Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

AntiCancer, Inc. owns patents for technology related to the imaging of gene expression using a green fluorescent protein linked to a gene promoter. The fluorescent protein is derived from a species of green-glowing jellyfish, Aequorea victoria. The patented inventions are described as useful for drug discovery and evaluation in cancer control and treatment. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement, not on the substantive merits of any issue, but on a procedural aspect at the threshold of the litigation arising from application of the Patent Local Rules of the Southern District of California. The court imposed a fee-shifting sanction as a condition of permitting AntiCancer to supplement the Preliminary Infringement Contentions that found to be defective under Patent Local Rule 3.1. The Federal Circuit vacated the condition and remanded. Considering the language and purposes of the Local Rule, and the record of what Anti-Cancer disclosed in its Contentions and the limited, specific criticisms of the Contentions’ sufficiency, there was no reasonable basis for making the finding of bad faith that would be required to sustain the fees sanction. View "Anticancer Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc." on Justia Law

CardSoft filed suit in 2008 against VeriFone, asserting infringement of the 945 patent and the 683 patent, which are directed to software for small, specialized computers, like payment terminals. The district court held a Markman hearing and adopted CardSoft’s proposed construction for the claim term “virtual machine.” A jury determined that certain VeriFone devices infringed claim 11 of the 945 patent and claim 1 of the 683 patent and that these claims were not invalid. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the district court erred in its construction of “virtual machine,” and CardSoft waived any argument of infringement under the correct construction, View "CARDSOFT, LLC v. VERIFONE, INC. " on Justia Law

SSL Services asserted that Citrix infringed claims contained the 796 patent and the 011 patent, related to multi-tier virtual private networks. The district court held a Markman hearing and construed the terms “intercepting” and “destination address,” and imposed a set step order requirement for the claim. A jury found that Citrix willfully infringed claims 2, 4, and 7 of the 011 Patent, and that those claims were not shown to be invalid, but that Citrix did not infringe claim 27 of the 796 Patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, but vacated the district court’s denial of prevailing party status to SSL and remanded for an assessment of costs and fees. View "SSL Servs., LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Bosch owns the rights to the 313 patent, which claims a diagnostic tester that determines whether the computerized control unit in a motor vehicle needs to be reprogrammed. The claimed external diagnostic tester is made up of a “program recognition device” and a “program loading device,” the only two claim terms at issue. In Bosch’s infringement case, the court found those claim terms invalid as indefinite. The Federal Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the terms invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6 and that the specification does not disclose corresponding structure for the terms. View "ROBERT BOSCH, LLC v. SNAP-ON INC." on Justia Law

Whirlpool purchased injection-molded plastic knobs and decorative metal stampings from Grigoleit. In 1992 Whirlpool told Grigoleit that it would start using products made by Phillips. Grigoleit believed that Phillips was using a method protected by its patents. Ultimately Grigoleit licensed its patents to Whirlpool and Phillips; instead of royalties Grigoleit got Whirlpool’s business for the “Estate” and “Roper” brand lines and a promise of consideration for other business. The agreement and the patents expired in 2003. An arbitrator concluded that Whirlpool had failed to consider Grigoleit’s parts for some lines of washers and dryers and was liable for payment of money royalties or damages. Grigoleit demanded the profit it would have made had Whirlpool purchased its requirements of knobs exclusively from Grigoleit. The district court concluded that a reasonable royalty fell in the range of 1¢ to 12¢ per part and the parties then agreed that royalties would then be $140,000. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, reasoning that lost profits differ from royalties. The caption on the contract is “LICENSE AGREEMENT” and the heading on paragraph 3 is “Royalties.” The agreement is a patent license; the court was not obliged to treat it as a requirements contract. View "Grigoleit Co. v. Whirlpool Corp." on Justia Law

In 1996, Campbell and Ian successfully produced the first mammal ever cloned from an adult somatic cell: Dolly the Sheep. Known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, the process involves removing the nucleus of a somatic cell and implanting that nucleus into an enucleated (i.e., without a nucleus) oocyte. A somatic cell is any body cell other than gametes (egg or sperm). An oocyte is an egg cell prior to maturation and a nucleus is the organelle that holds a cell’s genetic material (DNA). Often called “adult” cells, somatic cells are differentiated, i.e., they are specialized to perform specific functions. Liver, heart, and muscle cells are differentiated, somatic cells. To create Dolly, Campbell and Wilmut fused the nucleus of an adult, somatic mammary cell with an enucleated oocyte. The obtained the 258 patent for the process. The Patent and Trademark Office rejected their claims to the cloned animals, set forth in the 233 application, “Quiescent Cell Populations for Nuclear Transfer.’ In 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the rejection, finding that the claimed subject matter was ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it constituted a natural phenomenon that did not possess “markedly different characteristics than any found in nature” and that the subject matter was anticipated by and obvious in light of prior art (35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) because the clones were indistinguishable from clones produced through prior cloning methods, i.e., embryotic nuclear transfer and in vitro fertilization. The Federal Circuit affirmed, citing Section 101.View "In re: Roslin Inst. (Edinburgh)" on Justia Law

