Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

The case involves a patent interference proceeding between the Regents of the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively “Regents”) and the Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (collectively “Broad”). The dispute centers on the priority of invention for a CRISPR-Cas9 system that edits DNA in eukaryotic cells using a single-guide RNA.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final decision concluding that Broad has priority over Regents for the CRISPR-Cas9 system. The PTAB determined that Broad reduced the invention to practice by October 5, 2012, when Broad's scientist, Feng Zhang, submitted a manuscript to Science. The PTAB rejected Regents' earlier asserted dates of conception and reduction to practice, which were based on various disclosures and experiments conducted by Regents' scientists. The PTAB also denied Regents' motion to be accorded the benefit of the filing date of its first and second provisional patent applications, determining that they lacked written description support for the claimed invention.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the PTAB legally erred by conflating the standards for conception and reduction to practice, requiring Regents' scientists to know their invention would work to prove conception. The court vacated the PTAB's decision on conception and remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal framework. The court affirmed the PTAB's decision on written description, finding no legal error in the PTAB's analysis. The court dismissed Broad's cross-appeal on claim construction as moot, as the PTAB's denial of Broad's preliminary motions was based on independently sufficient grounds unrelated to claim construction. View "THE BROAD INSTITUTE, INC. v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA " on Justia Law

Incyte Corporation appealed a post-grant review (PGR) final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) which held that Incyte failed to prove claims 1–7 and 9–21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,561,659 were unpatentable. The '659 patent, owned by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., discloses a method of treating hair-loss disorders using deuterium-modified ruxolitinib. Incyte petitioned for PGR, arguing the claims were obvious, but the Board found Incyte's arguments unpersuasive and upheld the claims. Incyte's request for rehearing was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. Sun argued that Incyte lacked Article III standing to appeal. The court noted that standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue that must be addressed before reaching the merits of an appeal. To establish standing, Incyte needed to demonstrate an injury in fact, which it attempted to do by claiming potential infringement liability and invoking the competitor standing doctrine.The court found that Incyte's plans to develop a deuterated ruxolitinib product were too speculative to establish concrete plans for future activity that would create a substantial risk of future infringement. The court also determined that Incyte's reliance on the competitor standing doctrine was insufficient because Incyte did not show it was currently engaging in or had nonspeculative plans to engage in conduct covered by the claims of the '659 patent.Ultimately, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Incyte failed to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. View "INCYTE CORPORATION v. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. " on Justia Law

Ingenico Inc. filed a declaratory judgment action against IOENGINE, LLC, in the District of Delaware, asserting that IOENGINE's patents were invalid. The patents in question, U.S. Patent No. 9,059,969 and U.S. Patent No. 9,774,703, relate to a portable device, such as a USB thumb drive, that includes a processor for network communication. IOENGINE counterclaimed, alleging infringement. Ingenico argued that the patents were invalid due to prior art, specifically a USB device known as the DiskOnKey System, which included a Firmware Upgrader.The District Court for the District of Delaware held a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict finding the claims of the patents invalid as anticipated and obvious. IOENGINE filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and a motion for a new trial, both of which were denied by the district court. IOENGINE then appealed the decision, challenging the jury's findings and the district court's rulings on jury instructions and the introduction of prior art.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict that the DiskOnKey System, including the Firmware Upgrader, was in public use before the critical date, thus invalidating the patents. The court also held that the district court did not err in its jury instructions or in allowing Ingenico to introduce the prior art at trial. The court clarified that IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) did not preclude Ingenico from using the DiskOnKey System to argue that the claimed invention was known or used by others, on sale, or in public use, as these grounds could not have been raised during the IPR.The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the jury's verdict of invalidity. View "INGENICO INC. v. IOENGINE, LLC " on Justia Law

