Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Knowles’s 231 patent, entitled “Microelectromechanical System Package with Environmental and Interference Shield,” discloses microelectromechanical system (MEMS) packages comprising a substrate, a microphone, and a cover accommodating the microphone. The MEMS packages shield the microphone from an interference signal or an environmental condition, and purportedly improve over the prior art’s drawbacks “associated with manufacturing these housings, such as lead time, cost, and tooling,” On inter partes reexamination, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed an examiner’s rejection of claims 1−4 for anticipation and proposed claims 23−27 for lack of an adequate written description. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board properly construed the term “package” in claims 1–4. Substantial evidence supports the board’s lack of adequate written description determination as to proposed claims 23–27. View "Knowles Electronics LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc." on Justia Law

Knowles’s 231 patent, entitled “Microelectromechanical System Package with Environmental and Interference Shield,” discloses microelectromechanical system (MEMS) packages comprising a substrate, a microphone, and a cover accommodating the microphone. The MEMS packages shield the microphone from an interference signal or an environmental condition, and purportedly improve over the prior art’s drawbacks “associated with manufacturing these housings, such as lead time, cost, and tooling,” On inter partes reexamination, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed an examiner’s rejection of claims 1−4 for anticipation and proposed claims 23−27 for lack of an adequate written description. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board properly construed the term “package” in claims 1–4. Substantial evidence supports the board’s lack of adequate written description determination as to proposed claims 23–27. View "Knowles Electronics LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc." on Justia Law

Nalco’s patent, titled “Enhanced Mercury Control in Coal-Fired Power Plants,” describes a method for the removal of elemental mercury, a toxic pollutant, from the flue gas created by combustion in coal-fired power plants. Previous attempts to filter mercury from coal combustion flue gas failed due to lack of commercial viability or excessive expense. The 692 patent solves this problem by reacting halogens, such as molecular chlorine (Cl2) or molecular bromine (Br2), with elemental mercury (Hg) in flue gas to form mercuric halides (HgCl2 or HgBr2), which precipitate into solid particles that can be filtered from the flue gas more easily. The Federal Circuit reversed the dismissal of Nalco’s direct infringement, doctrine of equivalents, indirect, and willful infringement claims. View "Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC" on Justia Law

On inter partes review of Arendi’s patent, which relates to a computerized method for identifying and substituting information in an electronic document, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held all of the claims unpatentable. The claims recite a method of information handling whereby information such as a name or address is identified in a document, a database is searched for related information, and the retrieved information is displayed and entered into the document, all on a single command from the user. The Federal Circuit affirmed, based on the PTAB’s alternative claim construction. Even if Arendi’s prosecution disclaimer were accepted, the claims are unpatentable for obviousness in view of prior art. View "Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC" on Justia Law

