Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

The 290 patent, which issued in 2000 and is assigned to DSS, is directed to a wireless communication network for a single host device and multiple peripheral devices. It discloses a data network for bidirectional wireless data communications between a host or server microcomputer—described in the specification as a personal digital assistant or “PDA”—and a plurality of peripheral devices that the specification refers to as personal electronic accessories or “PEAs” and provides “highly reliable” communication, “requires extremely low power consumption, particularly for the peripheral units,” “avoids interference from nearby similar systems,” and “is of relatively simple and inexpensive construction.” On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found several claims unpatentable as obvious, 35 U.S.C. 103(a). The Federal Circuit reversed. The Board’s finding that it would have been obvious to modify the base station transmitter in a prior reference to be “energized in low duty cycle RF bursts,” as required by the claims of the 290 patent was not supported by a sufficient explanation. View "DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law

Alcon Laboratories Holding Corporation, a developer of artificial lenses, was exploring electroactive intraocular lens (“EAIOL”) that used electric power and changes in eye pupil size to “trigger” the focus of an artificial lens. Elenza, Inc. and Alcon decided to jointly pursue the technology, first by signing a Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”), followed by a Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”). Unfortunately, the project fizzled after Elenza failed to meet development milestones in the SPA. Much to Elenza’s surprise, two years later, Alcon filed a patent application for an EAIOL and announced that it was working with Google, Inc. to develop an EAIOL. Elenza filed suit in Delaware, claiming Alcon breached its agreements with Elenza and misappropriated Elenza’s EAIOL trade secrets. Before trial, the Superior Court granted in part Alcon’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Elenza failed to support its trade secret claims. The court also limited Elenza’s damage claims. The contract claims went to trial, and a jury found against Elenza on all claims. On appeal, Elenza argued to the Delaware Supreme Court that the Superior Court erred when it granted summary judgment on its trade secret claims. According to Elenza, at the summary judgment stage, its trade secret disclosures were sufficient to prove that trade secrets existed and that Alcon used or disclosed those secrets in its later development efforts. The Supreme Court did not reach Elenza’s claim on appeal that it raised disputed factual issues about the existence of trade secrets because the Court agreed with the Superior Court that, at summary judgment, Elenza failed to support its claim that Alcon improperly used or disclosed any of Elenza’s alleged trade secrets. View "Elenza, Inc. v. Alcon Laboratories Holding Corporation, et al." on Justia Law

Acceleron’s 021 patent is directed to a computer network appliance containing a number of hot-swappable components that can be removed and replaced without turning off or resetting the computer system as a whole. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes review of the patent based on Dell’s petition under 35 U.S.C. 311, citing a prior art reference, Hipp, that is directed to a high-density server network in which a large number of web server processing cards are installed within a single chassis. The Federal Circuit remanded to allow Acceleron to respond to Dell’s evidence, which had been first presented at oral argument. On remand, the Board declined to consider both Dell’s new argument and Acceleron’s proposed response. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board was not required to consider Dell’s new evidence presented during oral argument and did not abuse its discretion by not considering Dell’s new evidence on remand. The Board’s determination that Hipp does not anticipate claim 3 of the patent was supported by substantial evidence. View "Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC" on Justia Law

Power’s 876 patent, “Frequency Jittering Control for Varying the Switching Frequency of a Power Supply,” describes a technique for reducing electromagnetic interference noise “by jittering the switching frequency of a switched mode power supply.” Power sued Fairchild, alleging willful infringement, arguing that the term “coupled” in claim 1, in light of the specification and surrounding claim language, required two circuits to be connected in a manner “such that voltage, current or control signals pass from one to another” and that the “recited coupling” between the counter and the digital to analog converter must be “present for the purposes of control.” The court agreed, emphasizing that the term “coupled” did not “require a direct connection or . . . preclude the use of intermediate circuit elements.” The Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of nonobviousness. The Patent and Trademark Office commenced ex parte reexamination. The board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated. The Federal Circuit vacated, stating that the board is not generally bound by a prior judicial claim construction and, in reexamination applies a different claim construction standard but that because Power's principal argument was tied to the court’s claim construction, the board was obligated to evaluate that construction and determine whether it was consistent with the broadest reasonable construction. On remand, the board again affirmed the examiner’s rejections. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the board’s rejections were based on an unreasonably broad claim construction. View "In re: Power Integrations, Inc." on Justia Law

Smith & Nephew’s patent relates to an endoscope and method to remove uterine tissue; it claims priority to an earlier-filed PCT application by the same inventor with a nearly identical specification. On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that S&N’s earlier-filed PCT application has sufficient written description to make it a priority document instead of an invalidating obviousness reference. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence supported the finding that the PCT application reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor had possession of the “first channel having a light guide permanently affixed therein.” The court also upheld the Board’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art as a “degreed engineer having at least 5 years of experience designing and developing devices used in minimally invasive surgery (endoscopes, resectoscopes, shavers, tissue removal devices, etc.).” View "Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc." on Justia Law

