Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

The Tote Towel is a large towel with binding around all the edges, zippered pockets at both ends, and an angled cloth loop in the middle. Hall applied for a design patent for the Tote Towel in 2008 and began producing the item soon after the filing, with a label marked “patent pending.” While the application was pending, Hall contacted Bed Bath & Beyond to discuss whether BB&B would sell the Tote Towel at retail stores. Hall left samples of packaged Tote Towels with BB&B. The package and the towel were marked “patent pending.” BB&B had copies of the Hall towel manufactured in Pakistan, for retail sale by BB&B. The patent issued, and Hall sued for patent infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and for misappropriation under New York law. The district court dismissed all claims and counterclaims on the pleadings. The Federal Circuit held that the counts of patent infringement, unfair competition, and misappropriation were not subject to dismissal on the pleadings, but affirmed dismissal of claims against BB&B executives who had been sued in their personal capacities, and affirmed dismissal of the counterclaims. View "Hall v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc." on Justia Law

Ethypharm, a French corporation, contracted with Reliant, an American company. Ethypharm would manufacture and provide its drug (Antara®); Reliant would obtain approval and market the drug. Reliant sought FDA approval under 21 U.S.C. 505(b)(2), using data from an approved, fenofibrate drug, TriCor®, developed by Fournier and distributed in the U.S. by Abbott. Antara received approval. Reliant began marketing and sought a declaration of non-infringement or unenforceability of Abbott’s patents. Abbott counterclaimed. In 2006, the companies settled: Abbott and Fournier would license the patents to Reliant and Reliant would pay royaltys. The agreement prohibited Reliant from assigning its rights to or partnering with specific companies. Reliant sold its rights to Oscient, which was not a prohibited purchaser. Losing market share to generic fenofibrate, Oscient discontinued promotion of Antara and filed for bankruptcy. Ethypharm sued Abbott, alleging antitrust and sham litigation under 15 U.S.C. 1, asserting that the settlement agreement was designed to ensure that Antara would be marketed by a company with “limited resources and a relatively small sales force,” so that it could not effectively compete with TriCor and that the royalty payment weakened Antara’s profitability. The district court granted Abbott summary judgment. The Third Circuit vacated, holding that Ethypharm lacked standing under the Sherman Act. View "Ethypharm SA France v. Abbott Labs" on Justia Law

In 2003 Habasit filed an infringement suit against Rexnord, then filed a request for reexamination of the 680 patent, which describes a mechanical conveyor belt that is formed of rows of belt modules interlinked by transverse rods. The interlinked modules form an endless belt that is capable of following a curved path. The spaces between the belt modules are blocked by plastic “webs” so that the spaces are too small to pinch small items such as a finger. The district court stayed the suit pending reexamination. The examiner held all of the claims in the 680 patent unpatentable for anticipation and obviousness. The PTO Board reversed and held the claims patentable. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the claims were not anticipated, but reversed and held that the claimed invention was obvious in view of prior art. View "Rexnord Indus., LLC v. Kappos" on Justia Law

The 314 patent, its continuation, the 492 patent, and the 639 patent, relate to electronic commerce; products are offered and purchased through computers interconnected by a network. The patents arise from a software system called “Transact,” developed in 1996 by Open Market. In 2001 Open Market was sold, with the Transact software and patents, to Divine, which was unable to provide support for the complex product and declared bankruptcy. Soverain acquired the Transact software and patents, then sued seven online retailers for patent infringement. The defendants, except Newegg, took paid up licenses to the patents. Newegg declined to pay, stating that its system is materially different and that the patents are invalid if given the scope asserted by Soverain: similar electronic commerce systems were known before the system; the Transact software was generally abandoned; and Newegg’s system, based on the different principle of using “cookies” on the buyer’s computer to collect shopping data, is outside of the claims. The district court awarded Soverain damages and an ongoing royalty and held that the claims were not invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, holding that claims in the all of the patents are invalid for obviousness. View "Soverain Software, LLC v. Newegg, Inc." on Justia Law

