Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

CloudofChange, LLC sued NCR Corporation, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,400,640 and 10,083,012, which disclose an online web-based point-of-sale (POS) builder system. The system allows non-expert business operators to assemble and manage POS systems. NCR's product, NCR Silver, was accused of infringing these patents. NCR Silver is a web-based POS solution that requires merchants to use their own internet connection and POS hardware, although NCR occasionally provides the hardware.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found that NCR's merchants' use of the system could be attributed to NCR under principles of vicarious liability and denied NCR's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of no direct infringement. The jury found NCR directly infringed the asserted claims, awarded CloudofChange $13.2 million in damages, and found NCR's infringement willful. NCR renewed its motion for JMOL, arguing that it did not use the claimed system as a matter of law, but the district court denied the motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's denial of JMOL. The Federal Circuit held that it is NCR's merchants, not NCR, who use the claimed system by putting it into service and benefiting from it. The court also concluded that NCR is not vicariously liable for its merchants' use of the system, as NCR does not direct or control the merchants' actions in putting the system to use. Consequently, the Federal Circuit vacated the jury verdict and reversed the district court's decision. View "CLOUDOFCHANGE, LLC v. NCR CORPORATION " on Justia Law

Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (PAN) petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1–18 of Centripetal Networks, LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 10,530,903, asserting that the claims were unpatentable for obviousness based on three prior-art references. The United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) concluded that PAN had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims would have been obvious over the relevant prior art combination.The Board found that PAN’s argument regarding the motivation to combine the references was not sufficiently articulated in the petition. Specifically, the Board determined that PAN had not provided sufficient evidence to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Paxton’s computing system to include Sutton’s step of transmitting a notification of malicious activity after Paxton’s correlation step. The Board concluded that PAN had not established that the claims would have been obvious.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and found that the Board erred by failing to clearly explain its holding or rationale regarding the motivation to combine and whether the proposed combination teaches the final limitation of claim 1. The court noted that the Board did not make a clear finding on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Paxton by adding Sutton’s step of transmitting a notification of malicious activity after Paxton’s correlation step. The court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to clarify and explain its holding on the motivation to combine the references. View "PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC. v. CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC " on Justia Law

Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. and CarnaudMetalbox Engineering Ltd. (collectively, “Crown”) sued Belvac Production Machinery, Inc. (“Belvac”) for infringing claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,308,570, 9,968,982, and 10,751,784, which relate to necking machines used in manufacturing metal beverage cans. Belvac argued that the patents were invalid under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because a necking machine embodying the invention was on sale in the U.S. before the critical date. Both parties sought summary judgment on this issue.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted summary judgment to Crown, ruling that the patents were not invalid under the on-sale bar, and denied Belvac’s motion. After a jury trial, the court entered a judgment that the asserted claims were not invalid and not infringed. Crown appealed the noninfringement judgment, and Belvac appealed the no invalidity judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the letter sent by Crown to Complete Packaging Machinery constituted a commercial offer for sale in the U.S. before the critical date, thus invalidating the patents under § 102(b). The court reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Crown and remanded for entry of judgment in Belvac’s favor. The court did not address the issue of infringement due to the invalidity finding. View "Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Belvac Production Machinery, Inc." on Justia Law

DDR Holdings, LLC (DDR) sued Priceline.com LLC and Booking.com B.V. (collectively, Priceline.com) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,818,399 (’399 patent). The ’399 patent relates to generating a composite web page that combines visual elements of a “host” website with content from a third-party “merchant.” The dispute centered on the construction of the claim terms “merchants” and “commerce object.” DDR argued that “merchants” should include purveyors of both goods and services, while Priceline.com contended it should be limited to purveyors of goods alone.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware construed “merchants” as “producers, distributors, or resellers of the goods to be sold” and “commerce object” to exclude services. Following this construction, the parties stipulated to non-infringement, agreeing that the accused instrumentalities did not infringe the asserted claims of the ’399 patent under the court’s claim constructions. The district court entered final judgment in favor of Priceline.com, and DDR appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s claim construction de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s construction of “merchants” as purveyors of goods, not services, noting the significant deletion of any reference to services in the final specification of the ’399 patent compared to the provisional application. The court also affirmed the construction of “commerce object” as “a product, a product category, a catalog, or an indication that a product, product category, or catalog should be chosen dynamically,” consistent with the construction of “merchants.”The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court correctly construed the disputed terms and affirmed the judgment of non-infringement in favor of Priceline.com. View "DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com LLC" on Justia Law

