Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

A company specializing in hybrid electric aircraft technology filed suit in Washington state court against a major aerospace manufacturer and its investment affiliate, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and tortious interference, among other state law claims. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant improperly used its confidential information, including by incorporating aspects of the plaintiff’s technology into two patents obtained by the defendant. The plaintiff’s claims involved several theories and more than 30 alleged trade secrets.The aerospace manufacturer responded by counterclaiming for a declaratory judgment that its employees were the sole inventors of one of the patents in question. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington based on this federal patent law counterclaim, and a second inventorship counterclaim was later added regarding another patent. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on both patent inventorship counterclaims. The remainder of the plaintiff’s claims proceeded to a jury, which returned a verdict awarding the plaintiff over $92 million for trade secret misappropriation and tortious interference. However, the district court granted the defendant’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and conditionally granted a new trial, vacating the jury award.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s post-trial rulings and remanded the case with instructions for reassignment to a different district judge. In a subsequent petition for rehearing, the defendant argued for the first time that appellate jurisdiction belonged exclusively to the Federal Circuit because the counterclaims were compulsory and arose under patent law. The Ninth Circuit held that the defendant’s counterclaims, though arising under federal patent law, were permissive—not compulsory—because they did not share the same operative facts as the plaintiff’s state law claims; thus, Ninth Circuit jurisdiction was proper. The court also held that the district court appropriately exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, as they shared a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal counterclaims. The petition for rehearing was denied. View "ZUNUM AERO, INC. V. THE BOEING COMPANY" on Justia Law

Several inventor-advocacy groups challenged the language used on the cover of patents issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), alleging that it is misleading. Specifically, they contended that the statement granting patent holders the “right to exclude others” is inaccurate following the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., which established that injunctions are no longer automatically granted to patent holders. The plaintiffs, all non-profit organizations supporting inventors, argued that the PTO’s failure to amend this language harms them because they must divert resources to educate their members about the true scope of patent rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case for lack of standing, holding that the plaintiffs had not shown a sufficient risk of future injury resulting from the challenged language. The district court also denied leave to amend the complaint, finding that any amendment would be futile. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the organizations failed to demonstrate organizational standing because their alleged injury—diverting resources to educate members—was foreclosed as a basis for standing by the Supreme Court’s decision in Food & Drug Admin. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not establish associational standing, as they did not identify any member facing a real and immediate threat of future injury from the patent cover language. The court concluded that amendment of the complaint would be futile, as the foundational deficiencies in establishing standing could not be remedied by further allegations. The judgment of the district court was therefore affirmed. View "US INVENTOR, INC. v. SQUIRES " 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

The plaintiff, a New Hampshire-based corporation, acquired patents and software from a military contractor and sought to adapt the technology for consumer telecommunications. The defendant, a Finnish multinational, manufactures cellular base stations. In 2015, the parties began discussions about integrating the plaintiff’s software into the defendant’s products. By February 2017, negotiations focused on two main points: a fee for integration work and a lump sum for a perpetual software license. On June 6, 2017, the plaintiff alleges both parties orally agreed to a $3 million integration fee and a $20 million license fee. The defendant disputes whether such an oral agreement occurred. The plaintiff continued work based on this understanding. Later, the defendant offered a lower license fee in a draft written contract, which the plaintiff rejected. Eventually, the defendant canceled the project.After cancellation, the plaintiff sued the defendant in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Following a ten-day trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff on breach of contract and promissory estoppel, awarding $23 million in damages. The district court, considering the defendant’s statute-of-frauds defense, determined that the core issue was whether the perpetual license agreement could be performed within one year. The court found this, along with other issues, raised novel questions of New Hampshire law without binding precedent, and certified three questions to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the certified questions. It held that, under New Hampshire law, obligations imposed by a perpetual intellectual property license can be performed within one year, because, absent express language to the contrary, the licensor’s obligations are fulfilled upon granting the license. The court declined to answer the other two certified questions, as its answer to the first resolved the determinative legal issue. The case was remanded to the district court. View "Collision Commc'ns v. Nokia Solutions and Networks OY" on Justia Law

Micron Technology and its subsidiaries, along with the State of Idaho, were sued for patent infringement by Katana Silicon Technologies in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The patents at issue related to technology for shrinking semiconductor devices and had expired. In response, Micron asserted a counterclaim under the Idaho Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act, alleging that Katana had made bad faith assertions of patent infringement. Katana moved to dismiss the counterclaim, arguing that the Idaho Act was preempted by federal patent law. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, where the State of Idaho intervened to defend the statute. Separately, Micron filed suit in Idaho state court against Longhorn IP, alleging similar bad faith assertions and seeking the imposition of a bond. Longhorn removed that case to federal court and also moved to dismiss on preemption grounds.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho denied both motions to dismiss, holding that federal law did not preempt the Idaho statute. The court also imposed an $8 million bond on Longhorn and Katana pursuant to the Act, finding that there was a reasonable likelihood that a bad faith assertion of patent infringement had occurred. Katana and Longhorn appealed these decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court determined that there was no final judgment from the district court, as the only decisions made were the denial of motions to dismiss and the imposition of a bond, neither of which ended the litigation on the merits. The Federal Circuit also found that none of the exceptions for interlocutory appellate review applied, including those for injunctions, the collateral order doctrine, or mandamus, nor was pendent jurisdiction appropriate. View "Micron Technology, Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC" on Justia Law

EscapeX IP, LLC brought a patent infringement suit against Google LLC, alleging that Google’s YouTube Music product infringed its ’113 patent. After Google responded, pointing out factual deficiencies in EscapeX’s claims and highlighting that the accused features either did not exist or predated the patent, EscapeX amended its complaint to target a different Google product. Google repeatedly notified EscapeX that its claims were baseless and requested dismissal, but EscapeX did not respond. The case was transferred from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. Meanwhile, a separate court found all claims of the ’113 patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which EscapeX did not appeal.Upon transfer, EscapeX attempted to file a joint stipulation of dismissal without Google’s consent, misstating that both parties would bear their own fees. Google demanded withdrawal, and a corrected stipulation was later filed. Google moved for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, arguing EscapeX’s claims were frivolous and that EscapeX had unreasonably prolonged litigation. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California found Google to be the prevailing party, determined EscapeX’s case was exceptional due to its lack of adequate pre-suit investigation and frivolous claims, and awarded Google attorneys’ fees and costs. EscapeX then moved to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), presenting new declarations as “new evidence,” but the district court denied the motion, finding the evidence was not newly discovered.Google sought additional attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for costs incurred opposing EscapeX’s Rule 59(e) motion. The district court found EscapeX’s motion frivolous and sanctioned EscapeX and its attorneys jointly and severally. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed all of the district court’s orders. The main holdings were that the case was exceptional under § 285, supporting an award of attorneys’ fees, and that sanctions under § 1927 for frivolous litigation conduct were appropriate. View "ESCAPEX IP, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC " 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

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