Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

AngioScore sells angioplasty balloon catheters (AngioSculpt), designed to open arterial blockages. Three AngioScore patents each list three inventors, but none lists Lotan as an inventor. TriReme is a competitor of AngioScore. Apparently concerned that AngioScore might charge TriReme with infringement, TriReme sought to acquire an interest in the AngioScore patents from Dr. Lotan, who performed consulting services for AngioScore. Lotan granted TriReme an exclusive license to “any and all legal and equitable rights” he held in the AngioScore patents. Lotan claimed that his inventive contribution arose from his work in connection with the development of the AngioSculpt catheters in 2003, which is reflected in the AngioScore patents. AngioScore’s defense was based on a 2003 consulting contract between AngioScore and Lotan. AngioScore asserts that it acquired rights to all inventive work completed by Lotan. TriReme brought suit for correction of inventorship, 35 U.S.C. 256. The district court dismissed, finding that TriReme lacked standing. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded for consideration of whether Lotan’s continued work on AngioSculpt after the contract’s effective date came within the contract’s language. View "TriReme Med., LLC v. Angioscore, Inc." on Justia Law

Expro Americas, LLC ("Expro") filed a complaint seeking, inter alia, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Eddie Walters, a former Expro employee, and H&H Welding, LLC. Expro offered "oil and gas well and pipeline services," including providing "specially designed flaring products and services to pipeline transmission companies and refineries along the Gulf Coast." Expro's six-inch, trailer-mounted flare stacks were at the heart of this dispute. Eddie Walters was an Expro employee until August 5, 2013. Thereafter, Walters was employed by Clean Combustion, a competitor of Expro's that was created in 2013 by former Expro employees. Expro filed its application for a restraining order against H&H and Walters, alleging that both defendants stole the design for its flare stack. Expro specifically alleged that "[t]he information used to design and create the trailer-mounted flaring system is a ‘trade secret' of Expro's." Furthermore, it alleged breach of contract against H&H, claiming that the terms of Expro's purchase orders with H&H contained a "Proprietary Rights" section "in which H&H ‘warrants to keep all design, information, blueprints and engineering data with respect to the Goods confidential and to not make use of but to assign to Expro each invention, improvement and discovery relating thereto (whether or not patentable) conceived or reduced to practice in the performance of the Purchase Order by any person employed by or working under the directions of the Supplier Group.'" The trial court granted the restraining order, but after conducting an evidentiary hearing, the chancellor dissolved the temporary restraining order and found no facts to justify the issuance of a preliminary injunction. The chancellor awarded the defendants attorneys' fees and expenses in excess of the $5,000 injunction bond that Expro had posted. After determining that Expro's suit against H&H was meritless, the chancellor sua sponte dismissed H&H from the suit with prejudice. Expro appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court found that the chancellor did not err by awarding the defendants attorneys' fees and expenses, because Expro's application for a preliminary injunction was frivolous and was made in bad faith. However, the Court found the chancellor misapplied Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4, and therefore erred by dismissing H&H from the suit with prejudice. View "Expro Americas, LLC v. Walters" on Justia Law

In 1997 Seagate recruited Dr. Shukh, a native of Belarus, to move to the U.S. Shukh executed Seagate’s standard Employment Agreement, assigning to Seagate all “right, title, and interest in and to any inventions” made while at Seagate. Seagate prohibited employees from filing patent applications for their inventions. During his employment, Shukh was named as an inventor on 17 patents. Shukh’s time at Seagate was tumultuous. His performance evaluations indicated that he did not work well with others due to his confrontational style. In 2009, Seagate terminated Shukh and 178 others. Shukh has not yet secured employment and claims that he was told that he would never find employment at certain companies with his reputation. Shukh alleges that Seagate wrongfully omitted him as an inventor from several patents relating to semiconductor technologies; that Seagate discriminated against and terminated him based national origin and in retaliation for complaining about discrimination. He sought correction of inventorship of the disputed patents under 35 U.S.C. 256. The district court held that Shukh had no interest in the patents based on the assignment; dismissed claims for rescission of his Employment Agreement, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment; and rejected claims of reputational harm, retaliation, fraud, and discrimination on summary judgment. The Federal Circuit vacated with respect to correction of inventorship, but otherwise affirmed. There is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Shukh’s negative reputation is traceable to Seagate’s omission of Shukh as an inventor from disputed patents. View "Shukh v. Seagate Tech., LLC" on Justia Law

