Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

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

A patent owner brought two infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against a semiconductor company, alleging that certain integrated circuit products infringed three patents related to electronic circuitry and power-saving features. The accused products included specific chips that allegedly implemented a particular feature. After the lawsuits were filed, the defendant challenged the cases on grounds including improper service, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim. During the litigation, the plaintiff produced a licensing agreement with a third party, and subsequently entered into another agreement covering the accused products. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed both cases without prejudice.Following the dismissals, the defendant moved for attorneys’ fees, costs, and sanctions, arguing that the lawsuits were baseless. The district court denied the defendant’s motions for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, costs under Rule 54(d)(1), and sanctions under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, but converted the voluntary dismissals to dismissals with prejudice as a sanction. The court also denied the defendant’s discovery requests related to confidentiality and access to certain materials.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in denying fees under § 285 and costs under Rule 54(d)(1), because the defendant became a prevailing party when the dismissals were converted to dismissals with prejudice. The Federal Circuit vacated those portions of the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of Rule 11 sanctions and fees under § 1927, finding no abuse of discretion. It also affirmed the denial of the remaining discovery request, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the protective order. The judgment was thus vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. View "FUTURE LINK SYSTEMS, LLC v. REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION " on Justia Law

Super Lighting sued CH Lighting for infringing three patents related to LED tube lamps. CH Lighting conceded infringement of two patents before trial. The district court excluded CH Lighting's evidence on the validity of these two patents and granted Super Lighting's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that the patents were not invalid. A jury found the third patent infringed and not invalid, awarding damages for all three patents. CH Lighting appealed.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially reviewed the case. The court excluded evidence from CH Lighting regarding the validity of the two patents and granted JMOL in favor of Super Lighting. The jury found the third patent infringed and awarded damages. CH Lighting's motions for JMOL on invalidity and for a new trial were denied, and the court doubled the damages award.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court erred in granting JMOL on the validity of the two patents because it improperly excluded CH Lighting's evidence. The court held that a new trial was required to determine the validity of these patents. The court also found that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdicts of infringement and no invalidity for the third patent. Additionally, the court instructed the district court to reassess the reliability of Super Lighting's damages expert's testimony under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Consequently, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "JIAXING SUPER LIGHTING ELECTRIC APPLIANCE, CO. v. CH LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. " on Justia Law

Future Link Systems, LLC entered into a license agreement with MediaTek, Inc. in 2019, which stipulated that MediaTek would pay Future Link a lump sum if Future Link filed a lawsuit against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation. Future Link subsequently filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC) accusing Realtek of patent infringement. During the litigation, Future Link settled with a third party and informed Realtek, leading Realtek to file a motion for sanctions against Future Link before the administrative law judge (ALJ).The ALJ expressed concerns about the legality of the agreement between Future Link and MediaTek but ultimately denied Realtek's motion for sanctions, concluding that the agreement did not influence Future Link's decision to file the complaint. Future Link then withdrew its complaint and moved to terminate the investigation, which the ALJ granted. The ITC terminated the investigation when no petition for review was filed. Realtek petitioned the ITC to review the ALJ's order denying sanctions, but the ITC declined and terminated the sanctions proceeding.Realtek appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, seeking an order for Future Link to pay a fine to the Commission. The Federal Circuit concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Realtek's appeal, as the Commission's decision on sanctions was not a "final determination" under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c) that would affect the exclusion or non-exclusion of articles from entry. The court dismissed the appeal, noting that jurisdiction over such matters likely lies with the district courts, not the Federal Circuit. View "Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

Mitek Systems, Inc. (Mitek) filed a declaratory judgment action against United Services Automobile Association (USAA) seeking a declaration of non-infringement concerning four patents related to its MiSnap software product. Mitek argued that it faced potential liability for direct, induced, and contributory infringement, as well as indemnification demands from its licensees after USAA sent them letters seeking to sell licenses to USAA patents.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas initially dismissed Mitek’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and alternatively declined to exercise jurisdiction. On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to conduct a more detailed analysis. On remand, the district court again dismissed the case, finding no subject-matter jurisdiction and reiterating its decision to decline jurisdiction even if it existed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court agreed that Mitek did not have a reasonable apprehension of suit for direct, induced, or contributory infringement based on the record evidence, including USAA’s allegations and claim charts from prior litigation. The court also found that Mitek’s potential indemnification liability was not sufficient to establish jurisdiction, as the indemnification agreements contained applicable carve-outs and did not create a reasonable potential for liability. Additionally, the court upheld the district court’s discretionary decision to decline jurisdiction, noting that intervention in future litigation involving Mitek’s customers would be a more effective remedy. View "MITEK SYSTEMS, INC. v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION " on Justia Law

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

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

Honeywell International, a Delaware corporation, and OPTO Electronics, a Japanese company, are competitors in the barcode-scanning equipment market. In May 2019, Honeywell sued OPTO for patent infringement, alleging that OPTO's barcode products infringed on seven of Honeywell's patents. The parties settled in January 2020 with a patent-licensing agreement, allowing OPTO to use Honeywell's patents in exchange for royalty payments. In March 2021, Honeywell audited OPTO and claimed that OPTO had underreported its revenues, leading to a dispute over the definition of "2D Barcode Products." Honeywell then sued OPTO for breach of contract in September 2021, alleging unpaid royalties.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina handled the case. A jury found that OPTO's laser-scanning barcode readers were "2D Barcode Products" but awarded Honeywell only $859,741. The district court also rejected OPTO's counterclaim of patent misuse, concluding that Honeywell had not engaged in such conduct. Both parties filed post-trial motions, which the district court denied. Honeywell sought attorney's fees, and OPTO moved to set aside the jury verdict, but both requests were denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that it could not reach the merits because the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the appeal due to the patent-related counterclaim asserted by OPTO. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal, allowing the parallel appeal pending in the Federal Circuit to proceed. The main holding was that the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals involving patent claims and counterclaims, even if the primary dispute is over a contract. View "Honeywell International, Inc. v. OPTO Electronics Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Sisvel S.p.A. owns U.S. Patent No. 7,869,396, which relates to a data transmission and retransmission method in a wireless communication system. The patent describes a method where data is packaged into protocol data units (PDUs) and assigned sequence numbers. The method includes a variation of the automatic repeat request (ARQ) method, where a receiver activates a timer when a PDU is detected as missing. If the missing PDU is not received before the timer expires, a reception failure is reported to the transmitter. If the missing PDU is received before the timer expires, the timer is stopped.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) held claims 1, 2, and 6–8 of the '396 patent to be unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious in view of International Patent Application Publication No. WO 02/091659 (Sachs). However, the Board held that claims 3–5, 9, and 10 were not shown to be unpatentable. Appellants Sierra Wireless, ULC; Honeywell International Inc.; and Telit Cinterion Deutschland GmbH appealed the Board’s decision regarding claims 3–5, 9, and 10. Sisvel cross-appealed the Board’s decision regarding claims 1, 2, and 6–8.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the Board erred in its construction of the claim limitations and that its finding that Sachs disclosed certain limitations was not supported by substantial evidence. The court also determined that the Board abused its discretion by relying on testimony from Sisvel’s expert, Mr. Bates, without finding that he was qualified as an ordinarily skilled artisan.The Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s holdings that claims 1, 2, and 6–8 were unpatentable and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court did not reach the arguments regarding the patentability of claims 3–5, 9, and 10 due to the vacatur of the independent claims. View "SIERRA WIRELESS, ULC v. SISVEL S.P.A. " on Justia Law