Incyte Corporation and Incyte Holdings Corporation (collectively, Incyte) own U.S. Patent No. 9,662,335, which claims deuterated versions of ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) modulator used to treat autoimmune disorders. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (collectively, Sun) secured FDA approval for an oral deuterated ruxolitinib product, branded as Leqselvi, to treat alopecia areata (AA) and planned to launch it in October 2024. Incyte sued Sun for allegedly infringing the ’335 patent and moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent Sun from launching Leqselvi.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Incyte’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that Incyte would suffer irreparable harm if Sun launched Leqselvi. The district court based its decision on the theory that Sun’s launch would give it an unjust head start in the AA market, diminishing the value of Incyte’s investments in developing its own topical deuterated ruxolitinib product.Sun appealed the district court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit reviewed the grant of the preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion, focusing on whether the district court made a clear error in its irreparable harm analysis. The Federal Circuit found that the district court clearly erred in its finding of irreparable harm, as it was based on the incorrect assumption that Incyte would be first to market if the injunction were granted. The court noted that Sun’s multi-year head start was inevitable regardless of the injunction, as Incyte’s product would not launch until several years after the ’335 patent expired.The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting the preliminary injunction, concluding that Incyte failed to provide non-speculative evidence of irreparable harm. View "INCYTE CORPORATION v. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD. " on Justia Law

Miodrag Kostic and Guy Vandevelde, owners and listed inventors of U.S. Patent No. 8,494,950, appealed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that sustained the examiner’s rejection of claim 3 of their Reissue Application No. 16/667,530. The '950 patent is directed to methods for buying and selling click-through traffic on internet websites, involving a trial process to measure traffic before a bidding process. Claim 3 of the original patent allowed for a direct exchange of click-through traffic without a trial process.The examiner rejected the reissue application, finding that the reissue claim 3 was broader than the original claim 3 and thus constituted an improper broadening reissue application filed outside the permissible two-year period. The examiner also found the reissue claim 3 to be obvious over prior art. The PTAB affirmed these rejections, agreeing that reissue claim 3 improperly broadened the scope of the original claim by making the trial process optional, which was not allowed under 35 U.S.C. § 251(d).The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the scope of reissue claim 3 was indeed broader than the original claim 3 because it allowed for either a trial process or a direct exchange without a trial process, whereas the original claim 3 required both. The court emphasized that the proper inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 251(d) is whether the reissue claim is broader than the actual scope of the original claim, not the intended scope. Consequently, the court affirmed the PTAB’s decision, finding that the reissue application was statutorily barred as it broadened the scope of the original patent claims beyond the permissible period. View "In Re KOSTIC " on Justia Law

Fintiv, Inc. sued PayPal Holdings, Inc. for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserting four patents related to a cloud-based transaction system. The district court determined that certain claim terms in the asserted patents were subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 and held the asserted claims invalid as indefinite.The district court found that the payment-handler terms in the patents invoked § 112 ¶ 6 because they recited function without sufficient structure. The court noted that the terms were drafted in a format consistent with traditional means-plus-function limitations and merely replaced the term "means" with "payment handler" or "payment handler service." The court also found that the specifications of the asserted patents failed to disclose adequate structure corresponding to the claimed functions, rendering the claims indefinite.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's indefiniteness determination. The Federal Circuit agreed that the payment-handler terms invoked § 112 ¶ 6 because they recited function without sufficient structure. The court also agreed that the specifications did not disclose any algorithm to perform the recited functions, and thus, the claims were indefinite. The Federal Circuit concluded that the payment-handler terms were no more than a "black box recitation of structure" and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood how to implement the recited functions based on the specifications. View "FINTIV, INC. v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC. " on Justia Law

