Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

The 605 and 247 patents cover aspects of genetically modified soybeans. The patent-holder sued one of its licensed seed producers, alleging infringement rather than breach of the agreement between the two. The district found infringement and awarded about $84,000. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that patent rights were exhausted with respect to all of the soybean seeds that are present in grain elevators as undifferentiated commodity. The court also rejected an argument that plaintiff could not recover pre-complaint damages because it did not provide actual notice and did not mark or require growers to mark second-generation seeds in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 287(a). Defendant had actual notice. View "Monsanto Co. v. Bowman" on Justia Law

The patent application discloses an improved diaper; traditional diapers are constructed using an absorbent core of fluff pulp, interposed between a water barrier sheet and a permeable layer. For highest absorption, fluff pulp is treated with a chemical cross-linking agent. The application described a diaper that would avoid the expense of using chemically cross-linked fluff pulp while retaining superior absorbency properties, by extracting wood pulp with a caustic substance at low temperature, followed by dry and fluff. The examiner rejected the application (35 U.S.C. 103) as obvious from a prior patent. The Board sustained the rejection. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded because the basis of the Board's rejection differed from the basis given by the examiner. View "In re Leithem" on Justia Law

The 545 patent claims a method for distributing copyrighted products (songs, movies, books) over the Internet where the consumer receives a copyrighted product for free in exchange for viewing an advertisement, and the advertiser pays for the copyrighted content. The district court dismissed an infringement claim. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. The patent claims a "process" within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101. View "Ultramercial, LLC . Hulu, LLC" on Justia Law

The patent, entitled "Tape Drive and Printing Apparatus," describes and claims a device for transfer printing. In transfer printing, ink is carried by a ribbon that is moved into contact with the substrate to be printed, and a print head impresses upon the ribbon and causes the ink to transfer from the ribbon to the substrate. In thermal transfer printing, the print head is heated, facilitating transfer and adherence of the ink to the substrate. Plaintiff sought a declaration that it was not infringing the patent. Following a claim construction hearing, the district court construed "driveable" and "drive" to mean " rotateable" and "rotate," as proposed by plaintiff, rejecting a broader construction proposed by defendant (patent holder). The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for claim construction consistent with its view that "drive" is properly construed to mean the application of torque to the spools, whether the torque causes rotation or resists it. View "Markem-Imaje Corp. v. Zipher, Ltd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff's 398 patent application descends through a chain of continuations and division from the 566 application, which was filed on the same day as the 579 application and identified 579 as a co-depending application. The USPTO declared Patent Interferences against defendants. Defendants claimed that plaintiff's claims were unpatentable for lack of written description support, arguing that the phrase "the same day as the present application" meant the same day that the 398 application was filed, not the original 566 application's filing date. The Board agreed, and, because plaintiff relied on this material, held that the claims lacked written description support. The Federal Circuit subsequently decided a case, holding that the same incorporation language was sufficient. The parties continued to dispute how much of the 579 application was incorporated. The Federal Circuit affirmed one decision and vacated the other. The Board erred in its analysis regarding the incorporation by reference of the 579 application and in its claim construction in one interference. View "Harari v. Lee" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment of invalidity and noninfringement with respect to defendant's patents, involving composite wear products used for crushing and grinding abrasive materials in industrial settings. The district court held that its claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. 251 for impermissibly recapturing subject matter surrendered during reissue examination. The Federal Circuit reversed. The district court erred in construing the claim term "solid solution," and, therefore, in determining that the reissued claims impermissibly recaptured surrendered subject matter. View "AIA Eng'g, Ltd. v. Magotteaux Indus., Ltd., Inc." on Justia Law

The district court granted summary judgment that all of the claims in plaintiff's patents were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, which excludes from patentability "laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" because they were directed to the "abstract idea" that there is a relation between the infant immunization schedule for infectious diseases and the later occurrence of chronic immune-mediated (non-infectious) disorders. The Supreme Court vacated the Sixth Circuit's 2008 decision. On remand the Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to one patent's ineligibility, but vacated a portion of the judgment granted under the "safe harbor" provision of 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(1). One set of claims did not include putting knowledge to practical use, but was directed to the abstract principle that variation in immunization schedules may have consequences for certain diseases. Others require the further act of immunization in accordance with a lower-risk schedule, moving from abstract scientific principle to specific application. View "Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec" on Justia Law

The examiner rejected claims 11 and 21 of Patent Application No. 505, titled "System and Method for Distribution Chain Management" as anticipated by a 2001 application. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed on the alternate ground that there is no permissible construction of the claims, so they fail to satisfy the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112. The court remanded to afford the applicant the right to amend.View "In re Aoyama" on Justia Law

Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the patents, which claim tobacco curing methods. The district court found th patents invalid and entered a judgment of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit reversed with respect to validity but affirmed the finding of non-infringement. No reasonable juror could find that the patents were anticipated by prior use under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), nor were they obvious or indefinite. View "Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff owns a patent on an FDA-approved (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(2) ) pharmaceutical nasal spray Fortical, used to treat osteoporsis, with the active ingredient salmon calcitonin. In its FDA filing, plaintiff identified the drug as bioidentical to Miacalcin. Defendant filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application with the FDA, stating intent to make, use, offer to sell, sell, and/or import a generic version of Fortical product before the expiration of plaintiff's patent. Plaintiff claimed infringement. Defendant alleged invalidity under 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103,and 112, noninfringement and inequitable conduct in failure to disclose an allegedly material piece of prior art and making allegedly misleading statements during patent prosecution. The district court found that the patent would not have been obvious at the time of invention, denied defendant's motion to breach the attorney-client privilege under the crime-fraud exception, and determined that defendant had waived several counter-claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Even accepting that there was a design need and market pressure to develop a pharmaceutical formulation bioequivalent to Miacalcin, there was no evidence that the claim would be an obvious solution to those motivations.View "Unigene Labs, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc." on Justia Law