Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Tinnus, which produces a toy for filling water balloons, sued Telebrands for infringement of Tinnus’s 066 patent, which relates to a system for simultaneously filling multiple containers (such as balloons) with fluid. Telebrands sells a competing product. Both products attach to a hose and fill multiple water balloons at once by channeling the water into the balloons through a set of hollow tubes. Tinnus obtained a preliminary injunction. Shortly thereafter, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted a Post-Grant Review proceeding for the patent, finding all claims were more likely than not invalid based on the same arguments considered by the district court. The Federal Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction, stating that it was “unable to find any clear error in the district court’s conclusion that Tinnus had demonstrated irreparable harm.” The court also upheld findings of insufficient motivation to combine disparate prior art references and that the claim term “substantially filled” is not indefinite. View "Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp." on Justia Law

Eli Lilly’s 209 patent, issued in 2010, relates to methods of administering the chemotherapy drug pemetrexed disodium after pretreatment with common vitamins—folic acid and vitamin B12. Pemetrexed is an antifolate that kills cancer cells by inhibiting the function of folates, a class of nutrients necessary for cell reproduction. The vitamin pretreatments reduce the toxicity of pemetrexed. Eli Lilly markets pemetrexed under the brand name ALIMTA®, and the drug is used to treat certain types of lung cancer and mesothelioma. Around 2008–2009, Defendants notified Eli Lilly that they had submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) seeking FDA approval to market generic versions of ALIMTA®. After the 209 patent issued, Defendants filed Paragraph IV certifications under 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV), declaring that the 209 patent was invalid, unenforceable, or would not be infringed. Eli Lilly filed suit for infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2). The district court found and the Federal Circuit affirmed that, while no single actor performs all steps of the asserted claims because the actions of both physicians and patients are required, under Akamai Technologies (Fed. Cir. 2015), there was direct infringement attributable to physicians. Defendants are liable for inducing that infringement. The court asserted claims were not invalid for indefiniteness, obviousness, or obviousness-type double patenting. View "Eli Lilly and Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc." on Justia Law

The 856 patent generally relates to “huMab4D5 ANTI-ErbB2 antibody-maytansinoid conjugates.” The claimed methods of treatment purport to combat a variety of cancers. ImmunoGen provided Genentech with a “worldwide exclusive license,” which Genentech uses to produce the drug Kadcyla®TM. Phigenix, “a for-profit discovery stage biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and biomedical research company” that focuses “on the use of novel molecular therapeutics” designed to fight cancer, sought inter partes review. The Patent Board found the asserted claims of the 856 patent nonobvious. The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of standing, finding that Phigenix has not offered sufficient proof establishing that it has suffered an injury in fact. Phigenix does not contend that it faces risk of infringing the 856 patent, that it is an actual or prospective licensee of the patent, or that it otherwise plans to take any action that would implicate the patent. Phigenix only claimed that it has suffered an actual economic injury because the 856 patent increases competition between itself and ImmunoGen; “‘[i]ncreased competition represents a cognizable Article III injury,’” View "Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc." on Justia Law

Sonix’s patent describes a system and method for using a “graphical indicator” (matrix of small dots) to encode information on an object’s surface. It includes an “optical device” that can read the graphical indicator and output further information. In 2010, Sonix alleged that GeneralPlus’s children’s books using dot pattern technology infringed the patent. Following reexamination, the Patent Office confirmed the patentability of the asserted claims. Weeks later, GeneralPlus requested another ex parte reexamination, asserting that the combination of two patents would have led to a visually negligible indicator. The examiner confirmed patentability based on the declaration of an expert, specifically indicating that the combination of cited references did not disclose a visually-negligible graphical indicator. In 2013, Sonix alleged that Defendants infringed the asserted claims. Defendants’ initial contentions identified 28 claim limitations as indefinite. The list did not include the term “visually negligible.” The district court held that the claims were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, reasoning that “visually negligible” is “purely subjective” and that the claim language did not provide guidance. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that that the written description and prosecution history provide sufficient support to inform with reasonable certainty those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention. The court noted the examiner’s knowing allowance of claims based on the term “visually negligible,” plus the acceptance of the term by both parties’ experts. View "Sonix Technology Co., Ltd. v. Publications International, Ltd." on Justia Law

The 470 application is directed to a touchscreen interface in a portable electronic device that allows a user to rearrange icons. The claims at issue recite the initiation of an “interface reconfiguration mode” to permit icon rearrangement. The claims distinguish among a “first user touch” to open an application, a longer “second user touch” to initiate the interface reconfiguration mode, and a “subsequent user movement” to move an icon. The Patent Board affirmed that claims 38–41 would have been obvious over the Hawkins patent, which discloses a personal communication device with a touch-sensitive screen, and the Gillespie publication, disclosing an interface on a computer touch pad with an unactivated state and an activated state, in which icons are functional and can be removed or rearranged. The Federal Circuit vacated, noting the lack of any reasoning or analysis to support finding a motivation to add Gillespie’s disclosure to Hawkins beyond stating it would have been an “intuitive way” to initiate Hawkins’ editing mode. View "In re: Van Os" on Justia Law

