Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Bivalirudin is a synthetic peptide used to prevent blood clotting in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Bivalirudin’s pharmacological properties were known before the filing of Medicines’ 727 and 343 patents and were covered by Medicines’ 404 patent, which expired in 2015. The claimed inventions of the 727 and 343 patents are directed to minimizing impurities in batches of bivalirudin, an active ingredient, typically distributed as a dry powder that must be compounded with a base before being administered to a patient as an intravenous injection. Medicines received FDA approval to market a base-compounded bivalirudin drug product in 2000, and has sold the approved product since 2001 under the tradename ANGIOMAX®, before the critical date of the 727-343 patents. Mylan submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application, seeking to market a generic version of ANGIOMAX. The district court held that the 343 patent was not infringed because Mylan did not satisfy the “efficient mixing” limitation of asserted claims and that the 727 patent was infringed because its asserted claims did not include an “efficient mixing” limitation. Without addressing the validity of the patents, the Federal Circuit reversed as to the 727 patent and affirmed as to the 343 patent. Both include a “batches” limitation that requires batch consistency, which, according to the patents, is achieved through efficient mixing. Efficient mixing is required by the asserted claims of both patents. View "The Medicines Co. v. Mylan, Inc." on Justia Law

The Novartis Patents-in-Suit belong to the same patent family, entitled “TTS Containing an Antioxidant,” and disclose a “[p]harmaceutical composition comprising” a compound commonly known as rivastigmine “in free base or acid addition salt form and an antioxidant,” “useful . . . for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease.” The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found that various claims would have been obvious over prior art, 35 U.S.C. 103(a). The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument challenging the PTAB’s conclusion that prior judicial opinions did not control its inquiry and the PTAB’s factual findings in support of its obviousness conclusion. The court concluded that the record here was differed from that in the prior litigation cited by Novartis and that substantial evidence supported the PTAB’s findings with respect to motivation to combine prior references. View "Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc." on Justia Law

Wasica’s (now-expired) 524 patent describes systems for monitoring tire pressure in vehicles. The patent addresses problems with inaccuracy in prior art by synchronizing components of the tire pressure system. In two inter partes review proceedings, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board found certain claims unpatentable as anticipated or obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Wasica Finance GMBH v. Continental Automotive Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

The 631 application, entitled “Glenoid Implant for Minimally Invasive Shoulder Replacement Surgery,” describes an invention related to “rotator cuff sparing procedures and associated devices for shoulder replacement surgery.” The application improves on the prior art by offering “simple and less invasive perpendicular access to the humeral and glenoid joint surfaces,” which “spares the rotator cuff tendons and allows for a quicker and more functional recovery.” The surgery described in the application involves two main steps. First, the surgeon removes “a minimal amount of bone from the peripheral surface of the glenoid”—a process called reaming. Second, the surgeon places an implant in the reamed cavity. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that several claims were anticipated by prior art, 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The Federal Circuit reversed; the finding of anticipation was not supported by substantial evidence. View "In re: Chudik" on Justia Law

The Tuschl patents relate to RNA interference, a process for “silencing” genes from expressing the proteins they encode, which may be useful in treating various diseases. In 2000, before the invention was reduced to practice, Dr. Tuschl published an article describing the discoveries. Weeks later, Dr. Bass published a mini-review that focused on Tuschl’s article and included her own hypotheses about enzymatic processes that may be responsible for the RNAi activity reported in Tuschl’s article. Tuschl read Bass’ article and recognized and successfully tested her hypothesis. Bass’ mini-review was cited as prior art during prosecution of the Tuschl patents, each of which issued. Bass sued for correction of ownership, claiming that Bass should be named as either a sole or joint inventor of the patents. During depositions, Bass made admissions undermining allegations that Bass reduced the Tuschl invention to practice and that Bass collaborated with the inventors. On the eve of the deadline for dispositive motions, Bass withdrew the sole inventorship claims, but not the joint inventorship claim. The district court rejected the joint inventorship claims on summary judgment, finding no evidence of collaboration between Bass and the Tuschl inventors. The district court declined a request for eight million dollars in attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the case was not objectively unreasonable when all reasonable inferences were drawn in Bass's favor. View "University of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft" on Justia Law

