Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

UTTO Inc. owns a patent for methods to detect and identify underground utility lines. UTTO sued Metrotech Corp. for patent infringement and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The district court dismissed both claims, stating that UTTO failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The court found that the patent infringement claim required a fuller claim-construction analysis and that the state-law tort claim was correctly dismissed.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California initially denied UTTO's motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that UTTO had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its infringement claim. The court construed the claim language to require "two or more" buried asset data points for each buried asset. Subsequently, the district court dismissed UTTO's First, Second, and Third Amended Complaints, each time granting leave to amend until the final dismissal with prejudice. The court consistently held that UTTO had not sufficiently pleaded facts to meet the "receiving" or "generating" limitations of the patent claim and failed to allege the required elements for the tortious interference claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the district court's dismissal of the patent infringement claim, stating that additional claim-construction proceedings were needed to determine the proper scope of the disputed claim language. The court noted that the specification of the patent and potential extrinsic evidence required further examination. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the state-law tort claim, agreeing with the district court that UTTO had not plausibly alleged that Metrotech's conduct was independently wrongful. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "UTTO INC. v. METROTECH CORP. " on Justia Law

AlexSam, Inc. filed a complaint against Aetna, Inc. alleging that Aetna marketed Mastercard-branded and VISA-branded products that infringed two claims of AlexSam’s U.S. Patent No. 6,000,608. The patent, which expired in 2017, covers a multifunction card system using a central processing hub to perform specialized card functions through an existing banking network. AlexSam claimed that Aetna’s products infringed the patent by using this system.The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed AlexSam’s complaint, finding that Aetna’s Mastercard products were licensed under a 2005 agreement between AlexSam and Mastercard, and that AlexSam failed to state a plausible claim of direct infringement for the VISA products. The court concluded that the license covered all transactions involving Mastercard products and that AlexSam’s allegations against Aetna’s VISA products were implausible because they did not show that Aetna itself performed the infringing acts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its interpretation of the license agreement and in dismissing the claims against the VISA products. The appellate court held that the license agreement only covered transactions involving activation or adding value to an account, not all transactions involving Mastercard products. Therefore, some of the alleged infringing activities could fall outside the scope of the license. The court also found that AlexSam’s complaint sufficiently alleged that Aetna directly and indirectly infringed the patent with its VISA products, providing enough detail to make the claims plausible.The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal of the claims related to both the Mastercard and VISA products and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court emphasized that the district court must take all well-pled factual allegations as true when evaluating a motion to dismiss. View "ALEXSAM, INC. v. AETNA, INC. " on Justia Law

In 2006, a footwear company sued several competitors for patent infringement. One of the competitors, Dawgs, counterclaimed in 2016, alleging that the plaintiff falsely advertised its product material, Croslite, as "patented," "proprietary," and "exclusive," misleading consumers about the nature and quality of its products. Dawgs argued that these false claims caused consumers to believe that Croslite was superior to other materials used in competitors' products.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Crocs, concluding that Dawgs' counterclaim failed as a matter of law. The district court determined that the false advertising claims were akin to claims of inventorship, which are not actionable under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, based on precedents set by the Supreme Court in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. and the Federal Circuit in Baden Sports, Inc. v. Molten USA, Inc.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that a cause of action under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act arises when a party falsely claims that it possesses a patent on a product feature and advertises that feature in a way that misleads consumers about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of the product. The court found that Dawgs had sufficiently alleged that Crocs' false claims about Croslite being patented misled consumers about the material's qualities, thus stating a valid cause of action under the Lanham Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "CROCS, INC. v. EFFERVESCENT, INC. " on Justia Law

