Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Abbott’s 915 patent discloses a protein, TBP-II, which binds to and neutralizes a protein called Tumor Necrosis Factor α (TNFα), which is associated with various immunological diseases. Following a 2008 remand by the district court, the Board of Patent Appeals rejected claims by Yeda that the patent was invalid as anticipated. In 2015, the district court affirmed. The issue of invalidity turned on whether the patent benefits from the filing dates from either of two German patent applications. If it did, then the field of prior art narrows to exclude the claimed anticipating reference. Whether the 915 patent was entitled to benefit from the German application’s filing date depends on whether the German application provided adequate written description support for the invention claimed in the 915 patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s 2015 decision that Abbott’s 915 patent is supported by the written description of one of the German applications, rendering moot Yeda’s appeal concerning the 2008 decision. View "Yeda Research & Dev. Co., Ltd. v. Abbott GMBH & Co. KG" on Justia Law

The 215 patent is directed to improving the efficiency by which messages are sent from a receiver to a sender in a telecommunications system to advise the sender that errors occurred in a particular message. Data is transmitted in discrete packets, "Protocol Data Units" (PDUs). The useful data or “payload” in those packets is carried in user data PDUs (DPDUs). Each DPDU contains a sequence number that uniquely identifies that packet, allowing the receiving computer to determine when it either has received packets out of order or has failed to receive particular packets, so that the receiver can correctly combine the packets in the proper order or direct the sender to retransmit particular packets. The receiver uses a different type of packet, a status PDU (S-PDU), to notify the sender of the DPDUs it failed to receive. The patent is concerned with organizing the information contained in S-PDUs efficiently, to minimize the size of the S-PDUs, thus conserving bandwidth. The patent discloses several methods for encoding the sequence numbers of missing packets in S-PDUs. In inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, that various claims were anticipated and that the petition for review was not time-barred. View "Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp." on Justia Law

LifeNet’s 200 patent claims plasticized soft tissue grafts suitable for transplantation into humans. The patent explains that tissue grafts are typically preserved and provided in a dehydrated state, such as through freeze-drying, then rehydrated before implantation. The freeze-drying process is not optimal: it can cause the tissue to become brittle with a tendency to fracture; it requires time in the operating room to rehydrate the tissue; and even after rehydration the tissue’s properties do not approximate that of normal tissue, and the graft can fail. The 200 patent’s “plasticized” tissue grafts avoid these problems. The tissue is preserved not by freeze-drying but by replacing the tissue’s water with biocompatible plasticizers, such as glycerol, that provide the hydrating functions of water. These plasticized grafts exhibit properties similar to that of normal tissue and avoid the rehydration process required for freeze-dried tissue. A jury found that the patent was not invalid and was infringed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the district court’s conclusion that construction of the entire term “not removed” was “unnecessary,” because that two-word phrase is easily understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to have its plain meaning that no plasticizers are removed prior to transplantation.” View "LifeNet Health v. Lifecell Corp." on Justia Law

The patents are both titled “Method for Automatically Animating Lip Synchronization and Facial Expression of Animated Characters.” The 278 patent is a continuation of the 576 patent and shares the same written description. The patents relate to automating part of a preexisting 3-D animation method. The admitted prior art method uses multiple 3-D models of a character’s face to depict various facial expressions made during speech. In suits against video game developers and publishers, the district court entered summary judgment, finding that the asserted claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and were invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the ordered combination of claimed steps, using unconventional rules that relate sub-sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets, is not directed to an abstract idea and is, therefore, patent-eligible subject matter under section 101. View "Micro, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc." on Justia Law

Schlumberger hired Rutherford in 2006. She was promoted to Director of Intellectual Property and later to Deputy General Counsel for Intellectual Property. Rutherford managed a copyright lawsuit and evaluated legal risks involving Petrel, Schlumberger’s software platform for three-dimensional modeling of oil wells. One competitor’s product analyzed during this project was Austin’s RECON software (the 319 patent). After seven years, Rutherford left Schlumberger. She began working as Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel at Acacia, which began discussions to acquire the 319 patent. Petrel was discussed as a potential target of patent infringement litigation. Rutherford participated in the decision to hire CEP as outside counsel for all 319-patent-related litigation. Dynamic was formed to hold the 319 patent. Dynamic filed several lawsuits, including one accusing Petrel of infringement. On Schlumberger’s motion, the court disqualified Rutherford, other Acacia in-house counsel, and CEP from representing Dynamic in the case. Schlumberger also sued Rutherford in Texas state court, presenting evidence that she retained confidential, privileged information to provide to Acacia. The Texas court dismissed all but a breach-of-contract claim and sanctioned Schlumberger for bringing the suit. The federal district court found that Rutherford’s work at Schlumberger was substantially related to her work at Acacia; that the evidence of her involvement created an irrebuttable presumption that she acquired confidential information requiring her disqualification; that the acquired knowledge should be imputed to all Acacia attorneys for purposes of Dynamic’s suit; and that disqualification extended to CEP. Because the pleadings were drafted by disqualified counsel, the court dismissed Dynamic’s claims without prejudice. The Federal Circuit affirmed, citing the ABA Model Rules and the Texas Disciplinary Rules. View "Dynamic 3D Geosolutions LLC v. Schlumberger Ltd." on Justia Law

