Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Two companies, both joint owners of several patents related to warm-mix asphalt paving, entered into a licensing agreement in 2008 granting an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing license to another company (and, after a reorganization, its successor). The agreement allowed the licensee to manufacture, use, sell, and sublicense the patented products, but required that sublicensing terms be subject to the patent owners’ prior review and approval (not to be unreasonably withheld). The patent owners retained certain rights, including the right to sue for infringement (with shared or independent control depending on the circumstances), receive royalties, and veto sublicenses. The patent owners also kept limited rights to practice the invention for research and to use products purchased from the licensee.In 2024, the patent owners sued two defendants, alleging infringement of the six patents. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing. The United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted the motion, finding that the patent owners had transferred away all exclusionary rights through the license, and that their retained right to sue was not sufficient for constitutional standing. The district court relied on previous decisions holding that a bare right to sue, separated from other substantial patent rights, did not confer standing.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed. The Federal Circuit held that the patent owners retained an exclusionary right sufficient for Article III standing, namely the right to sue for infringement that was not rendered illusory by the licensee’s rights. The court concluded that the combination of the right to sue, the right to veto sublicenses, and the continuing royalty interest demonstrated a concrete, non-illusory exclusionary interest. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "A.L.M. HOLDING COMPANY v. ZYDEX INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD. " on Justia Law

The case concerns a patent dispute involving a company that owns a patent for a unified electronic banking system. After most of the patent’s claims were found unpatentable in an inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent and Trademark Office, only four claims remained. The company then sued a bank in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging infringement of these remaining claims. The allegations were supported by claim charts and references to the bank’s online services.The district court first struck the original complaint as a “shotgun pleading” and allowed an amended complaint. The amended complaint was also challenged by the defendant, who argued that the remaining claims were invalid for obviousness and, alternatively, for claiming ineligible subject matter, and that the infringement allegations were inadequate. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding the asserted claims invalid for obviousness as they did not add anything patentably distinct from those already invalidated in the IPR, and also held that infringement was not adequately pleaded. The court denied leave to further amend the complaint and subsequently awarded attorneys’ fees to the defendant under 35 U.S.C. § 285, finding the case “exceptional,” and imposed sanctions on plaintiff’s counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for alleged bad faith litigation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, upholding the finding that the patent claims at issue were invalid for obviousness. However, the appellate court reversed the awards of attorneys’ fees and sanctions, holding that the record did not support a finding that the case was exceptional or that counsel acted in bad faith, as required by the respective statutes. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. View "MCOM IP, LLC v. CITY NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA " on Justia Law

Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd, holder of patents for pharmaceutical compositions involving epoprostenol, alleged that Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s proposed generic drug infringed its patents by manufacturing a bulk solution with a pH of 13 or higher, as claimed in the patents. The dispute centered on whether Mylan’s bulk solution met this pH threshold, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Actelion argued that pH should be measured at the solution’s actual (refrigerated) temperature, while Mylan maintained that its product’s pH, when measured at industry standard temperature, did not meet the claimed threshold.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia held a bench trial after remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which had previously vacated a judgment based on incorrect claim construction. On remand, the district court construed “a pH of 13 or higher” to mean a pH measurement of 12.98 or higher at standard temperature (25±2°C), relying on both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. The court found no literal infringement, as Mylan’s bulk solution did not meet this threshold at standard temperature. It also ruled that Actelion was barred from asserting infringement by an equivalent due to prosecution history estoppel and the disclosure-dedication rule, and that Actelion had not proven equivalence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed claim construction de novo and factual findings for clear error. The court affirmed the district court’s claim construction, finding that “a pH of 13 or higher” refers to standard-temperature measurement, supported by industry standards and patent evidence. It also upheld the district court’s application of prosecution history estoppel and the disclosure-dedication rule, barring Actelion’s equivalents argument. The judgment for Mylan was affirmed. View "ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. " on Justia Law

