Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Gilead filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition challenging claims of the University of Minnesota’s 830 patent, directed to phosphoramidate prodrugs of nucleoside derivatives that prevent viruses from reproducing or cancerous tumors from growing. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board found certain claims unpatentable as anticipated by the asserted prior art.The Federal Circuit affirmed. There is no “ipsis verbis” written description disclosure sufficient to support the patent’s claims, 35 U.S.C. 112. The court referred to “a compendium of common organic chemical functional groups, yielding a laundry list disclosure of different moieties for every possible side chain or functional group. Indeed, the listings of possibilities are so long, and so interwoven, that it is quite unclear how many compounds actually fall within the described genera and subgenera.” The court found no violations of the Administrative Procedures Act and rejected the University argument that sovereign immunity barred IPR proceedings against it. View "Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Sciences, Inc." on Justia Law

Jazz holds an approved New Drug Application (NDA) for the narcolepsy drug Xyrem®, with the active ingredient, GHB, which exerts a heavily sedating effect and is prone to misuse; it is known as a date rape drug. The FDA conditioned approval of Jazz’s NDA upon the development of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS). The 963 patent relates to Jazz’s distribution system, which controls access to the drug through a central pharmacy and computer database, tracking prescriptions, patients, and prescribers. Jazz listed the 963 patent in the Orange Book as covering a method of using Xyrem. The patent’s claims expired in 2022. In 2020, Avadel submitted an NDA for the GHB-based drug FT218. Unlike Xyrem, FT218 is dosed once nightly. FT218’s REMS describe multiple pharmacies and databases for ensuring proper drug handling. Although Avadel had filed an NDA, not an Abbreviated NDA, the FDA required Avadel to file a certification that to the best of its knowledge, the 963 patent’s single-pharmacy system was invalid, unenforceable, or would not be infringed by its product.Jazz sued Avadel for infringement. Avadel sued the FDA for requiring certification; the suit was dismissed because 21 U.S.C. 355(c)(3)(D)(ii)(I) provided Avadel with a separate adequate remedy. Avadel responded to Jazz’s infringement assertions, seeking de-listing of the 963 patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court order that Jazz request de-listing. The 963 patent claims a system and does not claim an approved method of use. View "Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, Inc" on Justia Law

Hawk’s patent, titled “high-quality, reduced data rate streaming video product and monitoring system,” relates to a method of viewing multiple simultaneously displayed and stored video images on a remote viewing device of a video surveillance system. Hawk sued Castle for patent infringement based on Castle’s use of security surveillance video operations in its grocery stores. Castle argued that the asserted claims were directed to ineligible subject matter and invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101.The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. The patent claims were directed to the abstract idea of storing and displaying video and failed to provide an inventive step that transformed that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The claims do not disclose performing any “special data conversion” or otherwise describe how the alleged goal of “conserving bandwidth while preserving data” is achieved. Nor do the claims (or specification) explain “what th[e] [claimed] parameters are or how they should be manipulated.” The claims, “read in light of the specification, do not show a technological improvement in video storage and display because the limitations can be implemented using generic computer elements.” The “specification and claims do not explain or show how the monitoring and storage is improved, except by using already existing computer and camera technology.” View "Hawk Technology Systems, LLC sued Appellee Castle Retail, LLC" on Justia Law

Lite-Netics sells string lights held by magnets to a surface such as a roof edge, as the assignee of two patents entitled “Magnetic Light Fixture.” Lite-Netics competes with HBL in the market for holiday string lights. Lite-Netics brought a patent-infringement action against HBL and also sent notices, one before filing suit and one after, to its customers (stores that sell the lights), some of which were also HBL customers, informing them of allegedly infringing competitors and stating Lite-Netics’s intent to enforce its patent rights. Lite-Netics did not name such competitors in the first notice. In the second notice, it identified HBL as an allegedly infringing competitor.After the second notice, HBL filed counterclaims, including for state-law torts. The district court issued a preliminary injunction, barring Lite-Netics from suggesting that HBL is a patent infringer, that HBL copied Lite-Netics’s lights, or that HBL customers might be sued. The Federal Circuit vacated. The district court abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction because the applicable speech-protective legal standards were not met. Federal patent law preempts state-law tort liability for a patentholder’s good faith conduct in communications asserting infringement and warning about potential litigation. HBL’s state-law claims can survive federal preemption only to the extent that they are based on a showing of bad faith in asserting infringement. Lite-Netics’s positions have not been shown, at this stage of the litigation, to be objectively baseless. View "Lite-Netics, LLC v. Nu Tsai Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung E.V. (“Fraunhofer”) initiated a patent infringements lawsuit against Sirius XM Radio Inc. (“Sirius XM”) in district court. After filing suit, Fraunhofer subpoenaed Sirius XM’s former Chief Marketing Officer, Appellant, for a deposition. When Appellant failed to appear for her deposition, the parties filed motions to address the situation. The district court denied Appellant’s motion to quash the subpoena, ordered her to sit for her deposition, found her in contempt for defying the subpoena, and expressed an intent to award sanctions. Appellant sat for her deposition, and then, before any judgment had been issued on sanctions, she appealed the orders against her. Before the DC Circuit, Appellant argued that the district court abused its discretion in compelling her deposition, finding her in contempt, and expressing an intent to award sanctions.   The DC Circuit dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court reasoned that Appellant’s challenge to the district court’s order compelling her deposition is moot because her deposition testimony has been given. Appellant’s challenges to the district court’s contempt finding and intent to award sanctions raise matters relating to a discovery proceeding ancillary to a patent suit which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. View "Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Angewand v. Sirius XM Radio Inc." on Justia Law

