Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Standard markets kinesiotherapy devices, including models that practice claims of its 605 Patent. In 2009, Standard formed a subsidiary to distribute products in the U.S. Neither Standard nor Standard U.S. manufactures in the U.S.; Standard sources components from suppliers in the U.S. and other countries. It contracts Chinese manufacturers to assemble devices from those components for export to more than 50 countries, including the U.S. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) addressed four components in its domestic industry analysis: a backbone material, a rubber, microcontrollers, and a pigment. The backbone material, rubber, pigment, and wafers used in the microcontrollers are manufactured in the U.S. Lelo, a California corporation with a Swedish majority shareholder, imports kinesiotherapy devices. Standard filed a 19 U.S.C. 1337 complaint alleging that Lelo imported kinesiotherapy devices and components that infringed its 605 Patent. The ITC concluded that statutory domestic industry requirements were satisfied upon a showing of a “significant investment in plant or equipment” and a “significant employment of labor or capital.” The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that qualitative factors alone are insufficient. The purchase of so-called “crucial” components from third-party U.S. suppliers was insufficient to satisfy the “significant investment” or “significant employment of labor or capital” criteria absent evidence that connects the cost of the components to an increase of U.S. investment or employment. View "LELO Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

Beginning in 1983, interferences were declared between Fiers and Sugano generally relating to claims to DNA sequences that encode the precursor and/or mature forms of human fibroblast interferon proteins, which promote viral resistance in human tissue, and in the case of the most recent interference, to claims for the proteins themselves. All of Fiers’ applications claimed priority to a United Kingdom Patent Application filed in April 1980, while Sugano’s applications and patents claimed priority to a Japanese Patent Application, filed in March 1980. In the first and second interferences, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences awarded priority to Sugano. In 2013, in response to a third interference the Board declared that Fiers was estopped from proceeding, given that Fiers lost the prior interferences and the subject matter was the same as in the prior interferences. The district court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 125 Stat. 284, eliminated district court jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 146 with respect to interferences commenced after September 15, 2012. The district court transferred the case to the Federal Circuit, which concluded that the district court correctly decided that it lacked jurisdiction and that the Board’s decision was not erroneous. View "Biogen Ma, Inc. v. Japanese Found. for Cancer Research" on Justia Law

EON’s patent, issued in 1997, is directed to software embodied in a “local subscriber data processing station” that operates to interconnect various interactive features of a television. The software allows “impulse purchase transactions with immediate payment,” audience participation voting, and sorting television programs by theme. EON alleges that “the modern iteration of the 757 Patent’s local subscriber data processing station is a smartphone with certain capabilities,” and, in 2010, sued smartphone manufacturers, cellular network providers, and smartphone content providers (FLO TV case). In 2011, EON filed a separate action (AT&T case). The cases were consolidated. The 757 patent went through two reexaminations. All claims, as amended, were confirmed in the second reexamination. The district court granted summary judgment to the FLO TV defendants, finding all of the means-plus-function claims in the patent invalid as indefinite. The parties in the AT&T case stipulated to final judgment of invalidity. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "EON Corp., IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC" on Justia Law

Takeda owns several asserted patents that cover several methods of administering colchicine products to treat gout. Colchicine itself, which has been used for centuries, is not covered by Takeda’s patents. Takeda has patents directed to treating acute gout flares and others directed to methods for administering colchicine for prophylaxis of gout in patients who are concomitantly taking certain drug inhibitors known as “CYP3A4” and “P-gp” inhibitors. In 2010, Hikma sought FDA approval of a colchicine product for prophylaxis of gout flares. It submitted an New Drug Application under the Hatch Waxman Act, 21 U.S.C. 355(b)(2). In 2014, the FDA granted Hikma approval to market its Mitigare colchicine capsule. Hikma launched Mitigare, and Takeda filed suit, asserting induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) based on Hikma’s labeling of the Mitigare product. Hikma planned on launching an authorized generic version of Mitigare in October 2014. The district court granted Takeda’s request for a temporary restraining order, but later denied a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Takeda acknowledged that evidence of mere knowledge of infringing uses is not sufficient and did not establish a probability of success on the issue of infringement. View "Takeda Pharma., U.S.A. v. Hikma Am., Inc." on Justia Law

Biosig’s 753 patent is directed to a heart rate monitor that purports to improve upon the prior art by effectively eliminating “noise” signals during the process of detecting a user’s heart rate. The patent discloses an apparatus preferably mounted on exercise equipment that measures heart rates by processing electrocardiograph signals from which electromyogram signals are substantially removed. Biosig sued, alleging that Nautilus infringed claims 1 and 11 of the 753 patent. After claim construction, the district court granted Nautilus’s motion for summary judgment, finding the patent invalid for indefiniteness. The Federal Circuit found the claims at issue were not invalid for indefiniteness. The Supreme Court, rejected the “not amenable to construction or insolubly ambiguous” standard and vacated and remanded. The Federal Circuit maintained its reversal of the district court’s determination that Biosig’s patent claims are indefinite, holding that the “spaced relationship” phrase “inform[s] those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” View "Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc." on Justia Law

