Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, PanOptis Patent Management, LLC, Unwired Planet International Limited, and Unwired Planet, LLC (collectively, “Optis”) sued Apple Inc. (“Apple”) for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Optis asserted that various Apple products implementing the LTE standard infringed five of its standard-essential patents. The jury found Apple infringed certain claims of the asserted patents and awarded $506,200,000 in damages. Apple moved for a new trial, arguing the jury did not hear evidence regarding Optis’s obligation to license the patents on FRAND terms. The district court granted a new trial on damages, and the jury awarded $300,000,000 in the retrial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated both the infringement and second damages judgments, remanding for a new trial on infringement and damages. The court dismissed Optis’s cross-appeal to reinstate the original damages verdict. The court also reversed the district court’s findings that claims 6 and 7 of the ’332 patent are not directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and that claim 1 of the ’557 patent does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. The court affirmed the district court’s construction of claim 8 of the ’833 patent. Additionally, the court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the Apple-Qualcomm settlement agreement and related expert testimony into evidence.The Federal Circuit held that the single infringement question on the verdict form violated Apple’s right to a unanimous verdict, as it did not ensure all jurors agreed on the same patent being infringed. The court also determined that claims 6 and 7 of the ’332 patent are directed to an abstract idea and remanded for further analysis under Alice step two. The court found that “selecting unit” in claim 1 of the ’557 patent invokes § 112 ¶ 6 and remanded for further proceedings. View "OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. APPLE INC. " on Justia Law

United Services Automobile Association (USAA) owns U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638, which is directed to remote check deposit technology. The patent describes a system where a customer uses a personal mobile device to take a picture of a check and transmit the image to a financial institution. The system includes steps for error checking and optical character recognition (OCR) to ensure the check image is of sufficient quality. USAA sued PNC Bank, N.A. for infringement of this and other patents.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted USAA’s motion for summary judgment, finding the asserted claims patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court denied PNC’s cross-motion for summary judgment. A jury trial followed, where the jury found no invalidity and that PNC had infringed USAA’s patents. PNC appealed the district court’s summary judgment ruling on § 101.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The Federal Circuit held that the asserted claim of the ’638 patent is directed to the abstract idea of depositing a check using a handheld mobile device and does not contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The court concluded that the claim recites routine data collection and analysis steps implemented by a generic device, which is insufficient for patent eligibility under § 101. Consequently, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and did not address USAA’s cross-appeal regarding damages testimony. View "UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION v. PNC BANK N.A. " on Justia Law

Mitek Systems, Inc. (Mitek) filed a declaratory judgment action against United Services Automobile Association (USAA) seeking a declaration of non-infringement concerning four patents related to its MiSnap software product. Mitek argued that it faced potential liability for direct, induced, and contributory infringement, as well as indemnification demands from its licensees after USAA sent them letters seeking to sell licenses to USAA patents.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas initially dismissed Mitek’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and alternatively declined to exercise jurisdiction. On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to conduct a more detailed analysis. On remand, the district court again dismissed the case, finding no subject-matter jurisdiction and reiterating its decision to decline jurisdiction even if it existed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court agreed that Mitek did not have a reasonable apprehension of suit for direct, induced, or contributory infringement based on the record evidence, including USAA’s allegations and claim charts from prior litigation. The court also found that Mitek’s potential indemnification liability was not sufficient to establish jurisdiction, as the indemnification agreements contained applicable carve-outs and did not create a reasonable potential for liability. Additionally, the court upheld the district court’s discretionary decision to decline jurisdiction, noting that intervention in future litigation involving Mitek’s customers would be a more effective remedy. View "MITEK SYSTEMS, INC. v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION " on Justia Law