Smith & Nephew’s patent relates to an endoscope and method to remove uterine tissue; it claims priority to an earlier-filed PCT application by the same inventor with a nearly identical specification. On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that S&N’s earlier-filed PCT application has sufficient written description to make it a priority document instead of an invalidating obviousness reference. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence supported the finding that the PCT application reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor had possession of the “first channel having a light guide permanently affixed therein.” The court also upheld the Board’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art as a “degreed engineer having at least 5 years of experience designing and developing devices used in minimally invasive surgery (endoscopes, resectoscopes, shavers, tissue removal devices, etc.).” View "Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc." on Justia Law

Aseptic packaging involves putting a sterile food product into a sterile package within a sterile environment. Steuben’s 435 patent is generally directed to providing such a sterile environment in a sterilization tunnel. Sterile air, pressurized to a level above atmospheric pressure, flows out of the tunnel, ensuring that contaminants cannot flow into it. The aseptic sterilant used in the apparatus may be hydrogen peroxide. Nestlé challenged claims of the 435 patent in an inter partes review. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted trial on claims directed to the sterilization tunnel and found that several of the challenged claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of prior art references in the record. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the construction of “sterilant concentration levels” to be the levels measured “at any point within the sterilization tunnel— including the ‘residual’ concentration on bottle surfaces— such that the 5 to 1 ratio is satisfied.” Substantial evidence supports the Board’s obviousness determination based on prior art. View "Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Nestle USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Aseptic packaging involves putting a sterile food product into a sterile package within a sterile environment. Steuben’s patent is generally directed to providing such a sterile environment in a sterilization tunnel. Sterile air, pressurized to a level above atmospheric pressure, flows out of the tunnel, ensuring that contaminants cannot flow into it. The aseptic sterilant may be hydrogen peroxide. Nestlé challenged claims of the patent in an inter partes review. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted trial on claims directed to the sterilization tunnel and found that several of the challenged claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of prior art references in the record. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to several claims, upholding the construction of “sterilant concentration levels.” With respect to Nestle’s appeal concerning a claim found to be not obvious, the court vacated the Board’s construction of the terms “aseptic” and “aseptically disinfecting.” Collateral estoppel attaches to that issue because Nestlé previously appealed the Board’s construction of “aseptic” in a separate inter partes review of another Steuben patent. In that case, the court relied on binding lexicography in the specification for “aseptic” to construe the term to mean the “FDA level of aseptic.” View "Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

SimpleAir initiated patent infringement lawsuits against Google’s Cloud and Cloud to Device Messaging Services, involving patents from a family of SimpleAir patents directed to push notification technology. The 433 “parent” patent claimed priority from a 1996 provisional application and expired in 2017. The “child” patents share a common specification with the 433 patent and also claim priority from the provisional application. During prosecution, SimpleAir filed terminal disclaimers for each child patent to overcome obviousness-type double patenting rejections. The disclaimers require them to expire with the 433 patent, 35 U.S.C. 253(b), and to be “commonly owned with the application or patent which formed the basis” for the obviousness-type double patenting rejection. Google won judgments of noninfringement in three cases. SimpleAir’s fourth complaint asserted infringement of two additional “child” patents. The court dismissed both complaints as barred by claim preclusion and the Kessler doctrine, which precludes assertions of a patent against post-judgment activity if an earlier judgment held that “essentially the same” accused activity did not infringe. The Federal Circuit reversed. The district court erred by presuming that terminally-disclaimed continuation patents are patentably indistinct variations of their parent patents without analyzing the scope of the patent claims. A terminal disclaimer is a “strong clue” but does not give rise to a presumption that a patent subject to a terminal disclaimer is patentably indistinct from its parent patents. View "SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC" on Justia Law

Ottah’s Patent, entitled “Book Holder,” describes “a removable book holder assembly for use by a person in a protective or mobile structure such as a car seat, wheelchair, walker, or stroller” “having an adjustable, releasable clipping means and a support arm configured for . . . adjustment of the book supporting surface of the book holder to hold a book in a readable position in front of the user.” The patent recites that it may also be used to support such items as audio/video equipment, PDAs, or mobile phones, cameras, computers, musical instruments, toys, puzzles and games and cites disadvantages associated with prior art book holders, relating to “the ease of application” without tools. The patent refers to a writing board and a removable attachment. The district court rejected, on summary judgment, Ottah’s infringement suit against automobile companies relating to camera holders. The Federal Circuit affirmed. No reasonable fact-finder could find that the accused cameras meet the “removably attached” limitation of claim The district court correctly found that the “book holder” cannot plausibly be construed to include or be the equivalent of a camera holder, in view of the specification and the prosecution history. View "Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler" on Justia Law