Konig’s SRI Employment Agreement, stated: I agree ….To promptly disclose… all discoveries, improvements, and inventions, including software … during … my employment, and … to effect transfer of ownership … to SRI . . . . I understand that termination of this employment shall not release me from my obligations. While employed by SRI, Konig started generating documents relating to a personalized information services idea called “Personal Web” and formed a company, Utopy. Konig left SRI and filed a provisional patent application in 1999; the 040 patent issued in 2005. In 2001, Konig asked an SRI scientist to test the Utopy products. The 040 patent was eventually assigned to PUM. Konig filed another patent application in 2008. PUM was the assignee; the 276 patent issued in 2010. In 2009, PUM sued Google, asserting infringement. PUM provided interrogatory responses that asserted that the conception of the inventions was while Konig was still at SRI. Google had acquired “any rights” that SRI had and counterclaimed breach of contract. The court stated that no reasonable juror could have found that the injury was “inherently unknowable,” applied the three-year limitations period for contracts claims, and granted PUM judgment on the counterclaim. The court also entered judgment of invalidity and noninfringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting that the claim construction had no effect on the outcome and declining to issue an advisory opinion. View "Personalized User Model, LLP v. Google, Inc." on Justia Law

Licensees entered into a licensing agreement with Safeblood Tech for the exclusive rights to market patented technology overseas. After learning that they could not register the patents in other countries, Licensees sued Safeblood for breach of contract and sued Safeblood, its officers, and patent inventor for fraud, constructive fraud, and violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), Ark. Code 4-88-101 to -115. The district court dismissed the fraud claims at summary judgment. The remaining claims proceeded to trial and a jury found for Licensees, awarding them $786,000 in contract damages and no damages for violations of the ADTPA. The district court awarded Licensees $144,150.40 in prejudgment interest. The Eighth Circuit reversed as to the common-law fraud claim and the award of prejudgment interest, but otherwise affirmed. Licensees produced sufficient evidence that the inventor made a false statement of fact; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it gave the jury a diminution-in-product-value instruction; and Licensees waived their inconsistent-verdict argument. View "Yazdianpour v. Safeblood Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

In 1997, Memorylink’s founders approached Motorola about jointly developing a handheld camera that could wirelessly transmit and receive video signals. After a successful demonstration, they sent Motorola a letter, agreeing “that any patents would be jointly owned by Motorola and Memorylink,” agreeing that Motorola should “head up the patent investigation,” and providing a “Wireless Multimedia Core Technology Overview for Patent Review” Motorola’s attorney sent a letter concerning the patent applications, stating an understanding that the inventors were Memorylink’s founders and Motorola employees Schulz and Wyckoff. A proposed patent filing agreement was enclosed. The named inventors signed an invention disclosure and an Assignment of rights to Motorola and Memorylink. Memorylink sued Motorola in 2008, alleging patent infringement and torts sounding in fraud, and seeking a declaration that the Assignment was void for lack of consideration. The district court rejected Memorylink’s argument that its claims did not accrue until an inventorship problem was discovered and dismissed most claims, reasoning that Memorylink should have known that the Motorola employees were not co-inventors in 1998, so that its claims were untimely. The court found that the consideration issue was a contract claim, not time-barred, but granted Motorola summary judgment. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Memorylink Corp. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Whirlpool purchased injection-molded plastic knobs and decorative metal stampings from Grigoleit. In 1992 Whirlpool told Grigoleit that it would start using products made by Phillips. Grigoleit believed that Phillips was using a method protected by its patents. Ultimately Grigoleit licensed its patents to Whirlpool and Phillips; instead of royalties Grigoleit got Whirlpool’s business for the “Estate” and “Roper” brand lines and a promise of consideration for other business. The agreement and the patents expired in 2003. An arbitrator concluded that Whirlpool had failed to consider Grigoleit’s parts for some lines of washers and dryers and was liable for payment of money royalties or damages. Grigoleit demanded the profit it would have made had Whirlpool purchased its requirements of knobs exclusively from Grigoleit. The district court concluded that a reasonable royalty fell in the range of 1¢ to 12¢ per part and the parties then agreed that royalties would then be $140,000. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, reasoning that lost profits differ from royalties. The caption on the contract is “LICENSE AGREEMENT” and the heading on paragraph 3 is “Royalties.” The agreement is a patent license; the court was not obliged to treat it as a requirements contract. View "Grigoleit Co. v. Whirlpool Corp." on Justia Law