Agilent Technologies, Inc. appealed two final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) that determined all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,337,001 and 10,900,034 to be unpatentable. The patents in question relate to CRISPR-Cas systems for gene editing, specifically focusing on chemically modified guide RNAs (gRNAs) used in these systems. The Board found that the claims were anticipated by prior art, specifically a reference known as Pioneer Hi-Bred, and that certain claims were also obvious in view of additional references, Threlfall and Deleavey.The Board's decisions were based on findings that Pioneer Hi-Bred disclosed the claimed gRNA functionality and that the reference was enabling. The Board also found that the additional references provided sufficient motivation and reasonable expectation of success for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Pioneer Hi-Bred with those of Threlfall and Deleavey.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board's findings. The court affirmed the Board's determination that Pioneer Hi-Bred disclosed the claimed gRNA functionality, noting that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings. The court also agreed with the Board's conclusion that Pioneer Hi-Bred was an enabling reference, rejecting Agilent's arguments that undue experimentation would be required to practice the disclosed invention.Additionally, the court upheld the Board's finding that the dependent claims, which included specific chemical modifications, were obvious in view of the combined teachings of Pioneer Hi-Bred, Threlfall, and Deleavey. The court found that the Board had provided a thorough analysis and that substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the claimed modifications.In conclusion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decisions, holding that all claims of the '001 and '034 patents were unpatentable. View "AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SYNTHEGO CORP. " on Justia Law

Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation (Dolby) owns U.S. Patent No. 10,237,577, which is directed to a prediction method using an in-loop filter. Unified Patents, LLC (Unified) filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) challenging claims 1, 7, and 8 of the patent as anticipated and obvious. Unified certified it was the sole real party in interest (RPI). Dolby identified nine other entities it believed should also have been named as RPIs. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) declined to adjudicate whether these entities were RPIs and instituted the review with Unified as the sole RPI. The Board ultimately held that Unified failed to show any of the challenged claims were unpatentable.The Board's final written decision did not address the RPI dispute, explaining that there was no evidence any of the alleged RPIs were time-barred or estopped from bringing the IPR, or that Unified purposefully omitted any RPIs to gain an advantage. Dolby appealed the Board's decision, arguing that the Board's refusal to adjudicate the RPI dispute caused various harms, including potential breaches of license agreements, conflicts of interest, improper estoppel in future proceedings, and disincentivizing Unified from filing IPRs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Dolby failed to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing to appeal. The court found Dolby's claims of harm to be too speculative, noting that Dolby did not provide evidence of any actual or imminent injury. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of standing and did not reach the merits of Dolby's substantive challenges. View "Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation v. Unified Patents, LLC" on Justia Law

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed two lawsuits against Moderna, Inc., ModernaTX, Inc., and Moderna US, Inc. (collectively Moderna) in the District Court for the District of Delaware. Alnylam alleged that Moderna’s mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine SPIKEVAX® infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 11,246,933 and 11,382,979, which cover cationic lipids used for delivering nucleic acids. The dispute centered on the interpretation of the term “branched alkyl” in the patent claims, specifically whether it required a carbon atom bound to at least three other carbon atoms.The District Court for the District of Delaware concluded that Alnylam had acted as a lexicographer in defining “branched alkyl” in the patent specification. The court adopted Moderna’s proposed construction, which required that a “branched alkyl” must have a carbon atom bound to at least three other carbon atoms. Based on this construction, the parties stipulated that Moderna did not infringe the asserted patent claims, as Moderna’s product did not meet this requirement. The district court entered final judgment of noninfringement accordingly.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Federal Circuit agreed that the specification’s definition of “branched alkyl” was clear and unequivocal, requiring a carbon atom bound to at least three other carbon atoms. The court found no evidence in the claims, specification, or prosecution history that specified otherwise for the asserted claims. Consequently, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s claim construction and the resulting judgment of noninfringement. View "ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MODERNA, INC. " on Justia Law

Sigray, Inc. filed a petition with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) requesting inter partes review of all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,400,704, owned by Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc. The patent claims X-ray imaging systems incorporating projection magnification. The PTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted the petition, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims was unpatentable. However, in its final written decision, the PTAB declined to hold any of the asserted claims unpatentable. Sigray appealed the PTAB's decision regarding the unpatentability of claims 1-6 based on the prior art reference Jorgensen.The PTAB found that Sigray had not shown that Jorgensen inherently disclosed projection magnification within the claimed range. The PTAB concluded that there was a dispute about whether Jorgensen taught a diverging X-ray beam and found that Sigray failed to demonstrate that Jorgensen's X-ray beam diverged enough to result in projection magnification between 1 and 10 times.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the PTAB's decision. The court found that the PTAB had implicitly construed the claim limitation "between 1 and 10" to exclude small amounts of magnification, which was an error. The court held that the plain meaning of "between 1 and 10" includes even tiny, undetectable magnification. The court concluded that Jorgensen inherently contained projection magnification, as the evidence showed that Jorgensen's X-ray beams were not completely parallel and must result in some magnification. Therefore, the court reversed the PTAB's decision regarding claims 1, 3, and 4, finding them anticipated by Jorgensen. The court vacated the PTAB's decision regarding claims 2, 5, and 6 and remanded for further proceedings to determine if these claims would have been obvious in light of the opinion. View "SIGRAY, INC. v. CARL ZEISS X-RAY MICROSCOPY, INC. " on Justia Law

