Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Allflex sought a declaratory judgment that Avid’s patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and that Allflex was not liable for infringement. Avid counterclaimed, alleging infringement. The patents relate to Radio Frequency Identification technology used in locator tags attached to animals or objects. The district court ruled that Avid should be sanctioned for failing to disclose the existence of pending reexamination proceedings. After construing the claims, the district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement and granted partial summary judgment in favor of Allflex on its inequitable conduct claim. The court held that Avid’s failure to disclose information about prior public use and offers to sell one of its products was material to inequitable conduct, but concluded that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether Avid’s president had the requisite intent to deceive the PTO, an element of Allflex’s claim. The parties entered into a settlement agreement: Avid agreed to pay Allflex $6.55 million, reserving the right to appeal certain issues. The Federal Circuit dismissed as moot, rejecting a claim that a live controversy existed under a provision that Avid’s settlement payment would be reduced by $50,000 if Avid was successful on any of its appeals. View "Allflex USA, Inc. v. Avid Identification Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Parallel owns a patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Client-Server Communication Using a Limited Capability Client Over a Low-Speed Communications Link.” The application was filed in 1999 and addressed problems in using generic software applications on “handheld and credit-card-sized” computers, often operated over low-speed or wireless networks. Generic applications in that environment occupied considerable storage space on the host computer (they had to include capabilities for adapting to many different settings) and required multiple, data-intensive transfers of information between the server and the computer (they were not designed with the limitations of low-speed networks in mind). The patent’s solution was a “dynamically generated, transient applet,” a small program that typically performs one task. Applets and related technology, “plug-ins,” pre-dated the patent, and could be used to provide “dynamic” capabilities to web pages. The patent claimed a new type of applet, better suited to the needs of “limited capability clients.” Parallel sued 120 defendants with websites that provide applets in response to user requests in a manner that, according to Parallel, infringes the patent. The district court construed terms, including “executable applet,” “data interface capability,” and “dynamically generated” and ruled in favor of most of the defendants. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Parallel Networks, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co." on Justia Law

Superior owns three patents, which claim priority to a 2006 application and cover a “Braced Telescoping Support Strut and System” that supports a portable conveyor assembly to transport and stockpile rock, sand, grain, and other aggregate material. Superior alleges its patents claim an improved undercarriage that enables portable conveyors to safely and stably operate at heights above previous conveyors by using cross bracing between the upper and lower support beams that does not interfere with the extension or retraction of upper support beams. Superior claims to have coined the term “fully braced” and owns the registered trademark “FB.” Thor competes in the portable conveyor market and, in 2007, filed a U.S. patent application for an “Undercarriage for a Telescopic Frame,” disclosing a telescoping frame similar to that claimed in the Superior patents. Thor issued a press release describing a conveyor system with a new “PATENT-PENDING FB Undercarriage.” Superior initiated a trademark infringement action that ended in a 2010 Consent Judgment, enjoining Thor from use of the “FB” trademark. Superior then sued for patent infringement. The district court dismissed, citing claim preclusion. The Federal Circuit reversed in part. Superior’s prior trademark infringement action did not arise from the same operative facts. View "Superior Indus., L.L.C. v. Thor Global Enter., Ltd." on Justia Law

A jury found that Lawson infringes ePlus’s method and system claims for “electronic sourcing,” which is similar to online shopping. The specification explains that electronic sourcing systems existed in prior art, but those older systems only enabled the user to generate a single purchase order that would be submitted to a single vendor. One important feature of the claimed invention is ability to divide a single requisition (or shopping list) into multiple purchase orders. The patented invention includes a computer that maintains a catalog database of items available from at least two vendors. Vendors may be manufacturers, distributors, or resellers. The user can search vendor catalogs for items that match certain criteria, contact vendors to determine whether a particular product is available, and switch between different catalogs to look at equivalent items. The customer then purchases the desired items. A customer adds the desired item to an “order list;” once the customer is ready to make a purchase, the system uses the order list to build a “requisition,” then determines what inventory will be used to complete the requisition and generates “purchase orders,” which are submitted to vendors. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, finding the system claims indefinite. . View "ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc." on Justia Law