Endo sells Opana® ER extended-release tablets containing a painkiller, oxymorphone. In earlier litigation, Endo sued Roxane and Actavis for patent infringement, 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A), based on their Abbreviated New Drug Applications to market generic versions of Opana® ER. The lawsuits settled; Endo granted defendants a license and a covenant not to sue. After making the agreements the 122 and 216 patents issued to Endo. They are continuations of the same parent application and directed to extended-release oxymorphone compositions and methods of treating pain using those compositions. Endo also acquired the unrelated 482 patent, concerning purified oxymorphone compositions and methods of making those compositions. The asserted patents are listed in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book) entry for Opana® ER. Endo again sued for infringement and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent marketing or sales of generic oxymorphone formulations. The district court held that Endo was estopped from claiming that the activity of defendants, “which has gone on for a substantial period of time, is now suddenly barred because of these new patents.” The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that the defendants did not have an express or implied license to practice the patents at issue.View "Endo Pharm. Inc. v. Actavis, Inc." on Justia Law

Jang assigned his patent rights to the companies in exchange for an upfront payment and a promise under defined circumstances to pay additional compensation if the companies sold stents covered by Jang’s patents. In 2005, Jang sued for breach of contract. In the first two appeals, the Federal Circuit addressed claim construction disputes relevant to whether the accused stents were covered by Jang’s patents. In the meantime, the companies sought ex parte reexamination with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, asserting invalidity. An examiner rejected the claims, which were canceled in issued reexamination certificates. In 2014, the district court denied the companies’ motion for summary judgment, finding that a patentee is not precluded from recovering royalties until the date the assignee first challenges the validity of the patent, so Jang could seek royalties prior to the challenge. The district court certified an interlocutory appeal. The Federal Circuit declined to transfer the petition to the Ninth Circuit despite the underlying contract claim and denied the petition for interlocutory review, stating that it is not clear that the identified legal issues will in fact be controlling, and each question depends on the resolution of factual issues not yet addressed by the district court. View "Jang v. Boston Scientific Corp." on Justia Law

Hauge and his former employer, ERI, disputed ownership of intellectual property rights related to “pressure exchangers,” a type of energy recovery device used in reverse osmosis. In 2001 they entered into an Agreement. The district court adopted the Agreement, holding that ERI was to be the sole owner of three U.S. patents and one pending patent application. After expiration of the Agreement’s non-compete clause, in 2004, Hauge filed a patent application, titled “Pressure Exchanger,” and a utility application. The patent issued in 2007, describing “[a] pressure exchanger for transferring pressure energy from a high-pressure fluid stream to low-pressure fluid stream.” In 2009, Hauge’s new company, Isobarix, unsuccessfully attempted to reach a new agreement with ERI. Isobarix began selling a pressure exchanger, called “XPR.” Hauge entered into a consulting agreement with two ERI employees. ERI sought an Order to Show Cause, in 2012, submitting an expert’s declaration that Isobarix was using pressure exchanger technology from pre-March 19, 2001 in design and manufacture of XPR, which is “virtually identical to the ERI pressure exchanger” in operation. The court entered a Contempt Order, finding that allowing Hauge to develop new products using technology he assigned to ERI solely because the new inventions post-date the Agreement would render the Agreement useless. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that Hauge did not violate the “four corners” of the 2001 Order.View "Energy Recovery, Inc. v. Hauge" on Justia Law