Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Synopsys filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act, seeking to invalidate the Patent and Trademark Office’s regulation that allows the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute inter partes review on “all or some of the challenged claims,” 37 C.F.R. 42.108. The suit also challenged the PTO’s practice of issuing final decisions on fewer than all of the claims raised in a petition. The district court dismissed, finding that “Congress intended to preclude this Court from reviewing inter partes proceedings under the APA” and, alternatively, that the appeal from a final written decision of an inter partes review provides an adequate remedy, barring judicial review. Synopsys also appealed from a final order of the Board concerning inter partes review of the 376 patent, as failing to address every claim challenged in the petition for inter partes review. The Federal Circuit upheld the validity of the regulation and the practice and dismissed the appeal as moot. View "Synopsys, Inc. v. Lee" on Justia Law

Rosebud fsued Adobe for infringing the 760 patent in 2010. The suit was dismissed in 2010. Rosebud sued Adobe for infringing the 699 patent in 2012; the suit that was dismissed in 2014, two weeks after Rosebud sued Adobe for the third time, alleging that it infringed the 280 patent. The 280 patent is a continuation of the 699 patent, which is a continuation of the 760 patent. The patents teach techniques for enabling collaborative work over a computer network. Adobe discontinued use of the accused technology 10 months before the issuance of the 280 patent and claimed it had no actual notice of the published application that led to the 280 patent. The court granted Adobe summary judgment, reasoning that Rosebud had not met 35 U.S.C. 154(d)’s requirement of actual notice because Rosebud’s evidence did not identify the 280 patent application by number, and was, at best, evidence of constructive notice. It rejected the idea that the parties’ litigation history created an affirmative duty for Adobe to search for Rosebud’s published applications. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Even when all reasonable inferences are made in Rosebud’s favor, no reasonable jury could find that Adobe had actual knowledge of the published 280 patent application. View "Rosebud LMS Inc. v. Adobe Sys. Inc." on Justia Law

AngioScore sells angioplasty balloon catheters (AngioSculpt), designed to open arterial blockages. Three AngioScore patents each list three inventors, but none lists Lotan as an inventor. TriReme is a competitor of AngioScore. Apparently concerned that AngioScore might charge TriReme with infringement, TriReme sought to acquire an interest in the AngioScore patents from Dr. Lotan, who performed consulting services for AngioScore. Lotan granted TriReme an exclusive license to “any and all legal and equitable rights” he held in the AngioScore patents. Lotan claimed that his inventive contribution arose from his work in connection with the development of the AngioSculpt catheters in 2003, which is reflected in the AngioScore patents. AngioScore’s defense was based on a 2003 consulting contract between AngioScore and Lotan. AngioScore asserts that it acquired rights to all inventive work completed by Lotan. TriReme brought suit for correction of inventorship, 35 U.S.C. 256. The district court dismissed, finding that TriReme lacked standing. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded for consideration of whether Lotan’s continued work on AngioSculpt after the contract’s effective date came within the contract’s language. View "TriReme Med., LLC v. Angioscore, Inc." on Justia Law

Samuel’s 575 patent, filed in 1997, claims inventions in the field of intraluminal stent technology. One type of intraluminal stent is a vascular stent. Vascular stents are used to treat medical conditions wherein a vascular wall is unduly constricted, as in the case of vascular stenosis, or unduly enlarged, as in the case of aneurysm. Either of these medical conditions poses an unacceptable risk of insufficient blood flow or vascular rupture. The 575 patent generally claims intraluminal stents that can be affixed to a vascular wall via the use of “an inflatable and deflatable cuff” without penetrating the vessel wall. In a 2013 infringement suit, defendant TriVascular filed a petition for inter partes review. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that TriVascular failed to demonstrate that the challenged claims were unpatentable over the applied art; adopted Samuels’ construction of “inflatable protrusions,” as “protrusions that are themselves inflatable, i.e., expandable by being filled with fluid;” and concluded that the 575 patent’s “inflatable protrusions” were not disclosed by the prior art. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels" on Justia Law

Columbia’s six patents involve applying data analytics techniques to computer security to detect and block malware. Columbia sued Symantec, alleging infringement. Based on the district court’s claim constructions, the parties agreed to a judgment of non-infringement and a finding of invalidity for indefiniteness. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, holding that the district court correctly construed the term “byte sequence feature” in connection with two patents and the term “probabilistic model of normal computer system usage” in connection with two other patents and correctly found certain claims indefinite. Reversing in part, the court held that the district court incorrectly construed the term “anomalous” in other patent claims by requiring the model of normal computer usage be built only with “typical, attack free data.” View "Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp." on Justia Law

Oxycodone hydrochloride—the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) in OxyContin®—is an opioid analgesic used to treat moderate to severe pain. In 2014 the FDA became concerned about 14-hydroxycodeinone, which belongs to a class of potentially dangerous compounds known as alpha, beta unsaturated ketones (ABUKs), and mandated that oxycodone hydrochloride manufacturers either provide evidence that the 14-hydroxy levels in their formulations were safe or reduce the amount of 14-hydroxy to less than 10 ppm. Purdue’s four low-ABUK patents recite an improved formulation of oxycodone hydrochloride, describing an oxycodone salt with extremely low levels of ABUKS. In 2011, Purdue sued Teva for infringement of the low-ABUK patents in response to Teva’s filing of an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) seeking FDA approval to market generic versions of Reformulated OxyContin®. Purdue later filed similar lawsuits against others. In consolidated cases, the district court found that the asserted claims were infringed by Teva’s proposed generic product, but also held that all of the claims were invalid as anticipated by or obvious over the prior art. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding claims obvious in light of prior art, 35 U.S.C. 103(a). View "Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Epic Pharma, LLC" on Justia Law

Avid asserted two patents against Harmonic; both concern data storage systems that allow users to store and retrieve large files such as movies. On one of two claim elements that were the focus of the dispute at trial, the district court gave the jury a narrow construction based on what the court determined to be a prosecution disclaimer. The jury found that Harmonic did not infringe the patents. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that construction to be incorrect and that the error required setting aside the general non-infringement verdicts. Harmonic did not argue that the evidence compelled a finding of non-infringement independently of the construction error. Avid is entitled to a new trial although satisfaction of the particular claim element was settled because Harmonic did not dispute Avid’s contention that Harmonic’s system satisfies this claim element when properly construed. Avid has not shown entitlement to a judgment of infringement: the evidence did not compel a finding of infringement of the other claim element in dispute— which was without a claim construction. View "Avid Tech, Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc." on Justia Law

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