Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

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

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