Galderma Laboratories, L.P. and TCD Royalty Sub LP (collectively, Galderma) own and market Oracea®, a doxycycline-based treatment for rosacea. They hold U.S. Patent Nos. 7,749,532 and 8,206,740 (the Asserted Patents), which cover a specific formulation of doxycycline. Lupin Inc. and Lupin Ltd. (collectively, Lupin) filed an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) to market a generic version of Oracea®, claiming bioequivalence. Galderma sued Lupin for patent infringement under the Hatch-Waxman Act, asserting that Lupin’s product infringed the Asserted Patents.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware held a three-day bench trial and found that Lupin’s ANDA product did not infringe the Asserted Patents. The court concluded that Galderma failed to prove that Lupin’s product met the specific formulation requirements of the Asserted Patents, particularly the immediate release (IR) and delayed release (DR) portions of doxycycline. The court also found that Galderma did not demonstrate infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. Galderma argued that the district court erred in disregarding dissolution test data from Lupin’s ANDA, admitting evidence from a rebuttal batch, imposing additional claim limitations, and not finding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The Federal Circuit found no clear error in the district court’s findings. It held that the district court correctly determined that the two-stage dissolution test did not represent in vivo behavior and that Galderma did not prove its theory of infringement. The court also found no abuse of discretion in admitting the rebuttal batch evidence and no imposition of additional claim limitations. Finally, the court upheld the district court’s finding that Galderma did not prove infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that Lupin’s ANDA product did not infringe the Asserted Patents. View "Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Lupin, Inc." on Justia Law

Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC owns three patents related to methods for storing, organizing, and presenting data in time-ordered streams on a computer system. In 2017, Mirror Worlds sued Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.) for patent infringement, alleging that Facebook's features, such as News Feed, Timeline, and Activity Log, infringed on these patents. Facebook moved for summary judgment of non-infringement, which the district court granted, concluding that Facebook did not infringe the patents as a matter of law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found that Facebook's systems did not meet the "main stream" or "main collection" limitations of the patents, as the evidence showed that not all data units received or generated by Facebook's systems were stored in the accused main streams. The court also rejected Facebook's defense of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 but granted summary judgment of non-infringement on several grounds, including that the accused systems did not display a "glance view" as required by the '538 and '439 patents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's summary judgment of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court's construction of "data unit" and found that the evidence supported the conclusion that Facebook's systems received data units not stored in the accused main streams. The court also upheld the exclusion of certain evidence presented by Mirror Worlds and found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the "glance view" limitation. Consequently, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of non-infringement and dismissed Facebook's cross-appeal regarding the invalidity defense. View "MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. META PLATFORMS, INC. " on Justia Law

CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd. sought discovery from Apple Inc. under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for use in a prospective patent infringement lawsuit in Germany. CPC aimed to obtain documents describing the functionality of Apple’s biometric security technology. The district court granted CPC’s application, allowing them to serve a subpoena on Apple, but the scope of the discovery and the specific documents Apple must produce remained unresolved.Initially, a magistrate judge denied CPC’s application, finding the discovery requests unduly burdensome. CPC sought review, and the district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s decision under a clear error standard. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court should have reviewed the magistrate judge’s decision de novo, as the ruling on a § 1782 application is dispositive. The case was remanded, and the district court, applying de novo review, granted CPC’s application. Apple objected, particularly concerned about the potential requirement to produce source code, but the district court’s order did not definitively resolve these objections.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The court held that the district court’s decision was not final because the scope of discovery and the specific documents Apple must produce were still undetermined. The lack of a final judgment meant that the Ninth Circuit could not evaluate the Intel factors used to determine whether discovery was warranted under § 1782. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, leaving the district court to resolve the remaining discovery issues. View "CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD. V. APPLE INC." on Justia Law