Provisur Technologies, Inc. owns patents related to food-processing machinery, specifically high-speed mechanical slicers and a fill and packaging apparatus. Provisur sued Weber, Inc. and its affiliates, alleging that Weber's food slicers and SmartLoader products infringed on these patents. The case was tried before a jury, which found that Weber willfully infringed several claims of Provisur's patents and awarded Provisur approximately $10.5 million in damages.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied Weber's motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on noninfringement and willfulness, as well as a motion for a new trial on infringement, willfulness, and damages. Weber appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of JMOL for noninfringement regarding the '812 and '436 patents, as Weber conceded its noninfringement arguments were no longer available due to an intervening decision. However, the court reversed the district court's denial of JMOL for noninfringement of the '936 patent, finding that Provisur failed to provide sufficient evidence that Weber's SmartLoader could be readily configured to infringe the patent.The court also reversed the district court's denial of JMOL on willfulness, ruling that the evidence presented, including testimony about Weber's failure to consult a third party, was insufficient to establish willful infringement. Additionally, the court found that the district court abused its discretion in allowing Provisur to use the entire market value rule for calculating damages without sufficient evidence that the patented features drove customer demand for the entire slicing line. Consequently, the court reversed the denial of a new trial on damages.The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Federal Circuit's decision. View "PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. WEBER, INC. " on Justia Law

Astellas Pharma, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, "Astellas") sued Sandoz Inc. and other defendants for patent infringement related to their attempts to market generic versions of Myrbetriq®, a drug used to treat overactive bladder. The patent in question, U.S. Patent 10,842,780, covers sustained-release formulations of mirabegron, which Astellas developed to mitigate the drug's undesirable "food effect."The United States District Court for the District of Delaware held a five-day bench trial focusing on issues of infringement and validity under 35 U.S.C. § 112. However, the district court, sua sponte, determined that claims 5, 20, and 25 of the '780 patent were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, reasoning that the claims were directed to an ineligible natural law. This decision was made despite the fact that Sandoz had not raised a § 101 defense during the trial or in its post-trial briefing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court had abused its discretion by addressing a ground not raised by the parties, thereby disregarding the principle of party presentation. The Federal Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for adjudication of the issues properly raised by the parties, specifically infringement and validity under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The Federal Circuit also declined Astellas's request to reassign the case to a different judge, trusting that the district court could resolve the remaining issues impartially. View "ASTELLAS PHARMA, INC. v. SANDOZ INC. " on Justia Law

The case involves Vascular Solutions LLC, Teleflex LLC, Arrow International LLC, and Teleflex Life Sciences LLC (collectively, Teleflex) suing Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (collectively, Medtronic) for patent infringement. Teleflex asserted forty claims across seven patents related to a coaxial guide catheter. The District Court for the District of Minnesota conducted claim construction proceedings and found the term "substantially rigid portion/segment" to be indefinite, invalidating all asserted claims. The parties stipulated to final judgment based on this determination, leading Teleflex to appeal.Previously, in the District Court for the District of Minnesota, Teleflex sought a preliminary injunction, which was denied due to substantial questions of invalidity. The court stayed the case pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found some claims unpatentable but upheld others. Teleflex then filed a second preliminary injunction request, which was also denied. The district court appointed an independent expert, Andrei Iancu, who proposed a construction for "substantially rigid portion/segment." The district court ultimately found the term indefinite and invalidated all claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in determining the claims were mutually exclusive and indefinite. The Federal Circuit clarified that the boundary of the "substantially rigid portion/segment" does not need to be consistent across claims and can be understood functionally. The court vacated the district court's final judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing that the claims are not necessarily mutually exclusive and that the term "substantially rigid portion/segment" does not need a consistent boundary across different independent claims. View "Vascular Solutions LLC v. Medtronic, Inc." on Justia Law

Contour IP Holding LLC sued GoPro, Inc. for patent infringement, alleging that GoPro's point-of-view digital video cameras infringed on Contour's patents, specifically U.S. Patent Nos. 8,890,954 and 8,896,694. These patents relate to portable, point-of-view video cameras designed for hands-free use, with features allowing remote image acquisition control and viewing. The patents describe a system where the camera generates high and low-quality video streams in parallel, with the low-quality stream being wirelessly transmitted to a remote device for real-time viewing and adjustment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California initially construed the term "generate" in the patents to mean "record in parallel from the video image data." Later, GoPro moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court agreed, finding that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of creating and transmitting video at different resolutions and adjusting the video’s settings remotely. The court concluded that the claims did not include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application and entered judgment against Contour.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Federal Circuit held that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea but to a specific technological improvement in POV camera technology. The court found that the claims described a specific means of generating high and low-quality video streams in parallel and wirelessly transmitting the low-quality stream to a remote device, which provided a technological solution to a technological problem. Therefore, the claims were patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "CONTOUR IP HOLDING LLC v. GOPRO, INC. " on Justia Law

