Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

In 2009, a jury found Akamai’s 703 patent not invalid and directly infringed by Limelight, but the court entered judgment as a matter of law overturning the infringement verdict on the basis of divided infringement. After several rounds of appeals and remands, culminating with the en Federal Circuit’s reversal of the district court’s JMOL determination on the divided infringement issue, the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court did not err in its claim constructions of the terms “tagging” and “optimal” and appropriately instructed the jury and did not err in allowing Akamai to present a theory by its lost profits expert. The court ordered reinstatement of the jury’s original verdict and damages award. View "Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc." on Justia Law

Verinata and Ariosa compete in the field of noninvasive prenatal diagnostics, including testing for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Verinata owns the 430 patent, which describes methods of noninvasive prenatal testing for the presence of fetal chromosomal abnormalities, particularly “aneuploidy,” i.e., the presence of an abnormal number of copies of a chromosome. Ariosa petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for inter partes review and challenged the claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Board concluded that Ariosa had not met its burden of proving that claims 1–18 and 19–30 would have been obvious.The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded because the Board’s language suggests it did not sufficiently consider a 2008 patent that discloses a method of determining fetal aneuploidy by isolating fetal cells, not cell-free DNA. View "Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc." on Justia Law

Netlist’s 537 patent, entitled “Memory Module with a Circuit Providing Load Isolation and Memory Domain Translation” has a 2006 application date and relates to computer system memory modules, which Netlist designs and manufactures. The invention improves the performance or capacity of the memory modules. Inphi sought inter partes reexamination in 2010. The examiner rejected claims 1–9, 12–31, and 34–44 as obvious in view of the prior art. To overcome the rejection, Netlist amended its claims, narrowing them. Thereafter, the examiner withdrew the rejection of the claims and issued a final decision. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed, rejecting an argument that the amendment, which introduced a negative claim limitation, failed to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 1. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the Board’s determination that the negative claim limitation met the requirements of section 112, paragraph 1 was supported by substantial evidence; properly described, alternative features are sufficient to satisfy the written description standard of section 112, paragraph 1 for negative claim limitations. View "Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc." on Justia Law

Cubist Pharmaceuticals owns five follow-on patents that relate to the antibiotic daptomycin, which it sells under the name Cubicin. Hospira sought authorization to sell a generic version of Cubist’s daptomycin product, which led Cubist to file suit charging Hospira with patent infringement (Hatch-Waxman Act, 21 U.S.C. 355 and 35 U.S.C. 156 and 271(e)(2). The district court held, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, that some of the asserted claims of four of Cubist’s patents were invalid for anticipation and all the asserted claims of those patents sdfd invalid for obviousness. As for the fifth patent, the court held the two asserted claims not invalid and ruled that Hospira’s proposed products infringed those claims. View "Cubist Pharma., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc." on Justia Law

The International Trade Commission investigated DeLorme for violating the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by importing, selling for importation, or selling after importation “two-way global satellite communication devices, system and components thereof” that allegedly infringed BriarTek’s patent, directed to emergency monitoring and reporting systems comprising a user unit and a monitoring system that communicate through a satellite network. The accused products included DeLorme’s InReach satellite-communication devices and software used with the devices. The Commission terminated the investigation based on entry of a consent order, in which DeLorme agreed not to import, sell for importation, or sell or offer for sale within the U.S. after importation any two-way global satellite communication devices, system, and components thereof, that infringe the Patent until the expiration, invalidation, or unenforceability of the Patent. In 2013, the Commission instituted an enforcement proceeding based on BriarTek’s allegations that DeLorme sold InReach devices containing imported components. DeLorme sought declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of the patent. While DeLorme’s action was pending, the Commission found that DeLorme violated the Order and imposed a civil penalty of $6,242,500. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the Consent Order instead prohibited DeLorme from using imported components only if the components themselves infringed the patent. View "DeLorme Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

