Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Since 2003, Cummins and TAS have been engaged in three separate actions regarding idle-control technologies for heavy-duty truck engines. Earlier suits concerned breach of a master license agreement between the parties. In a 2009 action, Cummins sought a declaratory judgment that claims of TAS’s 703 and 469 patents are invalid and unenforceable. The district court found that the suit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata in light of a decision in an earlier claim. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Cummins could have pursued claims regarding invalidity and unenforceability of the TAS patents in prior litigation, which featured the same parties, arose from the same group of operative facts, and resulted in a final resolution on the merits so that res judicata bars Cummins’ defenses under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. View "Cummins, Inc. v. TAS Distrib. Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s patent discloses an “easy clean dual wall deck” for a rotary cutter. Defendants manufacture rotary cutters that are pulled behind a tractor and used to mow wide swaths of ground. The accused rotary cutters can “rough cut” fields after a harvest or clear weeds and brush along roadsides. Plaintiff’s patent addresses a problem encountered by rotary cutters. Prior art cutters had structural components such as gearboxes and deck bracings mounted either on top of or underneath the cutter deck; the patent discloses a dual-wall deck that encloses the structural components in a torsionally-strong box, leaving smooth surfaces on the top and bottom of the deck for easing cleaning. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit vacated, affirming the construction of “rotary cutter deck” and the determination that the terms “substantially planar” and “easily washed off” do not render the asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, but holding that the district court erroneously construed the term “into engagement with” to require direct contact. View "Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, L.L.C." on Justia Law

ArcelorMittal’s patent covers boron steel sheet with an aluminum-based coating applied after rolling the sheet to its final thickness. The steel is used for “hot-stamping:” rapidly heating the steel, stamping it into parts of the desired shape, and rapidly cooling them. The rapid heating and cooling alters the crystalline structure of the steel, converting it to austenite and then martensite. By altering the steel’s microstructure, hot-stamping produces particularly strong steel, but there are associated problems. The aluminum-based coating claimed in the patent prevents oxidation during hot-stamping, so that scale does not form and decarburization does not occur, making hot-stamping less costly, reducing environmental impact, and allowing its use in production of delicate parts. ArcelorMittal brought an infringement action, alleging that AK Steel’s aluminum coated steel sheet products infringe the patent. After construing the terms “a hot-rolled steel sheet coated with an aluminum or aluminum alloy coating” and “the steel sheet has a very high mechanical resistance after thermal treatment,” the district court found no infringement and held that the asserted claims were obvious and anticipated. The Federal Circuit upheld the claim construction in part, reversed in part, reversed the verdict of anticipation, and stated that a new trial is required on obviousness. View "Arcelor Mittal France v. AK Steel Corp." on Justia Law

Fox owns the 130 patent, which claims a low defect silicon carbide (SiC) crystal and relates to a method and apparatus of said crystal and claims priority from a 1997 application. SiC crystal is a semiconductor material grown via man-made methods and used in high-temperature and high-power electronics such as light sources, power diodes, and photodiodes. SiC material must contain a relatively low level of defects. Cree has engaged in research to grow low defect SiC crystals since 1987. In 1995, Cree grew boule G0259; Dr. Dudley, of the State University of New York, advised that a wafer sliced from that boule, (the Kyoto Wafer), had an exceptionally low defect area. At the 1995 International Conference on SiC and Related Materials and in a 1996 article, Cree inventors showed a cropped image and described the low defect nature of the Kyoto Wafer. Fox claimed that Cree infringed claims of its patent. The district court entered summary judgment that the 130 patent is invalid and rejected other claims and counterclaims. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to two claims of the 130 patent, but vacated in part. There was no controversy at the time of the judgment over other claims of the patent. View "Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc." on Justia Law

Revision and Balboa design, manufacture, and sell protective eyewear. Revision markets its ballistic protective eyewear primarily to military establishments and law enforcement agencies, and to others who require eye protection, such as hunters and range shooters. Revision alleges that Balboa’s new “Bravo” design protective goggles copied and infringes Revision’s “Bullet Ant” goggles covered by two patents. After the infringement suit was filed Revision sought to enjoin Balboa from making and selling the Bravo goggles while the litigation was pending. The district court denied the preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that the district court erred in applying the Second Circuit’s heightened standard of proof of likelihood of success on the merits (clear and substantial) likelihood, instead of the Federal Circuit standard for consideration of whether to impose relief. On remand, the district court should employ the design-as-a-whole criterion and the more-likely-than-not standard. View "Revision Military, Inc. v. Balboa Mfg. Co." on Justia Law