ParkerVision, Inc. sued Qualcomm Inc. in 2014, alleging infringement of patents related to wireless communications technology. This followed a 2011 lawsuit where ParkerVision claimed Qualcomm infringed on different but related patents. In the 2011 case, the court granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of non-infringement, which was affirmed on appeal. In the 2014 case, the district court granted Qualcomm’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement based on collateral estoppel from the 2011 case and excluded certain expert testimonies from ParkerVision.The district court for the Middle District of Florida granted Qualcomm’s motions, concluding that the claims in the 2014 case were materially similar to those in the 2011 case, thus applying collateral estoppel. The court also excluded ParkerVision’s expert testimonies on validity and infringement, deeming them unreliable due to a lack of testing and simulation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. It vacated the summary judgment of non-infringement, finding that the district court erred by not conducting a proper claim construction to determine if the claims in the 2014 case were materially different from those in the 2011 case. The appellate court also reversed the exclusion of ParkerVision’s expert testimonies, ruling that the district court improperly required testing and simulation for the expert opinions to be considered reliable. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the proper scope of the claims and whether the differences in the claims would materially alter the question of infringement. View "PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED " on Justia Law

Osseo Imaging, LLC sued Planmeca USA Inc. for patent infringement, alleging that Planmeca's ProMax 3D imaging systems infringed on Osseo's U.S. Patent Nos. 6,381,301, 6,944,262, and 8,498,374. These patents relate to orthopedic imaging systems that use X-ray beam techniques to create tomographic and/or densitometric models. The jury found that Planmeca infringed the asserted claims and that the claims were not invalid for obviousness.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied Planmeca's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on both noninfringement and invalidity. Planmeca argued that Osseo's expert, Dr. Omid Kia, was not qualified to testify because he did not have the requisite experience at the time of the patents' invention. The district court rejected this argument, stating that there is no legal requirement for an expert to have acquired their expertise before the patent's effective date. The court also found that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Dr. Kia's testimony was admissible and that there is no requirement for an expert to have the requisite skill at the time of the invention. The court found that substantial evidence supported the jury's findings of infringement and nonobviousness. Specifically, the court noted that the evidence showed Planmeca's systems calculated Hounsfield Unit values representing bone density, merged information from multiple tomographic scans, and facilitated the comparison of densitometry models. The court also upheld the jury's finding that it would not have been obvious to combine the prior art references cited by Planmeca. Thus, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of JMOL on all issues. View "OSSEO IMAGING, LLC v. PLANMECA USA INC. " on Justia Law

Dyax Corporation performed research for Ares Trading S.A. and licensed patents to Ares, including some held by Cambridge Antibody Technology (CAT Patents). Ares used Dyax’s research to develop a cancer drug, Bavencio, and agreed to pay royalties to Dyax based on the drug’s sales. The royalty obligation outlasted the lifespan of the CAT Patents. The District Court held that Ares’ royalty obligation was not unenforceable under Brulotte v. Thys Co., which prohibits royalties that extend beyond a patent’s expiration.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware found that Ares’ royalty obligation did not violate Brulotte because it was not calculated based on activity requiring the use of inventions covered by the CAT Patents after their expiration. The court characterized the royalties as deferred compensation for Dyax’s pre-expiration research. Additionally, the court noted that Ares’ royalty obligation could run until the latest-running patent covered in the agreement expired, which included patents other than the CAT Patents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Third Circuit held that Ares’ royalty obligation was not calculated based on activity requiring post-expiration use of the CAT Patents, and thus, Brulotte did not apply. The court emphasized that the royalties were based on sales of Bavencio, which did not require the use of the CAT Patents after their expiration. The court also rejected Ares’ argument that Dyax violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, noting that Ares received all the benefits promised under the agreement. The court concluded that Dyax did not breach any obligations under the agreement, and Ares’ royalty obligation remained enforceable. View "Ares Trading SA v. Dyax Corp" on Justia Law