Bissell, Inc. and Bissell Homecare, Inc. accused Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. and related entities of importing and selling wet dry surface cleaning devices that allegedly infringed certain claims of two U.S. patents concerning surface cleaning apparatuses. After the complaint was filed with the United States International Trade Commission, Tineco introduced redesigned versions of the accused products, which were also evaluated for infringement. The key patent claims at issue involved limitations related to a battery charging circuit being disabled during a self-cleaning mode.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the International Trade Commission conducted an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ found that Tineco's original products infringed the asserted patent claims but that the redesigned products did not, as they did not meet the requirement that the battery charging circuit remain disabled during the automatic cleanout cycle. The ALJ also found that Bissell’s domestic industry products practiced the relevant claim limitations, and that all accused products met other disputed limitations. The Commission adopted the ALJ’s findings and issued a limited exclusion order barring importation of only the original infringing products.On appeal, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Bissell challenged the finding of non-infringement for the redesigned products, while Tineco cross-appealed on domestic industry findings and certain infringement determinations. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s Final Determination, holding that substantial evidence supported the findings that Tineco’s redesigned products did not infringe the relevant patent claims, that Bissell’s domestic industry products met the asserted limitations, and that the accused products satisfied the “brushroll within the recovery pathway” and “suction nozzle” limitations. The court affirmed the exclusion order for the original products and denied relief on all appeals. View "BISSELL, INC. v. ITC " on Justia Law

Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. held a patent covering methods for treating poultry during processing, specifically by using peracetic acid to increase the weight of the poultry. The method involved several steps, including adjusting the pH of peracetic acid-containing water to a range described as “about 7.6 to about 10” by adding an alkaline source. Enviro Tech alleged that Safe Foods Corp. infringed upon various claims of this patent.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas reviewed the case and conducted claim construction. Safe Foods argued that the terms “about” and “an antimicrobial amount” in the patent were indefinite. The district court agreed, finding both terms indefinite and holding the asserted claims invalid. The court entered judgment accordingly.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit examined whether the district court was correct in finding the term “about,” as used to define the pH range, indefinite. The Federal Circuit analyzed the claim language, the patent’s specification, and the prosecution history. The court found that the intrinsic record did not provide reasonable certainty to those skilled in the art about the scope of “about,” especially since the specification and prosecution history showed inconsistent and conflicting guidance regarding permissible pH deviations. Because the term “about” was indefinite, the Federal Circuit concluded that all asserted claims were invalid. The court therefore affirmed the judgment of invalidity entered by the district court. View "ENVIRO TECH CHEMICAL SERVICES, INC. v. SAFE FOODS CORP. " on Justia Law

A corporation owns a patent concerning systems and methods for providing access to shipment information using sensors, which can be attached to items for tracking and reporting data to a central location. The patent allows for customization and control over notifications about shipments, including limiting access to sensor information based on certain rules. Some claims of the patent specify restricting access by delaying when information is reported.Litigation began when the corporation sued another company for infringing this patent in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. While the litigation was pending, a third party, who was not a defendant in the district court case, filed petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging some claims of the patent as obvious. The patent owner argued that the PTAB should not consider the petitions because the third party failed to identify all real parties in interest, specifically the company being sued, as required by statute. The PTAB disagreed, instituted review, and later denied a motion to terminate the proceedings for failure to name all real parties in interest. The PTAB issued a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it lacked authority to review the PTAB’s refusal to determine whether all real parties in interest were named and its denial of the motion to terminate the proceedings, because such issues are barred from judicial review by statute. However, the appellate court found that the PTAB had erred in concluding that the patent owner had not contested one ground of obviousness and vacated the PTAB’s findings of obviousness for certain claims, remanding those issues for further proceedings. View "FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED " on Justia Law

