Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

SimpleAir filed suit against Google in 2011, alleging that Google’s Cloud Messenger and Cloud to Device Messenger services its 914 patent. A jury determined none of the asserted claims were invalid, and that Google’s Cloud Messenger Services infringed each of the asserted claims. A jury awarded $85 million to SimpleAir. The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that the lower court erred in construing the claim term “a data channel” and “whether said devices are online or offline from a data channel associated with each device,” and that no reasonable jury could find infringement under the correct constructions. View "SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc'ns, AB" on Justia Law

SimpleAir filed suit against Google in 2011, alleging that Google’s Cloud Messenger and Cloud to Device Messenger services its 914 patent. A jury determined none of the asserted claims were invalid, and that Google’s Cloud Messenger Services infringed each of the asserted claims. A jury awarded $85 million to SimpleAir. The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that the lower court erred in construing the claim term “a data channel” and “whether said devices are online or offline from a data channel associated with each device,” and that no reasonable jury could find infringement under the correct constructions. View "SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc'ns, AB" on Justia Law

GeoTag’s patent claims systems and methods of searching online information within a geographically and topically organized database. It describes a preferred embodiment that organizes websites and files within a directory-like structure of folders categorized by geography and topic. In that embodiment, an Internet user may navigate to a folder labeled for a particular geographic area and then conduct a topical search within that area, such as for “information about specific goods and services in the geographic location.” Google sought a declaratory judgment that the patent was invalid and not infringed by Google’s AdWords platform. The court held that AdWords does not practice the “dynamically replicated” limitation of the patent because it does not search a narrow geographic area and automatically add results from a broader area; AdWords conducts a broad search for “all responsive ads” and then “consecutively filters” results. Before the court entered summary judgment, GeoTag unsuccessfully moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the complaint did not establish a substantial controversy “of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant" declaratory judgment. The Federal Circuit upheld the claim construction and held that the court retained subject matter jurisdiction over GeoTag’s infringement counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. 1338(a), regardless of any flaw in Google’s complaint. View "Microsoft Corp. v. GeoTag, Inc." on Justia Law

GeoTag’s patent claims systems and methods of searching online information within a geographically and topically organized database. It describes a preferred embodiment that organizes websites and files within a directory-like structure of folders categorized by geography and topic. In that embodiment, an Internet user may navigate to a folder labeled for a particular geographic area and then conduct a topical search within that area, such as for “information about specific goods and services in the geographic location.” Google sought a declaratory judgment that the patent was invalid and not infringed by Google’s AdWords platform. The court held that AdWords does not practice the “dynamically replicated” limitation of the patent because it does not search a narrow geographic area and automatically add results from a broader area; AdWords conducts a broad search for “all responsive ads” and then “consecutively filters” results. Before the court entered summary judgment, GeoTag unsuccessfully moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the complaint did not establish a substantial controversy “of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant" declaratory judgment. The Federal Circuit upheld the claim construction and held that the court retained subject matter jurisdiction over GeoTag’s infringement counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. 1338(a), regardless of any flaw in Google’s complaint. View "Microsoft Corp. v. GeoTag, Inc." on Justia Law

Romag sells patented magnetic snap fasteners under its registered trademark. Fossil designs, markets, and distributes fashion accessories, including small leather goods, manufactured by independent businesses. In 2002, the companies entered into an agreement for use of ROMAG fasteners in Fossil products. Fossil instructed its authorized manufacturers to purchase ROMAG fasteners from Romag licensee Wing Yip. Fossil’s authorized manufacturer, Superior, purchased tens of thousands of ROMAG fasteners from Wing Yip from 2002-2008. In 2008-2010, Superior purchased substantially fewer fasteners. In 2010, Romag discovered that certain Fossil handbags contained counterfeit fasteners. Romag sued, alleging patent infringement, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and violation of Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. Romag sought a preliminary injunction on November 23, three days before “Black Friday,” the highest-volume U.S. shopping day. The motion was granted on November 30. In 2014, a jury found Fossil liable; awarded a reasonable royalty of $51,052.14 for patent infringement; and, for trademark infringement, made an advisory award of $90,759.36 of Fossil’s profits under an unjust enrichment theory, and $6,704,046.00 of profits under a deterrence theory. Despite its deterrence award, the jury found that infringement was not willful. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that Romag’s delay in bringing suit until just before “Black Friday” constituted laches, its reduction of the reasonable royalty award by 18%, and its holding that Romag was not entitled to an award of profits because the infringement was not willful. View "Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc." on Justia Law

