Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Hamilton Beach and Sunbeam compete in the small kitchen appliance industry; both sell “slow cookers.” Hamilton Beach’s patent disclosed a “portable” slow cooker with clips to seal the detachable lid of the device on the housing of the cooker and limit leaking during transport. Hamilton Beach’s Stay or Go® slow cooker was a commercial success and increased the company’s market share by more than 30 percent. In response, Sunbeam, the previous market leader, developed the Cook & Carry® and attempted to design around the 831 patent by mounting sealing clips on the lid of the slow cooker rather than on the body. Hamilton Beach filed a continuation that matured into the 928 patent, which claimed a slow cooker with sealing clips on the lid, then filed suit alleging that Sunbeam infringed the 928 patent. The district court found certain claims invalid as anticipated and that Sunbeam did not literally infringe asserted claims of the 928 patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding the asserted claims invalid under the on-sale bar. View "Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc." on Justia Law

MPS and O2 Micro compete in the market for integrated circuit products that control LCD and LED lighting. O2 had filed several prior patent infringement claims against MPS and its customers. MPS sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity with respect to four related O2 patents (the 519 family). After O2 learned of the suit, O2 filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC), under section 337 of the Tariff Act, against MPS and its customers, claiming that their imports infringed the 519 patents and the 382 patent. In the court action, O2 counterclaimed for infringement, added MPS customers, as counter-defendants, and moved to stay proceedings. The court denied the motion. O2 later withdrew assertions concerning the 519 family from both proceedings and covenanted not to sue MPS or its customers for infringement of those patents. O2 insisted that the 382 patent was entitled to a 1998 conception date and filed verified interrogatories attesting to that. O2’s story ultimately unraveled and it “sought to mask its proffer of false testimony.” Ultimately, the court ruled that the earliest invention date was 1999: O2 signed a covenant not to sue with respect to the patent. The district court later dismissed all claims with prejudice and granted fees and costs, based on an exceptional case finding on O2’s “vexatious litigation strategy, litigation misconduct and unprofessional behavior.” The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. O2 Micro Int'l, Ltd." on Justia Law

Prior art concerning treatment of the skin disease, psoriasis, discloses a combination treatment of a vitamin D analog and a corticosteroid. Leo’s patent calls for simultaneous treatment with vitamin D and corticosteroids to heal psoriasis faster and more effectively; a storage-stable combination of vitamin D and corticosteroids in a single formulation did not exist in prior art because vitamin D and corticosteroids have different pH requirements for optimum stability. Because of the storage-stability problem, doctors had to prescribe a regimen that required patients to apply one drug in the morning and another at night, which caused patient compliance issues. Leo discovered that a new set of solvents, including polyoxypropylene 15 stearyl ether, solved the storage stability problem by allowing the vitamin D analog and corticosteroid to coexist in a single pharmaceutical product. The Board of Patent Appeals rejected several claims. The Federal Circuit reversed. The Board incorrectly construed the term “storage stable,” incorrectly found the claimed invention would have been obvious in view of prior art, and incorrectly weighed the objective indicia of nonobviousness. View "Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Kappos" on Justia Law

Conventional tests for prenatal abnormalities caused by genetic abnormalities have relied on invasive and potentially risky techniques like amniocentesis to obtain fetal cells. As an alternative, scientists developed methods of analyzing DNA extracted from fetal cells floating in maternal blood to determine fetal abnormalities and other fetal traits. These methods require separating fluids from the cells and then discarding the fluids, either plasma or serum, and then separating fetal cells from the much more common maternal cells. The 540 patent discloses methods to identify fetal genetic defects by analyzing the fluid that had commonly been discarded as medical waste: maternal plasma or serum. The new tests presented fewer risks and a better rate of abnormality detection. Ariosa sought a declaratory judgment that it could use its Harmony test without infringing the 540 patent. The district court denied the patent holder’s motion for summary judgment. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, finding that the district court incorrectly interpreted the asserted claim terms “amplifying” and “paternally inherited nucleic acid” and improperly balanced factors regarding issuance of a preliminary injunction. View "Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc." on Justia Law

