Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

The patents teach improved techniques for making artificial candles flicker like real candles and were developed for the DIsneyland “Haunted Mansion.” In 2008, Disney granted Candella a worldwide license to practice the technology. In 2010, Candella approached Liown to manufacture its candles. Negotiations broke down. Liown filed a patent application in China on flameless candles, allegedly based on confidential information obtained during negotiations with Candella. In 2012, Liown began selling flameless candles in the U.S. Disney and Candella amended the license to permit Candella to sublicense, to assign its interest with Disney’s consent, and to sue without Disney’s consent. Candella sued Liown for infringement. The parties settled and reopened negotiations for Liown to manufacture flameless candles using the technology. The relationship again deteriorated. Days after receiving its own U.S. patent covering similar artificial flame technology, Liown advised Candella that it would no longer comply with the settlement agreement and allegedly began selling its own flameless candles to Candella’s exclusive customers based on information it learned after the settlement proceedings. Candella again filed suit. The court granted a preliminary injunction, based on the alleged infringement without reaching the alternative ground of tortious interference. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding a substantial question of patent validity. View "Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co. Ltd." on Justia Law

Eon’s patents relate to a two-way interactive communication network system for enabling communications between local subscribers and a base station and describe various contexts in which the described networks might be useful: broadcast television programs; wireless facsimile services; pay-per-view services; when the subscriber unit is located in a location where it would otherwise lack ability to receive transmissions; meter reading; inventory control in soft drink dispensing machines; and site alarms for remote monitoring of open doors, fires, failure, temperature, etc. Eon sued SIlver Spring, a utility services network provider, and won an infringement verdict of $18,800,000. The district court reversed as to one of the three patents and remitted the award to $12,990,800. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that no reasonable jury could have found that Silver Spring’s utility meters are “portable” and “mobile” in the context of the claimed invention; those meters do not infringe the two remaining patents. View "Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc." on Justia Law

Apple alleged infringement of five patents that cover various aspects of the operation of smartphones. . The district court entered awarded Apple $119,625,000 in damages and ongoing royalties for infringement of three patents. The jury found that Samsung had not infringed the other two. Samsung’s countersuit alleged infringement of two patents that it owns. The jury found Apple had infringed one patent and awarded $158,400 in damages but found that Apple had not infringed the other. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, finding that Apple failed to prove, as a matter of law, that the accused Samsung products use an “analyzer server” as the Federal Circuit has previously construed that term with respect to one Apple patent and that the asserted claims of two Apple patents would have been obvious based on the prior art. The court affirmed the judgment of non-infringement of two Apple patents, affirmed the judgment of infringement of Samsung’s patent, and affirmed the judgment of noninfringement of Samsung’s other patent. View "Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Fellowes obtained the 468 patent, claiming a shredder that prevents paper jams using a combination of a presence sensor that detects whether paper is present in the feed and a thickness sensor that detects whether the stack’s thickness risks exceeding the shredder’s capacity. The patent further claims a controller that turns the shredder motor on only when those sensors indicate paper is present in the feed that does not exceed the shredder’s thickness capacity. Because prior art contained both sensors, Fellowes claimed nonobviousness based on its particular combination of these elements. Fellowes sued ACCO for infringement. The Patent and Trademark Office granted reexamination. An examiner found a prima facie case that certain claims would have been an obvious combination of prior art. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board reversed, finding that the examiner failed to make a prima facie showing of obviousness. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the examiner made this prima facie showing, and remanded to allow the Board to consider issues that it did not reach below: whether Fellowes’ rebuttal evidence changes the outcome on obviousness and whether the dependent claims at issue provide independent grounds of nonobviousness. View "ACCO Brands Corp. v. Fellowes, Inc." on Justia Law

Optical character recognition (OCR) systems analyze characters in a scanned image using various techniques. Template matching involves comparing a character in the digital image with templates of known characters. If there is no matching template, feature analysis is used: examining the characteristics of unknown characters to determine what they are. Sometimes template matching and feature analysis result in more than one possible character—such as a lowercase or uppercase “S”—in which case context analysis is used to look to the character’s special context and linguistic context to determine the correct character. Nuance’s 342 patent describes template matching and feature analysis and using the results of the feature analysis to build new templates that can later be used in the first step of template matching. In Nuance’s suit, a jury returned a verdict of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the district court improperly adopted a dictionary definition for disputed claim limitations and that Nuance was denied due process when the court entered final judgment against Nuance as to all of its patents, even those that Nuance chose not to assert at trial. View "Nuance Commc'ns, Inc. v. ABBYY USA Software House, Inc." on Justia Law

A coaxial cable has an inner electrical conductor (signal) and an outer electrical conductor (ground). Poor or intermittent connections on either conductor can result in noise or non-functionality. The 060 patent discloses coaxial cable connectors having a connector body, a post, a nut (coupler), and a “continuity member” that contacts the post and the nut so that electrical grounding continuity is extended through the post and the nut. The patent discloses more than 20 embodiments of continuity members. In some embodiments, the continuity member lays adjacent to or extends underneath the connector body. Corning sought inter partes review of claims 10–25. Relying on a generalist dictionary, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board construed the term “reside around” to mean “in the immediate vicinity of; near” and concluded that the combination of prior published patent applications taught a continuity member that was positioned in the immediate vicinity of, or near, an external portion of the connector body, so that the claims were obvious. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that the Board erred in its construction of “reside around.” View "PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC" on Justia Law

