Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

The patent, entitled “Real Time Video Communications System,” discloses “tools and techniques for providing video calling solutions” and relates to real-time video conferencing where two or more users communicate, over a network, in a conference that includes video and audio of each participant. In three separate inter partes review proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that Microsoft failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims were anticipated, 35 U.S.C. 102, or obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding the decision supported by substantial evidence and upholding the Board's claim constructions. View "Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc." on Justia Law

Bosch’s patent, titled “Remote Tire Monitoring System,” relates to a handheld tool for activating remote tire pressure monitoring system (RTMS) tire sensors and communicating with a vehicle’s RTMS receiving unit. The RTMS receiving unit can then use that information to alert the driver of a specific tire characteristic such as low tire pressure. Different manufacturers use different types of devices and/or signals for activating RTMS tire sensors, including magnets, valve core depressors, continuous wave signals, and modulated signals, and use different methods to transmit data to the receiving unit. The patent’s claimed activation tool is intended to work with all of these known RTMS architectures. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted inter partes review (IPR). Bosch filed a patent owner response and a “contingent” motion to amend, seeking to substitute amended claims for original claims in the event that the Board found the challenged claims unpatentable. The Board found all challenged claims unpatentable and denied Bosch’s contingent motion to amend. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding of unpatentability of claims 1, 4–15, and 20–22, under 35 U.S.C. 103, and vacated its denial of Bosch’s motion to amend as to proposed substitute claims 23–38, with respect to which the Board improperly assigned the burden of proof to Bosch. View "Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Matal" on Justia Law

Tropp’s patents are directed to the use of dual-access locks in airline luggage inspection. Tropp’s system permits the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to unlock, inspect, and relock checked baggage. Sentry administers a similar system and has license agreements with lock and luggage manufacturers. Under an Agreement with TSA, Sentry provides TSA with passkeys for distribution to field locations. TSA takes no responsibility for damage to baggage secured with Sentry locks but will make good faith efforts to distribute and use the passkeys. TSA does not endorse any particular system. Following earlier appeals, the district court granted summary judgment, finding that Sentry and its licensees did not infringe Tropp’s patents under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). The Federal Circuit vacated. A reasonable jury could conclude that TSA’s performance of the final two claim steps is attributable to Sentry such that Sentry is liable for direct infringement. Although the partnership-like relationship between Sentry and TSA is unique, the court should have considered evidence that TSA, hoping to obtain access to certain benefits, can only do so if it performs certain steps identified by Sentry, under terms prescribed by Sentry. Sentry can stop or limit TSA’s ability to practice the final two steps by terminating the Agreement, discontinuing its practice of replacing passkeys that are damaged or lost or changing the design of future locks such that the TSA keys no longer work. View "Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp" on Justia Law

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes review of the 174 Patent, which is directed to methods and apparatuses for a radio communications system where a subscriber station, i.e., a mobile device, is assigned a plurality of codes for transmitting messages. The Board found that the claims were not obvious or anticipated in prior art, The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the Board’s application of the term “message” improperly excluded embodiments of “transmissions of data at intervals specified in a UMTS [Universal Mobile Telecommunications System] system,” specifically by excluding single frame Enhanced Dedicated Uplink Channel messages. Substantial evidence supported the patentability determination. View "HTC Corp. v. Cellular Communications Equipment, LLC" on Justia Law

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), governs abbreviated biologics license applications (aBLAs) based on the licensing of a reference product. BPCIA allows patent infringement suits before approval: the applicant provides confidential access to its aBLA. The parties negotiate a list of patents for an immediate infringement action. Under subsection 262(l), the applicant gives notice at least 180 days before commercial marketing, to allow a suit for preliminary injunction. If the applicant discloses information, neither may bring suit based on non-listed patents before notice of commercial marketing. Amgen has marketed Neupogen® since 1991. Sandoz filed an aBLA, for a Neupogen biosimilar. Sandoz notified Amgen that intended to launch its biosimilar upon approval and would not provide its aBLA. In 2015, the FDA approved Sandoz’s aBLA. Sandoz gave notice of commercial marketing. Amgen sued, asserting state law claims of unfair competition based on BPCIA violations; conversion; and patent infringement. The court held that BPCIA permits an applicant not to disclose its aBLA and that the applicant may give notice of commercial marketing before FDA approval. The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of Amgen’s state law claims, but directed the court to consider the patent infringement claims. The Supreme Court held that an injunction under federal law is not available to enforce 42 U.S.C. 262(l)(2)(A) and a biosimilar applicant may provide the notice required by 262(l)(8)(A) either before or after FDA approval to start the 180-day clock. The Federal Circuit then affirmed dismissal of the state law claims; Sandoz did not forfeit its preemption defense and the BPCIA preempts state law remedies for failure to comply with section 262(l)(2)(A). View "Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz" on Justia Law

