus applying collateral estoppel. The court also excluded ParkerVision’s expert testimonies on validity and infringement, deeming them unreliable due to a lack of testing and simulation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. It vacated the summary judgment of non-infringement, finding that the district court erred by not conducting a proper claim construction to determine if the claims in the 2014 case were materially different from those in the 2011 case. The appellate court also reversed the exclusion of ParkerVision’s expert testimonies, ruling that the district court improperly required testing and simulation for the expert opinions to be considered reliable. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the proper scope of the claims and whether the differences in the claims would materially alter the question of infringement. View "PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED " on Justia Law

Osseo Imaging, LLC sued Planmeca USA Inc. for patent infringement, alleging that Planmeca's ProMax 3D imaging systems infringed on Osseo's U.S. Patent Nos. 6,381,301, 6,944,262, and 8,498,374. These patents relate to orthopedic imaging systems that use X-ray beam techniques to create tomographic and/or densitometric models. The jury found that Planmeca infringed the asserted claims and that the claims were not invalid for obviousness.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied Planmeca's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on both noninfringement and invalidity. Planmeca argued that Osseo's expert, Dr. Omid Kia, was not qualified to testify because he did not have the requisite experience at the time of the patents' invention. The district court rejected this argument, stating that there is no legal requirement for an expert to have acquired their expertise before the patent's effective date. The court also found that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Dr. Kia's testimony was admissible and that there is no requirement for an expert to have the requisite skill at the time of the invention. The court found that substantial evidence supported the jury's findings of infringement and nonobviousness. Specifically, the court noted that the evidence showed Planmeca's systems calculated Hounsfield Unit values representing bone density, merged information from multiple tomographic scans, and facilitated the comparison of densitometry models. The court also upheld the jury's finding that it would not have been obvious to combine the prior art references cited by Planmeca. Thus, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of JMOL on all issues. View "OSSEO IMAGING, LLC v. PLANMECA USA INC. " on Justia Law

Dyax Corporation performed research for Ares Trading S.A. and licensed patents to Ares, including some held by Cambridge Antibody Technology (CAT Patents). Ares used Dyax’s research to develop a cancer drug, Bavencio, and agreed to pay royalties to Dyax based on the drug’s sales. The royalty obligation outlasted the lifespan of the CAT Patents. The District Court held that Ares’ royalty obligation was not unenforceable under Brulotte v. Thys Co., which prohibits royalties that extend beyond a patent’s expiration.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware found that Ares’ royalty obligation did not violate Brulotte because it was not calculated based on activity requiring the use of inventions covered by the CAT Patents after their expiration. The court characterized the royalties as deferred compensation for Dyax’s pre-expiration research. Additionally, the court noted that Ares’ royalty obligation could run until the latest-running patent covered in the agreement expired, which included patents other than the CAT Patents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Third Circuit held that Ares’ royalty obligation was not calculated based on activity requiring post-expiration use of the CAT Patents, and thus, Brulotte did not apply. The court emphasized that the royalties were based on sales of Bavencio, which did not require the use of the CAT Patents after their expiration. The court also rejected Ares’ argument that Dyax violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, noting that Ares received all the benefits promised under the agreement. The court concluded that Dyax did not breach any obligations under the agreement, and Ares’ royalty obligation remained enforceable. View "Ares Trading SA v. Dyax Corp" on Justia Law

Broadband iTV sued Amazon in the Western District of Texas, alleging patent infringement of five patents related to electronic programming guides for televisions. Amazon moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted Amazon’s motion, finding the claims were directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive step to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Broadband iTV appealed.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found that the claims of the ’026 patent family were directed to the abstract idea of receiving hierarchical information and organizing the display of video content. The court also found that the claims of the ’825 patent were directed to the abstract idea of collecting and using a viewer’s video history to suggest categories of video content. The court concluded that neither set of claims included elements that transformed the abstract ideas into patent-eligible inventions, as they recited only generic and conventional components.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 claims of the ’026 patent family were directed to an abstract idea and did not include an inventive concept that transformed the claims into something more than the abstract idea itself. Similarly, the court found that the claims of the ’825 patent were directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept. The court held that the asserted claims were patent-ineligible under § 101 and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Amazon. View "BROADBAND ITV, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. " on Justia Law