Ethicon’s 844 patent relates to intraluminal medical devices for the local delivery of drugs, e.g., drug-eluting stents, and methods for maintaining drugs on those devices. Angioplasty can be used to alleviate blockages of blood vessels, but expansion of the balloon catheter during angioplasty can result in injury to the smooth muscle cells within the vessel wall, which can lead to restenosis, the gradual re-closure of the vessel. The 844 patent teaches that stent coatings themselves, and stent coatings delivering drugs locally, may be capable of reducing restenosis. Following inter partes reexamination, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of several claims as obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual findings that the claimed invention is merely the simple substitution of a coating known to be useful in in vivo applications, including stents, in a weight ratio known to provide a good balance between strength and elasticity, for that coating. View "In re: Ethicon, Inc." on Justia Law

D’Agostino’s patents disclose methods of effecting secure credit-card purchases by minimizing merchant access to credit card numbers and using a transaction code to complete a purchase instead. At the request of MasterCard, the Patent Board initiated inter partes review and cancelled all of the reviewed claims as unpatentable on the grounds of anticipation or obviousness. The claims involve either “limiting a number of transactions to one or more merchants,” or “limit[ing] transactions to a single merchant.” The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, finding the Board’s claim interpretation unreasonable. The single-merchant limitation requires, simply, that, when the transaction code is requested, the request limits the number of authorized merchants to one but does not then identify the merchant, such identification occurring only later. View "D'agostino v. Mastercard International. Inc." on Justia Law

United sued Tile Tech (TT), claiming infringement of its patent, entitled “Support Pedestal Having an Anchoring Washer for Securing Elevated Surface Tiles.” United served its first discovery requests. TT missed the deadline. United granted 20 additional days to respond. TT requested two additional extensions before serving responses, which were deficient. TT postponed a conference on the matter three times, then failed to respond by an agreed-upon date for supplementing its responses. After additional delays, United filed a Motion to Compel. TT never responded to the Motion, but served supplemental responses, still deficient, and later served a third supplement. The district court ordered TT to respond, imposed monetary sanctions, and warned that it would enter default judgment if TT did not comply by October 12. TT failed to respond. On October 12, United moved for default judgment. TT responded that it had not known the response deadline; that it had produced a set of supplemental responses; and that it required an expert opinion to fully respond, which would be forthcoming. On November 2, TT served supplemental responses, which disclosed its destruction of a previously undisclosed mold used to make one key component of the disputed support pedestal. United sought spoliation sanctions and added a claim for unfair competition, to which TT never responded. The Federal Circuit affirmed default judgment with relief for all of United’s claims, and a permanent injunction. View "United Construction Products, Inc. v. Tile Tech, Inc." on Justia Law

U.S. Water’s patents disclose methods for reducing or preventing fouling (the deposit of insoluble by products on equipment) by the addition of the enzyme phytase during the process of producing ethanol from milled grain. In U.S. Water’s suit, alleging indirect infringement, Novozymes counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, and inequitable conduct. The district court found certain claims invalid as inherently anticipated by prior art references, but declined to find inequitable conduct by U.S. Water, based on representations made during the application process. The Federal Circuit vacated with respect to inherent anticipation. There is a material dispute as to whether adding phytase in the manner disclosed in prior art will necessarily lead to a reduction of insoluble organometallic salt deposits as claimed in the patents. The court, affirmed in part, finding no genuine dispute as to a fact material to the inequitable conduct inquiry. View "U.S. Water Services, Inc. v. Novozymes A/S" on Justia Law

Medgraph’s patents are directed to a method for improving and facilitating diagnosis and treatment of patients: data relating to “medically important variable[s],” such as blood sugar levels, measured from a patient’s body, are uploaded and transmitted to a central storage device, from which they can be accessed remotely by medical professionals. Medtronic manufactures and markets integrated diabetes management solutions, allowing patients to upload data relating to their diabetes, including blood glucose readings, to Medtronic’s server; patients can keep an online record and share the information remotely with a healthcare provider. Medgraph sued, alleging infringement. A year later, the Federal Circuit issued the first of its “Akamai” holdings, which culminated with a remand by the Supreme Court in 2014. The district court subsequently entered summary judgment of no infringement in favor of Medtronic, applying the law on direct infringement liability as it then stood, stating that “more than one person, i.e., the patient or doctor, neither of whom is an agent of or under contractual obligation to Medtronic, is required to perform all of the steps of the method claims.” The Federal Circuit then issued Akamai V, an en banc holding that attribution is proper “when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance.” The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding the decision unaffected by Akamai V. View "Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc." on Justia Law