Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

The district court found infringement on a patent for coronary stents--stainless steel tubes that are surgically inserted into an occluded artery and expanded in place, opening the artery to blood flow. The court awarded damages calculated as a royalty on defendant's sale of the infringing product, but did not award enhanced damages or attorney fees, despite a jury finding of willful infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the determination of infringement, finding that the evidence supported a finding that the patent was not "obvious," and affirmed.the jury’s choice of a five-percent royalty as reasonable in light of trade practices and the economic and competitive circumstances. The court vacated the district court's denial of attorney fees and enhanced damages and remanded for a determination concerning the egregiousness of defendant’s conduct based on all the facts and circumstances, the test for enhanced damages. View "Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp." on Justia Law

Respondents (collectively, "i4i"), holding a patent which claimed an improved method for editing computer documents, sued petitioner, Microsoft Corp. ("Microsoft"), for willful infringement of the patent. Microsoft counterclaimed and sought a declaration that the patent was invalid pursuant to the on-sale bar under Section 102(b) of the Patent Act of 1952 ("Act"), 35 U.S.C. 102(b), which precluded patent protection for any "invention" that was "on sale in this country" more than one year prior to the filing of a patent application. At issue was whether Section 282 of the Act required an invalidity defense to be proved by clear and convincing evidence. The Court rejected Microsoft's contention that a defendant need only persuade the jury of a patent invalidity defense by a preponderance of the evidence and also rejected Microsoft's argument that a preponderance standard must at least apply where the evidence before the factfinder was not before the Patent and Trademark Office during the examination process. Accordingly, the Court held that Section 282 required an invalidity defense to be proved by clear and convincing evidence. The Court also added that it was in no position to judge the comparative force of the parties' policy arguments as to the wisdom of the clear and convincing standard that Congress adopted where any recalibration of the standard of proof remained in Congress' hands. View "Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

The district court held that the patents-in-suit, relating to drug-eluting coronary stents used in the treatment of coronary artery disease, are invalid for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112 for lack of adequate written description. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Determining whether a specification contains adequate written description requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. No reasonable jury could have determined that the description was adequate. View "Boston Scientific Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson" on Justia Law

The Board of Trustees of Stanford University filed suit against Roche Molecular Systems ("Roche") claiming that their HIV test kits infringed upon Stanford's patents. The suit stemmed from Stanford's employment of a research fellow who was arranged by his supervisor to work at Cetus, a research company developing methods to quantify blood-borne levels of HIV. The research fellow subsequently devised a PCR-based procedure for measuring the amount of HIV in a patient's blood while working with Cetus employees. The research fellow had entered into an agreement to assign to Stanford his "right, title and interest in" inventions resulting from his employment there and subsequently signed a similar agreement at Cetus. Stanford secured three patents to the measurement process. Roche acquired Cetus's PCR-related assets and commercialized the procedure into HIV test kits. At issue was whether the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980, 35 U.S.C. 200 et seq., commonly referred to as the Bayh-Dole Act ("Act"), displaced the basic principle that rights in an invention belonged to the inventor and automatically vested title to federally funded inventions in federal contractors. The Court held that the Act did not automatically vest title to federally funded inventions in federal contractors or authorize contractors to unilaterally take title to such inventions and therefore, affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which held that the research fellow's agreement with Cetus assigned his rights to Cetus, and subsequently to Roche; that the Act did not automatically void an inventor's rights in federally funded inventions; and thus, the Act did not extinguish Roche's ownership interest in the invention and Stanford was deprived of standing. View "Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

Patent application 747, covering a mixing device for use in preparation of sugar-water nectar for certain bird and butterfly feeders, was rejected on grounds of obviousness. The examiner cited prior art on devices for mixing sugar-to-water ratios. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed. The Federal Circuit reversed, reasoning that the application described a device with moveable dividers to allow mixing of different ratios for different species, which is not analogous to the devices cited by the examiner. View "In Re Klein" on Justia Law

The district court held that check-security products sold by defendant did not infringe plaintiffâs patent on a method and system for guarding against check fraud and forgery. The Federal Circuit reversed a holding that there could be no direct infringement because defendant did not direct or control the encrypting or printing steps referenced in the patent claims; the defendant could "use" the described process without controlling those steps. The court vacated summary judgment on a claim that defendant induced infringement by banks and disagreed with the district court's construction of a phrase in the claim. The specifications supported plaintiff's construction. The court acted within its discretion in denying a motion to amend the complaint to include a false advertising claim.

This case concerned a patent for an innovative deep fryer designed by respondent SEB S.A. ("SEB"), a French maker of home appliances. SEB sued Pentalpha Enterprises, Ltd. ("Pentalpha"), a Hong Kong home appliance maker and wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner Global-Tech Appliances, Inc., asserting that it had contravened 35 U.S.C. 271(b) by actively inducing Sunbeam Products, Inc. ("Sunbeam") and the other purchasers of Pentalpha fryers to sell or offer to sell them in violation of SEB's patent rights. At issue was whether a party who "actively induces infringement of a patent" under section 271(b) must show that the induced acts constituted patent infringement. The Court held that induced infringement under section 271(b) required knowledge that the induced acts constituted patent infringement and that deliberate indifference to a known risk that a patent existed did not satisfy the knowledge required by section 271(b). The Court, nevertheless, affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals because the evidence in this case was plainly sufficient for a jury to find that Pentalpha subjectively believed there was a high probability that SEB's fryer was patented, that Pentalpha took deliberate steps to avoid knowing that fact, and that it therefore, willfully blinded itself to the infringing nature of Sunbeam's sales.

Companies sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of patents on diabetes testing products; the patent-holder claimed infringement. The district court found no infringement of two patents, found that several claims in one patent were anticipated, and found another patent (551) unenforceable due to obviousness and inequitable conduct. The Federal Circuit affirmed. With respect to patent 551, there was ample evidence to support a finding of intent to deceive the Patent Office in failing to disclose highly material statements made during revocation proceeding on a European patent. There was also ample evidence to support findings of non-infringement and of anticipation.

The holder of patents on an FDA-approved product that promotes eyelash growth claimed patent infringement and violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200 unfair competition provisions against companies marketing similar products. The district court dismissed the state law claims for lack of standing under an amendment to that law, enacted by the voters as Proposition 64. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. The complaint adequately alleged economic injury caused by defendants' unfair business practices; it is not necessary that the plaintiff had direct business dealings with the defendants.

Appellants appealed from an order of the district court denying its motion, made after a preliminary injunction was vacated by the court, to recover damages against an injunction bond posted by appellee. At issue was whether the district court correctly concluded that the damages sought were not proximately caused by the injunction, and that, in deciding this issue, the district court should have applied a presumption in favor of recovery against the bond. The court held that a wrongfully enjoined party was entitled to a presumption in favor of recovery against an injunction bond and that the district court's decision was insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, the court vacated the order and remanded for reconsideration and clarification.