The case involves a patent interference proceeding between the Regents of the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively “Regents”) and the Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (collectively “Broad”). The dispute centers on the priority of invention for a CRISPR-Cas9 system that edits DNA in eukaryotic cells using a single-guide RNA.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final decision concluding that Broad has priority over Regents for the CRISPR-Cas9 system. The PTAB determined that Broad reduced the invention to practice by October 5, 2012, when Broad's scientist, Feng Zhang, submitted a manuscript to Science. The PTAB rejected Regents' earlier asserted dates of conception and reduction to practice, which were based on various disclosures and experiments conducted by Regents' scientists. The PTAB also denied Regents' motion to be accorded the benefit of the filing date of its first and second provisional patent applications, determining that they lacked written description support for the claimed invention.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the PTAB legally erred by conflating the standards for conception and reduction to practice, requiring Regents' scientists to know their invention would work to prove conception. The court vacated the PTAB's decision on conception and remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal framework. The court affirmed the PTAB's decision on written description, finding no legal error in the PTAB's analysis. The court dismissed Broad's cross-appeal on claim construction as moot, as the PTAB's denial of Broad's preliminary motions was based on independently sufficient grounds unrelated to claim construction. View "THE BROAD INSTITUTE, INC. v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA " on Justia Law

Incyte Corporation appealed a post-grant review (PGR) final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) which held that Incyte failed to prove claims 1–7 and 9–21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,561,659 were unpatentable. The '659 patent, owned by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., discloses a method of treating hair-loss disorders using deuterium-modified ruxolitinib. Incyte petitioned for PGR, arguing the claims were obvious, but the Board found Incyte's arguments unpersuasive and upheld the claims. Incyte's request for rehearing was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. Sun argued that Incyte lacked Article III standing to appeal. The court noted that standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue that must be addressed before reaching the merits of an appeal. To establish standing, Incyte needed to demonstrate an injury in fact, which it attempted to do by claiming potential infringement liability and invoking the competitor standing doctrine.The court found that Incyte's plans to develop a deuterated ruxolitinib product were too speculative to establish concrete plans for future activity that would create a substantial risk of future infringement. The court also determined that Incyte's reliance on the competitor standing doctrine was insufficient because Incyte did not show it was currently engaging in or had nonspeculative plans to engage in conduct covered by the claims of the '659 patent.Ultimately, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Incyte failed to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. View "INCYTE CORPORATION v. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. " on Justia Law

Ingenico Inc. filed a declaratory judgment action against IOENGINE, LLC, in the District of Delaware, asserting that IOENGINE's patents were invalid. The patents in question, U.S. Patent No. 9,059,969 and U.S. Patent No. 9,774,703, relate to a portable device, such as a USB thumb drive, that includes a processor for network communication. IOENGINE counterclaimed, alleging infringement. Ingenico argued that the patents were invalid due to prior art, specifically a USB device known as the DiskOnKey System, which included a Firmware Upgrader.The District Court for the District of Delaware held a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict finding the claims of the patents invalid as anticipated and obvious. IOENGINE filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and a motion for a new trial, both of which were denied by the district court. IOENGINE then appealed the decision, challenging the jury's findings and the district court's rulings on jury instructions and the introduction of prior art.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict that the DiskOnKey System, including the Firmware Upgrader, was in public use before the critical date, thus invalidating the patents. The court also held that the district court did not err in its jury instructions or in allowing Ingenico to introduce the prior art at trial. The court clarified that IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) did not preclude Ingenico from using the DiskOnKey System to argue that the claimed invention was known or used by others, on sale, or in public use, as these grounds could not have been raised during the IPR.The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the jury's verdict of invalidity. View "INGENICO INC. v. IOENGINE, LLC " on Justia Law