Romag sells patented magnetic snap fasteners under its registered trademark. Fossil designs, markets, and distributes fashion accessories, including small leather goods, manufactured by independent businesses. In 2002, the companies entered into an agreement for use of ROMAG fasteners in Fossil products. Fossil instructed its authorized manufacturers to purchase ROMAG fasteners from Romag licensee Wing Yip. Fossil’s authorized manufacturer, Superior, purchased tens of thousands of ROMAG fasteners from Wing Yip from 2002-2008. In 2008-2010, Superior purchased substantially fewer fasteners. In 2010, Romag discovered that certain Fossil handbags contained counterfeit fasteners. Romag sued, alleging patent infringement, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and violation of Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. Romag sought a preliminary injunction on November 23, three days before “Black Friday,” the highest-volume U.S. shopping day. The motion was granted on November 30. In 2014, a jury found Fossil liable; awarded a reasonable royalty of $51,052.14 for patent infringement; and, for trademark infringement, made an advisory award of $90,759.36 of Fossil’s profits under an unjust enrichment theory, and $6,704,046.00 of profits under a deterrence theory. Despite its deterrence award, the jury found that infringement was not willful. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that Romag’s delay in bringing suit until just before “Black Friday” constituted laches, its reduction of the reasonable royalty award by 18%, and its holding that Romag was not entitled to an award of profits because the infringement was not willful. View "Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc." on Justia Law

Clare sued Chrysler for infringement, based on Chrysler’s RamBox pickup truck storage system. RamBox is plainly visible and is stamped ‘RAMBOX’ in large lettering. Clare’s patents purport to add storage “without altering the external appearance of the bed and without significant reduction in the carrying capacity.” Storage area is in the side of the bed “adjacent [to] the wheel well area, and along the length of the bed.” The external side panel is used to access the storage. The only visible modifications to the external side panel are two vertical lines where the side panel is cut. The hinge is out-of-sight on the inside of the side panel; the latch and lock are out-of-sight on the interior side of the bed, so that “one would not readily recognize the modification to the bed ... those with intent to steal tools, etc. would not recognize the hidden storage.” The Federal Circuit affirmed construction of the “external appearance limitations,” agreeing that no reasonable juror could find that RamBox, with its numerous and obvious visible distinctions, is not obvious from the outward appearance of the truck, and summary judgment of invalidity on the remaining claims, for failure under the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112. View "Clare v. Chrysler Grp., LLC" on Justia Law

ACS's patent relates to “creels” for supplying yarn and other stranded materials to a manufacturing process. ACS sued Shaw for infringement, but voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice. Within one year of service of the complaint (35 U.S.C. 315(b)), Shaw sought inter partes review (IPR), proposing 15 grounds of rejection. Most of the grounds were directed to the non-interposing claims, but two grounds alleged that interposing claims would have been obvious over German patents and another alleged that interposing claims were anticipated by a U.S. patent (Payne). Ultimately, the Patent Board found that Shaw had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the interposing claims were unpatentable based on the instituted grounds, but had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the non-interposing claims were unpatentable based on the instituted grounds. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, agreeing that dismissals without prejudice leave the parties as though the action had never been brought and finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision not to institute IPR on the Payne-based ground, including its decision not to consider the Payne-based ground in its final decision. The court vacated in part, finding the Board’s decision as to “tube Q” ambiguous at best, and remanding for fact findings. View "Shaw Indus. Group v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

MAG Aerospace alleged that B/E Aerospace infringed its patents for quick-repair vacuum toilets, such as those commonly found on commercial aircrafts. The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement on all patents and ruled that the doctrine of assignor estoppel barred B/E from arguing that the asserted patents are invalid. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the district court’s finding that B/E’s toilet bowl cannot be replaced “toollessly” as required by one challenged patent; its construction of “outturned flange supported by the top of the support structure;” and its finding concerning “valve sets.” One of the inventors of the patents-in-suit, Pondelick, now works for B/E. Pondelick assigned the patents to his former employer, who in turn assigned them to MAG. The district court correctly concluded that Pondelick was in privity with B/E so that assignor estoppel applies to bar B/E from attacking the validity of the patents. View "MAG Aerospace Indus., Inc v. B/E Aerospace, Inc." on Justia Law

Cree’s 175 patent, filed in 1996, is entitled “Solid State White Light Emitter and Display Using Same.” The claims at issue are directed to the production of white light through the “down-conversion” of blue light from light-emitting diodes (LEDs”. Downconversion is the process in which high-energy (shorter wavelength) light is absorbed by a material and then reemitted as lower energy (longer wavelength) light. By choosing the particular absorbing material, light at a desired wavelength (and thus a desired color) can be produced. During ex parte reexamination, an examiner rejected six claims as obvious under multiple combinations of prior art references. The Board upheld the rejection. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments based on licensing of the patent and press releases. The court noted the lack of evidence that the commercial success was caused by the subject matter of the 175 patent as distinct from the prior art. View "In re: Cree, Inc." on Justia Law