Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

TWM filed a patent infringement suit against AT&T. A jury awarded damages. The district court entered judgment consistent with the verdict and denied all of AT&T’s post-trial motions. AT&T failed to file timely notice of appeal. The Federal Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion or clearly err in refusing to extend or reopen the appeal period. With respect to F.R. App. P. 4(a)(5), the court found that the AT&T had failed to show good cause or excusable neglect for its failure to read the underlying orders and check the docket for more than a month after the court issued the final orders. Refusing to reopen the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6), where a party actually received a final judgment, but failed to monitor the electronic docket for a compliant entry of the judgment, the court stated: “In this era of electronic filing … we find no abuse of discretion in a district court’s decision to impose an obligation to monitor an electronic docket for entry of an order which a party and its counsel already have in their possession and know that the clerk at least attempted to enter.” View "Two-Way Media, LLC v. AT&T, Inc." on Justia Law

MobileMedia filed suit, asserting infringement of 16 patents by various Apple iPhone products. The district court found claim 73 of the 078 patent and claim 23 of the 068 patent to be infringed and not invalid, but found three claims of the 075 patent and two claims of the 231 patent not to be infringed, and three claims of the 075 patent to also be invalid. The Federal Circuit affirmed as to the 078 patent, but reversed as to the 078 and 068 patents. As to MobileMedia’s cross-appeal, the court affirmed that the 075 patent claims are invalid, but vacated the judgment that claims 2–4 and 12 of the 231 patent are not infringed because the judgment is based on an erroneous claim construction of “to change a volume of the generate alert sound.” View "Mobilemedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple, Inc." on Justia Law

Eidos alleged that the Display Manufacturers infringed claim 1 of the 958 patent, which is directed toward manufacturing processes for an electro-optical device, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD). The specification of the patent contains 17 embodiments, each identified by a letter. Each embodiment describes a manufacturing process that reduces the number of photolithographic steps in creating an LCD panel compared to prior art processes, lowering the production cost and improving yield and production efficiency. Each embodiment is broken down into a series of “forming” steps that deposit material, such as metal, insulator, or passivation material, on the substrate or previous layers, plus a series of “photolithographic” steps that etch or remove portions of previously-formed material. The district court entered summary judgment, finding the claim invalid as indefinite. The Federal Circuit reversed. The claim, when read in light of the specification and prosecution history, informed with reasonable certainty those skilled in the art at the time the patent was filed about the scope of the claimed invention. View "Eidos Display, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp." on Justia Law

Warsaw owns the 973 patent, which claims oversized spinal implants, and the 933 patent, which claims methods and devices for retracting tissue to create a working channel for minimally invasive spinal surgery. NuVasive owns the 236 patent, which relates to neuromonitoring during surgery. Warsaw sued NuVasive, alleging infringement; NuVasive counterclaimed, asserting infringement. A jury found that the asserted claims of the 973 patent were not invalid (infringement was not in dispute), that the asserted claims of the 933 patent were infringed under the doctrine of equivalents (validity was not in dispute), and that the asserted claims of the 236 patent were infringed (validity was not in dispute), and awarded damages for each. The district court denied motions for JMOL or a new trial; denied Warsaw’s requests for supplemental damages and a permanent injunction; and set ongoing royalty rates. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to invalidity and infringement of all three patents, but remanded for a new trial on damages with respect to the 973 and 933 patents. On remand, Warsaw will be limited to a reasonable royalty and cannot recover lost profits. View "Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v Nuvasiive, Inc." on Justia Law

Licensees entered into a licensing agreement with Safeblood Tech for the exclusive rights to market patented technology overseas. After learning that they could not register the patents in other countries, Licensees sued Safeblood for breach of contract and sued Safeblood, its officers, and patent inventor for fraud, constructive fraud, and violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), Ark. Code 4-88-101 to -115. The district court dismissed the fraud claims at summary judgment. The remaining claims proceeded to trial and a jury found for Licensees, awarding them $786,000 in contract damages and no damages for violations of the ADTPA. The district court awarded Licensees $144,150.40 in prejudgment interest. The Eighth Circuit reversed as to the common-law fraud claim and the award of prejudgment interest, but otherwise affirmed. Licensees produced sufficient evidence that the inventor made a false statement of fact; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it gave the jury a diminution-in-product-value instruction; and Licensees waived their inconsistent-verdict argument. View "Yazdianpour v. Safeblood Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