The application for the 208 patent was filed in 2012 and claims a priority date of November 7, 2011. It is directed to surgical devices for an “endometrial ablation,” which stops or reduces abnormal uterine bleeding. The procedure generally involves inserting a device having an energy-delivery surface into a patient’s uterus, expanding the surface, energizing the surface to “ablate” or destroy the endometrial lining of the patient’s uterus, and removing the surface.Minerva sued Hologic for infringement. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment that the asserted claims are anticipated under the public use bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The Federal Circuit affirmed. The patented technology was “in public use” because, before the critical date, for several days, Minerva disclosed 15 devices having the technology at the industry’s “Super Bowl,” Minerva showcased them at a booth, in meetings with interested parties, and in a technical presentation. Minerva did not disclose the devices under any confidentiality obligations, despite the commercial nature of the event. At the time of that public use, the technology was “ready for patenting.” Minerva had created working prototypes and technical documents describing the claimed technology. There are no genuine factual disputes. View "Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc." on Justia Law

SSI alleged that DZEM infringes two of SSI’s patents that are generally directed to sensors for determining the characteristics of fluid in a container, such as a fuel tank. SSI’s commercial embodiments of the asserted patents and DZEM’s accused products are systems that determine the quality and volume of diesel exhaust fluid that is used in emission-reduction systems for diesel truck engines. DZEM asserted counterclaims for invalidity of the asserted patents and for tortious interference with prospective business relations.The district court granted DZEM summary judgment on the infringement claims and dismissed DZEM’s invalidity counterclaims, granting SSI summary judgment on the tortious interference counterclaim. The Federal Circuit vacated in part, reversing the district court’s construction of the term “filter” as used in the 038 patent. The term is properly construed to mean “a device containing openings through which liquid is passed that blocks and separates out matter, such as air bubbles.” On remand, SSI will not be precluded from arguing that DZEM’s accused sensors infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. The court affirmed summary judgment with respect to the 153 patent and DZEM’s counterclaim for tortious interference. View "SSI Technologies, LLC, v. Dongguan Zhengyang Electronic Mechanical LTD" on Justia Law

ChromaDex’s 807 patent is directed to dietary supplements containing isolated nicotinamide riboside (NR), a form of vitamin B3 naturally present—in non-isolated form—in cow’s milk and other products. Animal cells convert ingested NR into the coenzyme nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, or NAD+. NAD+ deficiencies can cause diseases in both animals and humans. ChromaDex sued Elysium, a former ChromaDex customer, for patent infringement.The district court construed several claim terms, finding “isolated [NR]” to mean “[NR] that is separated or substantially free from at least some other components associated with the source of [NR].” The district court granted Elysium summary judgment, finding that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The asserted claims concern a product of nature and are not patent eligible. They do not have characteristics markedly different from milk; both “increase[] NAD+ biosynthesis upon oral administration.” Recognizing the utility of NR is nothing more than recognizing a natural phenomenon, which is not inventive. The act of isolating the NR by itself, “no matter how difficult or brilliant it may have been” does not turn an otherwise patent-ineligible product of nature into a patentable invention. View "ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc." on Justia Law

Google filed two petitions for inter partes review (IPR) challenging CyWee’s patents. On December 11, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims. Each IPR was joined by other parties, so the Board extended its one-year deadline for the final written decisions by one month, to January 10, 2020. On January 9, 2020, the Board issued its final decisions, finding all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness. CyWee challenged the merits of the unpatentability determinations and the appointment of Board administrative patent judges (APJs) as unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause, In March 2021 the Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting the Appointment Clause challenge as foreclosed by then-governing precedent, including its “Arthrex” decision.The Supreme Court subsequently held, in Arthrex, that APJs’ power to render final patentability decisions unreviewable by an accountable principal officer was an Appointments Clause violation. The Court remedied the violation by vitiating anything in 35 U.S.C. 6(c) that prevented the Director from reviewing final Board IPR decisions and “remand[ing] to the Acting Director” for a decision on whether to rehear the case. The Federal Circuit then remanded to allow CyWee to request a rehearing. The Commissioner denied rehearing. CyWee filed amended notices of appeal challenging the rehearing denials and the Commissioner’s authority to perform the review Arthrex contemplates. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the one-month extension rendered the decisions untimely. The Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision compelled rejection of its other arguments. View "CyWee Group Ltd. v. Google LLC" on Justia Law

Jawbone sued Google for patent infringement in the Western District of Texas after being assigned ownership of the nine asserted patents and seven months after being incorporated in Texas. Jawbone rents space in Waco to store documents relating to the patents, from which it conducts some distribution and sales activities. No Jawbone personnel work at any location in the Western District. Google moved under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) to transfer the action to the Northern District of California, arguing that: the relevant technical aspects of the accused earbuds, smartphones, speakers, displays, and software products were researched, designed, and developed at Google’s headquarters within Northern California; the technology underlying the asserted patents assigned to Jawbone was likewise developed and prosecuted in Northern California; witnesses and sources of proof (prototypes, Google’s key personnel, and four of the six named inventors) were primarily located in Northern California; no witnesses or sources of proof were located in Western Texas.The Federal Circuit ordered the district court to grant the motion. The center of gravity of this action, focusing on the “Volkswagen factors” and the overriding convenience inquiry, is clearly in the Northern District of California, not in the Western District of Texas. Four factors favor transfer and four factors are neutral. No factor weighs against transfer. View "In Re Google LLC" on Justia Law