TVIIM’s 168 patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Assessing the Security of a Computer,” describes “a security system which identifies security vulnerabilities and discrepancies for a computing system.” The patent both identifies potential security threats to a computer and, under certain conditions, recommends action to a user to stop the threat. TVIIM sued McAfee. A jury determined that McAfee did not infringe the 168 patent and that the 168 patent was invalid. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings of non-infringement and invalidity under the court’s single construction of the claim terms: “as a result of/in response to,” “various utility functions,” and “reporting the discovered vulnerabilities.” TVIIM did not seek construction of any of the three terms at trial. View "TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc." on Justia Law

The patents-in-suit relate to soybeans genetically engineered to tolerate herbicide, and, particularly, to the Bayer-developed dmmg gene. The parties disagreed over the scope of Bayer’s license of the patents to MS Tech, specifically, whether the license granted MS Tech a broad license to commercialize and sublicense the soybean technology. MS Tech had sublicensed to Dow. When Bayer sued Dow for infringement, Dow raised that sublicense as an affirmative defense. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Dow; the Federal Circuit affirmed. The district court then awarded Dow attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, declaring this an "exceptional case.” The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting Bayer’s weak positions on the merits and litigation conduct. “Bayer’s own witnesses as well as key documents contradicted Bayer’s contorted reading of the contract.” Bayer’s arguments were “fallacious” because they were “implausible” and “made no business sense” in light of the facts surrounding the agreements and their negotiation. View "Bayer Cropscience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC" on Justia Law

The patents involves simulation/emulation technology. In 1998, Mentor filed the application that would become the 376 patent. The inventors, Mentor employees, assigned the invention to Mentor; they subsequently left Mentor and founded EVE. In 2006, Mentor sued, alleging EVE’s emulation and verification system infringed its patents. The parties settled; EVE obtained a license to the patents, including a provision terminating the license if EVE were acquired by another company in the emulation industry. In 2012, Mentor learned Synopsys might acquire EVE. Mentor’s CEO contacted his Synopsys counterpart, offering to waive the license's confidentiality provision to inform Synopsys that the license would terminate if Synopsys acquired EVE. Synopsys and EVE sought a declaratory judgment that the patents were invalid and not infringed. Synopsys acquired EVE. Mentor counterclaimed willful infringement. With regard to the 376 patent, the Federal Circuit affirmed that assignor estoppel bars Synopsys from challenging its validity and upheld the infringement verdict and damages award. The court reversed summary judgment that Synopsys’ 109 patent was indefinite; affirmed summary judgment that Synopsys’ 526 patent lacks patent-eligible subject matter; vacated a ruling precluding Mentor from presenting evidence of willful infringement; reversed summary judgment that Mentor’s 882 patent lacked written description support; and reversed summary judgment that Mentor’s infringement allegations regarding the 531 and 176 patents were barred by claim preclusion. View "Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Nidec's patent discloses a system for controlling the torque of an electromagnetic motor. Following an inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that claim 21 was anticipated. The Federal Circuit reversed that decision as not supported by substantial evidence. The Board incorrectly held that anticipation can be found even when a prior art reference fails to disclose a claim element so long as a skilled artisan reading the reference would “at once envisage” the claimed arrangement. View "Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor, LLC" on Justia Law

TVI’s patent discloses an inertial tracking system for tracking the motion of an object relative to a moving reference frame. Inertial sensors, such as accelerometers and gyroscopes, measure specific forces associated with changes in a sensor’s position and orientation relative to a known starting positionl they are used in various applications, including aircraft navigation and virtual reality simulations. When mounted on a moving object, inertial sensors can calculate the position, orientation, and velocity of the object in three-dimensional space, based on a specified starting point, without any other external information. The Federal Circuit reversed the Claims Court’s determination that certain claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but specify a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform. The mathematical equations are a consequence of the arrangement of the sensors and the unconventional choice of reference frame in order to calculate position and orientation. Far from claiming the equations themselves, the claims seek to protect only the application of physics to the unconventional configuration of sensors as disclosed. View "Thalex Visionix Inc.. v. United States" on Justia Law