Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Garmin petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 10, 14, and 17 of the Cuozzo’s 074 patent, entitled “Speed Limit Indicator and Method for Displaying Speed and the Relevant Speed Limit,” issued in 2004. The patent discloses an interface which displays a vehicle’s current speed with the speed limit. In one embodiment, a red filter is superimposed on a white speedometer so that speeds above the legal speed limit are displayed in red while the legal speeds are displayed in white. A GPS unit tracks the vehicle’s location and identifies the speed limit at that location. The red filter automatically rotates when the speed limit changes. The PTO granted IPR. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a final decision finding claims 10, 14, and 17 obvious and denied Cuozzo’s motion to amend the patent by substituting new claims 21, 22, and 23 for claims 10, 14, and 17. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the PTO’s decision to institute IPR and that there was no error in the Board’s claim construction under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the obviousness determination, or denial of Cuozzo’s motion to amend. View "In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC" on Justia Law

The descriptions for Papst Licensing’s 399 and449 patents are largely the same, the 449 patent having issued on a divisional application carved out of the application that became the 399 patent. The focus of both is an interface device for transferring data between an input/output data device and a host computer. The district court, applying and elaborating on its constructions of various claim terms, entered summary judgment of non-infringement, concluding that none of the accused digital cameras come within any of the asserted claims. The Federal Circuit vacated the summary judgment of non-infringement, rejecting the court’s constructions of construction of “interface device,” “second connecting device,” “data transmit/receive device,” “virtual file,” and “input/output device customary in a host device.” View "Papst Licensing GMBH v. Fujifilm Corp." on Justia Law

Imes’s U.S. patent application no. 09/874,423 is directed to a device for communicating digital camera image and video information over a network. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the examiner’s rejections of all pending claims 1-14 and 16-47 as either anticipated by or obvious over various references. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded with respect to independent claims 1-5 and 34-47. The Board’s construction of “wireless” to include communications along metal contacts of the removable memory card and the computer system was inconsistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification. The Board’s conclusion that a prior patent discloses a communications module operable to wirelessly communicate streaming video to a destination was not supported by substantial evidence. Imes did not challenge the rejections of claims 6-14 and 16-33. View "In re: Imes" on Justia Law

Teva’s patent covers a multiple sclerosis drug. When Sandoz tried to market a generic version of the drug, Teva sued for infringement. Sandoz countered that the patent was invalid because a claim that the active ingredient had “a molecular weight of 5 to 9 kilodaltons” was indefinite under 35 U. S. C. 112, for not stating which of three methods was used to determine that weight. The district court upheld the patent. Reversing, the Federal Circuit reviewed all aspects of claim construction de novo, including the determination of subsidiary facts. The Supreme Court vacated. When reviewing a district court’s resolution of subsidiary factual matters made during construction of a patent claim, the Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error,” not a de novo, standard of review. FRCP 52(a)(6) states: a court of appeals must not set aside “[f]indings of fact” unless they are “clearly erroneous.” Clear error review is particularly important in patent cases because a district judge has more opportunity to gain “familiarity with specific scientific problems and principles” than an appeals judge who must read a written transcript. When reviewing only evidence intrinsic to the patent, the judge’s determination is a determination of law, and the court of appeals will review that construction de novo; where the court needs to consult disputed extrinsic evidence to understand, for example, background science, courts need to make subsidiary factual findings about the extrinsic evidence. The ultimate construction of the claim is a legal conclusion subject to de novo review, but to overturn resolution of an underlying factual dispute, the appellate court must find that the judge, in respect to those findings, committed clear error. Here, the district court made a factual finding, crediting Teva’s expert’s account about how a skilled artisan would understand molecular weights. When the Federal Circuit reviewed the decision, it failed to accept that explanation without finding that the determination was “clearly erroneous.” View "Teva Pharma. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2005, NeuroRepair retained Nath Law Group for prosecution of patent applications. NeuroRepair became dissatisfied and requested that Nath transfer its files to another law firm to continue prosecution before the USPTO. Nath withdrew from representation of NeuroRepair before the USPTO, but continued to assist NeuroRepair with other matters. NeuroRepair filed suit in 2009, alleging professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of written contract, breach of oral contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, and false promise. Nath removed the case to federal court on the ground that it was “a civil action relating to patents.” After judgment in Nath’s favor in 2012, NeuroRepair appealed, challenging the court’s subject matter jurisdiction in light of the Supreme Court’s 2013 pronouncement in Gunn v. Minto. The Federal Circuit vacated, with instructions to remand to California state court; no federal issue is necessarily raised, because any federal issues raised are not substantial in the relevant sense. Federal court resolution of malpractice claims that do not raise substantial issues of federal law would usurp the important role of state courts in regulating the practice of law within their boundaries, disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress. View "NeoroRepair, Inc. v. Nath Law Grp." on Justia Law

