Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Float‘N’Grill's patent is directed to a float designed to support a grill to facilitate a user grilling food while remaining in a body of water. The specification describes a single embodiment. The apparatus includes a float and a pair of grill supports, each of which has a base rod, and an “inverted substantially U-shaped upper support medially attached to a top surface of the base rod.” Each of the supports “includes a plurality of magnets disposed within the middle segment of the upper support of each” grill support. After the patent was issued, FNG, believing that it claimed less than it was entitled to claim in the original patent, filed a reissue application, seeking claims that did not contain the narrow “plurality of magnets” limitation; the claims more generically call for the removable securing of a grill to the float apparatus.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed an Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 251 of the 13 claims of the reissue application. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The reissue claims in question do not cover “the invention disclosed in the original patent” as required by 35 U.S.C. 251. The court did not address the indefiniteness of those claims under section 112(b). View "In Re Float‘N’Grill LLC" on Justia Law

The Medtronic patents describe and claim a neurostimulation lead and a method for implanting and anchoring the lead. Axonics, having been sued by Medtronic for infringement, challenged various claims of the Medtronic patents for obviousness in inter partes reviews (IPRs) under 35 U.S.C. 311–319. In both IPRs, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that Axonics had failed to prove any of the challenged claims unpatentable.The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, The Board erred in its obviousness analysis and the errors cannot be regarded as harmless. Even if the Board was correct to treat the Medtronic patents as limited in the problem they address to the sacral-nerve context, it committed a fundamental legal error in confining the motivation inquiry to whether a motivation would exist to make the proposed combination for use in the specific trigeminal-nerve context—to which the Medtronic patents are not limited. The Board was also incorrect in its view that “the relevant art is medical leads specifically for sacral neuromodulation,” as the Medtronic patents’ claims are not limited to the sacral-nerve context; the shared specification, properly read, is not so limited either. View "Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronics, Inc." on Justia Law

Using a patent directed to a method for sorting sperm cells according to specific DNA characteristics to preselect the gender of a domestic animal’s offspring, STGenetics, provided bull semen-processing services to ABS, which sells semen drawn from its own bulls, packaged in small tubes for use in artificial insemination.In 2014, ABS filed an antitrust lawsuit, alleging that ST was maintaining monopoly power for sexed semen processing. ST brought counterclaims for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and patent infringement. ABS stipulated to direct infringement of three claims. A jury awarded ST $750,000 for past infringement and a royalty on future sales of sexed semen tubes sold by ABS. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the validity findings and issued a remand that did not concern the ongoing royalty.ST filed another infringement suit, which was consolidated with the remand proceedings, then learned that ABS had begun selling and licensing ST’s system to third parties. ST filed a third suit, asserting induced infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(b)). The district court dismissed the action, citing claim preclusion.The Federal Circuit reversed. An induced patent infringement claim brought at the time of the first trial would have been based on speculation; the parties stipulated to direct infringement and the question of inducement was not before the jury. The scope of ABS’s direct infringement allegations cannot reasonably be expanded to cover actions of third-party licensees using the technology to make their own tubes. View "Inguran, LLC v. ABS Global, Inc." on Justia Law

Medytox’s patent is directed to the use of an animal-protein-free botulinum toxin composition that exhibits a longer-lasting effect compared to an animal protein-containing botulinum toxin composition and purportedly can be used to treat both cosmetic and non-cosmetic conditions. Galderma requested post-grant review of claims 1–10, which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted. Medytox filed a non-contingent motion to amend seeking to cancel claims 1–10 and substitute claims 11–18 and requested that the Board issue a Preliminary Guidance. Galderma argued that the claims added new matter because the claims covered compounds with a 16-week responder rate between 50-100% but the specification only disclosed responder rates of up to 62%.Reversing its Preliminary Guidance, the Board found that the substitute claims impermissibly introduced new matter with the inclusion of the responder rate limitation and failed to meet the requirements for revised motions to amend; that the proposed substitute claims were unpatentable for a lack of written description; and that the full scope of the claims was not enabled.The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the Board’s claim construction of the responder rate limitation as a range. The Board provided adequate explanation for its enablement finding. The Board’s revision of its claim construction of the responder rate limitation made between its Preliminary Guidance and final decision was not arbitrary and capricious, depriving Medytox of a full and fair opportunity to litigate. View "Medytox, Inc. v. Galderma S.A." on Justia Law

The pending claims of the 422 application recite methods of increasing prostacyclin release in the systemic blood vessels of a human with essential hypertension to improve vasodilation. Increased prostacyclin release is achieved by co-administering two well-known antihypertensive agents: a GABA-a agonist and an Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker (ARB). Essentially, the claims relate to combatting hypertension with known anti-hypertensive agents and claiming their previously unappreciated mechanism of action. During prosecution, Couvaras conceded that GABA-a agonists and ARBs “have been known as essential hypertension treatments" for decades. The Examiner agreed, citing 10 references establishing that GABA-a agonists and ARBs lower blood pressure; the claimed results of increased prostacyclin release, activation of uninhibited GABA-a receptors, and smooth muscle relaxation were not patentable because they naturally flowed from the claimed administration of the known antihypertensive agents.The Patent Board affirmed the rejection, holding that the claimed result of an increased prostacyclin release was inherent in the obvious administration of the two known antihypertension agents and that Couvaras’s objective indicia arguments did not overcome the prima facie case of obviousness. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the Board erred in affirming that a skilled artisan would have had motivation to combine the art; that the claimed mechanism of action was unexpected, and that the Board erred in discounting its patentable weight; and that the Board erred in weighing objective indicia of nonobviousness. View "In Re Couvaras" on Justia Law

