Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Brady, the sole inventor of the 087 and 122 patents, was, from 1986-1996, an independent sales representative for Bodum, a company that designs and sells housewares products, including coffee makers, milk frothers, and other kitchen products. He conceived of a frother using aeration instead of steam in the mid-1990s, introduced it at a 1996 trade show, and began selling frothers through his company BonJour. In 1996, Brady filed a patent application directed to a “Method for Frothing Liquids,” which became the 087 Patent, issued in 1998. While the application was pending, Brady filed a continuation application that later became the 122 patent, that issued in 1999. In 2005 Brady sold Bonjour and the patents to Meyer. Meyer sued Bodum for infringement. The district court granted Meyer summary judgment after prohibiting Bodum from: introducing and relying on prior art; presenting testimony relating to that prior art; and introducing evidence to support inequitable conduct claims. The jury determined that the patents were not invalid, found that Bodum’s infringement was willful, and awarded Meyer damages of $50,000. The court awarded Meyer attorney fees of $906,487.56. The federal circuit reversed. View "Meyer Intellectual Props., Ltd. v. Bodum, Inc." on Justia Law

The patent, “Method of Operating a Memory Having a Variable Data Output Length and Programmable Register” is one of a family of patents that claim priority to the 898 Application, which has a priority date of 1990, and, therefore, is now expired. In 2005, Rambus sued Hynix and several other chip manufacturers, including Micron, alleging infringement of several patents in the 898 family. After the district court entered judgment finding infringement, Hynix sought ex parte reexamination of certain claims of the patent. During reexamination, the examiner construed the term “memory device” broadly as a “device[] that allows for the electronic storage and retrieval of information.” Under this construction, the examiner rejected claim 18 as anticipated. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and the Federal Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence supports the PTO’s determination Claim 18, as correctly construed reads on the “memory module” in the prior art iAPX 432 Interconnect Architecture Reference Manual published by Intel Corp. in 1982. View "In re Rambus, Inc." on Justia Law

MIT is the assignee of the 922 patent and MagSil is the exclusive licensee. The patent application was filed in 1995; it issued in 1997. The patent claims read-write sensors for computer hard disk drive storage systems. Hard disk drives store digital data in microscopic magnetic patterns on the surface of spinning platters, or disks, inside the drive. The patent claims both a method of manufacturing a tri-layer tunnel junction and the junction itself. MagSil filed suit in 2008 against several defendants, alleging that their disk drive products infringed the patent. The district court found the asserted claims invalid as a matter of law for lack of enablement. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The specification must contain sufficient disclosure to enable an ordinarily skilled artisan to make and use the entire scope of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The specification containing the broad claims at issue, does not contain sufficient disclosure to present “even a remote possibility” that an ordinarily skilled artisan could have achieved the modern dimensions of this art.View "Magsil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage Techs." on Justia Law

Wake Forest is the owner of asserted patents, and KCI are the exclusive licensees of the patents, which claim methods and apparatuses for treating difficult-to-heal wounds by applying suction or negative pressure. In response to S&N’s 2008 announcement that it was launching a new foam-based negative pressure wound treatment product, Wake Forest and KCI asserted that S&N infringes two apparatus claims of the patent and induces infringement of four method claims. Rejecting the jury’s findings of non-obviousness, the district court found obviousness, based on prior art, and rejected infringement claims. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. The objective evidence strongly supported the jury’s findings under the first three Graham factors and cut against the view that the claimed inventions were an obvious combination of known elements from the prior art. View "Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc." on Justia Law

Apotex submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of the anti-allergy eye drop Patanol. Alcon, which markets Patanol, sued Apotex for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A). Alcon asserted claims 1-8 of the patent, which is listed in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book) entry for Patanol. The district court held that claims would not have been obvious over the prior art and were not invalid. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part. Objective evidence indicated that claims 4 and 8 would not have been obvious. Patanol’s achieving nearly 70% market share within two years of its launch, demonstrates that “the commercial success was caused by the merits of the invention as distinct from the prior art.” The remaining claims were, however, obvious. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been motivated to use olopatadine to treat human eye allergies as claimed for its established antihistaminic efficacy. View "Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc." on Justia Law

