Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

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

Nike’s 011 patent, entitled “Article of footwear having a textile upper,” relates to the “upper” component, which has the general shape of a foot and forms a void for receiving the foot that is accessed using the ankle opening. The upper is made from a knitted textile using any number of warp knitting or weft knitting processes and consists of “a single material element that is formed to exhibit a unitary (i.e., one-piece) construction.” The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted a petition filed by Adidas and instituted inter partes review. Nike moved to amend, requesting cancellation of claims 1–46 and proposing substitute claims 47–50. The Board granted Nike’s motion to cancel claims 1–46, but denied the motion as to the substitute claims because Nike failed to meet its burden of establishing patentability of substitute claims 47–50. The Federal Circuit vacated the finding of obviousness and remanded; whether the claims are patentable requires a factual analysis that must be done by the Board in the first instance. View "Nike, Inc. v. Adidas, AG" on Justia Law

The patent focuses on methods and apparatuses for improving computer hard drives by reducing acoustic noise and vibrations. The Federal Circuit previously reversed a summary judgment ruling that no accused products met the patent’s “selected unwanted frequencies” limitation and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment on alternative grounds. The Federal Circuit then affirmed that Seagate’s accused hard drives do not infringe the asserted claims because they do not meet the user interface limitation of the claims and summary judgment of non-infringement by Compaq’s accused products, which do not meet the “commands” limitation of the claims at issue. The Federal Circuit vacated summary judgment of non-infringement by Compaq’s accused products as to other claims that do meet the “commands” limitation. The court held that the addition of the term “seek” in reexamination did not alter the scope of the claims, and reversed summary judgment of non-infringement based on the lower court’s determination that liability was precluded by intervening rights. View "Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp." on Justia Law

3M and TransWeb manufacture respirator filters, consisting of “nonwoven fibrous webs.” 3M sued Transweb for infringement of several patents. TransWeb sought a declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement. A jury found the patents to be invalid based on TransWeb’s prior public use of the patented method. In accordance with an advisory verdict from the jury, the district court found the patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. An inventor for the patents and a 3M in-house attorney acted with specific intent to deceive the patent office as to the TransWeb materials. The district court awarded approximately $26 million to TransWeb, including trebled attorney fees as antitrust damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding sufficient corroborating evidence to support the finding of prior public use by TransWeb, and that attorney fees are an appropriate basis for damages under the antitrust laws in this context. TransWeb’s attorney fees appropriately flow from the unlawful aspect of 3M’s antitrust violation and are an antitrust injury that can properly serve as the basis for antitrust damages. View "Transweb, LLC v. 3M Innovative Props. Co." on Justia Law

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