Stryker’s patents concern pulsed lavage devices that deliver pressurized irrigation for medical therapies. In 1993 Stryker applied for the patents and began to market portable, battery powered, handheld devices. Older systems required a central power source and external mechanical pumps and needed to be wheeled around the hospital. Stryker’s patents issued in 2000, 2001 and 2006. Zimmer introduced its first portable pulsed lavage device in 1996; its Pulsavac Plus achieved $55 million in annual sales in 2007. Stryker sued Zimmer. The district court found infringement of two patents. The jury found infringement of the third patent; that all the asserted claims were valid; and that Zimmer had willfully infringed all three patents. The court awarded $70 million in lost profits plus attorneys’ fees. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the patents were valid and infringed, and the award of damages, but reversed the judgment that infringement was willful and vacated the awards of treble damages and of attorneys’ fees. The Supreme Court subsequently determined that the previously-controlling Seagate test for willful infringement and enhanced damages “unduly confines the ability of district courts to exercise the discretion conferred on them.” On remand, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the award of treble damages, the finding that this was an exceptional case, and the award of attorneys’ fees. View "Stryker Corp v. Zimmer, Inc." on Justia Law

AVC manufactures cooling systems for integrated circuits. Asetek’s patents are directed toward liquid computer cooling systems to cool integrated circuits. Asetek brought infringement lawsuits against other competitors and sent a letter accusing AVC of infringement, based on Asetek’s mistaken belief that AVC manufactured Liqmax 120s. AVC responded that it did not manufacture Liqmax 120s, but requested a meeting. Asetek responded that if AVC was not making Liqmax 120s there was no reason to meet; that it had unsuccessfully tried to cooperate with AVC previously; and that it does not license its patents. The letter stated, “Please be advised that Asetek believes that AVC is likely selling other infringing products” and that Asetek enforces its IP. A meeting ultimately occurred ; Asetek offered AVC a license at a royalty rate of 16%. AVC then filed suit alleging that AVC had designed and built certain liquid cooling products and seeking a declaration that its products did not infringe the Asetek patents and that those patents are invalid. Accepting Asetek’s assertion that it did not know that those products existed before AVC’s complaint, the district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit reversed. AVC alleged sufficient facts that, “under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” View "Asia Vital Components Co. v. Asetek Danmark A/S" on Justia Law

UCB sought a declaration that its Cimzia® brand antibody does not infringe Yeda’s 923 Patent and that the 923 Patent was invalid. Yeda counterclaimed for infringement. The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement, holding that, based on the specification and prosecution history, the monoclonal antibodies claimed in the 923 patent are not infringed by the chimeric or humanized antibodies of the Cimzia® product. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court correctly applied the law and that Yeda is estopped from including chimeric and humanized antibodies within the scope of the monoclonal antibodies claimed in the 923 Patent. View "UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research & Dev. Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Veritas’s patent claims systems and methods through which, while certain processes for restoring computer data are in progress, particular data sought by an active application may be given priority for restoration and made immediately accessible. Veeam requested that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board institute inter partes review of certain claims. Veritas moved to amend, seeking to add new claims 26 and 27 if the Board ultimately concluded that the challenged claims were unpatentable. In its final decision, the Board found, contrary to Veritas’s contention, that the claims were not limited to file-level background restoration processes, but could reasonably be read as also covering block-level restoration processes: the background restorer could proceed with restoration without identifying files, just by restoring blocks of data, which often will end up restoring whole files. The Board rejected the challenged claims for obviousness, 35 U.S.C. 103, and denied Veritas’s motion to amend, without an evidentiary determination of patentability of the proposed claims, stating that Veritas had not addressed whether each new feature in each proposed claim, as distinct from the claimed combination of features, was independently known in prior art. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s construction as the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and upheld its obviousness determination, but vacated denial of Veritas’s motion. The court remanded for consideration of the patentability of the proposed claims. View "Veritas Techs. LLC v. Veeam Software Corp." on Justia Law

Liberty’s 325 patent, issued in 2010, is “directed to a projectile structured to be discharged from a firearm and designed to overcome the disadvantages and problems associated with conventional firearm projectiles such as, but not limited to lead or steel jacketed projectiles.” The patent grew out of the U.S. military’s “Green Ammunition Program,” developed in response to concerns that lead-based ammunition was polluting military training ranges. The 325 patent sought to address “problems of lethality” with the conventional Army “green” ammunition. The Claims Court held that ammunition rounds used by the Army embody the claims of the patent, violating 28 U.S.C. 1498. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the trial court erred in construing claim terms: reduced area of contact; intermediate opposite ends. When the terms are construed correctly, the Army rounds do not embody the claimed invention. The court affirmed the Claims Court's rejection of a breach of contract claim based on a non-disclosure agreement signed by the named inventor of the 325 patent and an Army official during negotiations for a possible contract. The Army official did not have authority to enter into an NDA on behalf of the government. View "Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law