Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Scag, which manufactures commercial riding lawnmowers, developed a suspended operator platform for a ride-on lawnmower or other riding light utility vehicle connected to a rigid chassis by a suspension system. The operator platform supports the entire body of the operator. The suspension system suspends the operator platform from the chassis in a manner that isolates an operator from vibrations, or shock loads, generated by the mower during use or when driven over uneven terrain. The operator platform can suspend or isolate some controls from the rigid chassis. Scag commercialized the system, which is disclosed in the 475 patent, in its Cheetah line of lawnmowers. In 2015, Toro introduced riding lawnmowers with suspended operator platforms to compete with Scag’s Cheetah line. The steering controls in Toro’s riding lawnmowers are connected to the chassis, not the operator platform. Scag filed an infringement action and obtained a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that Scag established a likelihood of success that the accused products infringe claim 21 of the 475 patent and that there is not a substantial question of validity as to claim 21. View "Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. Toro Co." on Justia Law

Xilinx a Delaware corporation headquartered in California, develops and markets programmable logic devices for electronics systems. Papst, organized and having its principal place of business in Germany, is a nonpracticing entity that does not manufacture or sell products. Papst’s website describes “a global patent licensing and monetization firm specialized in enforcing infringed patents with the goal to conclude a license agreement with the infringer.” Papst has repeatedly filed patent infringement suits in California federal courts. Before acquiring the patents-in-suit, Papst investigated potential infringers and targets for licensing, including 28 companies based, or having significant presence, in California. Papst sent a patent-infringement notice letter and a follow-up letter to Xilinx. Papst’s managing director, its senior counsel, and its Texas-based outside counsel, traveled to California to meet with Xilinx. No agreement was reached. Xilinx sought a declaratory judgment, in the Northern District of California, that Xilinx’s products do not infringe the patents-in-suit and that the patents are invalid. Papst filed an infringement suit against Xilinx in the District of Delaware asserting the same patents. The California court dismissed the declaratory judgment action for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit reversed; the court has specific personal jurisdiction over Papst. Considering the totality of circumstances, the court found “sufficient minimum contacts” and that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be unreasonable. View "Xilinx, Inc. v. Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG" on Justia Law

Personal Web’s patent describes and claims methods (or devices for carrying out methods) of locating data and controlling access by giving a data file a substantially unique “True Name” that depends on its content. The patent describes generating a True Name using mathematical algorithms (hash functions) that use a file’s contents to generate a small-size identifier. It calls for comparing that name with values in a network, determining whether a user is authorized to access the data, and providing or denying access based on that determination. Apple petitioned for inter partes review, arguing unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. 103, for obviousness based on a combination of one reference that focuses on a system for backing up or restoring data and one that focuses on a system for managing rights to access data. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board agreed with Apple. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s claim construction of “content-dependent name,” “content-based identifier,” and “digital identifier,” but vacated the obviousness determination because the Board did not adequately support its findings that the prior art disclosed all elements of the challenged claims and that a relevant skilled artisan would have had a motivation to combine the references to produce the claimed inventions with a reasonable expectation of success. View "Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc." on Justia Law

MPHJ’s 173 Patent, entitled “Distributed Computer Architecture and Process for Document Management,” describes a system and method that “extends the notion of copying from a process that involves paper going through a conventional copier device, to a process that involves paper being scanned from a device at one location and copied to a device at another location.” The patent calls its invention a “Virtual Copier” whose purpose is “to enable a typical PC user to add electronic paper processing to their existing business process,” and states that it replicates an image “using a single GO or START button, to do a similar operation in software so that the image gets seamlessly replicated into other devices or applications or the Internet.” The Patent Trial and Appeals Board, on inter partes review, found certain claims invalid for anticipation of obviousness. The Federal Circuit affirmed, citing Supreme Court precedent that “when unexpired patents are reviewed by the Board, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the prosecution history, from the viewpoint of persons skilled in the field of the invention,” and upholding the Board’s constructions of the claim terms “application” and “rendering.” View "MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corp." on Justia Law

Shire sued Watson for infringing the 720 patent by filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA seeking to market a generic version of Shire’s drug, LIALDA®. The patent is directed to a controlled-release oral pharmaceutical composition of mesalamine used to treat inflammatory bowel diseases. The district court rejected Watson’s invalidity arguments that the patent lacked written description and enablement, and held that Watson infringed two claims. On appeal, and again after remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit stated that the matrix compositions are “limited by the Markush groups” added during prosecution “to overcome the examiner’s rejection of the claims as obvious” and that “the correct construction requires that the inner volume contain substances from the group described for the inner lipophilic matrix (which are all lipophilic substances), and that the outer volume separately contain substances from the group described for the outer hydrophilic matrix (which are all hydrophilic).” On remand, the district court concluded that Watson’s ANDA Product satisfied the “inner lipophilic matrix” and “outer hydrophilic matrix” limitations and satisfied the Markush limitations because the excipients falling outside the respective Markush groups were “unrelated” to the invention since they did not drive the water-affinity property of their respective matrices. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment of non-infringement. Watson’s ANDA Product does not satisfy the Markush group requirements. View "Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc." on Justia Law

