Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

In an infringement suit, the district court declared Minton’s patent invalid under the “on sale” bar since he had leased his interactive securities trading system to a brokerage more than one year before the patent application, 35 U. S. C. 102(b). Seeking reconsideration, Minton argued for the first time that the lease was part of testing and fell within the “experimental use” exception to the bar. The Federal Circuit affirmed denial of the motion, concluding that the argument was waived. Minton sued for legal malpractice in Texas state court. His former attorneys argued that Minton’s claims would have failed even if the experimental-use argument had been timely raised. The trial court agreed. Minton then claimed that the court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. 1338(a), which provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction over any case “arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents.” The Texas Court of Appeals rejected Minton’s argument and determined that Minton failed to establish experimental use. The state’s highest court reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Section 338(a) does not deprive state courts of subject matter jurisdiction over Minton’s malpractice claim. Federal law does not create that claim, so it can arise under federal patent law only if it necessarily raises a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which may be entertained without disturbing an approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. Resolution of a federal patent question is “necessary” to Minton’s case and the issue is “actually disputed,” but it does not carry the necessary significance. No matter the resolution of the hypothetical “case within a case,” the result of the prior patent litigation will not change. Nor will allowing state courts to resolve these cases undermine development of a uniform body of patent law. View "Gunn v. Minton" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of a contract dispute between Verint and Tekelec where Tekelec sought a right to payment stemming from a patent dispute between two corporate entities not directly involved in this appeal. The district court awarded summary judgment to Tekelec and denied Verint's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court rejected Verint's claims that Tekelc lacked constitutional standing to enforce its right to the payments at issue. Because the court concluded that Verint's fixed, contractual payment obligations under the Blue Pumpkin/IEX Agreement unambiguously fell outside of the scope of the subsequent Verint/NICE Settlement's boilerplate Non-Accrual Clause, the court need not consider Tekelec's alternative argument that the disputed payments accrued prior to the effective date of the Verint/NICE Settlement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Tekelec, Inc. v. Verint Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

The 314 patent, its continuation, the 492 patent, and the 639 patent, relate to electronic commerce; products are offered and purchased through computers interconnected by a network. The patents arise from a software system called “Transact,” developed in 1996 by Open Market. In 2001 Open Market was sold, with the Transact software and patents, to Divine, which was unable to provide support for the complex product and declared bankruptcy. Soverain acquired the Transact software and patents, then sued seven online retailers for patent infringement. The defendants, except Newegg, took paid up licenses to the patents. Newegg declined to pay, stating that its system is materially different and that the patents are invalid if given the scope asserted by Soverain: similar electronic commerce systems were known before the system; the Transact software was generally abandoned; and Newegg’s system, based on the different principle of using “cookies” on the buyer’s computer to collect shopping data, is outside of the claims. The district court awarded Soverain damages and an ongoing royalty and held that the claims were not invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, holding that claims in the all of the patents are invalid for obviousness. View "Soverain Software, LLC v. Newegg, Inc." on Justia Law

Allflex sought a declaratory judgment that Avid’s patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and that Allflex was not liable for infringement. Avid counterclaimed, alleging infringement. The patents relate to Radio Frequency Identification technology used in locator tags attached to animals or objects. The district court ruled that Avid should be sanctioned for failing to disclose the existence of pending reexamination proceedings. After construing the claims, the district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement and granted partial summary judgment in favor of Allflex on its inequitable conduct claim. The court held that Avid’s failure to disclose information about prior public use and offers to sell one of its products was material to inequitable conduct, but concluded that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether Avid’s president had the requisite intent to deceive the PTO, an element of Allflex’s claim. The parties entered into a settlement agreement: Avid agreed to pay Allflex $6.55 million, reserving the right to appeal certain issues. The Federal Circuit dismissed as moot, rejecting a claim that a live controversy existed under a provision that Avid’s settlement payment would be reduced by $50,000 if Avid was successful on any of its appeals. View "Allflex USA, Inc. v. Avid Identification Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Parallel owns a patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Client-Server Communication Using a Limited Capability Client Over a Low-Speed Communications Link.” The application was filed in 1999 and addressed problems in using generic software applications on “handheld and credit-card-sized” computers, often operated over low-speed or wireless networks. Generic applications in that environment occupied considerable storage space on the host computer (they had to include capabilities for adapting to many different settings) and required multiple, data-intensive transfers of information between the server and the computer (they were not designed with the limitations of low-speed networks in mind). The patent’s solution was a “dynamically generated, transient applet,” a small program that typically performs one task. Applets and related technology, “plug-ins,” pre-dated the patent, and could be used to provide “dynamic” capabilities to web pages. The patent claimed a new type of applet, better suited to the needs of “limited capability clients.” Parallel sued 120 defendants with websites that provide applets in response to user requests in a manner that, according to Parallel, infringes the patent. The district court construed terms, including “executable applet,” “data interface capability,” and “dynamically generated” and ruled in favor of most of the defendants. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Parallel Networks, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co." on Justia Law