IH’s patent relates to a method of purchasing goods at a local point-of-sale system from a remote seller. IH sued Bed Bath & Beyond for infringement. Two months later, the district court granted BBB summary judgment, concluding that the Supreme Court’s intervening decision, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, rendered the asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the asserted claims are directed to the abstract idea of “local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods.” The Federal Circuit affirmed. BBB moved for an award of attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, arguing that, once Alice issued, IH should have reevaluated its case and dismissed the action. The district court granted BBB’s fees motion, holding that, “following the Alice decision, IH’s claims were objectively without merit,” and awarded BBB its attorney fees beginning from the date of the Alice decision, including fees incurred during the section 101 appeal. The Federal Circuit affirmed. IH’s claims were “dubious even before the Alice decision” and Alice was a significant change in the law as applied to the facts of this particular case. View "Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc." on Justia Law

Arctic Cat sued BRP for infringement of the 969 and 545 patents, which disclose a thrust steering system for personal watercraft propelled by jet stream. The district court rejected, as a matter of law, BRP’s argument that the asserted claims would have been obvious (35 U.S.C. 103), that Arctic Cat failed to mark patented products, that the jury’s royalty award was based on improper expert testimony, and that BRP did not willfully infringe the asserted claims. The court awarded treble damages and an ongoing royalty. The Federal Circuit affirmed as to obviousness, the jury’s royalty rate, willfulness, the awards of treble damages and an ongoing royalty. Substantial evidence of industry recognition and “long-felt need” supported a conclusion that a skilled artisan would not have “anticipated success” with the claimed combination. The court vacated as to marking, 35 U.S.C. 287(a), and remanded for further consideration limited to that issue. View "Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc." on Justia Law

Addressing appeals in three companion cases from inter partes reviews by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit affirmed the “Iron Dome” and “DISH” Final Written Decisions but reversed the Board’s determination on obviousness in the “Hulu” decision. The patent at issue describes methods and systems for “user-directed transfer of an on-going software-based session from one device to another device.” Substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that five claims of the patent were anticipated and multiple claims would have been obvious over the combination of prior art. View "CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal" on Justia Law

Presidio alleged infringement of its patent, which claims a multilayer capacitor design and teaches a multilayer integrated network of capacitors electrically connected in series and in parallel. While the suit was pending, ATC sought an ex parte reexamination of the patent in light of new prior art. The examiner rejected the claims as anticipated and obvious. Presidio amended the claims. The Patent and Trademark Office issued a reexamination certificate for the patent. Based on the amended claims, a jury found direct infringement and induced infringement of six claims by the accused products and that Presidio had proven by clear and convincing evidence that ATC’s infringement of the asserted claims was willful. The jury awarded Presidio $2,166,654 in lost profit damages and issued an advisory verdict that ATC failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 1 was indefinite. The district court upheld the findings, in favor of Presidio, but denied Presidio’s motion for enhanced damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the claims are not indefinite, that enhanced damages were appropriate, and that ATC is entitled to absolute intervening rights because a substantive amendment was made during reexamination but held that the evidence did not support an award of lost profits, vacated an injunction, and remanded for determination of a reasonable royalty. View "Presidio Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp." on Justia Law

BASF’s patent describes and claims systems for performing catalytic conversion of nitrogen oxides (NOx) in an exhaust gas stream, with a partly-dual-layer arrangement of coatings on a substrate over which exhaust gas passes—a coat along the full length of the substrate containing “a material composition B effective to catalyze selective catalytic reduction (SCR) of NOx”; and beneath part of that coat, on the outlet end of the gas passage, a partial-substrate undercoat containing “a material composition A effective for catalyzing NH3 oxidation” (ammonia oxidation, or AMOx). BASF sued its competitor for infringement. The district court held that the “effective for catalyzing”/“effective to catalyze” language was indefinite and entered judgment of invalidity. The Federal Circuit reversed. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in “Nautilus,” the question is: would the “composition . . . effective to catalyze” language, understood in light of the rest of the patent and the knowledge of the ordinary skilled artisan, have given a person of ordinary skill in the art a reasonably certain understanding of what compositions are covered? The district court’s reasoning supplied no basis to answer that question in defendant’s favor; the inference of indefiniteness simply from the scope finding is legally incorrect: “breadth is not indefiniteness.” View "BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc." on Justia Law