Taurus sued DaimlerChrysler, alleging that external websites infringed its patent for “a computer system for managing product knowledge related to products offered for sale by a selling entity.” Daimler Chrysler asserted license and release defenses, asserted a breach of contract counterclaim, and filed a contract claim against third-party defendants (including Orion), which, it claimed violated a 2006 patent licensing agreement between DaimlerChrysler and Orion, to settle prior patent infringement suits. The district court entered summary judgment, finding that the accused websites did not infringe any asserted claims and that certain claims were invalid as anticipated by prior art. The district court found the DaimlerChrysler suit to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285, and awarded damages of $1,644,906.12, for costs incurred in Chrysler’s defense. With respect to remaining issues, the district court: found that certain third parties were alter egos and declined to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; held that the 2006 agreement did not provide a release to the infringement alleged in the patent suit; held that issues of fact remained as to whether certain third parties had breached a warranty in the 2006 agreement; held that Orion had breached the warranty; and imposed sanctions on Orion and another for pre-trial witness tampering (those parties were not permitted to present evidence to support their defense that Chrysler did not rely on the warranty). The Federal Circuit affirmed, except with respect to attorney fees. View "Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp." on Justia Law

Apple’s patents disclose a smartphone touch panel with a transparent capacitive sensing medium that can detect multiple touches at once by employing a matrix of electrodes connected to circuits that measure the change in charge that occurs when pressure is applied to the screen. The pressure-induced change occurs because electrode rows are in a different layer than electrode columns. When a user touches the screen, the pressure applied at each intersection point causes charge to flow between the electrodes at that node. Measuring circuits connected to the electrodes scan the matrix and measure the displaced charge at each node. By detecting these changes, the panel can determine if and where a user has touched the screen. The patent also discloses how to make the touchscreen transparent. The International Trade Commission found asserted claims of one patent invalid and that Motorola did not infringe asserted claims of the other. The Federal Circuit vacated the ITC decision that Motorola does not infringe and remanded to allow the ITC to consider whether the accused products infringe under the correct construction of “mathematically fitting an ellipse.” The court also vacated a finding of obviousness as to one claim, but affirmed a finding that a claim was not anticipated. View "Apple Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

Rembrandt’s patent relates to contact lenses that have a highly wettable surface and are permeable to oxygen. The patent discloses a soft gas permeable lens with an acrylic layer on the surface of the lens body that increases the wettability and comfort of the contact lens. The district court held that Johnson & Johnson did not infringe the patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Rembrandt Vision Techs., L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc." on Justia Law

3M sells laminate products such as diapers and claimed infringement of four patents by Tredegar, a supplier of breathable and nonwoven film laminates for personal care products, including baby diapers, training pants, and adult incontinence products. After the district court construed claim terms the parties stipulated to noninfringement. The Federal Circuit remanded. The court affirmed the appropriate scope of the claim terms “continuous contact” and “continuous microtextured skin layer over substantially the entire laminate,” but clarified the appropriate scope of those terms. The court reversed claim constructions relating to the terms grouped as “preferential activation zone” and the term “ribbon,” finding that the district court erroneously limited certain claim terms in a manner inconsistent with the intrinsic disclosures. View "3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp." on Justia Law

Tetra Pak’s patent involves commercial cheese-making vats. The district court granted summary judgment, holding that CSI infringed under the doctrine of equivalents and had not proven the patent invalid, and entered a permanent injunction against CSI. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

The Plantronics patent is directed to a concha-style headset for transmitting received sounds to the ear of a user, and discloses an apparatus for stabilizing a concha style headset during use. The district court granted-in-part Aliph’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement and invalidity, construing certain terms and holding the asserted claims invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, holding that the terms “stabilizer support member” and the “concha stabilizer” are not structurally limited either in claim language or in their corresponding description in the specification. The district court concluded that the patent was invalid as obvious before considering objective indications of nonobviousness. View "Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc." on Justia Law