Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

The patents at issue are directed to an “attention manager for occupying the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device.” The patents, which share a common specification, describe a system that acquires data from a content provider, schedules the display of the content data, generates images from the content data, and then displays the images on a device. A stipulated order found certain claims invalid as indefinite and that certain claims were not infringed, based on the court’s claim construction of the phrase “during operation of an attention manager.” The primary issues raised on appeal concerned the manner in which the attention manager displays “images” so as to attract the peripheral attention of the user. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgments of invalidity, but vacated the judgments of noninfringement, disagreeing with the court’s construction of “attention manager” and of the term “instructions.”View "Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc." on Justia Law

SPP owns three patents that relate to a resealable cartridge for low pressure liquid chromatography (LPLC). The 061 patent claims a method of performing LPLC using the cartridge, the 571 patent claims the cartridge, and the 327 patent claims a modified cartridge. After SPP filed suit against Biotage for patent infringement, Biotage requested inter partes reexamination of the three patents. The district court stayed the infringement litigation. The patent examiner rejected all claims of the three patents on the ground of obviousness, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the rejections and cancelled all claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding a finding that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention to modify a certain chromatography cartridge with a certain resealable threaded cap. View "Scientific Plastic Prods., Inc. v. Biotage AB" on Justia Law

Alcon’s patents disclose methods for enhancing the stability of prostaglandin compositions, including Alcon’s glaucoma and ocular hypertension drug Travatan Z®, which contains travoprost, the synthetic prostaglandin fluprostenol isopropyl ester. Barr submitted an FDA Abbreviated New Drug Application, seeking approval to manufacture and sell an ophthalmic travoprost solution as a generic version of Travatan Z®. Although the Alscon patents are not listed as referenced to Travatan Z® in the FDA Orange Book, Alcon sued, asserting infringement of different Book-listed patents. Alcon did not assert those patents at trial and neither party adduced any evidence specifically relating to those patents. Barr stipulated that its generic product infringed the remaining Alcon patents and that those patents were not invalid. After a Markman hearing, the district court construed the claimed phrase “enhancing the chemical stability” to mean “to increase or increasing the ability of the prostaglandin to resist chemical change (as opposed to merely increasing the physical stability of the prostaglandin or composition). The court distinguished physical stability as referring to physical phenomena such as absorption, adsorption, and precipitation and construed the claim term “prostaglandin” to correspond to the patents’ written description regarding prostaglandins that may be used with the invention. The court held that Barr did not infringe and held the claims invalid for lack of enablement and lack of an adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to non-infringement, but reversed the invalidity determinations.View "Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Barr Labs. Inc." on Justia Law

Pegasus owns six patents relating to pens that digitize writing and devices for retrofitting writing surfaces so that writing can be digitally captured. EPOS manufactures and sells products used to digitize writing, including a receiver unit with a spring-loaded, U-shaped clip-on bracket and a pen refill. In 2007, EPOS sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the Pegasus patents. Pegasus counterclaimed infringement. After claim construction, the district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit vacated in part, rejecting the constructions of “drawing implement,” “given time interval,” “marking implement,” and “temporary attachment,” and the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of one patent under the doctrine of equivalents. View "EPOS Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs., Ltd." on Justia Law

Vederi alleged that Google’s “Street View” infringed claims of related patents with a common specification and priority to a common provisional application. The patents relate to methods for creating synthesized images of a geographic area through which a user may visually navigate via a computer. To acquire images, a recording device is mounted on a car that is driven through an area. In one embodiment, one camera points generally horizontally and perpendicularly to the axis of the street to capture front views and some side views of objects lining the streets. The patents disclose that multiple cameras may be used to capture views in different directions. The patents disclose combining images to generate a composite image that provides a field of view wider than that provided by any single image. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that the court erred in its construction of “images depicting views of objects in a geographic area, the views being substantially elevations of the objects in the geographic area” as “vertical flat (as opposed to curved or spherical) depictions of front or side views.” “Views being substantially elevations of the objects” refers to “front and side views of the objects.” Properly construed, the claims do not exclude curved or spherical images depicting views that are substantially front or side views of the objects in the area.View "Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc." on Justia Law