Allcare owns a patent directed to “managed health care systems” used to interconnect and integrate physicians, medical care facilities, patients, insurance companies, and financial institutions, particularly with respect to utilization review, the process of determining whether a health insurer should approve a particular treatment for a patient. In general, the patent’s claims cover a method of determining whether utilization review is necessary in a particular instance, and whether a recommended treatment is appropriate. If utilization review is required, the method prevents authorization and payment until the appropriateness of the treatment has been determined and the treatment has been approved. The district court held that the patent was not infringed by Highmark, found the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs to Highmark. The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding that Allcare’s allegations of infringement of claim 102 rendered the case exceptional, but reversed a finding that other claims and actions supported an exceptional case finding. Remand was necessary to determine the amount of fees apportionable to each of the issues. View "Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc." on Justia Law

Whoever “invents or discovers and asexually re-produces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor,” 35 U.S.C. 161. In 1980, Beineke noticed two white oak trees with superior genetic traits, such as excellent timber quality and strong central stem tendency. The trees were in the yard of another and about 105-118 years old. Beineke planted acorns from each. An examiner rejected patent applications because Beineke did not provide evidence that the trees were in a cultivated state. The Board affirmed, finding that the land on which the trees grew had existed as a wooded pasture until a house was constructed around 1930, after the trees began growing; there was no evidence that human activity contributed to the creation of the trees. The Federal Circuit affirmed, without addressing cultivation. Congress recognized that the relevant distinction was not between living and inanimate things, but between products of nature, whether living or not, and human-made inventions.” The trees were not “newly found seedlings,” and do not fall within the broadened protection of the 1954 amendments. View "In re Beineke" on Justia Law

Lovenox (enoxaparin) prevents blood clots. Enoxaparin is a version of heparin. Heparin molecules have considerable diversity in characteristics. Additional diversity is introduced when heparin is broken down, raising a problem with the FDA abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) process. ANDAs are used to obtain approval for a generic version of an existing drug and do not require extensive studies needed to initially prove the drug’s safety and efficacy. Aventis, which marketed Lovenox, asked the FDA to deny ANDA approval for a generic enoxaparin unless the applicant took certain steps. The FDA rejected Aventis’s arguments, stating that ANDA does not describe the information necessary to demonstrate that the active ingredient in the generic product is the same as the active ingredient in the reference drug. The FDA identified its own criteria for determining that generic enoxaparin has the same active ingredient as Lovenox. Amphastar was first to file an ANDA for generic enoxaparin and received FDA approval in2011. Momenta was first to bring generic enoxaparin to market, obtaining FDA approval more than a year earlier. Momenta alleged that Amphastar infringed its patent for analyzing heparin and obtained an injunction. The district court found that Amphastar’s quality control batch testing infringed the patent. The Federal Circuit vacated. The court applied an unduly narrow interpretation of the Hatch-Waxman safe harbor, 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(1).View "Momenta Pharma., Inc. v. Amphastar Pharma, Inc." on Justia Law

Defense contractor Raytheon, specializes in infrared imaging. Indigo, also specializing in infrared imaging, was founded by former Raytheon employees including Woolaway, who promised not to recruit Raytheon employees. Indigo began consulting for Raytheon, governed by Confidential Disclosure Agreements. In 1997, Raytheon became concerned that Indigo was recruiting Raytheon personnel to gain access to trade secrets. The companies settled the matter by agreement. The relationship between Raytheon and Indigo terminated in 2000. In 2000, Indigo won a military contract; in 2003, Indigo was selected over competitors, including Raytheon, to receive another subcontract. In 2004, Raytheon acquired and disassembled an Indigo infrared camera and found what it believed was evidence of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation. In 2007, Raytheon found a correlation with the expertise of former employees who had departed for Indigo. The district court dismissed claims of trade secret misappropriation as time barred. The Federal Circuit reversed. The district court erred by resolving genuine factual disputes in favor of Indigo, the moving party, and concluding that Raytheon should have discovered its claims before March 2, 2004. View "Raytheon Co. v. Indigo Sys. Inc." on Justia Law

01 Communique is the owner of the 479 Patent, which relates to technology that enables one computer to access another computer remotely via the Internet. The patent contains five independent claims describing systems, methods, and products for enabling such remote access, as well as numerous claims dependent therefrom. It discloses use of a “locator server computer” as an intermediary between a “remote computer” (the computer seeking access) and a “personal computer” (the computer to be accessed). The locator server computer “includes” software, referred to in the patent as a “location facility,” that locates the personal computer. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement, based on construction of a single claim term, “location facility.” The Federal Circuit vacated, finding the claim construction erroneous. View "01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. Logmein, Inc." on Justia Law