In 1996, Zoltek sued, alleging that the process used to produce carbon fiber sheet materials for the B-2 Bomber and the F-22 Fighter Plane, with the consent of the Air Force and Navy, infringed its patent. The Federal Circuit answered a certified question, holding that the patentee has no claim against the government when any step of the patented method is practiced outside of the U.S., as for the F-22. On remand, the Claims Court granted Zoltek leave to substitute as defendant Lockheed, the F-22’s general contractor. The Federal Circuit then acted en banc and reversed its earlier ruling, recognizing the liability of the United States for infringement by acts that are performed with its authorization and consent, citing 28 U.S.C. 1498(a), and dismissed Lockheed. On remand, the Claims Court separated trial of the issues of validity and infringement and denied discovery as to infringement with respect to the F-22. The Federal Circuit denied a petition for mandamus. The Claims Court sustained patent eligibility, but held the asserted claims invalid on the grounds of obviousness and inadequate written description. The Federal Circuit held that in these circumstances, given the government’s official invocation of state secret privilege, the court acted within its discretion in limiting trial initially to issues of validity, but erred in its judgment of patent invalidity. View "Zoltek Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

OWW owns patents directed to cushioning devices that fit over the residual stumps of amputated limbs to make the use of prosthetics more comfortable. OWW has asserted its patents against Alps in several actions, including one filed in 2004 concerning devices consisting of stretchable synthetic fabric, coated with a gel on only the side touching the body, to reduce skin irritation, while the dry side allows free interaction with the prosthesis. After the court issued a claim construction order, Alps filed two successive ex parte reexamination proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office. The examiner rejected the claims of the patent for obviousness. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences reversed, but the court granted Alps summary judgment of invalidity as to all asserted claims. The Federal Circuit remanded. Following remand, the Federal Circuit affirmed findings of inequitable conduct in the second reexamination, but not in the first. OWW executive Colvin was aware that OWW’s reexamination counsel represented to the Board that testimony by Alps’s witness (Comtesse) was uncorroborated; that Colvin was aware of materials that corroborated Comtesse’s testimony; and that Colvin failed to correct counsel’s misrepresentations. Based on that inequitable conduct finding, the patent is unenforceable and the case was exceptional, justifying a fee award against OWW. View "Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC" on Justia Law

Binzel, which manufactures welding equipment, owns the German DE 934 patent, filed in 1997, and the U.S. 406 patent, issued in 2002, which claims priority to the German application, for a method of manufacturing a contact tip for metal inert gas welding. Lismont, a resident of Belgium asserts that, beginning in 1995, he developed the method disclosed in both patents for Binzel and, that by mid-1997, he had disclosed the details to Binzel. Lismont contends that, despite Binzel's representations that he was the first to conceive of this method, Binzel filed the DE 934 application naming its employee, Sattler, as the inventor. In 2000-2002 Lismont initiated suits in the German Federal Court and sought information about the countries in which Binzel was pursuing patents and about the manufacture and sales of contact tips that used the method at issue. The German courts ruled against Lismont, finding that he failed to prove that he had an inventorship interest. The German Supreme Court rejected his appeal in 2009. Lismont then filed actions in the German Constitutional Court and in the European Court of Human Rights. In 2012, Lismont initiated U.S. litigation seeking to correct inventorship of the 406 patent (35 U.S.C. 256(a)). After discovery concerning the issue of laches, the court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Federal Circuit affirmed: Lismont failed to rebut the presumption of laches. View "Lismont v. Alexander Binzel Corp." on Justia Law

Lexmark makes and sells printer toner cartridges, for which it holds patents. Lexmark buyers may purchase a “Regular Cartridge” at full price, not subject to any terms restricting reuse or resale of the cartridge, or may purchase a “Return Program Cartridge” at a discount, subject to a single-use/no-resale restriction. Impression acquired restricted cartridges for resale in the U.S. after a third party physically modified them to enable re-use. Impression’s actions infringe under 35 U.S.C. 271, unless Lexmark’s initial sale of the cartridges constitutes the grant of authority that makes later resale and importation non-infringing under the doctrine of exhaustion. The Federal Circuit, en banc, held that a patentee, when selling a patented article subject to a single-use/no-resale restriction that is lawful and clearly communicated to the purchaser, does not thereby give the buyer, or downstream buyers, the resale/reuse authority that has been expressly denied. Such resale or reuse, when contrary to known, lawful limits on the authority conferred at the original sale, remains unauthorized, infringing conduct under section 271. Under Supreme Court precedent, a patentee may preserve its 271 rights through such restrictions when licensing others to make and sell patented articles; there is no basis for denying the same ability to the patentee that sells the articles itself. View "Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Impression Prods., Inc." on Justia Law