Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Waymo sued Uber and Ottomotto for patent infringement and violations of trade secret laws, claiming that its former employee, Levandowski, improperly downloaded documents related to Waymo’s driverless vehicle technology, then left Waymo to found Ottomotto, which Uber subsequently acquired. Before that acquisition closed, counsel for Ottomotto and Uber retained Stroz to investigate Ottomotto employees previously employed by Waymo, including Levandowski. During discovery, Waymo successfully moved to compel the defendants to produce the Stroz Report. Waymo also subpoenaed Stroz to obtain the Report plus the communications, documents, and devices provided to Stroz. Levandowski, Ottomotto, and Uber unsuccessfully moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the Report was subject to attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. The Federal Circuit denied Levandowski’s petition for mandamus relief. Levandowski failed to articulate any persuasive reasons why disclosure of the Report should be barred; the possibility of admissions against his interest is a valid function of civil discovery. The court rejected Levandowski’s “unsupported assertions” that the district court would be unable to “cleanse the trial of all taint from the improper disclosure,” noting that the court had examined the Report in camera and declined to exclude it. The district court properly determined that the common interest doctrine did not apply, found that Levandowski waived work-product protection, and rejected Levandowski’s claim of Fifth Amendment privilege. View "Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

Southwire’s patent is directed to a method of manufacturing an electric cable, wherein a lubricant is incorporated into the outer sheath such that the lubricant migrates to the surface of the sheath and results in a reduction in pulling force required to install the cable. One prior art solution for reducing the pulling force on a cable during installation was a post-manufacturing method of coating the cable's exterior surface with a lubricant, such as petroleum jelly, immediately before installation. Southwire explains that this was expensive and inefficient; its patent purports to improve upon such methods by incorporating a lubricant into the cable sheath material during manufacture so that the finished cable sheath comprises a lubricant that will migrate to the exterior of the sheath and lubricate the surface during installation. The Federal Circuit affirmed a determination, on inter partes review, that 42 claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103. While the Patent Board erred in relying on inherency without finding that prior art necessarily would achieve a 30% reduction in pulling force, but rather finding that it merely renders that limitation obvious, the error was harmless because the Board made the necessary underlying factual findings to support an obviousness determination. View "Southwire Co. v. Cerro Wire LLC" on Justia Law

Lifetime’s patent describes a two-part seal for use in a mobile living quarters (recreational vehicle) with a slide-out room. A slide-out room is formed by extending a portion of the side wall of the RV outward to create extra interior space. The Federal Circuit reversed dismissal of Lifetime’s infringement suit against Trim-Lok. Lifetime adequately alleged that Trim-Lok directly infringed. Commercial manufacture is not the only way that a combination can infringe. Although Lifetime did not allege that Trim-Lok made the RV onto which it installed the seal, Lifetime did allege that that an agent of Trim-Lok installed the seal onto the RV, and that the resulting seal-RV combination infringed the patent. Lifetime also plausibly alleged that Trim-Lok induced infringement; it adequately pleaded that Trim-Lok had knowledge of the patent before the allegedly infringing act and that Trim-Lok had the intent to infringe. View "Lifetime Industries, Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc." on Justia Law

Kraft’s patent, issued in 2005, describes a combination of two known kinds of packaging. One, common for cookies, uses a frame surrounded by a wrapper. The other, common for wet wipes, uses a package on which the label may be pulled back to access the contents, then put back in place to reseal the package to preserve the items remaining inside. In Kraft’s infringement suit against Kellogg, the district court entered summary judgment of invalidity for obviousness, 35 U.S.C. 103, but rejected Kellogg’s counterclaim of unenforceability of the patent due to alleged inequitable conduct by Kraft, chiefly in an ex parte reexamination proceeding. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding no error in the sequence of steps the district court took in arriving at its ultimate obviousness determination and upholding the court’s conclusion that any reasonable jury would have to find a motivation to combine. Kellogg’s evidence was insufficient to permit a finding of the intent required for inequitable conduct based on Kraft’s reexamination arguments. View "Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC v. Kellogg North America Co." on Justia Law

SynQor owns several patents directed to a particular architecture for direct current-to-direct current (DC-DC) power converters. Vicor requested, and the Patent and Trademark Office granted, inter partes reexaminations of the SynQor Patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that certain claims were patentable over prior art combinations proposed by Vicor but that that certain claims in another patent were unpatentable as anticipated or obvious. In a consolidated appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part, finding that, despite sharing a common panel and having opinions issued on the same date, the decisions in the respective reexaminations contained inconsistent findings on identical issues and on essentially the same record. The conflicting findings were unsupported by any rational explanation in either of the Board’s decisions. View "Vicor Corp. v. SynQor, Inc." on Justia Law

