Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

A jury found that Demant and Widex infringed the 749 and 850 patents. The court entered judgment finding noninfringement of the 749 patent, finding that prosecution history estoppel barred the finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The patents relate to technology for reducing acoustic feedback in a programmable digital hearing aid. All hearing aids have: a microphone that picks up sound and converts it to an electrical signal, a speaker (receiver) that converts the signal back into sound waves, and sound processing circuitry that adjusts received sound to compensate for any hearing impairment. Some of the amplified sound from the speaker may also travel back to the microphone via an “acoustic feedback path” and is amplified along with all other sound arriving at the input microphone. The resulting cycle of amplification causes the whistling sound known as “feedback.” The common specification. with a 1986 priority date, describes a method of reducing feedback by creating an electrical feedback path and inserting a programmable filter in that path to mimic the effects of acoustic feedback on the phase and amplitude of a sound signal in the transmission channel. This electrical feedback signal then cancels the acoustic feedback signal. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Energy Transp. Group, Inc. v. Wm. Demant Holding A/S WDH, Inc." on Justia Law

Apple alleged that Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus smart-phone infringed patents, including the 604 patent. Asserted claim 6 of the 604 patent is directed to a “unified search” that uses heuristic modules to search multiple data storage locations. Unified search refers to ability to access information on more than one data storage location through a single interface and allows the user to search the device’s local memory and the Internet by entering a single search query. Apple alleged that the Quick Search Box unified search application of Galaxy Nexus infringes claim 6. QSB is a feature of Android, an open-source mobile software platform developed by Google. Any software developer may use Android to create applications and any handset manufacturer can install Android on a device. Galaxy Nexus is one of more than 300 available Android smartphones. The release of the allegedly infringing version of the Android platform predated release of Galaxy Nexus, but Google is not a defendant. The district court enjoined sale of the Galaxy Nexus based on the alleged infringement of the 604 patent. The Federal Circuit reversed. The record did not permit the inference that the allegedly infringing features of the Galaxy Nexus drive consumer demand or the court’s clam construction. View "Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

SanDisk sued Kingston for infringement of four patents relating to aspects of flash memory for USB “thumbdrives,” computers, smart phones, and mp3 players. Flash memory continues to store data after a power source is removed. The district court granted Kingston summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to certain asserted claims. SanDisk dismissed its remaining infringement claims and appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, first holding that it lacked jurisdiction to address certain claim construction arguments. With respect to other claims, the district court erred in its constructions of the “recording a relative time of programming ” limitation in certain claims and the “at least a user data portion and an overhead portion” limitation others. The court affirmed the judgment of no literal infringement of one claim, but vacated the judgment that Kingston did not infringe other claims under the doctrine of equivalents. View "Sandisk Corp. v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Belkin filed a request for inter partes reexamination of the 281 patent, which is directed to a wireless router, alleging 10 substantial new questions of patentability regarding claims 1–32 based on four prior art references. The Director determined that the first three references did not raise a substantial new question of patentability, but that the issue of anticipation by the Peirce patent did raise such a question as to claims 1–3 and 8–10 and ordered reexamination of those claims. The examiner then issued an Action Closing Prosecution addressing only proposed rejection of claims 1–3 and 8–10 as anticipated by Peirce. A Right of Appeal Notice issued, addressing only anticipation by Peirce. Belkin appealed to the Board, challenging the examiner’s failure to make rejections involving the other three references. The Board determined that it did not have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 312(c) and that there had been no final decision on patentability regarding the three references under 35 U.S.C. 315(b). The Board affirmed with regard to the Peirce reference. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board did not err in refusing to consider issues that the Director found not to raise a substantial new question of patentability. View "Belkin Int'l, Inc. v. Kappos" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, Motorola appealed from the district court's preliminary injunction to enjoin Motorola temporarily from enforcing a patent injunction that it obtained against Microsoft in Germany. The underlying case before the district court concerned how to interpret and enforce patent-holders' commitments to industry standard-setting organizations (SSOs), which established technical specifications to ensure that products from different manufacturers were compatible with each other. Specifically, the case involved the H.264 video coding standard set by International Telecommunications Union (ITU), and the 802.11 wireless local area network standard set by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The court held that, under the unique circumstances of this case, the district court's narrowly tailored preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Abbott owns the 752 patent and the 509 patent, which share a common specification that describes methods and devices “for the in vivo monitoring of an analyte using an electrochemical sensor to provide information to a patient about the level of the analyte” in the bloodstream. The specification describes methods and devices for monitoring glucose levels for diabetics. And notes that a variety of devices exist for monitoring glucose levels in the blood stream, but some of these devices include sensor guides that are “typically bulky and do not allow for freedom of movement.” In response to a third-party request for reexamination, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences rejected several claims in the patents as indefinite, anticipated, or obvious over several combinations of prior art references. The Federal Circuit vacated in part, noting that the U.S. PTO conceded that the examiner’s official notice rejections should be withdrawn. The rejections were based on unreasonable claim constructions; under the broadest reasonable construction, “electrochemical sensor” is properly interpreted to mean a discrete electrochemical sensor devoid of external connection cables or wires to connect to a sensor control unit. View "In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc." on Justia Law

