Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

In the mid-1990s, Biogen scientists discovered that patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia could be treated using anti-CD20 antibodies like Biogen’s Rituxan. Biogen obtained the 612 patent covering a method for treating patients with CLL involving administering a therapeutically effective amount of the anti-CD20 antibody, entitled “Treatment of Hematologic Malignancies Associated with Circulating Tumor Cells Using Chimeric Anti-CD20 Antibody.” The patent was not limited to any particular type of antiCD20 antibody. In 2002, GSK and Genmab developed a breakthrough anti-CD20 antibody, Arzerra, which is distinctly different from Rituxan in several respects. Unlike Rituxan, which is a chimeric antibody, Arzerra is a fully human antibody, with less risk that the body will reject it and it can bind longer, giving the antibody more time to kill the target B cell. In 2010, Biogen sued GSK for infringement. The district court applied a construction of “anti-CD20 antibody” that narrowed the term based on prosecution history disclaimer. Under that construction, Biogen stipulated that it could not prove infringement and appealed the claim construction. The Federal Circuit affirmed; the district court did not err in finding a clear and unmistakable disclaimer. View "Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC" on Justia Law

First introduced in 1960, combined oral contraceptive (COC) “birth control pills,” deliver synthetic hormones that regulate the natural ovarian cycle and prevent pregnancy. Bayer filed an application directed to a low-dose, extended-regimen COC in 1993, which eventually led to the 564 patent. Bayer received final approval to market YAZ in the U.S. in 2006. Defendants filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking approval to market generic versions of YAZ, with certifications asserting that the 564 patent is invalid (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV). Bayer responded with patent infringement actions. The district court entered summary judgment that the patent’s claims are not invalid for obviousness in view of numerous cited prior art references. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that Bayer did not present evidence that overcomes the plain disclosures and express motivation to combine those disclosures in the prior art. View "Bayer Healthcare Pharma, Inc. v. Watson Pharma, Inc." on Justia Law

Morsa’s patent application, entitled “Method and Apparatus for the Furnishing of Benefits Information and Benefits,” discloses both a method and an apparatus for receiving a benefit-information request from a user, searching a benefit information database for benefits matching the request, and then returning benefit information to the user. In the specification, Morsa defines benefits as any “‘things’ of value” given away to target entities. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed rejection of multiple claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, finding that many claims would have been obvious in light of prior art. Vacating in part, the court held that the Board performed an incorrect enablement analysis in determining that certain claims were anticipated. View "In re: Morsa" on Justia Law

Saffran is the owner and sole named inventor of the 760 patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Managing Macromolecular Distribution,” which concerns “treatment of injured tissues within human or animal bodies, specifically ... the way injured tissues are joined and the way macromolecules are directed to promote healing.” The patent discloses methods and devices for treating injured tissues by sequestering particles and macromolecules in a defined space using a selectively permeable barrier. The specification primarily describes the invention in terms of a strategy for treating serious bone fractures, known as complex or comminuted fractures, where the bone has been shattered into numerous fragments. The district court held Cordis liable for infringing multiple claims of the patent. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the district court erroneously construed the “device” and “release means” limitations of the asserted claims. View "Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson" on Justia Law

The district court held that Fairchild willfully infringed several valid patents belonging to Power Integrations and awarded compensatory and enhanced damages in the amount of $12,866,647.16. The patented technology is used in electric chargers for mobile phones. The Federal Circuit affirmed the ruling on obviousness, but reversed construction of the “soft start circuit” limitations in certain claims. The court vacated the award of damages based on infringement by inducement, and remanded for a new trial on damages resulting from direct infringement, with an accounting limited to post-verdict infringing sales related to Fairchild’s direct infringement. The court also vacated the finding of willful infringement. View "Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductors Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences rejected the 172 design patent application, a continuation of the 709 application, which claimed a design for a bottle with specific shapes and boundaries. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that nothing in the parent application’s disclosure suggested anything uniquely patentable about the top portion of the bottle’s front panel. View "In re Owens" on Justia Law

Checkpoint and All-Tag are competitors in the manufacture and sale of “resonance tags,” electronic anti-shoplifting devices that are attached to merchandise whereby if the attached tag is not deactivated, the tag triggers an alarm when the tagged goods move past detectors located at the store’s exit. Checkpoint sued All-Tag for infringement of a patent entitled “Resonance Label and Method for its Fabrication.” A jury found the patent not infringed, invalid, and unenforceable. The district court entered judgment on the verdict, held the case “exceptional” in terms of 35 U.S.C. 285, and awarded the defendants $6.6 million in attorney fees, costs, and interest. The patent term has expired and only the award of attorney fees was appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed. The infringement charge was not shown to have been made in bad faith or objectively baseless. View "Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A." on Justia Law

1999, Drs. Dawson and Bowman submitted the patent application that led to the issuance of the two patents at issue, which concern a method for topically treating and preventing infections of the eye. They claim to overcome difficulties in existing methods through a process for topically applying an azalide antibiotic to the eye. Both patents are entitled “Topical Treatment or Prevention of Ocular Infections.” In 2007, in order to provoke an interference, UCSF filed a patent application that named Dr. Dawson as the sole inventor and generally copied the specification and claims from the patents. Dr. Dawson declined to join UCSF’s submission. The Patent and Trademark Office’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences found that Dr. Dawson did not conceive of the claimed inventions by himself prior to his collaboration with Dr. Bowman. The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting that, apart from reduction to practice, conception requires that the inventor know how his “definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention ... is hereafter to be applied in practice.” View "Dawson v. Dawson & Bowman" on Justia Law

This case involved a confidential document called the Project Tulip Financial Analysis (Tulip FA), which projected profits, as well as discussed the appropriate terms and benefits from a settlement, involving Solvay's highly lucrative patent on AndroGel, a topical testosterone gel. Solvay subsequently appealed the district court's decision to modify an earlier protective order and unseal the Tulip FA. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion to modify its own protective order. The district court found that the passage of time had altered the balance enough so that the value of public access to the Tulip FA exceeded the value of confidentiality to Solvay. The court also vacated the stay entered by a panel of the court. View "Federal Trade Commission v. AbbVie Products LLC" on Justia Law

Cordis sued Abbott, alleging infringement of patents for drug-eluting stents. The PTO reexamined the 844 patent and issued an initial office action rejecting all claims as obvious. Cordis submitted an expert affidavit asserting secondary considerations of nonobviousness, including that Abbott had copied its patent. The examiner issued a further action, affirming rejection of all claims, finding that Cordis had failed to present evidence of copying. A different examiner issued an initial action rejecting all challenged claims of the 773 patent as obvious. The parties submitted dueling expert declarations. The reexamination of the 773 patent remains pending, while reexamination of the 844 patent is on appeal before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Cordis obtained subpoenas from the district court ordering Abbott to produce documents believed to establish copying and other secondary considerations for use in the pending PTO reexaminations. The court subsequently quashed the subpoenas. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that 35 U.S.C. 24 only empowers a district court to issue a subpoena for use in a “contested case,” and that contested cases are limited to those in which the regulations of the PTO authorize the parties to take depositions. The PTO does not provide for depositions in inter partes reexamination proceedings. View "Abbott Labs v. Cordis Corp." on Justia Law