The Parus patents are directed to an interactive voice system that allows a user to request information from a voice web browser. Their shared specification discloses two preferred embodiments: a voice- based web browser system and a voice-activated device controller. On inter parties review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found several claims unpatentable as obvious.The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the Board’s decision to disregard evidence submitted by Parus and to consider a certain reference prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Board’ determinations concerning written description did not exceed its statutory authority; its finding that the challenged clams were not entitled to an earlier priority date was supported by substantial evidence. View "Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC" on Justia Law

Blue Gentian owns the asserted patents. Berardi, Blue Gentian’s principal was the sole named inventor on each patent. The utility patents generally relate to an expandable hose. The design patents claim the ornamental design for an expandable hose. Blue Gentian sued Tristar for infringement. Tristar counterclaimed to correct the inventorship of all six patents. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court determined that a nonparty, Ragner, should have been a named co-inventor on all asserted patents and entered judgment on the inventorship counterclaim, ordering correction of the patents under 35 U.S.C. 256.The Federal Circuit affirmed. The district court properly determined that the three key elements were a significant contribution to the conception of at least one claim of each asserted patent. To the extent the district court should have provided a more detailed claim-by-claim comparison of Ragner’s contributions, any error was harmless. The three elements, taken together, were a significant contribution to at least one claim of each asserted patent. Blue Gentian’s insistence that claim construction was a prerequisite to an inventorship hearing, without more, did not present a dispute about claim scope since it did not otherwise present a material dispute about claim meaning. View "Blue Gentian, LLC v. Tristar Products, Inc." on Justia Law

MacNeil’s patents share a specification, covering a “vehicle floor tray . . . thermoformed from a polymer sheet of substantially uniform thickness.” The specification explains the need “for a floor tray that will have a more exact fit to the vehicle footwell” and “that stays in place once it is installed.”In inter partes reviews (IPRs) of challenges to all claims of the patents on obviousness grounds, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejected the challenges, concluding that—although a relevant artisan would have been motivated to combine, and had a reasonable expectation of success in combining, the teachings of the asserted prior-art references to arrive at each challenged claim—“[MacNeil’s] evidence of secondary considerations [was] compelling and indicative of non-obviousness.” The Federal Circuit reversed. The Board made a result-determinative legal error regarding MacNeil’s secondary-consideration evidence; the finding of secondary considerations lacks substantial-evidence support under the proper legal standard. View "Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC" on Justia Law

For decades, cardiologists have used guide catheters to deliver interventional cardiology devices (e.g., guidewires, stents, balloon catheters) designed to alleviate stenoses. These procedures involved certain challenges and risks. Telex’s patents sought to address these problems by using a coaxial extension catheter insertable into standard guide catheters that offered increased backup support and the ability to deep seat without the attendant drawbacks of traditional systems.Medtronic petitioned for inter partes review (IPR), alleging the challenged claims would have been obvious over prior art. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board found certain claims unpatentable. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board did not err in determining Medtronic failed to carry its burden to show that certain claims would have been obvious, and substantial evidence supports its underlying findings of fact. The court also upheld the Board’s determination that Telex's proposed Substitute Claims had adequate written description support and would not have been obvious over Medtronic’s asserted grounds. View "Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.à.r.l." on Justia Law

The challenged patents, owned by Teleflex, all descend from a common application filed in 2006, share a common specification, and are directed to guide extension catheters that use a tapered inner catheter that runs over a standard coronary guidewire to reduce the likelihood that a guide catheter will dislodge from the coronary artery’s opening. According to Teleflex, the claimed invention was conceived in early 2005 and developed under the “GuideLiner” name. The “rapid exchange” (RX) version of GuideLiner practices the challenged patents. An “over-the-wire” (OTW) version of GuideLiner was similar to prior art guide extension catheters and does not practice the challenged patents. The RX GuideLiner entered the market in 2009. Medtronic filed 13 petitions for inter partes review (IPR). five of which are consolidated in this appeal and asserted Itou as the primary prior art reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Board, finding that Medtronic did not establish that the challenged claims were unpatentable. The claimed inventions were conceived by August 2005, before Itou’s filing date, and either actually reduced to practice for their intended purpose before that date, or were diligently worked on toward constructive reduction to practice on the challenged patents’ effective filing date. The intended purpose of the claimed inventions was to provide improved backup support for the guide catheter, so Itou did not qualify as prior art. View "Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.À.R.L." on Justia Law