Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

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

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted SAMSF’s motion to cancel certain claims prior to its review of SAMSF’s patents relating to administering the “natural” stereoisomer of 5-methyl-tetrahydrofolic acid (L-5-MTHF) and other vitamins to treat symptoms associated with folate deficiency, which causes health issues, including cardiovascular disease, neurological disorders, birth defects, and skeletal disorders. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. The court prior rejected SAMSF’s arguments art taught away from its claimed use of a reduced folate to treat folate deficiency, and that objective indicia of non-obviousness further demonstrated the validity of its patents. Although the Board erred in its assessment of the evidence of licensing, its other factual findings were supported by substantial evidence. View "S. Ala. Med. Sci. Found. v. Gnosis, S.P.A." on Justia Law

At the request of Gnosis, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes review of claims of Merck’s patent, which relates to methods of using folates to lower levels of homocysteine in the human body. Homocysteine is an amino acid that, when present in excessive quantities, can cause severe cardiovascular, ocular, neurological, and skeletal disorders. Merck filed a response and a motion to cancel claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 13, which the Board granted. The Board only reviewed the patentability of dependent claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 19–22 and found them invalid for obviousness, 35 U.S.C. 103, in light of prior art. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the Board’s factual findings to the contrary were supported by substantial evidence and rejecting Merck’s arguments that the prior art taught away from the claimed method and that objective indicia of non-obviousness further support the patentability of the claims. View "Merck & Cie v. Gnosis, S.P.A." on Justia Law

DiStefano’s patent application claims a method that enables an individual to design a web page without having to “learn HTML or to interact extensively with a web page designer.” Its primary embodiment includes a graphical user interface with a primary display screen and an overlaid design plate that has menu buttons to assist in editing and a design place to edit web assets, such as Java applets, scripts, stock art, background images, and textures. Web assets can come from a web asset database, be uploaded directly by users, or be obtained from independent websites. When the user finishes editing a web asset, it is dragged from the design plate onto the website. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. 102, for anticipation. The Federal Circuit vacated, rejecting application of the printed matter analysis and a conclusion that “web assets’ origination from third party authors and the user cannot patentably distinguish (i.e., cannot breathe novelty into) the claimed method, particularly because the web assets’ origins have no functional relationship to the claimed method.” Although selected web assets likely communicate some information, the content of the information is not claimed; the information’s “origin,” is not part of informational content. Nothing in the claim calls for origin identification to be inserted into the content of the web asset. View "In re: DiStefano" on Justia Law

SightSound’s patents disclose methods for sale and distribution of digital audio and video signals, requiring: connection, by telecommunications lines, between a party’s memory and a second party’s memory; selling digital signals to the second party for a fee through telecommunications lines; transmitting the signal from the first memory to the second memory by telecommunications lines; and storing the signal in the second memory. Apple sought covered business method (CBM) review under the America Invents Act, 125 Stat. 284, arguing that claims were invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102. The Patent Board determined that the patents are CBM patents because they recite an activity that is “financial in nature,” and do not include novel, non-obvious technological features, then determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that the claims were anticipated or obvious by disclosures relating to a 1980s CompuSonics computer system. The petitions did not specifically allege obviousness over CompuSonics. The Board granted SightSound additional time and authorized sur-replies and new declaration testimony on the issue of obviousness, then rejected SightSound’s contention that the term “second memory” is limited to non-removable media and held seven claims invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the decision to consider issues not explicitly raised in the petitions, but affirmed that the patents are CBM patents and the final decision with respect to claim construction and obviousness. View "Sightsound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law

Unwired Planet sued the defendants for infringement, then initiated an action with the International Trade Commission (ITC). The district court stayed its litigation pending resolution of the ITC proceedings. After receiving an unfavorable claim construction ruling from an Administrative Law Judge, Unwired Planet obtained dismissal of the ITC investigation. The court lifted its stay. Unwired Planet indicated that if it adopted a construction of the disputed claim term that matched the ITC construction, Unwired Planet would concede non-infringement. The court adopted a construction that closely tracked that employed by the ALJ, noting in a footnote that its construction excluding devices employing “computer modules” did not exclude devices employing “microprocessors.” Believing that difference to be material, Unwired Planet did not stipulate to non-infringement. The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding it was unclear whether the accused products actually fell within the claims as construed, because the distinction between devices operating with microprocessors and those operating with computer modules was unclear. Unwired Planet then stipulated to non-infringement. The district court entered final judgment of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding construction of the term “mobile device” as “a portable wireless two-way communication device that does not contain a computer module.” View "Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple, Inc." on Justia Law

Prolitec, Inc. owned U.S. Patent No. 7,712,268 (“‘683 patent”). The ‘683 patent had only two apparatus claims. The United States Patent and trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that the two claims were unpatentable as anticipated and additionally as obvious. The Board also denied Prolitec’s motion to amend. Proletic appealed, and the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office intervened for the limited purpose of addressing the Board’s regulations and practices regarding motions to amend. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s findings that the two claims in the ‘683 patent were anticipated and the Board’s denial of Prolitec’s motion to amend, holding that the Board’s ultimate claim constructions were not in error and that the Board’s finding that both claims in the ’683 patent were anticipated was supported by substantial evidence. View "Prolitec, Inc. v. Scentair Techs., Inc." on Justia Law