Cumberland Pharmaceuticals owns the 445 patent, which describes acetylcysteine compositions substantially free of chelating agents. It is listed in the Food and Drug Administration’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (the Orange Book) as covering Cumberland’s chelating-agent-free formulation of Acetadote®, an intravenous antidote for overdoses of acetaminophen. When Mylan filed an abbreviated new drug application to market its own chelating-agent-free acetylcysteine formulation, Cumberland filed a patent-infringement action. Mylan stipulated to infringement but asserted invalidity based on derivation of the claimed invention from someone at the FDA and obviousness. The district court rejected both challenges, finding that Mylan proved neither that anyone at the FDA conceived of the claimed invention before the named inventor nor that there was a reasonable expectation that the claimed formulations, without any chelating agents, would succeed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Mylan offered evidence that there is no need to chelate trace metal ions because degradation may be effectively avoided by an inert vial atmosphere together with modern manufacturing practices that leave very low levels of metal contaminants, but the evidence did not establish that relevant skilled artisans would have reasonably expected success for those reasons in 2005. The district court had sufficient evidence to find otherwise. View "Cumberland Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Institutional LLC" on Justia Law

Tinnus, which produces a toy for filling water balloons, sued Telebrands for infringement of Tinnus’s 066 patent, which relates to a system for simultaneously filling multiple containers (such as balloons) with fluid. Telebrands sells a competing product. Both products attach to a hose and fill multiple water balloons at once by channeling the water into the balloons through a set of hollow tubes. Tinnus obtained a preliminary injunction. Shortly thereafter, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted a Post-Grant Review proceeding for the patent, finding all claims were more likely than not invalid based on the same arguments considered by the district court. The Federal Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction, stating that it was “unable to find any clear error in the district court’s conclusion that Tinnus had demonstrated irreparable harm.” The court also upheld findings of insufficient motivation to combine disparate prior art references and that the claim term “substantially filled” is not indefinite. View "Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp." on Justia Law

Eli Lilly’s 209 patent, issued in 2010, relates to methods of administering the chemotherapy drug pemetrexed disodium after pretreatment with common vitamins—folic acid and vitamin B12. Pemetrexed is an antifolate that kills cancer cells by inhibiting the function of folates, a class of nutrients necessary for cell reproduction. The vitamin pretreatments reduce the toxicity of pemetrexed. Eli Lilly markets pemetrexed under the brand name ALIMTA®, and the drug is used to treat certain types of lung cancer and mesothelioma. Around 2008–2009, Defendants notified Eli Lilly that they had submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) seeking FDA approval to market generic versions of ALIMTA®. After the 209 patent issued, Defendants filed Paragraph IV certifications under 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV), declaring that the 209 patent was invalid, unenforceable, or would not be infringed. Eli Lilly filed suit for infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2). The district court found and the Federal Circuit affirmed that, while no single actor performs all steps of the asserted claims because the actions of both physicians and patients are required, under Akamai Technologies (Fed. Cir. 2015), there was direct infringement attributable to physicians. Defendants are liable for inducing that infringement. The court asserted claims were not invalid for indefiniteness, obviousness, or obviousness-type double patenting. View "Eli Lilly and Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc." on Justia Law

The 856 patent generally relates to “huMab4D5 ANTI-ErbB2 antibody-maytansinoid conjugates.” The claimed methods of treatment purport to combat a variety of cancers. ImmunoGen provided Genentech with a “worldwide exclusive license,” which Genentech uses to produce the drug Kadcyla®TM. Phigenix, “a for-profit discovery stage biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and biomedical research company” that focuses “on the use of novel molecular therapeutics” designed to fight cancer, sought inter partes review. The Patent Board found the asserted claims of the 856 patent nonobvious. The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of standing, finding that Phigenix has not offered sufficient proof establishing that it has suffered an injury in fact. Phigenix does not contend that it faces risk of infringing the 856 patent, that it is an actual or prospective licensee of the patent, or that it otherwise plans to take any action that would implicate the patent. Phigenix only claimed that it has suffered an actual economic injury because the 856 patent increases competition between itself and ImmunoGen; “‘[i]ncreased competition represents a cognizable Article III injury,’” View "Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc." on Justia Law

Sonix’s patent describes a system and method for using a “graphical indicator” (matrix of small dots) to encode information on an object’s surface. It includes an “optical device” that can read the graphical indicator and output further information. In 2010, Sonix alleged that GeneralPlus’s children’s books using dot pattern technology infringed the patent. Following reexamination, the Patent Office confirmed the patentability of the asserted claims. Weeks later, GeneralPlus requested another ex parte reexamination, asserting that the combination of two patents would have led to a visually negligible indicator. The examiner confirmed patentability based on the declaration of an expert, specifically indicating that the combination of cited references did not disclose a visually-negligible graphical indicator. In 2013, Sonix alleged that Defendants infringed the asserted claims. Defendants’ initial contentions identified 28 claim limitations as indefinite. The list did not include the term “visually negligible.” The district court held that the claims were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, reasoning that “visually negligible” is “purely subjective” and that the claim language did not provide guidance. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that that the written description and prosecution history provide sufficient support to inform with reasonable certainty those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention. The court noted the examiner’s knowing allowance of claims based on the term “visually negligible,” plus the acceptance of the term by both parties’ experts. View "Sonix Technology Co., Ltd. v. Publications International, Ltd." on Justia Law