The application from which the 135 patent issued (28 years later) was filed in 1974. The patent relates to prosthetic vascular grafts made of highly-expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), consisting of solid nodes of PTFE connected by thin PTFE fibrils. The graft formed by ePFTE is homogeneously porous: a structure that allows uniform cell regrowth to establish a firm integration of the graft into the body. The different claims of the patent are directed to grafts made of ePTFE with varying intermodal distances, which are also called fibril lengths. It is sold by Gore under as “Gore-Tex.” In 2003, BPV and Dr. Goldfarb sued Gore for infringement. A jury found the patent valid and that Gore willfully infringed. The Federal Circuit affirmed in 2012, but granted rehearing and vacated for the limited purpose of addressing willfulness, enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees. On remand, the district court again found that Gore, as a “reasonable litigant,” could not have realistically expected its defenses to succeed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting a claim that neither BPV nor Goldfarb had standing to sue for infringement and holding that Gore’s position was not susceptible to a reasonable conclusion that the patent was invalid on inventorship grounds. View "Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc." on Justia Law

The USDA, owner of the patents on the table grape varieties Scarlet Royal and Autumn King, has exclusively licensed the patents to the California Table Grape Commission, which sublicenses to California grape growers and collects royalties that are shared by the Commission and the USDA. The licensing agreements require the growers to pay a royalty on grapes produced and prohibit the growers from propagating the plants. Growers who purchased grapevines covered by the patents, signed license agreements, and paid the fee, challenged the validity and enforceability of the patents, and the conduct of the Commission and the USDA in licensing and enforcing the patents. They argued that the grape varieties were in public use more than one year before the applications for both patents were filed, and that the patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). After the Federal Circuit held that the Administrative Procedure Act waives sovereign immunity for purposes of such an action against the USDA, the district court held that the actions of two individuals who obtained samples of the plants in an unauthorized manner and planted them in their own fields did not constitute an invalidating public use of the plant varieties. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm'n" on Justia Law

Fleming owns two reissue patents (35 U.S.C. 251) relating to radar for detecting police signals. They claim methods for incorporating, and apparatuses that incorporate, a GPS unit to reduce false alarms by allowing the detector to disregard signals from an identified location known to produce false alarms (e.g., a storefront door opener). Fleming sued Escort for infringement. Escort argued anticipation and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 102(g); 103, claiming that Orrinvented a GPS-incorporating radar detector before Fleming. Fleming’s claimed priority date is 1999—the filing date of his original patent application. Orr alleged that he conceived his invention in 1988 and made a working embodiment that reduced it to practice in 1996. Orr’s then-employer owned the potential patent rights; that employer entered bankruptcy in 1997. With Orr’s assistance, Escort acquired its assets, including potential patent rights. Orr began working at Escort in 1998. He filed a patent application, with Escort as assignee, two months after Fleming filed his application. The jury found most of Fleming’s claims to be infringed and not invalid. It found invalidity as to five claims and invalidated two claims as anticipated. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that all of the claims were invalid because Fleming did not meet the “error” precondition for obtaining reissue. View "Fleming v. Escort, Inc." on Justia Law

CET owns the asserted patents, which share substantially the same specification. The four patents contain a total of 242 claims. The claims generally recite a method of extracting data from hard copy documents using an automated digitizing unit such as a scanner, recognizing specific information from the extracted data, and storing that information in a memory. This method can be performed by software on an automated teller machine (ATM) that recognizes information written on a scanned check, such as the check’s amount, and populates certain data fields with that information in a computer’s memory. CET asserted infringement by banking entities. Diebold, the manufacturer of ATMs used by the banking entities, sought a declaratory judgment that its ATMs did not infringe CET’s asserted patents and that CET’s patents were invalid and sought injunctive and monetary relief for tortious interference and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) arising from CET’s act of filing allegedly baseless infringement suits against its customers. The district court dismissed CET’s infringement action, holding that the claims of the asserted patents are invalid as patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 and dismissed Diebold’s claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Content Extraction & Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank" on Justia Law

Aqua Shield’s 160 patent claims enclosures designed to cover pools or create sun rooms, consisting of arched sections that can slide over or under one another to enclose or expose the encompassed area as desired. Aqua Shield sued, alleging that IPC, by importing and selling pool enclosures, was infringing claims 1–16 of the patent. The district court denied a requested preliminary injunction because Aqua Shield lacked information needed to show a likelihood of success on the merits and because of questions about personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Eventually, the court entered summary judgment that IPC infringed and that no claim was invalid, awarded damages in the form of a royalty of $10,800, and held that IPC had not been willful in its infringement. The Federal Circuit remanded after vacating the royalty award, the non-willfulness finding, and denial of enhanced damages and attorney’s fees. The court noted the lack of proof that this case is different from the typical one in which pricing might be adjusted to account for a royalty based on sales price. IPC has not pointed to any evidence supporting the district court’s conclusion that a royalty should be a percentage of profits rather than sales revenues. View "Aqua Shield v. Interpool Pool Cover Team" on Justia Law