Superior owns three patents, which claim priority to a 2006 application and cover a “Braced Telescoping Support Strut and System” that supports a portable conveyor assembly to transport and stockpile rock, sand, grain, and other aggregate material. Superior alleges its patents claim an improved undercarriage that enables portable conveyors to safely and stably operate at heights above previous conveyors by using cross bracing between the upper and lower support beams that does not interfere with the extension or retraction of upper support beams. Superior claims to have coined the term “fully braced” and owns the registered trademark “FB.” Thor competes in the portable conveyor market and, in 2007, filed a U.S. patent application for an “Undercarriage for a Telescopic Frame,” disclosing a telescoping frame similar to that claimed in the Superior patents. Thor issued a press release describing a conveyor system with a new “PATENT-PENDING FB Undercarriage.” Superior initiated a trademark infringement action that ended in a 2010 Consent Judgment, enjoining Thor from use of the “FB” trademark. Superior then sued for patent infringement. The district court dismissed, citing claim preclusion. The Federal Circuit reversed in part. Superior’s prior trademark infringement action did not arise from the same operative facts. View "Superior Indus., L.L.C. v. Thor Global Enter., Ltd." on Justia Law

A jury found that Lawson infringes ePlus’s method and system claims for “electronic sourcing,” which is similar to online shopping. The specification explains that electronic sourcing systems existed in prior art, but those older systems only enabled the user to generate a single purchase order that would be submitted to a single vendor. One important feature of the claimed invention is ability to divide a single requisition (or shopping list) into multiple purchase orders. The patented invention includes a computer that maintains a catalog database of items available from at least two vendors. Vendors may be manufacturers, distributors, or resellers. The user can search vendor catalogs for items that match certain criteria, contact vendors to determine whether a particular product is available, and switch between different catalogs to look at equivalent items. The customer then purchases the desired items. A customer adds the desired item to an “order list;” once the customer is ready to make a purchase, the system uses the order list to build a “requisition,” then determines what inventory will be used to complete the requisition and generates “purchase orders,” which are submitted to vendors. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, finding the system claims indefinite. . View "ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc." on Justia Law

SanDisk allegedly controls the market for NAND flash memory, a computer chip that can be erased and reprogrammed that is widely used in consumer products such as digital cameras, mobile phones, and USB drives. Retailers purchase from SanDisk, the patentee, and its licensees. Ritz filed a class action, alleging that SanDisk violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2 by fraudulently procuring patents by failing to disclose prior art and making misrepresentations to the Patent and Trademark Office and established its monopoly by enforcing patents against competitors and by threatening competitors’ customers. SanDisk asserted that Ritz lacked standing to bring a Walker Process antitrust because Ritz faced no threat of an infringement action and had no other basis to bring a declaratory judgment action challenging the patents. The district court rejected the argument, acknowledging that such claims normally are brought by competitors of the patentee as counterclaims in infringement actions, but noting that the Walker Process decision places no limitation on eligible plaintiffs. On interlocutory appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed that a direct purchaser is not categorically precluded from bringing a Walker Process antitrust claim, even if it would not be entitled to seek declaratory relief against the patentee under the patent laws. View "Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. Sandisk Corp." on Justia Law

The patents share a common specification, directed to an improved apparatus for offshore drilling. Transocean sought to improve on the time-consuming process of lowering equipment to the seabed by using a “dualactivity” drilling apparatus. Transocean alleged that Maersk infringed claims in the three patents by entering into a contract that granted Statoil the right to use an allegedly infringing drilling rig. The Federal Circuit previously vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement and reversed its grant of summary judgment of invalidity for obviousness and lack of enablement. On remand, a jury found that Maersk failed to prove that the asserted claims would have been obvious or were not enabled. The jury made specific findings that the prior art failed to disclose every element of the asserted claims and that each of seven objective factors indicated nonobviousness and awarded $15 million in compensatory damages for infringement. The district court, however, granted Maersk judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims are invalid as obvious and not enabled, that Maersk did not infringe. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding the jury verdict supported by substantial evidence. View "Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Chu was a professor of physics, Hor was a graduate student and Meng worked in Chu’s group as an independent materials scientist, researching superconducting compositions with transition temperatures higher than the boiling point of liquid nitrogen. The 866 patent, filed in 1987 and issued in 2006, is titled “Superconductivity in Square-Planar Compound Systems.” The 418 patent, filed in 1989 and issued in 2010, is titled “High Transition Temperature Superconducting Compositions.” Compositions claimed in the patents were conceived between November 1986 and March 1987, and Chu is the sole named inventor on both patents. In 2008, Hor filed a complaint against Chu, seeking correction of inventorship of the 866 patent under 35 U.S.C. 256. In 2010, the district court allowed Meng to intervene. In 2010, after the 418 patent issued, the district court allowed Hor and Meng to add inventorship claims with respect to that patent, but held that laches, or, alternatively, estoppel, barred the claims, which arose before the patents issued. The Federal Circuit reversed the judgment in favor of Chu on his laches defense and vacated with respect to estoppel, but affirmed judgment in favor of Chu with respect to Meng’s unclean hands defense. View "Hor v. Chu" on Justia Law