Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Versata sued SAP for infringing its 350 patent, entitled “method and apparatus for pricing products in multi-level product and organizational groups.” A jury awarded damages. Meanwhile, SAP petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, alleging that the patent was a covered business method patent, subject to the special provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 125 Stat. at 329–31.3 Section 18 establishes a separately-designated transitional program for post-grant review proceedings concerning the validity of covered business method patents, under procedures governed by 35 U.S.C. 321– 329. The PTAB cancelled certain claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit held that, on appeal in a section 18 case, it has authority review issues decided during the PTAB review process, regardless of when they first arose in the process, if they are part of or a predicate to the ultimate merits. The invention claimed in the 350 patent is a covered business method patent and does not fall within the meaning of a “technological invention.” The court affirmed PTAB’s claim constructions and that the claims at issue were properly held invalid under section 101. View "Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc." on Justia Law

Celgard is a developer and manufacturer of battery membranes, used to separate chemical cell components in lithium-ion batteries, preventing contact between the positive and negative electrodes. The patents concerns a separator technology that uses a ceramic composite coating that helps prevent electrical shorting. This technology is used in rechargeable batteries in electronic vehicles and consumer electronic devices such as laptops and cellular phones. Celgard is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. SKI is a manufacturer of separators for use in lithium-ion batteries. SKI mainly supplies the separators to third-party manufacturers, but also manufactures batteries that include the separators it produces. SKI’s principal place of business is in Seoul, Korea. All of SKI’s design, manufacturing, and sales operations are based in Korea. Celgard sued SKI for infringement. Celgard sought to establish the district court’s jurisdiction based on allegations that SKI purposefully directed activities at the forum state through sales and offers for sale of its accused separators to residents of North Carolina. The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, under either a purposeful-direction theory or a stream-of-commerce theory, noting an absence of evidence that SKI ever sold or offered for sale the accused products in North Carolina. View "Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Intellectual Ventures owns the 137 patent, entitled “Administration of Financial Accounts,” claims methods of budgeting, particularly methods of tracking and storing information relating to a user’s purchases and expenses and presenting that information to the user based on pre-established, self-imposed spending limits. Its 382 patent, entitled “Advanced Internet Interface Providing User Display Access of Customized Webpages,” claims methods and systems for providing customized web page content to the user as a function of user-specific information and the user’s navigation history. The 587 patent, entitled “Method for Organizing Digital Images,” claims methods for scanning hard-copy images onto a computer in an organized manner. Intellectual Ventures sued, asserting infringement by Capital One. Following the district court’s claim construction of the term “machine readable instruction form” in the 587 patent, the parties stipulated to non-infringement. The district court also determined that the asserted claims of the 137 patent claimed ineligible subject matter and the asserted claims of the 382 patent claimed ineligible subject matter and were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The Federal Circuit affirmed, concluding that the asserted claims of the 137 and 382 patents claim unpatentable abstract ideas and that claim construction with respect to the 587 patent was correct. View "Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Captal One Bank" on Justia Law

The Patent Act restores a patent’s term for delay during prosecution: “A Delay,” arises when the PTO fails to meet statutory deadlines; “B Delay,” arises when, through the fault of the PTO, the agency fails to issue a patent within three years after the application’s filing date, 35 U.S.C. 154(b). Until 2010, the PTO’s practice was to restore, upon issuance, patent term equaling the greater of the number of days of A and B Delays. In 2007, a patent-holder successfully challenged that practice. In response, the PTO adopted an “interim procedure” and an “optional interim” procedure for patents that issued before March, 2010, under which patentees could seek reconsideration up to 180 days after issuance, for adjustments made under the earlier calculation method. Daiichi claims that, in adjusting its patents, the PTO restored days for either the A or B Delay, but not both, so that the term of each was shortened by at least 321 days. The PTO dismissed Daiichi’s requests for reconsideration as untimely under the two-month window. The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the PTO, declining to find that the consistent treatment of all patents issuing before the Optional Interim Procedure or use of the 180-day administrative review period arbitrary and capricious. View "Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Lee" on Justia Law

TMC owns patents relating to the drug bivalirudin, a synthetic peptide anti-coagulant. TMC sells the drug for injection under the Angiomax® brand and, from 1997 to 2006, purchased pharmaceutical batches from BV Laboratories. In 2005, BV created batches of bivalirudin with levels of impurity that exceeded the FDA approved maximum. TMC hired a consultant, who discovered that certain methods of adding a pH-adjusting solution during the compounding process minimize the impurity. In 2008, TMC filed two patent applications, describing this discovery. A year before filing these applications, TMC hired BV to prepare batches of bivalirudin using the patented method. Each was released to TMC for commercial packaging. In 2010, TMC sued Hospira, alleging infringement by Hospira’s ANDA filings. The district court found the patents not infringed and not invalid as obvious, indefinite, or under the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), which applies when, before the critical date, the claimed invention was the subject of a commercial offer for sale and was ready for patenting. The court found that the claimed invention was ready for patenting but not commercially offered for sale. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the batches prepared by BV were sold to TMC and not prepared primarily for experimental purposes. View "The Medicines Co v. Hospira, Inc." on Justia Law

