Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

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

The 392 patent discloses a “four-sided, generally rectangular clamp” for connecting fluid flow elements, especially those used in compressed air systems—filters, regulators, and lubricators. The only independent claim is for a four-sided, generally rectangular clamp having a hinged side that can be opened to receive flanges of the elements and closed to hold the flanges. Norgren complained to the International Trade Commission that importation or sale of SMC devices alleged to infringe the patent violated the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. 1337. The ALJ found no violation, construing the claim to require four projecting rims on the flange of the element whereas SMC flanges have two rims and found the claims nonobvious. The Federal Circuit reversed because the generally rectangular ported flange of the asserted claims was not limited to a flange having four projecting rims. On remand, the ALJ found the asserted claims not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Commission reversed, finding the asserted claims obvious, and, thus, no section 337 violation. A prior art SMC clamp is four-sided and generally rectangular; addition of a hinge to that connector would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Norgren, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

The patent, issued in 1995, entitled “Valve Prosthesis for Implantation in the Body and a Catheter for Implanting Such Valve Prosthesis,” describes a prosthetic heart valve, mounted on a stent and implanted by catheter to avoid open heart surgery. The district court found the patent valid and infringed by and that the infringement was willful. The jury awarded damages of $72,645,555 in lost profits and $1,284,861 as a reasonable royalty. The district court entered judgment on the verdict, but declined to enhance damages for the willful infringement. The court also declined to issue an injunction against future infringement, apparently on defendant’s representation that, if enjoined, it would move its manufacturing operations to Mexico. The court also denied a request to modify the litigation-agreed protective order and to permit patent counsel and technical expert to participate in ongoing reexamination proceedings of the patent in suit and related patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed, but remanded reconsideration of the denial of an injunction in view of the representation of changed circumstances, and for reconsideration of the ruling on the protective order as applied to patents not in suit, to the extent that this issue has not become moot. View "Edwards Lifesciences AG v. Corevalve, Inc." on Justia Law