BuySAFE’s patent claims methods and machine-readable media encoded to perform steps for guaranteeing a party’s performance of its online transaction. In 2011, buySAFE sued Google, alleging that Google infringes claims 1, 14, 39, and 44 of that patent. The district court held the asserted claims invalid because they cover subject matter ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit affirmed, citing the approach to section 101 affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2014 in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l. View "BUYSAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2004, Becton sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement of patents concerning Becton’s blood glucose test strip. The defendant, Abbott, sued Becton, Nova (Becton’s supplier), and Bayer, for infringement. In consolidated cases, the court granted summary judgment of noninfringement with respect to two patents and found most asserted claims of another patent invalid due to anticipation. The court later found remaining claims invalid due to obviousness and found the patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct. The court found the case concerning that patent to be exceptional and awarded Becton and Nova costs and fees ($5,949,050) under 35 U.S.C. 285, specifically due after exhaustion of all appeals if the inequitable conduct judgment was upheld. Abbott appealed the judgments of invalidity, unenforceability, and noninfringement, but did not appeal the exceptional case finding or fee award. The Federal Circuit, en banc, affirmed regarding obviousness, noninfringement, and anticipation, but vacated the inequitable conduct judgment. Applying a new standard on remand, the district court concluded again that the patent was procured through inequitable conduct. Becton and Nova sought appellate and remand fees and expenses; fees spent seeking additional fees; pre-judgment interest on fees; and post-judgment interest calculated from the date the district court found the case to be exceptional. The district court reinstated its 2009 fee award and added post-judgment interest calculated from 2012, but denied all additional fees and interest. The Federal Circuit affirmed.View "Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co." on Justia Law

Danisco and Novozymes compete as suppliers of Rapid Starch Liquefaction products, genetically modified industrial enzymes that convert plant-based material into ethanol. They have patents that claim α-amylase enzymes, genetically engineered through substitution of amino acids in the peptide sequence to improve liquefaction performance. Novozymes has sued Danisco several times. Once Novozymes amended a pending patent application to claim one of Danisco’s new products, and sued Danisco the same day that the patent issued. Danisco owns the 240 patent, issued 2011 and claiming priority from a 2008 provisional application, claiming a variation for increased viscosity reduction in a starch liquefaction assay; it is the active ingredient in Danisco’s RSL products. After the PTO issued a Notice of Allowance, Novozymes amended a pending application to claim the enzyme, and contested entitlement to priority, arguing that its amended claim covered the same invention as the 240 patent. After Danisco’s 240 patent issued, Novozymes requested continued examination and made comments about its refusal to “acquiesce.” Upon issuance of Novozymes’s 573 patent, Danisco sought declaratory judgments that its products did not infringe and that the 573 patent was invalid, or that its 240 patent had priority under 35 U.S.C. 291. The district dismissed, acknowledging that Novozymes’s 573 patent presented a substantial risk to Danisco, but that Danisco’s action was filed before Novozymes could take action to enforce its rights. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the totality of the circumstances established a justiciable controversy. View "Danisco U.S. Inc. v. Novozymes A/S, Inc." on Justia Law

Ancora’s patent, entitled “Method of Restricting Software Operation within a License Limitation,” describes a method of preventing unauthorized software use by checking whether a program is operating within its license and taking remedial action if it is not. Methods for checking license coverage of software were known at the time of application, but some were vulnerable to hacking, while others were expensive and inconvenient to distribute. The specification claims to overcome those problems by using memory space associated with the computer’s basic input/output system (BIOS), rather than other space, to store encrypted license information for the verification process. While the contents of BIOS space may be modified, the level of expertise needed to do so is unusually high, and the risk of accidentally rendering the computer inoperable is too high for the ordinary hacker. The method eliminates the expense and inconvenience of using additional hardware. Ancora sued, alleging that products running Apple’s iOS operating system infringed the patent. Ancora stipulated to non-infringement under the district court’s construction of the claim term “program” and appealed that construction. Apple cross-appealed. The Federal Circuit reverses the construction of “program” as limited to application programs, affirmed a conclusion that the terms “volatile memory” and “non-volatile memory” are not indefinite, and remanded.View "Ancora Tech., Inc. v. Apple, Inc." on Justia Law

Tranexamic acid, the active ingredient in Ferring’s patented product, is used to treat heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia) in women. Tranexamic acid has been widely used in an immediate release formulation for more than 30 years to treat menorrhagia in other countries. Ferring developed a tranexamic acid formulation with fewer gastrointestinal side effects than the immediate release version used abroad, but with the same benefits, by creating a formulation with a tranexamic acid release rate that matched the rate of absorption in the gastrointestinal tract. Ferring’s commercial product is known as Lysteda. In 2004, the FDA approved a fast-track designation for approval of Lysteda, and the Lysteda New Drug Application was approved in 2009 as the first tranexamic acid drug approved for use in the U.S. Apotex sought to market a generic version of Lysted that would avoid infringement of Ferring’s patent applications, but that would be bioequivalent to Lysteda, by altering the rate of absorption. Ferring then sued Apotex for infringement. The district court dismissed after Apotex amended its Abbreviated new Drug ApplicationView "Ferring B.V. v. Watson Labs, Inc., FL" on Justia Law