Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Akzo’s patent is directed to an extrusion process that generates low viscosity aqueous polymer dispersions. To achieve uniform distribution of the polymer in the aqueous medium, the specification notes that “the mixture cannot be heated above the boiling point of the carrier liquid, or else the liquid boils and it becomes impossible to disperse the polymer.” The claimed invention aims to prevent such boiling and achieve uniform polymer distribution by maintaining the pressure in the extruder above atmospheric. Specifically, “[t]he pressure in the extruder [is] maintained by . . . connecting the outlet of the extruder to a pressurized collection vessel.” The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment that Dow did not infringe the patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents and upheld a conclusion that the claims are not indefinite. View "Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co." on Justia Law

Waters’ patent relates to systems that use highly compressed gas, compressible liquid, or supercritical fluid. In liquid chromatography. The patent is directed to using a pump as a pressure source for supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC), a more efficient and advanced form of chromatography. SFC uses pumps to regulate the flow of compressible fluids, such as supercritical carbon dioxide, through a column. The patent provides an alternative SFC system, allowing the effective use of a less expensive pump than was required by prior art. In 2011, Waters sued Aurora for infringement. Aurora sought inter partes reexamination of all claims, citing new prior art. In response to an initial Office Action rejecting all claims, Waters amended independent claims and added dependent claims, with an additional limitation. In 2012 Agilent acquired substantially all of Aurora’s assets, agreeing to be bound by the outcome of the reexamination proceedings.The Board reversed all of the rejections, listing Aurora as the third-party requester and Aurora’s counsel as counsel for the third-party requester. The Federal Circuit dismissed Agilent’s appeal; Aurora, not Agilent, is the third-party requester. Agilent lacked a cause of action to appeal. View "Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Waters Techs. Corp." on Justia Law

Lumen’s 073 patent is directed to facilitating multilateral decision-making by matching parties, using preference data from two classes of parties. FTB operates a search website with a comparison feature, “AssistMe,” that provides personalized product and service recommendations by asking the user questions about attributes of the desired product or service. Lumen alleged infringement. FTB repeatedly informed Lumen that FTB’s accused feature did not involve bilateral or multilateral preference matching. Before receiving any discovery, Lumen served preliminary infringement contentions, including a chart identifying the allegedly infringing features of AssistMe. The district court granted FTB judgment on the pleadings, holding that the patent’s claims are directed to an abstract idea and invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The court found claim construction unnecessary and awarded attorney fees. Finding the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285, the court stated “basic” pre-suit investigation would have shown that AssistMe only used one party's preference data. The court explained factors that supported enhancing the lodestar amount, including “the need to deter the plaintiff’s predatory strategy, the plaintiff’s desire to extract a nuisance settlement, the plaintiff’s threats to make the litigation expensive, and the frivolous nature of the plaintiff’s claims.” The Federal Circuit affirmed the "exceptional" finding, but remanded for proper explanation of the calculation of fees. View "Lumen View Tech., LLC v. Findthebest.Com, Inc" on Justia Law

In May 2003, Wyeth filed the 894 Patent Application, claiming a pharmacological method for cancer treatment. In July 2003, the PTO mailed a Notice to File Missing Parts. Wyeth filed the missing parts in December 2003. The statutory deadline for the PTO to issue its first office action was 14 months from the filing date. In August 2005, having received no office action, Wyeth sent a letter. In August 2005, 404 days after the deadline, the PTO mailed a restriction requirement, 35 U.S.C. 121, which generally constitutes an office action. The deadline for Wyeth to reply was extended to February 10, 2006. On that day, during a telephone interview, the Examiner acknowledged that the restriction requirement was not complete. The PTO issued a corrected requirement in February 2006. In May 2006, Wyeth filed its response. Later, the PTO delayed the mailing of a separate office action for 280 days. In October 2011, the PTO issued a Notice of Allowance. In April 2012, the application issued as the 768 patent, reflecting an award of 1291 days of patent term adjustment, 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(2). The Federal Circuit affirmed denial of an adjustment for 197 days from August 10, 2005-February 23, 2006. Discussions concerning the challenged restriction requirement, which satisfied the notice requirement, were part of the typical “back and forth” of prosecution, not the type of error intended to be compensated. View "Pfizer, Inc. v. Lee" on Justia Law