The case involves the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) and Apple Inc. WARF accused Apple of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,781,752 (the '752 patent) with its A7 and A8 processors in a lawsuit filed in 2014 (WARF I). WARF later filed a second lawsuit (WARF II) accusing Apple's A9 and A10 processors of infringing the same patent. In WARF I, the jury found that Apple’s A7 and A8 processors literally infringed the '752 patent. However, Apple appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the jury's verdict, finding that no reasonable jury could find literal infringement under the plain and ordinary meaning of the term "particular" as used in the patent claims.In the district court for WARF I, WARF had abandoned its doctrine-of-equivalents theory in exchange for Apple not presenting certain evidence at trial. After the Federal Circuit's reversal, WARF sought to reassert the doctrine-of-equivalents theory, but the district court denied this request, citing WARF's prior abandonment and the preclusive effect of the Federal Circuit's interpretation of "particular."In WARF II, the district court stayed proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal in WARF I. After the Federal Circuit's decision, WARF attempted to continue WARF II under the doctrine of equivalents. The district court found that WARF I precluded WARF from proceeding in WARF II, citing issue preclusion and the Kessler doctrine, which prevents repeated litigation of the same issue against the same party.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions in both WARF I and WARF II. The court held that WARF had waived its doctrine-of-equivalents theory in WARF I and that issue preclusion and the Kessler doctrine barred WARF II. The court concluded that the A7/A8 and A9/A10 processors were essentially the same for the purposes of preclusion and that literal infringement and the doctrine of equivalents are part of the same overall issue of infringement. View "WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. APPLE INC. " on Justia Law

C.R. Bard, Inc. (Bard), a medical device company, held patents on a vascular graft and entered into a licensing agreement with Atrium Medical Corporation (Atrium) to settle a patent infringement lawsuit. The agreement required Atrium to pay Bard a 15% per-unit royalty on U.S. sales until the U.S. patent expired in 2019 and on Canadian sales until the Canadian patent expired in 2024. Additionally, Atrium was to pay a minimum royalty of $3.75 million per quarter until the FDA approved the iCast stent for vascular use or rescinded its approval for all uses. Atrium ceased minimum royalty payments after the U.S. patent expired, leading Bard to sue for breach of contract.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona held a bench trial and found that the minimum royalty provision was primarily intended to compensate Bard for U.S. sales, thus constituting patent misuse under Brulotte v. Thys Co. The court concluded that the provision violated Brulotte because it effectively extended royalties beyond the patent's expiration based on the parties' motivations during negotiations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment. The appellate court clarified that the Brulotte rule requires examining whether a contract explicitly provides for royalties on the use of a patented invention after the patent's expiration. The court held that the licensing agreement did not violate Brulotte because it provided for U.S. royalties only until the U.S. patent expired and Canadian royalties until the Canadian patent expired. The minimum royalty payments were not tied to post-expiration use of the U.S. patent but were instead based on Canadian sales, which continued to be valid under the Canadian patent. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court erred by considering the parties' subjective motivations and reversed the judgment for Atrium on Bard’s breach of contract claim. View "C.R. BARD, INC. V. ATRIUM MEDICAL CORPORATION" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, sued DISH and related Sling entities for alleged infringement of three patents related to digital data compression. The district court found the asserted claims of one patent ineligible as abstract under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Defendants filed motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, which the district court denied, opting to rehear invalidity arguments after claim construction. The district court later stayed the case pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, which resulted in some claims being found unpatentable. The stay was lifted after the IPR proceedings concluded, and the district court eventually granted summary judgment of invalidity for the remaining patent claims.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado awarded attorneys’ fees to the defendants, citing six "red flags" that should have warned Realtime that its case was flawed. These included prior court decisions finding similar claims ineligible, Board decisions invalidating related patent claims, non-final office actions rejecting claims in the reexamination of the patent at issue, a notice letter from DISH warning of potential fees, and expert opinions from DISH’s witness. The district court found that the totality of these circumstances rendered the case exceptional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision and vacated the award of attorneys’ fees. The appellate court found that some of the red flags cited by the district court should not have been given weight, such as the Adaptive Streaming decision and the Board’s decisions on different patents. The court also noted that the district court failed to adequately explain how certain factors, like the notice letter and expert opinions, constituted red flags. The case was remanded for the district court to reconsider the attorneys’ fees award in light of the appellate court’s findings. View "REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC v. SLING TV, L.L.C. " on Justia Law