Constellation Designs, LLC sued several branches of LG Electronics, alleging willful infringement of nine claims across four patents related to digital communication systems using non-uniform constellations optimized for greater capacity at a lower signal-to-noise ratio. The accused products were LG televisions compatible with the ATSC 3.0 broadcast standard, which includes specific protocols for signal transmission. The patents at issue fall into two groups: claims reciting a process for optimizing constellations for capacity using parallel decode (PD) capacity, and claims reciting specific non-uniform constellations.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted summary judgment that all asserted claims were patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Following a jury trial, the jury found all asserted claims not invalid, found infringement, and awarded damages to Constellation, finding willful infringement. Post-trial motions by LG for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of non-infringement and no damages, and to exclude Constellation’s damages expert, were denied. The district court entered final judgment in favor of Constellation, including an ongoing royalty.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the summary judgment of eligibility for the claims that recite optimization for PD capacity, finding them ineligible as they are directed to the abstract idea of “optimizing” a constellation for capacity without sufficient limiting detail. The court affirmed summary judgment of eligibility for the claims reciting specific non-uniform constellations, finding these claims recite concrete technological improvements rather than abstract ideas. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s denial of JMOL of non-infringement and no damages, as well as its denial of LG’s motion to exclude the damages expert. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings. View "CONSTELLATION DESIGNS, LLC v. LG ELECTRONICS INC. " on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs, including a medical device company and its founder, developed and sold a cosmetic penile implant. In 2018, a urologist who later became one of the defendants attended a training session hosted by the plaintiffs, where he signed a non-disclosure agreement and was introduced to certain ideas for improving the implant as well as a list of required surgical instruments. Plaintiffs claimed that these ideas and the instrument list were trade secrets. Soon after, the defendants began developing a competing implant, filed patent applications based on allegedly misappropriated information, and advertised using plaintiffs’ trademark.The United States District Court for the Central District of California heard the case, which included claims for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract under the nondisclosure agreement, trademark counterfeiting, and incorrect inventorship of two patents. The jury found for the plaintiffs on all major claims, including that the asserted trade secrets were protectable and misappropriated, and that there had been a breach of contract. The court awarded substantial damages, including a reasonable royalty, exemplary damages, and a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from using the trade secrets. The court also found for plaintiffs on their counterfeiting claim and invalidated the two patents for failure to name an alleged true inventor.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held there was not legally sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the asserted information qualified as trade secrets under California law, as the core concepts were either generally known or not subject to reasonable secrecy efforts. The court reversed the denial of judgment as a matter of law on the trade secret and breach-of-contract claims, vacated the damages and injunction based on them, and reversed the invalidation of the patents. However, the court affirmed the verdict and damages for trademark counterfeiting. The result was an affirmance in part, reversal in part, and vacatur in part. View "INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICES, INC. v. CORNELL " on Justia Law

The dispute arose when two pharmaceutical companies, one holding patents on methods of using humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies to treat headaches, accused a competitor of infringing these patents through the marketing of a competing medication. The relevant technology involves antibodies that inhibit the CGRP protein, which is linked to headache by promoting blood vessel dilation. The patents in question claim methods of treating headaches by administering humanized versions of these antibodies. The patent specifications referenced prior art disclosing murine (mouse) antibodies of this type, described methods for their humanization, and included one specific humanized antibody used in the patent holder’s product.Earlier, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts presided over a jury trial. The jury found that the competitor had willfully infringed the asserted patent claims and rejected arguments that the patents were invalid for lack of written description or enablement. Despite the jury’s verdict, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law for the competitor, ruling that the claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing both the written description and enablement requirements. The district court reasoned that the patents did not adequately describe or enable the full scope of the claimed genus of humanized antibodies.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s invalidity judgment. The appellate court held that, in the context of these method claims, the specification and background knowledge in the field were sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that the written description and enablement requirements were met. The court emphasized that the invention concerned the use of a well-known genus of antibodies for a specific purpose, and the specification indicated that all members of the genus would function as claimed. The holding reinstated the jury’s verdict, reversing the district court’s judgment of invalidity, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY " 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