Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Pompe’s disease is a genetic condition associated with a deficiency or absence of the lysosomal enzyme acid α-glucosidase (GAA), which breaks down glycogen, a larger molecule, into glucose. In a person with Pompe’s disease, glycogen accumulates in the heart and muscles, causing progressive muscle weakness and respiratory symptoms, and, in early-onset cases, cardiac symptoms. Early efforts at enzyme replacement therapy failed because the injected enzyme was predominantly taken up by the patient’s liver. By 1997, research had progressed and the FDA approved Duke University’s application for Orphan Drug Designation for a new therapy, involving injection of a recombinant form of GAA. In 2013, Biomarin sought inter partes review of Genzyme’s patents, directed to treating Pompe’s disease with injections of GAA, asserting that claims were obvious, given the Duke press release and prior references. Genzyme argued that because all references described in vitro experiments, a person of ordinary skill would not find those experiments predictive of results in a human patient. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Board’s conclusion that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success at the time the invention was made,” and “no more than routine processes were needed” to achieve the results recited in the disputed claims. View "Genzyme Therapeutic Prods., Ltd. P'ship v. Biomarin Pharma., Inc." on Justia Law

ComplementSoft’s patent, issued in 2006, is directed to an “Integrated Development Environment for generating and maintaining source code . . . in particular, programmed in data manipulation languages,” and characterizes a development environment as comprising a set of software tools allowing users to develop, edit, and debug software for a particular programming language or set of programming languages. The contemplated development environment utilizes a graphical user interface and is particularly designed for data manipulation languages, including SAS®, which is developed by SAS. On SAS's petition for inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found all of the instituted claims, except for claim 4, unpatentable in view of prior art. The Federal Circuit agreed on the challenged constructions and determined that the Board did not need to address claims it did not institute. The court vacated the determination that claim 4 was patentable and remanded for the parties to address a new construction that the Board adopted in its final decision after previously interpreting the claim differently. The court noted that it is uncertain whether SAS will be able to show unpatentability of claim 4 even under the construction of “graphical representations of data flows” that the Board adopted and that it agreed with. View "SAS Inst., Inc. v. ComplementSof, LLC." on Justia Law

Indacon’s patent is directed to a system and method for searching, indexing, perusing, and manipulating files in a database, particularly through the insertion of automatically generated hyperlinks. Following the district court’s claim construction order, Indacon stipulated to noninfringement. The court entered final judgment in favor of Facebook. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the constructions of the claim terms “alias,” “custom link,” “custom linking relationship,” and “link term.” View "Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc." on Justia Law

Warsaw’s 973 patent claims oversized spinal implants; its 933 patent claims methods and devices for retracting tissue to create a working channel for minimally invasive spinal surgery. NuVasive’s patent relates to neuromonitoring during surgery. Warsaw sued NuVasive, alleging infringement; NuVasive counterclaimed, asserting infringement. A jury found that the asserted claims of the 973 patent were not invalid (infringement was not in dispute), that the asserted claims of the 933 patent were infringed under the doctrine of equivalents (validity was not in dispute), and that the asserted claims of the NuVasive patent were infringed (validity was not in dispute), and awarded damages for each. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to invalidity and infringement of all three patents, but remanded for a new trial on damages with respect to the 973 and 933 patents. The Supreme Court remanded for further consideration in light of its 2015 decision, Commil USA v. Cisco Systems, which reaffirmed that willful blindness can satisfy the knowledge requirement for active inducement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b). The First Circuit reaffirmed the district court’s judgment with respect to the NuVasive patent and otherwise reinstated its earlier judgment. There was substantial evidence from which a jury could reasonably have found knowledge or willful blindness to infringement. View "Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc." on Justia Law

Superior’s “Unloader Patents” are directed to a truck unloader system with a drive-over ramp system and a conveyor system to transport deposited material from a truck to a hopper. Its Support Strut Patents are directed to a telescoping support strut that holds up a conveyor system. Following a remand in Superior’s suit against Masaba, based on Masaba’s manufacture and sale of five different truck unloader models. the court granted summary judgment of noninfringement as to all asserted claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court correctly construed “ramp section,” “support frame,” and “channel beam.” View "Superior Indus., Inc. v. Masaba, Inc." on Justia Law

MSV’s “Terry patents” are a line of continuations beginning with the 895 patent; they concern techniques for providing access to a local area network (LAN) from a relatively distant computer. When two computers on the LAN transmit onto the medium concurrently, they create interference known as a “collision,” and the concurrent communications may be lost. It is not practical to use LAN protocols with collision detection over long distances, such as those spanned by telephone lines. The Terry patents describe an approach by which a computer may communicate with a LAN over the long distances covered by telephone lines, using a collision avoidance scheme rather than a collision detection scheme. In 2013, IWS sued several dozen hotels and coffee shops doing business in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement by providing WiFi Internet access to customers using off-the-shelf WiFi equipment sold by Ruckus and Cisco. The district court entered final judgment of non-infringement, holding the asserted patent claims are limited to wired rather than wireless communications. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that no intrinsic or extrinsic evidence suggesting that “communications path” encompasses wireless communications. View "Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC" on Justia Law

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