Platinum Optics Technology Inc. (PTOT) appealed a final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,354,369, owned by Viavi Solutions Inc. The patent relates to optical filters with specific properties of hydrogenated silicon. PTOT challenged the patent's claims, arguing they were unpatentable due to obviousness based on prior art references. The PTAB ruled against PTOT, finding that the prior art did not render the claims unpatentable.Previously, Viavi had sued PTOT for patent infringement in two cases in the Northern District of California. The claims related to the '369 patent were dismissed with prejudice in both cases. PTOT then petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of the '369 patent, leading to the PTAB's decision that PTOT failed to prove the claims were unpatentable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. PTOT argued it had standing to appeal based on potential future infringement liability from continuing to supply bandpass filters and developing new models. However, the court found PTOT's arguments speculative and insufficient to establish an injury in fact. The court noted that the previous lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice, and PTOT did not provide concrete plans or specific details about new products that might infringe the '369 patent.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal, concluding that PTOT failed to demonstrate a substantial risk of future infringement or a likelihood that Viavi would assert a claim of infringement. Therefore, PTOT did not have standing to appeal the PTAB's decision. View "PLATINUM OPTICS TECHNOLOGY INC. v. VIAVI SOLUTIONS INC. " on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the validity of several patents related to the drug eluxadoline, marketed as Viberzi®, which is used to treat irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D). Allergan USA, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, "Allergan") hold patents for the drug and its formulations. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited and MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. (collectively, "Sun") sought to market a generic version of Viberzi, leading to litigation over the validity of Allergan's patents.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware held a three-day bench trial and found that claim 40 of U.S. Patent 7,741,356 (the '356 patent) was invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) over claims in two later-filed, later-issued patents (the '011 and '709 patents). The district court also found that the claims of four other patents (the '179, '291, '792, and '516 patents) were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description, as they did not adequately describe formulations without a glidant.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's determination that claim 40 of the '356 patent was invalid for ODP, holding that a first-filed, first-issued, later-expiring claim cannot be invalidated by a later-filed, later-issued, earlier-expiring reference claim with a common priority date. The court also reversed the district court's finding that the asserted claims of the '179, '291, '792, and '516 patents lacked written description, concluding that the specification reasonably conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had possession of a formulation without a glidant.The Federal Circuit's main holdings were that claim 40 of the '356 patent is not invalid for ODP and that the asserted claims of the '179, '291, '792, and '516 patents satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The court reversed the district court's judgment of invalidity and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private LTD." on Justia Law

Celanese International Corporation, Celanese (Malta) Company 2 Limited, and Celanese Sales U.S. Ltd. (collectively, “Celanese”) filed a petition with the United States International Trade Commission (the “Commission”), alleging that Anhui Jinhe Industrial Co., Ltd., Jinhe USA LLC (collectively, “Jinhe”), and other entities violated 19 U.S.C. § 337 by importing Ace-K (an artificial sweetener) made using a process that infringed Celanese’s patents. The patents in question had an effective filing date of September 21, 2016. It was undisputed that Celanese had sold Ace-K made using the patented process in the United States before the critical date of September 21, 2015.The presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted Jinhe’s motion for a summary determination of no violation of 19 U.S.C. § 337, concluding that Celanese’s prior sales triggered the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). The ALJ found that the America Invents Act (AIA) did not overturn settled pre-AIA precedent, which held that sales of products made using a secret process could trigger the on-sale bar, precluding the patentability of that process. The Commission denied Celanese’s petition for review, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commission.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Commission’s decision. The court held that the AIA did not alter the pre-AIA rule that a patentee’s sale of an unpatented product made according to a secret method triggers the on-sale bar to patentability. The court concluded that Celanese’s pre-2015 sales of Ace-K made using its secret process triggered the on-sale bar, rendering the later-sought patent claims on that process invalid. View "CELANESE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. ITC " on Justia Law