On inter partes review of Arendi’s patent, which relates to a computerized method for identifying and substituting information in an electronic document, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held all of the claims unpatentable. The claims recite a method of information handling whereby information such as a name or address is identified in a document, a database is searched for related information, and the retrieved information is displayed and entered into the document, all on a single command from the user. The Federal Circuit affirmed, based on the PTAB’s alternative claim construction. Even if Arendi’s prosecution disclaimer were accepted, the claims are unpatentable for obviousness in view of prior art. View "Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Digital Ally, Inc. appealed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Utility Associates, Inc. The two companies sold in-car video and surveillance systems. Utility owned U.S. Patent No. 6,381,556 (the ’556 patent) by purchasing the patent and other assets in January 2013 from a supplier of in-car mobile surveillance systems. Utility and its CEO, Robert McKeeman, believed that the ’556 patent was potentially valuable and covered existing systems already in commerce. Thereafter, Utility sent letters to potential customers (who were at that time customers of competitors), including Digital Ally, regarding the consequences of purchasing unlicensed and infringing systems. It urged customers to instead purchase systems from Utility because it now owned the ’556 patent. In October 2013, Digital Ally sought a declaratory judgment of non- infringement in Kansas federal district court, but the suit was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over Utility. In May 2013, Digital Ally filed a petition for inter partes review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to determine the validity of all claims on the ’556 patent. The PTAB instituted a review of Claims 1– 7 and 9–25 and determined that Claims 1–7, 9, 10, and 12–25 were unpatentable, and that Claim 11 was not shown to be unpatentable. Claim 8 was not reviewed. The Federal Circuit affirmed this decision. On June 4, 2014, Digital Ally filed this suit with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, containing nine counts against Utility, including monopolization, false advertising, tortious interference, bad faith assertion of patent infringement, defamation and product disparagement, and trade secret misappropriation. The district court granted Utility’s motion for summary judgment on all nine counts and denied Digital Ally’s motion for partial summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit, in affirming the district court's judgment, concluded Digital Ally failed to sufficiently argue the issues it sought to appeal, "[t]he failure to do so amounts to a concession as to the proof." View "Digital Ally v. Utility Associates" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Digital Ally, Inc. appealed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Utility Associates, Inc. The two companies sold in-car video and surveillance systems. Utility owned U.S. Patent No. 6,381,556 (the ’556 patent) by purchasing the patent and other assets in January 2013 from a supplier of in-car mobile surveillance systems. Utility and its CEO, Robert McKeeman, believed that the ’556 patent was potentially valuable and covered existing systems already in commerce. Thereafter, Utility sent letters to potential customers (who were at that time customers of competitors), including Digital Ally, regarding the consequences of purchasing unlicensed and infringing systems. It urged customers to instead purchase systems from Utility because it now owned the ’556 patent. In October 2013, Digital Ally sought a declaratory judgment of non- infringement in Kansas federal district court, but the suit was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over Utility. In May 2013, Digital Ally filed a petition for inter partes review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to determine the validity of all claims on the ’556 patent. The PTAB instituted a review of Claims 1– 7 and 9–25 and determined that Claims 1–7, 9, 10, and 12–25 were unpatentable, and that Claim 11 was not shown to be unpatentable. Claim 8 was not reviewed. The Federal Circuit affirmed this decision. On June 4, 2014, Digital Ally filed this suit with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, containing nine counts against Utility, including monopolization, false advertising, tortious interference, bad faith assertion of patent infringement, defamation and product disparagement, and trade secret misappropriation. The district court granted Utility’s motion for summary judgment on all nine counts and denied Digital Ally’s motion for partial summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit, in affirming the district court's judgment, concluded Digital Ally failed to sufficiently argue the issues it sought to appeal, "[t]he failure to do so amounts to a concession as to the proof." View "Digital Ally v. Utility Associates" on Justia Law

Aatrix's patents have essentially the same specification and are directed to systems and methods for designing, creating, and importing data into a viewable form on a computer so that a user can manipulate the data and create viewable forms and reports. The preferred embodiment describes a data processing system with a form file, a data file, and a viewer. The form file is created using in-house form development tools to model the physical characteristics of an existing form, including the calculations and rule conditions required to fill in the form. The data file allows data from third-party applications to be “seamlessly imported” to populate the form's fields. The viewer generates a report by merging the data, performing calculations, and allowing the user to review and change the values. In an infringement action, the district court found several claims invalid as directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit vacated the dismissal. . The district court erred in determining that a claim was ineligible because it is not directed to a tangible embodiment and in denying leave to amend without claim construction. The court noted factual allegations in a proposed amended complaint, that, if accepted, establish that the claimed combination contains inventive components and improves the workings of the computer. View "Aatrix Software, Inc v. Green Shades Software, Inc" on Justia Law

Aatrix's patents have essentially the same specification and are directed to systems and methods for designing, creating, and importing data into a viewable form on a computer so that a user can manipulate the data and create viewable forms and reports. The preferred embodiment describes a data processing system with a form file, a data file, and a viewer. The form file is created using in-house form development tools to model the physical characteristics of an existing form, including the calculations and rule conditions required to fill in the form. The data file allows data from third-party applications to be “seamlessly imported” to populate the form's fields. The viewer generates a report by merging the data, performing calculations, and allowing the user to review and change the values. In an infringement action, the district court found several claims invalid as directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit vacated the dismissal. . The district court erred in determining that a claim was ineligible because it is not directed to a tangible embodiment and in denying leave to amend without claim construction. The court noted factual allegations in a proposed amended complaint, that, if accepted, establish that the claimed combination contains inventive components and improves the workings of the computer. View "Aatrix Software, Inc v. Green Shades Software, Inc" on Justia Law

The 222 Application, entitled “System and Method for Operating a Drain Valve,” is directed to a valve assembly for draining contaminants, condensation, and other fluids that adversely affect the efficiency and function of a pressurized system. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of all claims as anticipated (35 U.S.C. 102(b)) and/or obvious (35 U.S.C. 103). The Federal Circuit reversed as to anticipation, finding the holdings not supported by substantial evidence, and vacated the obviousness determinations. The Board’s strained interpretation of “signal” was unreasonably broad and inconsistent with the 222 application. The Board did not provide an adequate evidentiary basis or explanation for its determination that the claims would have been obvious. View "In re: Hodges" on Justia Law