Ultratec sued CaptionCall for infringement of patents concerning systems for assisting deaf or hard-of-hearing users to make phone calls and won damages of $44.1 million. CaptionCall had filed petitions for inter partes reviews (IPRs). The court stayed post-judgment proceedings pending resolution of the IPRs. CaptionCall retained the same invalidity expert (Occhiogrosso) in the litigation and the IPRs. Ultratec sought to introduce the trial testimony into the IPRs, alleging that Occhiogrosso’s trial testimony conflicted with written declarations he made in the IPRs. Because Ultratec had not first requested authorization to file the motion, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board expunged the motion from the record. Board regulations require that a party seeking to introduce supplemental evidence more than one month after institution first request authorization to file a motion to submit the evidence. The Board held that all challenged claims in the Ultratec patents were either anticipated or would have been obvious in light of prior art references, citing Occhiogrosso’s testimony more than 30 times. The Federal Circuit vacated. The Board failed to consider material evidence and failed to explain its decisions to exclude the evidence to exclude Occhiogrosso’s trial testimony. View "Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC" on Justia Law

Return Mail’s patent is directed to processing mail items that are undeliverable due to an inaccurate or obsolete address, using scannable bar codes. Ex parte reexamination resulted in the cancellation of all original claims and the issuance of new claims in 2011. After trying unsuccessfully to license the patent to the Postal Service, Return filed suit under 28 U.S.C. 1498(a), alleging infringement. The Postal Service sought covered business method (CBM ) review, asserting patent-ineligible subject matter, 35 U.S.C. 101 and anticipation, sections 102 and 103. Return raised patentability arguments and contested the Postal Service’s ability under the America Invents Act (AIA), 125 Stat. 284, to petition for CBM review. The Board held that the Postal Service had statutory “standing,” instituted review, and held that the challenged claims were drawn to ineligible subject matter. The Federal CIrcuit affirmed, first agreeing that the Postal Service has standing. While there are differences between section 1498(a) suits against the government and suits for infringement against private parties, those differences are insufficient to exclude a government-related defendant under section 1498(a) from seeking CBM review. The claims at issue simply recite existing business practices with the benefit of generic computing technology, which is not sufficient to impart patent eligibility. View "Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service" on Justia Law

Stepan’s application is directed to herbicidal formulations containing glyphosate salt with a surfactant system. Surfactants can enhance glyphosate’s effectiveness as an herbicide by providing better leaf-adherence, enhancing penetration; the "invention is based on the unexpected discovery that surfactant systems comprising dialkoxylated alkylamine, water miscible solubilizer and amine oxide allow for formulation of ultra-high loaded (‘high-strength’) glyphosate salt concentrates possessing high or no cloud points” (the temperature at which a solution becomes cloudy due to the surfactants becoming insoluble and separating into layers). Cloudiness can be avoided if the cloud point is higher than the solution’s temperature or if the solution is cooled before adding the surfactant. The specification explains that because glyphosate salt is created at about 75ºC, it is advantageous to formulate glyphosate with a surfactant system exhibiting a high cloud point to “obviate the necessity of waiting for the temperature of the glyphosate salt reaction product to cool.” Surfactant systems with high or no cloud points allow for quicker formulation of glyphosate concentrates and quicker delivery to the market. The Federal Circuit vacated the rejection of 31 claims on grounds of obviousness. The Board failed to adequately articulate its reasoning, erroneously rejected relevant evidence of nonobviousness, and improperly shifted to Stepan the burden of proving patentability. View "In re: Stepan Co." on Justia Law

Nidec’s patent is directed to low-noise heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and includes a permanent magnet electric motor that turns a fan to move air through ductwork. An improved motor controller performs sinewave commutation instead of more conventional square-wave commutation. Commutation is the repeated sequencing of electrical currents applied to windings within the permanent magnet motor that causes the motor to rotate. Square-wave commutation involves abrupt changes in the voltage applied to a given winding as the sequence progresses, similar to repeatedly flipping a switch. Sinewave commutation involves more gradual and continuous oscillations in applied voltage, similar to sliding a dimmer switch between those states, resulting in less vibration and noise. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board conducted inter partes review. The Federal Circuit affirmed its determination that several claims are invalid as obvious over a combination of prior references, 35 U.S.C. 103. And that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 102. View "Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Georgetown’s patent relates to a system for inspecting the steel tie plates that connect rail tracks to wooden ties, using digital technology. Georgetown's Aurora System uses lasers and cameras mounted on a vehicle to collect and process information about track ties to allow customers to “manage the logistics of crosstie replacement.” Holland purchases track and crosstie measuring technologies from Rail Vision and places those technologies on its own track inspection "TrackStar" vehicles. Data from the track is sent to third-parties for processing. Rail Vision sends finished reports to Holland for distribution to Holland’s customers. Holland and Georgetown knew of each other’s place in the track-tie market. The companies participated in a “head-to-head challenge,” and demonstrated their services to potential customer Union Pacific. Following the demonstrations, Union Pacific and Holland agreed to alter an existing contract to allow Holland to provide Rail Vision Systems technology to Union Pacific. Georgetown sued Holland for infringement and was granted a preliminary injunction, ending Holland’s potential sales to Union Pacific. A jury found that Holland willfully infringed Georgetown's patent and awarded $1,541,333 in damages. The court awarded Georgetown an additional $1,000,000 in enhanced damages based on a finding of willful infringement, 35 U.S.C. 284. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence supports a finding that subjective recklessness led to willful infringement in this case. View "Georgetown Rail Equipment Co. v. Holland L.P." on Justia Law