Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Netzer owns the 496 patent, entitled “Process for the Coproduction of Benzene from Refinery Sources and Ethylene by Steam Cracking,” which describes a process for the coproduction of ethylene and purified benzene from refinery mixtures. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement. The court did not formally construe the claims, but, implicitly agreed with defendant (Shell) that “fractionating” does not include extraction. The court found no literal infringement, reasoning that “Netzer’s method does not include extraction and does not yield benzene of 99.9% purity” and that “[t]o infringe, Shell would have to eliminate the extraction step and still produce benzene purified to at least 80%.” The court also found no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because Netzer is barred by “specific exclusion, prosecution-history estoppel, and prior art.” The Federal Circuit affirmed; no reasonable jury would find that the accused process performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result. View "David Netzer Consulting, LLC v. Shell Oil Co." on Justia Law

Dr. Arunachalam owns the 178 patent, which has been undergoing reexamination since November 2008. In 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the rejection of claims 9– 16, but designated a new ground of rejection for claim 16. Arunachalam elected to reopen prosecution of the claims, after which the examiner issued a final rejection in June 2015. Rather than appeal the examiner’s final rejection to the Board, Arunachalam appealed to the Federal Circuit, which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to hear a non-final appeal from the Patent Office. A patent owner dissatisfied with an examiner’s rejection of a claim in reexamination may proceed with a two-step appeals process. First, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 134(b) (2002), a patent owner in any reexamination proceeding may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Board. If the patent owner is dissatisfied with the Board’s final decision, the patent owner may appeal the decision to the Federal Circuit, 35 U.S.C. 141. View "In re: Arunachalam" on Justia Law

Profectus’s patent discloses a mountable digital picture frame for displaying still digital images. The specification discusses how a user can display digital images on a wall or desktop similar to conventional photographs. Profectus sued manufacturers and sellers of tablet computer devices. After construing the term “mountable,” the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement on grounds that the accused devices do not satisfy the “mountable” limitation. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Although certain intrinsic physical features may combine to aid in mounting with external components, those features must be for mounting to meet the claim limitations. While the accused devices are capable of mounting by exploiting the communication ports and being easy to prop up due to their size and weight, those characteristics do not make the accused devices mountable as claimed and fail to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether features for mounting (or their equivalents) are present within the accused devices. View "Profectus Tech., LLC v. HuaweiI Techs. Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Aqua’s patent concerns automated swimming pool cleaners. Using motor-driven wheels that enable the cleaner to move in a controlled pattern requires a drive motor and integrated circuitry. Cleaners that use suction or water jets do not require a drive motor, but often move in erratic patterns. The patent discloses an automated pool cleaner that uses “an angled jet drive propulsion system” to move in a controlled pattern. Zodiac sought inter partes review, citing prior art cleaners that use an internal pump to create a filtered water jet. Aqua moved to substitute new claims to require that the jet creates a downward vector force rear of the front wheels; the wheels control the directional movement of the cleaner; the cleaner has four wheels; and the jet shoots filtered water. Aqua argued that the combination of prior art did not render the substitute claims obvious because it does not suggest the vector limitation. The Patent Board denied Aqua’s motion to amend. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to Board procedures, which require the patentee to demonstrate that amended claims would be patentable over the art of record. The Board rebutted Aqua’s sole argument that the vector limitation made the substitute claims patentable over the combination of prior art. View "In re: Aqua Prods., Inc." on Justia Law

Diamond sued the auto companies, alleging infringement of its patents. The district court dismissed the actions finding that agreements between Diamond and Sanyo, the original assignee of the patents-in-suit, did not confer patentee status on Diamond, allowing Diamond to sue without joining Sanyo. The court later held that nunc pro tunc agreements executed by Diamond and Sanyo after its decision in Diamond did not affect its determination. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The original agreements did not convey all of the substantial rights in the patents to Diamond. Precedent bars consideration of the subsequent agreements. View "Diamond Coating Techs., LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am." on Justia Law

TLI filed suits, alleging that the defendants infringed its 295 patent by making, selling, and/or using products and services that allow uploading of digital photos from a mobile device, such as a cell phone. The 295 patent “relates generally to an apparatus for recording of a digital image, communicating the digital image from the recording device to a storage device, and to administering the digital image in the storage device.” The specification notes that a “wide variety of data types” can be transmitted, including audio and image stills. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the cases for pre-trial purposes in the Eastern District of Virginia. That court dismissed, concluding that the patent fails to claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, and that, in the alternative, certain claims are invalid for failing to recite sufficient structure as required by 35 U.S.C. 112. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that limiting the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner to a particular environment—a mobile telephone system—does not make the claims any less abstract. View "TLI Commc'ns LLC v. AV Auto., L.L.C." on Justia Law