Honeywell International, a Delaware corporation, and OPTO Electronics, a Japanese company, are competitors in the barcode-scanning equipment market. In May 2019, Honeywell sued OPTO for patent infringement, alleging that OPTO's barcode products infringed on seven of Honeywell's patents. The parties settled in January 2020 with a patent-licensing agreement, allowing OPTO to use Honeywell's patents in exchange for royalty payments. In March 2021, Honeywell audited OPTO and claimed that OPTO had underreported its revenues, leading to a dispute over the definition of "2D Barcode Products." Honeywell then sued OPTO for breach of contract in September 2021, alleging unpaid royalties.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina handled the case. A jury found that OPTO's laser-scanning barcode readers were "2D Barcode Products" but awarded Honeywell only $859,741. The district court also rejected OPTO's counterclaim of patent misuse, concluding that Honeywell had not engaged in such conduct. Both parties filed post-trial motions, which the district court denied. Honeywell sought attorney's fees, and OPTO moved to set aside the jury verdict, but both requests were denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that it could not reach the merits because the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the appeal due to the patent-related counterclaim asserted by OPTO. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal, allowing the parallel appeal pending in the Federal Circuit to proceed. The main holding was that the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals involving patent claims and counterclaims, even if the primary dispute is over a contract. View "Honeywell International, Inc. v. OPTO Electronics Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Qualcomm Incorporated owned U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674, which relates to integrated circuit devices using multiple power supplies. Apple Inc. filed two petitions for inter partes review (IPR) challenging various claims of this patent as unpatentable due to obviousness. Each petition included a ground that relied on applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) in combination with other prior art patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) initially determined that the use of AAPA complied with 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), which allows IPR petitions to be based only on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. Qualcomm appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit previously held that the PTAB misinterpreted § 311(b) because AAPA is not considered prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. The case was remanded for the PTAB to determine whether the AAPA in Apple's petitions formed the basis of the ground at issue in violation of § 311(b). On remand, the PTAB concluded that the AAPA did not form the basis of the ground because it was used in combination with prior art patents, thus complying with § 311(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the PTAB's decision and held that the PTAB erred in its interpretation of § 311(b). The court clarified that the statute's plain meaning does not permit AAPA to form the basis of an IPR ground, even if used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications. The court found that Apple's petitions expressly included AAPA in the basis of the ground, violating § 311(b). Consequently, the court reversed the PTAB's decision, determining that the challenged claims of the '674 patent are not unpatentable as obvious. View "QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v. APPLE INC. " on Justia Law

Recentive Analytics, Inc. owns four patents related to the use of machine learning for generating network maps and schedules for television broadcasts and live events. The patents are divided into two groups: the "Machine Learning Training" patents and the "Network Map" patents. The Machine Learning Training patents focus on optimizing event schedules using machine learning models, while the Network Map patents focus on creating network maps for broadcasters using similar techniques. Recentive sued Fox Corp. and its affiliates for patent infringement.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed the case, ruling that the patents were directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court found that the patents were focused on the abstract idea of using generic machine learning techniques in a specific environment without any inventive concept. Recentive acknowledged that the patents did not claim the machine learning techniques themselves but rather their application to event scheduling and network map creation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Federal Circuit held that the patents were directed to abstract ideas and did not contain an inventive concept that would transform them into patent-eligible applications. The court noted that the use of generic machine learning technology in a new environment, such as event scheduling or network map creation, does not make the patents eligible. The court also rejected Recentive's argument that the increased speed and efficiency of the methods rendered them patent-eligible. The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court did not err in denying leave to amend, as any amendment would have been futile. View "RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. " on Justia Law

Sage Products, LLC (“Sage”) challenged the final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) which found all challenged claims of two of its patents unpatentable. The patents in question, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,398,642 and 10,688,067, relate to a sterilized chlorhexidine product in a package, such as an applicator filled with an antiseptic composition for disinfecting skin. The key claims at issue include claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-18, and 20 of the ’642 patent and claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-19 of the ’067 patent.The Board relied on four key pieces of prior art in finding Sage’s claims unpatentable: the ChloraPrep Public Assessment Report (“PAR”), British Standard EN 556-1 (“BS EN-556-1”), U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0190535 (“Degala”), and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0371695 (“Chiang”). The Board found that a skilled artisan would understand the PAR’s references to “sterile” to mean “sterilized” as used in the Sage patents. The Board determined that the PAR disclosed all elements of the challenged claims, including the sterilized chlorhexidine gluconate composition and the sterilized applicator.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s findings and affirmed the judgment. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that a skilled artisan would understand the PAR to describe a “sterilized” composition and product. The court also found that the Board correctly determined that the PAR disclosed the limitations of the dependent claims, including the “sterilized colorant” and the sterility assurance level (SAL) of 10-3 to 10-9. The court rejected Sage’s procedural arguments, finding no abuse of discretion in the Board’s reliance on expert testimony and other evidence to interpret the PAR. The court concluded that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the Board’s finding of unpatentability. View "SAGE PRODUCTS, LLC v. STEWART " on Justia Law