Lightning strikes and animal contacts can cause wires of the power grid to short. Such “low voltage events” can damage wind turbines, which previously disconnected from the grid during a low voltage event. As wind began providing a greater percentage of overall power, utilities began to require low voltage ride-through. GE’s 985 patent, directed to controlling components of a wind turbine that would allow it to remain connected to the grid and to safely ride through a low voltage event, names five co-inventors who were based in Germany. Wilkins is not named. Wilkins was involved in adapting wind turbines to meet certain requirements in the U.S. The German team consulted Wilkins for confirmation that their invention would work with U.S. grid. Wilkins left GE in 2002. The 985 patent is asserted by GE against Mitsubishi in several lawsuits. Mitsubishi challenged the validity of the patent and hired Wilkins, who worked 1,000 hours in an effort to invalidate the 985 patent. Mitsubishi also argued that the patent was unenforceable because GE intentionally failed to name Wilkins as a co-inventor. The administrative law judge found that Wilkins had co-invented the patent but that GE did not intend to deceive the PTO. Later, Wilkins asserted ownership rights in the 985 patent and another patent. Wilkins entered into additional agreements with Mitsubishi and was paid more than $1.5 million. GE sought to quiet title to the patents. Wilkins counterclaimed. After refusing to take an unqualified oath to tell the truth at his deposition, behavior that the court deemed “not acceptable,” Wilkins filed a declaration calling the court “ignorant.” The district court dismissed GE’s ownership claims as time-barred and held that Wilkins and Mitsubishi failed to establish that Wilkins co-invented any claim of the 985 patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting that Wilkins had filed additional claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against GE and its counsel. View "Gen. Elec. Co. v. Wilkins" on Justia Law

The patent application, filed before the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, replaced paragraph 2 of 35 U.S.C. 112 in 2012, covers a coin change holder, a plastic card with four channels on its surface for storing different types of coins. An examiner rejected the application for lack of adequate written description, claim indefiniteness, and obviousness. The inventor cancelled his original claims and substituted a new claims 28 through 37. The examiner, in his final rejection, found claims 28-33 and 37 invalid for lack of written description, claims 28-37 invalid for indefiniteness, and claims 28-37 invalid for obviousness. The examiner noted that, while the claims required that the card be attached to a wallet, this feature was not supported by the written description, and that several claim limitations failed to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they lacked an antecedent basis or were otherwise unclear. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the written description and indefiniteness rejections, reversing the obviousness rejection. With respect to indefiniteness, the Board applied the review standard of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure section 2173.05(e). The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the Board misapplied the standard of indefiniteness by determining that the claims “contain[ ] words or phrases whose meaning is unclear” and that, had the Board applied an “insolubly ambiguous” standard, those claims would not have been held indefinite.View "In re: Packard" on Justia Law

The 140 and 771 patents are directed to light-emitting diode (LED) string lights that include an LED, an insulated electrical conductor (wire), and an insulation displacement connector (IDC connector). Power must be provided from the insulated electrical conductor to the LEDs. To accomplish this, the patents disclose an IDC connector with terminals that are electrically connected to the LEDs and configured to displace a portion of the insulation surrounding the electrical conductor. GE sued AgiLight, for infringement. After claim construction, the parties stipulated to noninfringement of the 140 and 771 patents on the grounds that AgiLight’s products do not include an IDC connector as construed by the court. The district court entered partial summary judgment consistent with the stipulation and granted AgiLight summary judgment of noninfringement of the 896 and 055 patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to the 055 patent, but otherwise reversed and remanded.View "GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc." on Justia Law

Apple claimed infringement of 15 patents by Motorola. Motorola counterclaimed, asserting six of its own patents. The patents concern use of finger contacts to control a touchscreen computer. Both sought declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity. Based upon its claim construction decisions, the district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to certain claims and excluded most of both parties’ damages expert evidence for remaining claims. With little admissible expert evidence, the court granted summary judgment that neither side was entitled to damages or an injunction. Despite infringement being assumed, the district court dismissed all claims with prejudice. With three Apple patents and three Motorola patents at issue, the Federal Circuit affirmed the claim construction decisions, with one exception. The district court mistakenly construed certain limitations as means-plus-function limitations. With one minor exception, the court reversed the decision to exclude damages evidence presented by both parties and the grant of summary judgment of no damages for infringement of Apple’s patents. Based on reversal of claim construction, the court vacated summary judgment regarding Apple’s request for an injunction. The court agreed that Motorola is not entitled to an injunction for infringement View "Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc." on Justia Law