Superior owns three patents, which claim priority to a 2006 application and cover a “Braced Telescoping Support Strut and System” that supports a portable conveyor assembly to transport and stockpile rock, sand, grain, and other aggregate material. Superior alleges its patents claim an improved undercarriage that enables portable conveyors to safely and stably operate at heights above previous conveyors by using cross bracing between the upper and lower support beams that does not interfere with the extension or retraction of upper support beams. Superior claims to have coined the term “fully braced” and owns the registered trademark “FB.” Thor competes in the portable conveyor market and, in 2007, filed a U.S. patent application for an “Undercarriage for a Telescopic Frame,” disclosing a telescoping frame similar to that claimed in the Superior patents. Thor issued a press release describing a conveyor system with a new “PATENT-PENDING FB Undercarriage.” Superior initiated a trademark infringement action that ended in a 2010 Consent Judgment, enjoining Thor from use of the “FB” trademark. Superior then sued for patent infringement. The district court dismissed, citing claim preclusion. The Federal Circuit reversed in part. Superior’s prior trademark infringement action did not arise from the same operative facts. View "Superior Indus., L.L.C. v. Thor Global Enter., Ltd." on Justia Law

A jury found that Lawson infringes ePlus’s method and system claims for “electronic sourcing,” which is similar to online shopping. The specification explains that electronic sourcing systems existed in prior art, but those older systems only enabled the user to generate a single purchase order that would be submitted to a single vendor. One important feature of the claimed invention is ability to divide a single requisition (or shopping list) into multiple purchase orders. The patented invention includes a computer that maintains a catalog database of items available from at least two vendors. Vendors may be manufacturers, distributors, or resellers. The user can search vendor catalogs for items that match certain criteria, contact vendors to determine whether a particular product is available, and switch between different catalogs to look at equivalent items. The customer then purchases the desired items. A customer adds the desired item to an “order list;” once the customer is ready to make a purchase, the system uses the order list to build a “requisition,” then determines what inventory will be used to complete the requisition and generates “purchase orders,” which are submitted to vendors. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, finding the system claims indefinite. . View "ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc." on Justia Law

Apple alleged that Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus smart-phone infringed patents, including the 604 patent. Asserted claim 6 of the 604 patent is directed to a “unified search” that uses heuristic modules to search multiple data storage locations. Unified search refers to ability to access information on more than one data storage location through a single interface and allows the user to search the device’s local memory and the Internet by entering a single search query. Apple alleged that the Quick Search Box unified search application of Galaxy Nexus infringes claim 6. QSB is a feature of Android, an open-source mobile software platform developed by Google. Any software developer may use Android to create applications and any handset manufacturer can install Android on a device. Galaxy Nexus is one of more than 300 available Android smartphones. The release of the allegedly infringing version of the Android platform predated release of Galaxy Nexus, but Google is not a defendant. The district court enjoined sale of the Galaxy Nexus based on the alleged infringement of the 604 patent. The Federal Circuit reversed. The record did not permit the inference that the allegedly infringing features of the Galaxy Nexus drive consumer demand or the court’s clam construction. View "Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, Motorola appealed from the district court's preliminary injunction to enjoin Motorola temporarily from enforcing a patent injunction that it obtained against Microsoft in Germany. The underlying case before the district court concerned how to interpret and enforce patent-holders' commitments to industry standard-setting organizations (SSOs), which established technical specifications to ensure that products from different manufacturers were compatible with each other. Specifically, the case involved the H.264 video coding standard set by International Telecommunications Union (ITU), and the 802.11 wireless local area network standard set by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The court held that, under the unique circumstances of this case, the district court's narrowly tailored preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

The holder of the 946 Patent, “System and Apparatus for Interactive Multimedia Entertainment,” issued in 1995, alleged infringement. The district court found that, during prosecution of the 946 patent, the named inventor and his attorney withheld from the United States Patent and Trademark Office three material references and information about PTO rejections in two related prosecutions, thereby committing inequitable conduct and rendering the 946 Patent unenforceable. The Federal Circuit reversed, stating that there was no evidence of a deliberate decision to withhold the references. View "1ST Media, LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc." on Justia Law