Finacea® Gel contains azelaic acid as the therapeutically active ingredient in a concentration of 15% by weight and is indicated for the topical treatment of rosacea. Finacea® is manufactured as a “hydrogel,” which the court construed to mean “a semisolid dosage form that contains water and a gelling agent to form a gel, which may contain dispersed particles and/or insoluble liquids.” The FDA Orange Book lists the 070 patent as covering Finacea® Gel. The 070 patent, entitled “Composition with Azelaic Acid,” issued in 2003 and claims priority to a 1998 provisional application. Glenmark submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application to the FDA seeking to market a generic version of Finacea®, including a paragraph IV certification (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV)) that the patent was invalid and not infringed. Unlike Finacea®, the proposed generic product substituted isopropyl myristate for the claimed triglyceride and lecithin. The court held that certain claims were infringed under the doctrine of equivalents and not invalid. The court concluded that the isopropyl myristate in Glenmark’s generic product met the claim elements triglyceride and lecithin under the doctrine of equivalents, relying on the function-way-result test. The court rejected arguments that infringement under the doctrine of equivalents would encompass the prior art and was barred by prosecution history estoppel. The Federal Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the asserted claims would not have been obvious. View "Intendis GMBH v. Glenmark Pharma., Inc." on Justia Law

In 1997, Merck and Weider considered jointly introducing, into the U.S., dietary supplements with Merck ingredients, including crystalline calcium salt of a tetrahydrofolic acid (MTHF), agreeing that, until a definitive agreement was signed, neither party was under any legal obligation. Weider later notified Merck that it was no longer interested in a joint venture, but would like to purchase two kilograms of MTHF. Merck quoted a price of $25,000 per kg. After extensive correspondence, in October 1998, Merck sent confirmation of the “first order.” Merck then met with a Weider competitor. Merck contacted Weider in January 1999, asking whether its purchase order was still “active.” Weider sent confirmation that the parties had mutually cancelled Weider’s “existing order for [MTHF].” Merck filed its 168 patent application, including claim 4 (MTHF), in 2000; the patent issued in 2002. In a 2013 infringement suit concerning Abbreviated New Drug Applications, the court held that claim 4 was not anticipated, obvious, or invalid for lack of adequate written description and was not invalid under the on-sale bar. Although the court determined that MTHF was ready for patenting by September 1998, it concluded that there had been no invalidating commercial offer for sale or sale, because Merck’s fax did not include “important safety and liability terms.” The Federal Circuit reversed. Merck’s September 1998, offer to sell MTHF was a premature commercial exploitation of its invention. View "Merck & Cie v. Watson Labs., Inc." on Justia Law

Stryker’s 243 patent concerns a socket assembly used in prosthetic hip implants. The patent addresses three major components involved: a shell member and a bearing member, which together replace the socket (technically the acetabulum) part of the pelvis bone, and the femoral component, the ball-shaped end of the thigh bone that marries with the socket. The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement following claim construction. The Federal Circuit upheld the construction of “relative location” claim language to require that “the recess is essentially midway along the taper such that the effectiveness of each is not compromised” and to require that “the internal taper of the shell mates with the external taper of a metallic securing member (i.e. sleeve) secured to and separate from the bearing member,” essentially requiring the presence of a sleeve in between the shell and the bearing, for the taper type of securement. The district court did not abuse its discretion in applying its local rules to preclude Stryker from arguing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. View "Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc." on Justia Law

Enfish’s 604 and 775 patents are directed to an innovative logical model for a computer database. A logical model is a model of data for a computer database explaining how the various elements of information are related to one another. A logical model generally results in the creation of particular tables of data, but it does not describe how the bits and bytes of those tables are arranged in physical memory devices. Contrary to conventional logical models, the patented logical model includes all data entities in a single table, with column definitions provided by rows in that same table. In Enfrish’s suit against Microsoft, alleging infringement, the district court found all claims invalid as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, some claims invalid as anticipated under section 102, and one claim not infringed. The Federal Circuit reversed with respect to section 101, finding that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and vacated as to section 102, finding that the “pivot table” feature of the prior art Excel product does not contain the “self-referential” feature of the claims. The court affirmed the finding of non-infringement. View "Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp." on Justia Law