Apple alleged that Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus smart-phone infringed patents, including the 604 patent. Asserted claim 6 of the 604 patent is directed to a “unified search” that uses heuristic modules to search multiple data storage locations. Unified search refers to ability to access information on more than one data storage location through a single interface and allows the user to search the device’s local memory and the Internet by entering a single search query. Apple alleged that the Quick Search Box unified search application of Galaxy Nexus infringes claim 6. QSB is a feature of Android, an open-source mobile software platform developed by Google. Any software developer may use Android to create applications and any handset manufacturer can install Android on a device. Galaxy Nexus is one of more than 300 available Android smartphones. The release of the allegedly infringing version of the Android platform predated release of Galaxy Nexus, but Google is not a defendant. The district court enjoined sale of the Galaxy Nexus based on the alleged infringement of the 604 patent. The Federal Circuit reversed. The record did not permit the inference that the allegedly infringing features of the Galaxy Nexus drive consumer demand or the court’s clam construction. View "Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, Motorola appealed from the district court's preliminary injunction to enjoin Motorola temporarily from enforcing a patent injunction that it obtained against Microsoft in Germany. The underlying case before the district court concerned how to interpret and enforce patent-holders' commitments to industry standard-setting organizations (SSOs), which established technical specifications to ensure that products from different manufacturers were compatible with each other. Specifically, the case involved the H.264 video coding standard set by International Telecommunications Union (ITU), and the 802.11 wireless local area network standard set by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The court held that, under the unique circumstances of this case, the district court's narrowly tailored preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

The holder of the 946 Patent, “System and Apparatus for Interactive Multimedia Entertainment,” issued in 1995, alleged infringement. The district court found that, during prosecution of the 946 patent, the named inventor and his attorney withheld from the United States Patent and Trademark Office three material references and information about PTO rejections in two related prosecutions, thereby committing inequitable conduct and rendering the 946 Patent unenforceable. The Federal Circuit reversed, stating that there was no evidence of a deliberate decision to withhold the references. View "1ST Media, LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc." on Justia Law

K-TEC, a company that manufactures and sells commercial blending equipment, owns U.S. Patents 117 842, which generally disclose and claim a blending system that contains a blending jar with a specific geometry. The benefit of the claimed geometry is that it alters the flow pattern of the liquid during blending in a way that reduces cavitation, which occurs when a pocket of air envelops the area surrounding the blender blade during blending. The 117 patent is the parent of the 842 patent. The district court concluded that the patents were not invalid, that two prior references were not analogous for purposes of showing obviousness, that Vita-Mix willfully infringed, and that K-TEC was entitled to about $11 million in reasonable royalty and lost profit damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision as supported by the evidence. View "K-TEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp." on Justia Law

Lexmark manufactures printers and toner cartridges. Remanufacturers acquire used Lexmark cartridges, refill them, and sell them at a lower cost. Lexmark developed microchips for the cartridges and the printers so that Lexmark printers will reject cartridges not containing a matching microchip and patented certain aspects of the cartridges. SC began replicating the microchips and selling them to remanufacturers along with other parts for repair and resale of Lexmark toner cartridges. Lexmark sued SC for copyright violations related to its source code in making the duplicate microchips and obtained a preliminary injunction. SC counterclaimed under federal and state antitrust and false-advertising laws. While that suit was pending, SC redesigned its microchips and sued Lexmark for declaratory judgment to establish that the redesigned microchips did not infringe any copyright. Lexmark counterclaimed again for copyright violations and added patent counterclaims. The suits were consolidated. The Sixth Circuit vacated the injunction and rejected Lexmark’s copyright theories. On remand, the court dismissed all SC counterclaims. A jury held that SC did not induce patent infringement and advised that Lexmark misused its patents. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of federal antitrust claims, but reversed dismissal of SC’s claims under the Lanham Act and certain state law claims. View "Static Control Components, Inc v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

WhitServe, owned by Whitmyer, an inventor and a practicing patent attorney holds four patents, namely: “Onsite Backup for Internet-Based Data Processing,” “System Automating Delivery of Professional Services,” “System for Delivering Professional Services Over the Internet,”; and “Web Site Providing Professional Services.” Whitserve sued CPi, which helps other businesses pay their patent maintenance fees on time, alleging infringement by CPi’s system, which are used by a CPi customer, such as a law firm, to generate and send reminders to its clients of upcoming patent or trademark annuity or maintenance fee deadlines. A jury found that CPi failed to prove any claims invalid, that CPi’s systems infringed the patents, that CPi’s infringement was willful, and that WhitServe was entitled to $8,378,145 in damages. The court denied WhitServe’s request for a permanent injunction and did not address a request for a compulsory license. WhitServe’s requests for enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, prejudgment remedy, and disclosure were denied. The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of infringement, the finding of no anticipation of most, but not all, claims, and denial of fees and sanctions. The case was remanded for a new trial on damages. View "Whitserve, L.L.C. v Computer Packages, Inc." on Justia Law