Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

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

Illumina’s patent is directed to a method of labeling nucleotides in a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) strand. At the request of IBS, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–6 and 8 of the patent, on the basis that they were invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Board found that IBS failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating the obviousness of the challenged claims by a preponderance of the evidence. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the Board’s judgment was supported by substantial evidence. View "Intelligent Bio-Sys, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd." on Justia Law

Heartland, an LLC organized and existing under Indiana law is headquartered in Indiana. Kraft, organized and existing under Delaware law, has its principal place of business in Illinois. Kraft filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Heartland’s liquid water enhancer products infringe Kraft’s patents. Heartland moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or to transfer venue to the Southern District of Indiana. Heartland alleged that it is not registered to do business in Delaware, has no local presence there, has not entered into any supply contracts in Delaware or called on any accounts there to solicit sales, but admitted it ships orders of the accused products into Delaware. In 2013, these shipments, 44,707 cases of the product, generated at least $331,000 in revenue, and were about 2% of Heartland’s total sales of the accused products. The Magistrate Judge determined that it had specific personal jurisdiction over Heartland for claims involving the accused products and rejected Heartland’s arguments that 2011 amendments to 28 U.S.C. 1391 negated precedent governing venue for infringement suits. The district court denied Heartland’s motions. The Federal Circuit denied Heartland’s petition for mandamus to either dismiss or transfer the suit. View "In re: TC Heartland LLC" on Justia Law

Mankes’s patent claims methods for managing a reservation system that divides inventory between a local server and a remote Internet server. Mankes sued Vivid Seats and Fandango, alleging infringement by their Internet-based reservation systems, in conjunction with the operation of local systems by movie theaters and other entertainment venues. No one person performs all of the steps of the claims, so Mankes’s case depended on establishing “divided infringement.” At the time, the law relating to divided infringement was under reconsideration. In 2014, the Supreme Court held that divided-infringement liability requires some person to be liable for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). In 2015, the district court concluded that Mankes’s allegations were insufficient to establish direct infringement and granted defendants judgments on the pleadings. Vivid Seats sought attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. 285. The court denied the request, finding the case not exceptional. The Federal Circuit vacated in light of developments since the Court’s Akamai decision, broadening the circumstances in which others’ acts may be attributed to an accused infringer to support direct-infringement liability for divided infringement. Attribution is proper in a joint-enterprise setting. The district court’s rulings were based on the earlier, narrower standard. Mankes made reasonable arguments for adjustment of legal standards that the Federal Circuit had already granted en banc review to consider; his pursuit of the case was not unreasonable. View "Mankes v. Vivid Seats Ltd." on Justia Law

The patent, titled “Man Machine Interface via Display Peripheral” is directed to a remote control device for making selections on television or computer screens. Claim 1 requires that the device be “adapted to be held by the human hand” and a multi-function “thumb switch being adapted for activation by a human thumb.” On ex parte reexamination, the examiner rejected claims as anticipated and obvious, 35 U.S.C. 103, relying primarily on Japanese Patent 634, which discloses a desk-bound mouse with a locking key surrounded by four moving keys operable by a user’s finger to control cursor movement on a screen. The examiner construed “adapted to be held by the human hand” broadly to include various “forms of grasp or grasping by a user’s hand,” such as grasping the mouse disclosed in J634, and similarly interpreted the claim term “thumb switch” broadly, as “merely requir[ing] that a switch . . . be capable of being enabled/activated by a thumb but . . . not preclud[ing] another digit, i.e. index finger.” The Board affirmed. The Federal Circuit reversed the anticipation rejection based on improper claim construction, but held that, even properly construed, certain claims would have been obvious under J634. The court remanded for determination of whether certain claims would have been obvious under the correct claim constructions. View "In Re: Man Machine Interface Tech., LLC" on Justia Law