Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Imaginal sued L&P and Simmons alleging that L&P’s TopOff Automatic Stapling Machine infringed the 402 Patent, which is directed to a process for building box springs. After a jury awarded damages for infringement, L&P redesigned the TopOff Machine and the Simmons machines were modified accordingly, to avoid infringement. Before the redesign was complete, Imaginal filed suit again. The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement, finding the district court’s claim construction, concerning the “vision guidance system” consistent with the claim language and specification. View "Imaginal Systematic, LLC v. Leggett & Platt, Inc." on Justia Law

Enoxaparin, an anticoagulant that helps prevent blood clots, was approved for U.S. marketing in 1993 under the name Lovenox. In 2010, Momentaed market a generic version of enoxaparin. Momenta is also the assignee of the 886 patent, directed to a process used to ensure each batch of generic enoxaparin meets quality standards. Teva, another generic manufacturer, sought to enter the enoxaparin market. It does not manufacture enoxaparin, but sources it from an Italian company that manufactures, analyzes, tests, packages, and labels Teva’s generic version of enoxaparin. Momenta sued Teva for infringement, asserting that it intended to market in the U.S. an enoxaparin product that was manufactured using a process covered by the 886 patent. The court found Teva’s conduct did not infringe because it fell within the safe harbor in 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(1); it is not infringement for a party to use a patented invention “solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs.” The court also rejected Momenta’s contention that Teva’s U.S. sales constitute infringement under section 271(g), which prohibits selling within the U.S. a product which is made by a process patented in the U.S. The Federal Circuit affirmed as to noninfringement under 271(g), but vacated the “safe harbor” determination. View "Momenta Pharma, Inc. v. Teva Pharma. USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The Tariff Act of 1930 gives the International Trade Commission authority to remedy only those unfair acts that involve the importation of “articles” as described in 19 U.S.C. 1337(a). The Commission instituted an investigation based on a complaint filed by Align, concerning violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337 by reason of infringement of various claims of seven different patents concerning orthodontic devices. The accused “articles” were the transmission of the “digital models, digital data and treatment plans, expressed as digital data sets, which are virtual three-dimensional models of the desired positions of the patients’ teeth at various stages of orthodontic treatment” from Pakistan to the United States. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the Commission lacked jurisdiction. The Commission’s decision to expand the scope of its jurisdiction to include electronic transmissions of digital data runs counter to the “unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” View "ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a condition defined and diagnosed by its constellation of symptoms. A patient’s symptoms define the type of IBS with which a patient is diagnosed. Prometheus sued, alleging infringement of the 770 patent, which claims a method of treatment for IBS-D utilizing alosetron (brand name Lotronex), and has a priority date of 1997. The The district court found the claims invalid as obvious over the prior art or, in the alternative, invalid on grounds of obviousness-type double patenting over the now-expired 800 patent (issued in 1994). The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding the claims of the 770 patent invalid as obvious over the 800 patent and other prior art. View "Prometheus Labs, Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc." on Justia Law

Belden and Berk-Tek compete in making and selling telecommunications cable and cabling systems. Belden’s 503 patent, issued in 2000, discloses a method of making a cable by passing a core and conducting wires through one or more dies, bunching the wires into grooves on the core, twisting the bunch to close the cable, and jacketing the entire assembly. On Berk-Tek’s motion, the PTO instituted inter partes review and rejected claims 1–4 of the 503 patent for obviousness, while confirming claims 5 and 6. The Federal Circuit affirmed rejection of claims 1–4, reversed at to claims 5 and 6, and rejected Belden’s contention that the Board denied it procedural rights. View "Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC" on Justia Law