MG’s patents relate to “financial transactions including a method for a borrower to evaluate and/or obtain financing.” MG sued for infringement. Defendants claimed that the patents failed to claim patent-eligible subject matter. The judge’s Standing Patent Rules (SPRs), developed “based largely on information obtained from over 100 patent practitioners and professors, a review of all the other local patent rules, and a review of related literature,” required that a party opposing an infringement claim serve invalidity contentions after a scheduling conference. Defendants served invalidity contentions, including the statement: “Defendants do not present any grounds of invalidity based on 35 U.S.C. 101 . . . at this time. The final claim construction may require such an assertion of invalidity.” The SPRs required final infringement contentions and expert reports following the issuance of an order construing claim terms. After the claim construction order, final invalidity contentions were served, citing 35 U.S.C. 101. The court agreed that an intervening Supreme Court decision constituted good cause for reviving the invalidity claim and later concluded that all of the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “anonymous loan shopping” and included no “inventive concept.” The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding denial of MG’s motion to strike the section 101 defense and the finding that the asserted claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. View "Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Ethicon’s patent is directed to a surgical device used to staple, secure, and seal tissue that has been incised. As is commonly done during endoscopic procedures, a surgeon will insert the device into the patient and will pull a trigger to latch onto a desired tissue. Once attached, the surgeon will then pull another trigger, which causes a blade to move, cutting the desired tissue. Simultaneously, rows of staples on either side of the cutting blade are actuated against a staple forming surface, both securing and sealing the newly-cut tissue. The Patent Trial and Appeals Board granted inter partes review found all challenged claims invalid as obvious over the prior art. The Federal Circuit rejected an argument that the Board’s final decision is invalid because the same Board panel made both the decision to institute and the final decision and upheld the determination that the claims would have been obvious over prior art. View "Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, LP" on Justia Law

Wi-LAN’s 802 patent concerns a wireless data communication technique called “MultiCode Direct-Sequence Spread Spectrum” (MC-DSSS). WiLAN asserts that the patented technique is embodied in several modern wireless communications standards. In 2011, Wi-LAN sued Apple and other technology companies for infringing two claims of the 802 patent by manufacturing and selling products complying with various wide-area communication standards. A jury found that Apple did not infringe and that the claims are invalid. The district court denied Wi-LAN’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial with respect to infringement, but it granted Wi-LAN’s motion for JMOL of no invalidity. The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict of non-infringement as supported by substantial evidence, but reversed the finding of no invalidity. The JMOL determination of no invalidity was based on a post-verdict reconstruction of the claims that went far beyond clarifying a meaning inherent in the construction or making plain what should have been obvious to the jury. The post-verdict reconstruction altered the scope of the original construction and undermined Apple’s invalidity case post-verdict. View "Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law

In 2005, Urbanski filed the 614 application, entitled “Protein and Fiber Hydrolysates” and is directed to a method of enzymatic hydrolysis of soy fiber, such that the product has a reduced water holding capacity suitable for use as food additives. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of certain claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the determination that the claims would have been obvious over cited references relating to enzymatic hydrolysis of dietary fibers, which are readily combinable. View "In re: Urbanski" on Justia Law

STAR owns a patent that describes methods for generating smoke that “enables the presence and location of leaks in a fluid system (e.g. the evaporative or brake system of a motor vehicle) to be accurately and visually detected depending upon rate of the air flow through the fluid system under test and whether smoke escapes from the system.” Redline sought inter partes review. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied Redline’s motion to submit supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. 42.123(a) and found Redline failed to show that claims of the patent would have been obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board properly found that prior art, taken together, generate smoke via differing methods and thus, could not be combined to achieve the claimed invention recited in claims of STAR’s patent. View "Redline Detection, LLC v. STAR Envirotech, Inc." on Justia Law

In a wireless system, devices communicate with fixed “base stations” according to “protocols,” which are standardized procedures that govern how data exchanged between devices is formatted, ordered, maintained, and transmitted. Effective wireless communication requires that the transmitting device and the receiving device follow the same protocol. Commil’s patent covers a method of providing faster, more reliable handoffs of mobile devices from one base station to another as a mobile device moves throughout a network area. Cisco is a major supplier of WiFi access points and controllers. A jury found that Cisco infringed the patent and that the specified claims were not invalid as indefinite, for lack of enablement, or as lacking adequate written description. The Federal Circuit held that the district court gave the jury a legally erroneous instruction concerning indirect infringement and that Cisco’s evidence of a good-faith belief of invalidity could negate the requisite intent for induced infringement. The Supreme Court vacated. On remand, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court, concluding that substantial evidence did not support the jury’s finding that Cisco’s devices, when used, perform the “running” step of the asserted claims, precluding liability under either of Commil’s direct or inducement theories, View "Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc." on Justia Law