Info-Hold’s patent is directed to systems, apparatuses, and methods for playing music and messages (advertisements) through telephones and public speaker systems. Playback order of the music and message tracks is set on a remote server that generates and sends control signals to message playback devices, such as public address systems at retail stores and music-on-hold systems that play the tracks over the telephone to callers who are on hold. Info-Hold filed suit in 2003, accusing AMTC of infringement. During the litigation, a third-party initiated an ex parte reexamination, resulting in a stay. While reexamination was pending, Info-Hold brought a separate suit against Muzak. After the patent emerged from reexamination, the court construed claims: “when a caller is placed on hold,” “transmit,” “message play back device,” and “operable to generate and transmit control signals.” All constructions were unfavorable to Info-Hold. The court granted summary judgment to Muzak that, notwithstanding infringement, Info-Hold was not entitled to royalty damages, and that Muzak did not induce infringement. The Federal Circuit reversed summary judgment of no damages for infringement, vacated as to no induced infringement, and affirmed construction of the sole term in dispute. View "Info-Hold, Inc. v. Muzak, LLC" on Justia Law

Info-Hold’s 374 patent is directed to systems, apparatuses, and methods for playing music and messages (advertisements) through telephones and public speaker systems. Playback order of the music and message tracks is set on a remote server that generates and sends control signals to message playback devices. One use of the technology involves public address systems at retail stores, so customers can hear the music and advertisements while shopping. The output an also be directed to a music-on-hold system, which plays the tracks over the telephone to callers who are on hold. Info-Hold filed suit in 2003, accusing AMTC’s devices of infringement. During the litigation, a third-party initiated an ex parte reexamination, resulting in a stay of the suit. While the reexamination was pending, Info-Hold brought a separate suit against Muzak. After the patent emerged from reexamination, the court construed claims: “when a caller is placed on hold,” “transmit,” “message play back device,” and “operable to generate and transmit control signals.” All constructions in both cases were unfavorable to Info-Hold. The parties requested final judgment of noninfringement to allow Info-Hold to appeal. The Federal Circuit reversed with respect to AMTC, finding that the construction improperly narrowed the scope of the claims. View "Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Tech. Corp." on Justia Law

Ineos accused Berry Plastics of infringing its 863 patent, which is directed to polyethylene-based compositions which can be used to form shaped products, such as screw caps for bottles. Prior art polyethylene bottle caps incorporated a lubricant to optimize the cap’s slip properties and to facilitate unscrewing of the cap, but those compositions suffered the disadvantage of imparting bad odor and flavor to food products stored in contact with the compositions. The 863 patent explains that its compositions having specific amounts of polyethylene, lubricants, and additives solve this problem. The district court entered summary judgment, finding that the 863 patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102. The Federal Circuit affirmed. When a patent claims a range, as in this case, that range is anticipated by a prior art reference if the reference discloses a point within the range. View "Ineos USA, LLC v. Berry Plastics Corp." on Justia Law

Oplus filed a patent infringement suit in Illinois that was transferred to California. Oplus moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the case back and consolidate it with other cases. The Panel denied the motion. Ultimately, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. Defendant sought attorneys’ and expert witness fees under 35 U.S.C. 285 and 28 U.S.C. 1927. The court made numerous findings regarding misconduct, found the case exceptional under section 285, and held that Oplus and its counsel were vexatious litigants. The court nonetheless denied the request, stating that “[a]though Oplus’s behavior has been inappropriate, unprofessional, and vexatious, an award of attorney fees must take the particular misconduct into account,” the “case has been fraught with delays and avoidance tactics to some degree on both sides,” and “[t]here is little reason to believe that significantly more attorney fees or expert fees have been incurred than would have been in the absence of Oplus’s vexatious behavior.” Concerning section 1927, the court stated that “there is no evidence suggesting that Oplus’s behavior stemmed from bad faith or a sufficient intent to harass,” although there was “ample evidence of Oplus’s litigation misconduct.” The Federal Circuit vacated, finding the denial an abuse of discretion. View "Oplus Techs., Ltd. v. Vizio, Inc." on Justia Law

AMS sued Crane for infringement of four patents. In 2011, Crane requested an inter partes reexamination of each patent under 35 U.S.C. 311–318. Finding that Crane raised substantial new questions of patentability, the PTO initiated four inter partes reexaminations. While they were underway, AMS and Crane settled their suit. The court issued a consent judgment stating that “[t]he parties stipulate that [the patents] are valid,” that “[a]ll claims . . . are dismissed with prejudice,” and that “[t]his judgment is final.” AMS argued that the reexaminations must stop because, under 35 U.S.C. 317(b), the judgment was a “final decision . . . entered against a party in a civil action . . . that the party has not sustained its burden of proving the invalidity of any patent claim in suit.” The PTO denied AMS’s petition. The district court reasoned that the consent judgment, though final, was not a decision that Crane failed to prove invalidity of the patents, but only that the parties stipulated to validity. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the PTO’s refusal to terminate pending reexaminations is not subject to judicial review because it is not a “final agency action” under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 704. View "Automated Merch. Sys., Inc. v. Lee" on Justia Law