WesternGeco’s patents relate to technologies used to search for oil and gas beneath the ocean floor. Ships tow long streamers equipped with sensors. An airgun bounces sound waves off of the ocean floor. The sensors pick up the returning sound waves and create a map of the subsurface geology to aid in identifying drilling locations. The streamers can be miles long and can tangle or drift apart, resulting in distorted maps. The patents relate to controlling the streamers and sensors in relation to each other by using winged positioning devices and generating four-dimensional maps with which it is possible to see changes in the seabed over time. WesternGeco manufactures the Q-Marine, and performs surveys for oil companies. ION manufactures the DigiFIN, and sells to its customers, who perform surveys for oil companies. WesternGeco filed suit. A jury found infringement and no invalidity and awarded $93,400,000 in lost profits and $12,500,000 in reasonable royalties. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that WesternGeco was not the owner of the patents and lacked standing and that the court applied an incorrect standard under 35 U.S.C. 271(f)(1). The court upheld denial of enhanced damages for willful infringement and reversed the award of lost profits resulting from conduct occurring abroad. View "WesternGeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp." on Justia Law

SpeedTrack’s patent, entitled “Method for Accessing Computer Files and Data, Using Linked Categories Assigned to Each Data File Record on Entry of the Data File Record,” describes methods for searching and accessing files stored on a computer system. The claimed methods require use of: “category descriptions,” corresponding to stored files; a “file information directory” containing information linking “category descriptions” to specific system files; and a “search filter,” to locate files that have “category descriptions” matching those in the filter. SpeedTrack sued, alleging that Walmart’s online retail website infringed the patent by permitting visitors to search for available products by selecting pre-defined descriptive categories. Walmart licensed and used Endeca’s software to achieve this functionality. After reexamination by the PTO, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement , finding that, because the accused Endeca software uses numerical identifiers instead of descriptive words, users did not use “category descriptions” required by the patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed the claim construction. Speedtrack later sued Office Depot. The Federal Circuit affirmed judgment as a matter of law, finding that SpeedTrack’s claims were barred by res judicata and under the “Kessler doctrine,” which bars suits against customers for use of a product previously found not to infringe in a suit against the product’s supplier. View "SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Office Depot, Inc." on Justia Law

In earlier litigation, Teva challenged the validity and enforceability of GSK’s patents on lamotrigine, Lamictal’s active ingredient. Teva was first to file an FDA application, alleging invalidity or nonenforceability, and seeking approval to produce generic lamotrigine tablets and chewable tablets for markets alleged to be annually worth $2 billion and $50 million,. If the patent suit resulted in a determination of invalidity or nonenforceability—or a settlement incorporating such terms—Teva would be statutorily entitled to a 180- day period of market exclusivity, during which time only it and GSK could produce generic lamotrigine tablets. After the judge ruled the patent’s main claim invalid, the companies settled; Teva would end its patent challenge in exchange for early entry into the chewables market and GSK’s commitment not to produce its own, “authorized generic” Lamictal tablets. Plaintiffs, direct purchasers of Lamictal, sued under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 & 2, claiming that the agreement was a “reverse payment” intended to induce Teva to abandon the patent fight and eliminate the risk of competition in the lamotrigine tablet market for longer than the patent would otherwise permit. The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit vacated, citing Supreme Court precedent, holding that unexplained large payments from the holder of a drug patent to an alleged infringer to settle litigation of the patent’s validity or infringement (reverse payment) can violate antitrust laws. View "King Drug Co of Florence Inc, v. Smithkline Beecham Corp." on Justia Law

Under 35 U.S.C. 154, the PTO must extend a patent term if issue of an original patent is delayed due to the failure of the Patent and Trademark Office to provide notifications under section 132 or a notice of allowance not later than 14 months after the date of filing. Delay adjustment is statutorily reduced for delays attributable to unreasonable prosecution efforts. When an application has claims drawn to multiple inventions, the PTO may issue a restriction, requiring the applicant to prosecute only one of the inventions as part of that application. For remaining inventions, the applicant may file a divisional application, which has the benefit of the filing date of the original application. Mohsenzadeh filed the 905 application. Though the 14-month notification period ended in September 2002, the PTO notified Mohsenzadeh of a restriction requirement in September 2006. The claims Mohsenzadeh elected to prosecute issued in 2010 as the 984 patent. The PTO granted an adjustment of 2,104 days, including 1,476 days attributable to the time between when notice was due and when the PTO provided notice of the restriction. Mohsenzadeh filed divisional applications; patents issued in January 2013 and March 2013. Both claim priority to the 984 patent. The PTO granted no term adjustment. Mohsenzadeh argued that each was entitled to the 1,476 days. The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the government. Section 154 requires a term adjustment for delays that occurred during prosecution of the actual application from which the patent directly issued, not the application from which it derived priority. View "Mohsenzadeh v. Lee" on Justia Law

Gaymar ‘s patent is directed to a patient temperature control system, including a blanket that can conductively warm or cool the patient. In 2008, Gaymar sued CSZ, asserting that CSZ’s Blanketrol device infringed claims of the patent. The PTO granted CSZ’s inter partes reexamination request and issued a first Office Action rejecting all claims of the patent as anticipated or obvious over prior art cited in CSZ’s request. The district court denied Gaymar’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granted CSZ’s motion to stay the case pending the conclusion of the reexamination. The PTO reaffirmed its rejection of all claims of the patent. Gaymar filed an express abandonment of all claims in 2010, and the PTO concluded the reexamination, cancelling all of the claims. The district court lifted the stay. CSZ unsuccessfully sought attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, alleging that Gaymar’s litigation position was frivolous and that Gaymar had engaged in litigation misconduct. Following the Supreme Court’s 2014, decision, Octane Fitness, CSZ unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration. The Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of a lack of objective baselessness, but reversed the exceptional case finding insofar as it was based on CSZ’s purported misconduct. View "Gaymar Indus., Inc. v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Prods., Inc." on Justia Law