Tesco sued NOV for infringement of patents that involve an apparatus and method for handling sections of pipe used for lining a well-bore. NOV filed an answer, counterclaims, a request for attorney’s fees, and motions to compel requesting information about documents to show what occurred during the six months before the on-sale bar date. Ultimately, based on non-production of an original brochure, the court sanctioned Tesco by reversing the burden of proof on validity, setting the burden at a preponderance of evidence. The jury concluded that NOV infringed the relevant claims, found certain of those claims to be not invalid, and found that the brochure was not enabling. During post-trial discovery on the brochure. NOV filed “post-trial summary judgment motions of invalidity” (35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 103) based on what it asserts was disclosed in the brochure. The court granted NOV’s motion for obviousness, relying on an obvious-to-try analysis, set a trial date for the exceptional case counterclaim, and, later, issued an order sua sponte dismissing the case with prejudice under its inherent authority, finding that certain testimony was “contrary to the representations Tesco made to the Court during trial,” stating that the attorneys’ conduct was “entirely out of character ... serious and has had significant and costly ramifications.” The parties, including the attorneys, later entered into a settlement resolving all outstanding issues, and signed releases. The attorneys contend that, despite the settlement, the harm to their reputation from the court’s opinion justified continued jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit dismissed, finding no remaining case or controversy. View "Tesco Corp. v. Nat'l Oilwell Varco, L.P." on Justia Law

Atlas’s patent describes a protocol for controlling wireless network communications between a hub and remotes. The patent notes the existence of prior-art, but says those systems consumed large amounts of battery power; the remotes had to leave their receivers on at all times. The specification describes means of conserving battery power. Atlas sued, alleging that St. Jude’s medical products for monitoring a patient’s condition infringed claims 11 and 14 of the patent. The district court adopted constructions of the “establishing” and “transmitting” limitations, which are also found in claim 21, the subject of another case, Atlas v. Medtronic. It construed “the hub transmitting information to the remotes to establish the communication cycle and a plurality of predeterminable intervals during each communication cycle,” to mean “the hub transmitting to the remotes information necessary to know in advance the starting time and duration of the communication cycle and of each of two or more predeterminable intervals during each communication cycle.” The court held that its “in advance” requirement meant that information specifying “when the communication cycle starts and its duration . . . must be transmitted in advance of the very communication cycle at issue,” inconsistent with the Medtronic case. The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit vacated. The district court erred in construing the “transmitting” limitation to require that the starting time and duration of a communication cycle be sent in advance of the communication cycle. View "Atlas IP, LLC v. St. Jude Med., Inc." on Justia Law

Atlas owns the patent, which describes and claims a protocol for controlling wireless network communications between a hub and remotes. The patent, entitled “Medium Access Control Protocol for Wireless Network,” notes the existence of prior-art techniques for communication between a hub and multiple remotes in wireless network systems, but says those systems consumed large amounts of battery power, as the remotes had to leave their receivers on at all times. The specification describes means of conserving battery power. Atlas sued Medtronic, alleging that certain Medtronic medical products for monitoring a patient’s condition infringed the patent. In a related case, the District Court for the Southern District of Florida adopted claim constructions that, by agreement, govern this case.. The district court in this case then issued two summary judgment orders concerning claim 21, the only claim at issue. It granted summary judgment of non-infringement by Medtronic and summary judgment rejecting anticipation and obviousness challenges to claim 21. The Federal Circuit affirmed the non-infringement ruling, but reversed and remanded the validity ruling. View "Atlas IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2013 the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection of claims 181, 184, 188-203, 206, 210-25, 228, 232-47, 250, and 254-68 of utility patent application No. 60/211228, as obvious in light of the prior art. The court vacated and remanded as to the Board’s determination that claims 2712 and 272 were anticipated because the Board performed an incorrect enablement analysis.. On remand, the Board looked to Morsa’s specification to determine what a person of ordinary skill in this particular field of art would know and found that the specification showed that only “ordinary” computer programming skills were needed to make and use the claimed invention; the Board determined that the anticipating reference, PMA, was enabled. The Board determined that the PMA disclosure combined with what a skilled computer artisan would know rendered the PMA reference enabling and therefore anticipatory of claims 271 and 272. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "In re: Morsa" on Justia Law