Allflex sought a declaratory judgment that Avid’s patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and that Allflex was not liable for infringement. Avid counterclaimed, alleging infringement. The patents relate to Radio Frequency Identification technology used in locator tags attached to animals or objects. The district court ruled that Avid should be sanctioned for failing to disclose the existence of pending reexamination proceedings. After construing the claims, the district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement and granted partial summary judgment in favor of Allflex on its inequitable conduct claim. The court held that Avid’s failure to disclose information about prior public use and offers to sell one of its products was material to inequitable conduct, but concluded that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether Avid’s president had the requisite intent to deceive the PTO, an element of Allflex’s claim. The parties entered into a settlement agreement: Avid agreed to pay Allflex $6.55 million, reserving the right to appeal certain issues. The Federal Circuit dismissed as moot, rejecting a claim that a live controversy existed under a provision that Avid’s settlement payment would be reduced by $50,000 if Avid was successful on any of its appeals. View "Allflex USA, Inc. v. Avid Identification Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Parallel owns a patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Client-Server Communication Using a Limited Capability Client Over a Low-Speed Communications Link.” The application was filed in 1999 and addressed problems in using generic software applications on “handheld and credit-card-sized” computers, often operated over low-speed or wireless networks. Generic applications in that environment occupied considerable storage space on the host computer (they had to include capabilities for adapting to many different settings) and required multiple, data-intensive transfers of information between the server and the computer (they were not designed with the limitations of low-speed networks in mind). The patent’s solution was a “dynamically generated, transient applet,” a small program that typically performs one task. Applets and related technology, “plug-ins,” pre-dated the patent, and could be used to provide “dynamic” capabilities to web pages. The patent claimed a new type of applet, better suited to the needs of “limited capability clients.” Parallel sued 120 defendants with websites that provide applets in response to user requests in a manner that, according to Parallel, infringes the patent. The district court construed terms, including “executable applet,” “data interface capability,” and “dynamically generated” and ruled in favor of most of the defendants. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Parallel Networks, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co." on Justia Law

The patent is directed to a carton or box which holds containers such as cans and bottles, having a dispenser-piece with a finger-flap on top for pulling the dispenser-piece either into an open position or fully off of the carton. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ determinations, on inter partes reexamination that independent representative claims 1, 8, and 13 are invalid as obvious and that dependent representative claims 2, 9, and 14 are not obvious. View "C.W. Zumbiel Co., Inc. v. Kappos" on Justia Law

Presidio is a manufacturer of electrical components for high-tech applications, operated by the three listed inventors on the 356 patent, entitled “Integrated Broadband Ceramic Capacitor Array.” ATC manufactures electrical components. ATC’s 545L capacitors, a variety of monolithic broadband capacitors, compete with Presidio’s Buried Broadband capacitor. Presidio asserted that ATC’s 545L capacitors infringed the 356 patent. The district court denied ATC’s motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on validity and infringement and denied Presidio a permanent injunction and judgment on willfulness, its ongoing royalty rate, and false marking. The Federal Circuit affirmed most of the holdings, but vacated the finding of no irreparable injury, the related denial of a permanent injunction, the ongoing royalty determination, and a false marking judgment (due to an intervening change in law). View "Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics, Inc." on Justia Law

IGT owns patents related to “wheel games,” casino gaming machines containing a secondary bonus game incorporating a spinning wheel. IGT sued Bally for infringement and Bally counterclaimed under state and federal antitrust laws. The district court denied motions for summary judgment on the antitrust issues, granted the motions that the patents were invalid and not infringed, and certified the patent issues for interlocutory appeal. The Federal Circuit affirmed. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment against Bally on its antitrust counterclaims. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that the undisputed facts were insufficient to establish the existence of a relevant antitrust market in wheel games. View "IGT v. Alliance Gaming Corp." on Justia Law

In the 1970s Intel and National developed semiconductor technology and entered into a cross-licensing agreement that gave Intel “non-exclusive, non-transferrable, royalty-free, world-wide licenses under NATIONAL PATENTS and NATIONAL PATENT APPLICATIONS to make, to have made, to use, to sell (either directly or indirectly), to lease and to otherwise dispose of LICENSED PRODUCTS,” for the life of the patents. “NATIONAL PATENTS” were: all classes or types of patents and utility models of all countries, “applications for which have a first effective filing date in any country prior to the date of expiration or termination of this Agreement, in respect of which, as of the EFFECTIVE DATE, or thereafter during the term of this Agreement . . . [has] the right to grant licenses of the scope granted herein.” The Agreement gave National similar rights in Intel’s patents. The agreement expired in 2003. In 2006, National’s successor sued an Intel customer, alleging infringement. The district court held that, under the Agreement, reissued patents should be treated as National Patents, agreeing with Intel that the intent was “to grant broad rights to all patents owned or controlled by the other party for the life of the patents ... and avoid future infringement suits.” The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Intel Corp. v. Negotiated Data Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law