Before 1994, 35 U.S.C. 154 provided that a patent’s term ran from the date of issue. That term still begins on the date of issuance, but generally ends 20 years after the application was filed. Patent Term Adjustments (PTAs) address delays in the examination process. Category A applies when the PTO does not issue section 132 notification or provide section 151 notice of allowance within 14 months. Category B applies if the PTO fails to issue a patent three years after the actual filing date; category C covers delays due to interference, secrecy order, or successful appeal. Gilead filed the 374 application covering the compound cobicistat on February 22, 2008. The Examiner, finding more than one patentably distinct invention, issued a “restriction requirement” on November 18, 2009, dividing Gilead’s claims into four groups and directing it to select a subset. Gilead responded on February 18, 2010, selecting one for examination. Gilead filed a supplemental information disclosure statement on April 16, 2010, disclosing co-pending applications. The PTO issued notice of allowance on July 29, 2011; the patent issued on April 3, 2012. The PTO issued 245 days of “A Delay” and 406 days of “B Delay,” reduced by 35 days of overlapping and 57 days of applicant-induced delay (between Gilead’s initial reply and its supplemental IDS). The PTO rejected an argument that the supplemental IDS did not cause actual delay. The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment upholding the calculation. View "Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Lee" on Justia Law

Pacing’s 843 patent is directed to methods and systems for pacing users during activities that involve repeated motions, such as running, cycling, and swimming. The preferred embodiment of the patent describes a method for aiding a user’s pacing by providing a tempo (for example, the beat of a song or flashes of light) corresponding to the user’s desired pace. Pacing alleged that Garmin GPS fitness watches and microcomputers used by runners and bikers infringed the patent. The Garmin Connect website allows users to design and transfer workouts to the Garmin devices. Workouts consist of a series of intervals to which the user can assign a duration and target pace value. The devices display the intervals of a particular workout, for example, by counting down the time for which the user intends to maintain a particular pace. The devices may also display actual pace, e.g., 50 to 70 steps per minute. The devices do not play music or output a beat. The Federal Circuit affirmed entry of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Garmin. Merely displaying the rate of a user’s pace—for example, “100 steps per minute”—does not produce a sensible tempo; Garmin’s devices are not repetitive motion pacing devices. View "Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Soverain Software sued Victoria’s Secret and Avon for infringement of its patents relating to virtual shopping carts and to using a hypertext statement so that users can access information about past orders. The district court found that defendants infringed certain claims and that those claims were not invalid. After the district court’s judgment, the Federal Circuit, in 2013, decided Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc., finding certain of the claims invalid as obvious The Federal Circuit then reversed as to Victoria’s Secret and Avon, holding that issue preclusion applies as a result of the Newegg case, and that the asserted claims here are therefore invalid. View "Soverain Software, LLC v. Victoria's Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC" on Justia Law

United owns three patents that recite systems for using a landline telephone connection for both voice communication and data transmission. They are directed to the use of exchanges that combine the voice and data components of the signal for transmission over the telephone line, and filters that separate those components so that they can be received as separate voice and data signals by a user. In 2002, United’s predecessor sued EarthLink, charging direct infringement because EarthLink offered its customers an Internet connection service based on a broadband digital communications technology, Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL). EarthLink argued that the accused ADSL system did not include a “telephone device” as required by all asserted claims. The jury returned a general verdict of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion. In 2011, United sued CenturyTel and Qwest for infringing the same claims of the three patents. The district court dismissed on collateral estoppel grounds, noting that United did not articulate how the defendants’ systems were different from the systems that were the subjects of the Earthlink trial other than that the defendants’ services included telephone devices. The Federal Circuit reversed, reasoning that the earlier verdict could have been based on several grounds. View "United Access Techs., LLC v. CenturyTel Broadband Servs., LLC" on Justia Law

Fenner’s 706 patent is directed to personal communication services (PCS) systems, whereby users are provided with the ability to access a communications network from diverse locations. Before the development of PCS systems, call servicing and billing were specific to a particular communications device at a fixed location. In PCS systems, telephone service can be identified independent of a telephone unit, and each user of a particular device has a personal identification number by which call servicing and billing are identified with the user, and not with a particular telephone unit. The district court entered summary judgment, finding that Verizon did not infringe claim 1 of the patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the district court’s construction of the term “personal identification number,” as “a number separate from a billing code (as construed herein), identifying an individual system user, which is associated with the individual and not the device” and of “billing code” to mean “a code separate from the personal identification number (as construed herein), identifying a particular billing authority (as construed herein).” View "Fenner Inv., Ltd. v. Cellco P'ship" on Justia Law