Pozen developed a method for treating migraines by combining two drugs, sumatriptan and naproxen, in a single tablet, which it markets with GlaxoSmithKline as Treximet. Sumatriptan, a 5-HT receptor agonist, was developed in the late 1980s and is widely accepted as an effective medicine for migraines, but it does not prevent the reoccurrence of migraine symptoms. Naproxen is anonsteriodal anti-inflammatory drug. Pozen filed a New Drug Application (NDA) for Treximet and obtained approval from the FDA in 2008; the relevant patents are included in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book), 21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1). Generic pharmaceutical manufacturers filed ANDAs (abbreviated new drug applications) to market generic forms of Treximet before the expiration of Pozen’s patents, certifying that the patents listed in the Orange Book are “invalid or will not be infringed” by the generic products. Thereafter, Pozen filed complaints for infringement, 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A). The district court held that Pozen’s patents are not invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 and were infringed by the ANDA filings and enjoined the generic manufacturers from making, using, importing, selling or offering to sell their generic products in the United States. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Pozen, Inc. v. Par Pharma., Inc." on Justia Law

Matthews manufactures cremation equipment, caskets, and bronze memorials for sale to funeral homes. Its Bio Cremation™ product, uses an alkaline hydrolysis process, as an environmentally friendly alternative to incineration, for cremation. Resomation granted Matthews an exclusive license to sell its alkaline hydrolysis equipment in the U.S. In 2007, Biosafe acquired one system and five method patents related to the application of alkaline hydrolysis to the disposal of various types of waste, such as medical waste, infectious agents, and hazardous materials. In 2011, Matthews sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the patents and asserted state-law claims of trade libel, defamation, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Matthews alleged that Biosafe had wrongly accused Matthews of patent infringement, and made false accusations about Matthews to customers, potential customers, and employees. None of the Matthews units had yet been installed. The district court dismissed, finding that Matthews had not made “meaningful preparation” to conduct potentially infringing activity. Given that it had no information regarding the operating parameters of Matthews’ equipment, the court declined to provide “an advisory opinion.” The Federal Circuit affirmed. Matthews’ claims lacked sufficient immediacy and reality to support the exercise of declaratory judgment jurisdiction. View "Matthews Int'l Corp. v. Biosafe Eng'g, LLC" on Justia Law

The 772 application is directed to methods and compositions for recombining DNA in a eukaryotic cell (a cell with a nucleus), such as a human cell. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed rejection of independent claim 29 of the 772 application, as obvious over the combination of a patent and an article. Claim 29 covers a method of recombining DNA in a eukaryotic cell using modified versions of wild-type Int. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The disclosures provide substantial evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for using the modified integrases disclosed in the article in place of wild-type Int in the method taught in the patent. View "In re Droge" on Justia Law

Outside the Box sought a declaratory judgment against Travel Caddy and its distributor. The district court held that Travel Caddy’s patent and its continuation patent are unenforceable in their entirety, based on inequitable conduct in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, consisting of failure to disclose that the parent patent was in litigation. The district court otherwise sustained the validity of some claims, but held the other claims of the patents invalid on ground of obviousness. The court held, on summary judgment, that the version of the Outside the Box tool carry case called the Electricians Carryalls infringes various patent claims, but that a modified version called Electricians Bag II and the tool carry case called Heavy-Duty ProTool Bag do not infringe. The court dismissed unfair-competition claims against Travel Caddy. The Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of unenforceability based on inequitable conduct, vacated the rulings of invalidity, affirmed the rulings of noninfringement, and remanded. View "Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc." on Justia Law