NexStep, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, alleging infringement of nine patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,885,802 and 8,280,009. The District Court for the District of Delaware granted summary judgment of non-infringement for the '802 patent after construing the term "VoIP" to require two-way voice communication, which NexStep's infringement theory did not meet. The '009 patent proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury found no literal infringement but did find infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. However, the district court granted Comcast's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding NexStep's proof inadequate.The district court's summary judgment for the '802 patent was based on the construction of "VoIP" as requiring two-way voice communication, supported by technical dictionaries and the agreed industry standard meaning. NexStep's argument that VoIP should include one-way audio transmission was rejected. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact and granted summary judgment of non-infringement.For the '009 patent, the jury found no literal infringement but did find infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. However, the district court set aside this verdict, ruling that NexStep failed to provide the required particularized testimony and linking argument to support the doctrine of equivalents. The court found that NexStep's expert testimony was too conclusory and lacked specificity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings. The appellate court agreed with the district court's construction of "VoIP" and its grant of summary judgment for the '802 patent. For the '009 patent, the appellate court found that NexStep's expert testimony did not meet the evidentiary requirements for the doctrine of equivalents, as it lacked particularized testimony and linking argument. The court dismissed Comcast's conditional cross-appeal related to the validity of the '009 patent. View "NEXSTEP, INC. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC " on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two companies over the enforcement of standard-essential patents (SEPs) related to the 5G wireless-communication standard. The plaintiff, a telecommunications company, had made a commitment to license its SEPs on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. The defendant, another technology company, sought an antisuit injunction to prevent the plaintiff from enforcing injunctions it had obtained in Colombia and Brazil based on these SEPs.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied the defendant's request for an antisuit injunction. The district court applied a three-part framework to analyze the request, focusing on whether the domestic suit would be dispositive of the foreign actions. The court concluded that the domestic suit would not necessarily result in a global cross-license between the parties and therefore did not meet the threshold requirement for issuing an antisuit injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The appellate court vacated the district court's denial and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court concluded that the district court had erred in its interpretation of the "dispositive" requirement. Specifically, the appellate court held that the FRAND commitment precludes the plaintiff from pursuing SEP-based injunctive relief unless it has first complied with its obligation to negotiate in good faith over a license to those SEPs. Since whether the plaintiff had complied with this obligation was an issue before the district court, the appellate court determined that the "dispositive" requirement was met.The appellate court did not decide whether the defendant was ultimately entitled to the antisuit injunction, leaving that determination to the district court's discretion upon further analysis. The case was remanded for the district court to consider the remaining parts of the foreign-antisuit-injunction framework. View "TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC. " on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two companies, Plaintiff Fuel Automation Station, LLC, and Defendant Energera Inc., both of which operate in the fuel industry and hold patents related to automated fuel delivery equipment. The conflict arose after Defendant, despite agreeing not to sue Plaintiff for patent infringement, initiated lawsuits against Plaintiff’s affiliated entity and subcontractor for using Plaintiff’s equipment, alleging infringement of a Canadian patent (the 567 Patent).The United States District Court for the District of Colorado initially reviewed the case. The court found that the covenant not to sue included the relevant parties but was ambiguous regarding whether it covered the 567 Patent. The court applied ordinary rules of contract construction and the patent exhaustion doctrine, which led to the conclusion that the covenant did protect downstream users of Plaintiff’s equipment. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on this basis. However, it found genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the 567 Patent was included in the Patent Rights defined in the agreement, leading to a jury trial. The jury determined that the Patent Rights did cover the 567 Patent and that Defendant had breached the covenant not to sue.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s rulings. It held that the covenant not to sue did indeed extend to downstream users under the patent exhaustion doctrine, meaning Defendant could not sue Plaintiff’s customers for using the equipment. Additionally, the appellate court agreed with the district court and the jury that the Patent Rights included the 567 Patent, thus supporting the finding that Defendant breached the covenant by suing Plaintiff’s affiliated entity and subcontractor. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiff. View "Fuel Automation Station v. Energera" on Justia Law