Advanced Steel owns a patent describing systems and methods of loading shipping containers with bulk material for storage or transport. Material is loaded into the top of a rectangular container packer, which is moved along a transfer base by a hydraulically powered piston-and-cylinder unit toward a shipping container. A second piston-and-cylinder unit then pushes the material out of the container packer and into the shipping container by a push blade. The district court entered summary judgment, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, that the patent was not infringed by “Acculoader,” which has a container packer piston-and-cylinder unit connected to the floor of the container packer, approximately 35% down its length. The court determined that the patent did not contemplate a particular definition of the term “proximate end” and that the ordinary meaning applies. In the Acculoader, the “connection point [of the container packer piston-and-cylinder unit to the container packer] is not at the proximate end,” so that “the Acculoader does not literally infringe the 950 patent.” On the doctrine of equivalents, the court determined that “[n]o reasonable jury could find [the Acculoader’s] connection point to be equivalent to the ‘container packer proximate end.’” View "Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equip., Inc." on Justia Law

Imaginal sued L&P and Simmons alleging that L&P’s TopOff Automatic Stapling Machine infringed the 402 Patent, which is directed to a process for building box springs. After a jury awarded damages for infringement, L&P redesigned the TopOff Machine and the Simmons machines were modified accordingly, to avoid infringement. Before the redesign was complete, Imaginal filed suit again. The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement, finding the district court’s claim construction, concerning the “vision guidance system” consistent with the claim language and specification. View "Imaginal Systematic, LLC v. Leggett & Platt, Inc." on Justia Law

Enoxaparin, an anticoagulant that helps prevent blood clots, was approved for U.S. marketing in 1993 under the name Lovenox. In 2010, Momentaed market a generic version of enoxaparin. Momenta is also the assignee of the 886 patent, directed to a process used to ensure each batch of generic enoxaparin meets quality standards. Teva, another generic manufacturer, sought to enter the enoxaparin market. It does not manufacture enoxaparin, but sources it from an Italian company that manufactures, analyzes, tests, packages, and labels Teva’s generic version of enoxaparin. Momenta sued Teva for infringement, asserting that it intended to market in the U.S. an enoxaparin product that was manufactured using a process covered by the 886 patent. The court found Teva’s conduct did not infringe because it fell within the safe harbor in 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(1); it is not infringement for a party to use a patented invention “solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs.” The court also rejected Momenta’s contention that Teva’s U.S. sales constitute infringement under section 271(g), which prohibits selling within the U.S. a product which is made by a process patented in the U.S. The Federal Circuit affirmed as to noninfringement under 271(g), but vacated the “safe harbor” determination. View "Momenta Pharma, Inc. v. Teva Pharma. USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The Tariff Act of 1930 gives the International Trade Commission authority to remedy only those unfair acts that involve the importation of “articles” as described in 19 U.S.C. 1337(a). The Commission instituted an investigation based on a complaint filed by Align, concerning violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337 by reason of infringement of various claims of seven different patents concerning orthodontic devices. The accused “articles” were the transmission of the “digital models, digital data and treatment plans, expressed as digital data sets, which are virtual three-dimensional models of the desired positions of the patients’ teeth at various stages of orthodontic treatment” from Pakistan to the United States. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the Commission lacked jurisdiction. The Commission’s decision to expand the scope of its jurisdiction to include electronic transmissions of digital data runs counter to the “unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” View "ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a condition defined and diagnosed by its constellation of symptoms. A patient’s symptoms define the type of IBS with which a patient is diagnosed. Prometheus sued, alleging infringement of the 770 patent, which claims a method of treatment for IBS-D utilizing alosetron (brand name Lotronex), and has a priority date of 1997. The The district court found the claims invalid as obvious over the prior art or, in the alternative, invalid on grounds of obviousness-type double patenting over the now-expired 800 patent (issued in 1994). The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding the claims of the 770 patent invalid as obvious over the 800 patent and other prior art. View "Prometheus Labs, Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc." on Justia Law