Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

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

The 470 application is directed to a touchscreen interface in a portable electronic device that allows a user to rearrange icons. The claims at issue recite the initiation of an “interface reconfiguration mode” to permit icon rearrangement. The claims distinguish among a “first user touch” to open an application, a longer “second user touch” to initiate the interface reconfiguration mode, and a “subsequent user movement” to move an icon. The Patent Board affirmed that claims 38–41 would have been obvious over the Hawkins patent, which discloses a personal communication device with a touch-sensitive screen, and the Gillespie publication, disclosing an interface on a computer touch pad with an unactivated state and an activated state, in which icons are functional and can be removed or rearranged. The Federal Circuit vacated, noting the lack of any reasoning or analysis to support finding a motivation to add Gillespie’s disclosure to Hawkins beyond stating it would have been an “intuitive way” to initiate Hawkins’ editing mode. View "In re: Van Os" on Justia Law

Ethicon’s 844 patent relates to intraluminal medical devices for the local delivery of drugs, e.g., drug-eluting stents, and methods for maintaining drugs on those devices. Angioplasty can be used to alleviate blockages of blood vessels, but expansion of the balloon catheter during angioplasty can result in injury to the smooth muscle cells within the vessel wall, which can lead to restenosis, the gradual re-closure of the vessel. The 844 patent teaches that stent coatings themselves, and stent coatings delivering drugs locally, may be capable of reducing restenosis. Following inter partes reexamination, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of several claims as obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual findings that the claimed invention is merely the simple substitution of a coating known to be useful in in vivo applications, including stents, in a weight ratio known to provide a good balance between strength and elasticity, for that coating. View "In re: Ethicon, Inc." on Justia Law

D’Agostino’s patents disclose methods of effecting secure credit-card purchases by minimizing merchant access to credit card numbers and using a transaction code to complete a purchase instead. At the request of MasterCard, the Patent Board initiated inter partes review and cancelled all of the reviewed claims as unpatentable on the grounds of anticipation or obviousness. The claims involve either “limiting a number of transactions to one or more merchants,” or “limit[ing] transactions to a single merchant.” The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, finding the Board’s claim interpretation unreasonable. The single-merchant limitation requires, simply, that, when the transaction code is requested, the request limits the number of authorized merchants to one but does not then identify the merchant, such identification occurring only later. View "D'agostino v. Mastercard International. Inc." on Justia Law

United sued Tile Tech (TT), claiming infringement of its patent, entitled “Support Pedestal Having an Anchoring Washer for Securing Elevated Surface Tiles.” United served its first discovery requests. TT missed the deadline. United granted 20 additional days to respond. TT requested two additional extensions before serving responses, which were deficient. TT postponed a conference on the matter three times, then failed to respond by an agreed-upon date for supplementing its responses. After additional delays, United filed a Motion to Compel. TT never responded to the Motion, but served supplemental responses, still deficient, and later served a third supplement. The district court ordered TT to respond, imposed monetary sanctions, and warned that it would enter default judgment if TT did not comply by October 12. TT failed to respond. On October 12, United moved for default judgment. TT responded that it had not known the response deadline; that it had produced a set of supplemental responses; and that it required an expert opinion to fully respond, which would be forthcoming. On November 2, TT served supplemental responses, which disclosed its destruction of a previously undisclosed mold used to make one key component of the disputed support pedestal. United sought spoliation sanctions and added a claim for unfair competition, to which TT never responded. The Federal Circuit affirmed default judgment with relief for all of United’s claims, and a permanent injunction. View "United Construction Products, Inc. v. Tile Tech, Inc." on Justia Law

U.S. Water’s patents disclose methods for reducing or preventing fouling (the deposit of insoluble by products on equipment) by the addition of the enzyme phytase during the process of producing ethanol from milled grain. In U.S. Water’s suit, alleging indirect infringement, Novozymes counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, and inequitable conduct. The district court found certain claims invalid as inherently anticipated by prior art references, but declined to find inequitable conduct by U.S. Water, based on representations made during the application process. The Federal Circuit vacated with respect to inherent anticipation. There is a material dispute as to whether adding phytase in the manner disclosed in prior art will necessarily lead to a reduction of insoluble organometallic salt deposits as claimed in the patents. The court, affirmed in part, finding no genuine dispute as to a fact material to the inequitable conduct inquiry. View "U.S. Water Services, Inc. v. Novozymes A/S" on Justia Law

Medgraph’s patents are directed to a method for improving and facilitating diagnosis and treatment of patients: data relating to “medically important variable[s],” such as blood sugar levels, measured from a patient’s body, are uploaded and transmitted to a central storage device, from which they can be accessed remotely by medical professionals. Medtronic manufactures and markets integrated diabetes management solutions, allowing patients to upload data relating to their diabetes, including blood glucose readings, to Medtronic’s server; patients can keep an online record and share the information remotely with a healthcare provider. Medgraph sued, alleging infringement. A year later, the Federal Circuit issued the first of its “Akamai” holdings, which culminated with a remand by the Supreme Court in 2014. The district court subsequently entered summary judgment of no infringement in favor of Medtronic, applying the law on direct infringement liability as it then stood, stating that “more than one person, i.e., the patient or doctor, neither of whom is an agent of or under contractual obligation to Medtronic, is required to perform all of the steps of the method claims.” The Federal Circuit then issued Akamai V, an en banc holding that attribution is proper “when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance.” The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding the decision unaffected by Akamai V. View "Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc." on Justia Law

Power Integrations and Fairchild are direct competitors in the power supply controller chip market. They have engaged in a long-running and multi-fronted patent dispute. Power’s patents claim circuits that “jitter”— or vary—the frequency of the controller chip’s oscillator to reduce the amount of electromagnetic interference the switched-mode power supply (having “on” and “off” states) generates. The Federal Circuit affirmed: the jury’s verdict that the asserted claims of the 876 patent were not anticipated; the verdict that the asserted claims of the 972 patent would not have been obvious; and the court’s construction that the asserted claims of the 972 patent require “sampling a voltage from the auxiliary winding of the transformer when the transformer is discharging.” The court vacated the verdict that Fairchild induced asserted claims of the 876 and 851 patents, finding that the district court’s jury instruction incorrectly stated the law on inducement. The court reversed verdicts that the asserted claims of the 605 patent were not anticipated and that Power Integrations infringed the asserted claims of the 972 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. View "Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc." on Justia Law

NuVasive’s patent generally relates to “[a] system and method for spinal fusion comprising a spinal fusion implant of non-bone construction releasably coupled to an insertion instrument dimensioned to introduce the spinal fusion implant into any of a variety of spinal target sites.” On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found certain claims invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit vacated. The Board did not adequately explain how a claim would have been obvious over prior art, 35 U.S.C. 103(a) and did not articulate a motivation to combine prior art references. View "In re: Nuvasive, Inc." on Justia Law

Asetek’s patents cover systems and methods for cooling the “central processing unit (CPU) or other processing unit of a computer system” using cooling liquid. According to the patents, liquid-cooling systems in prior art consisted of “many components,” which were “coupled together,” increasing “total installation time” and causing “leakage.” Asetek’s patents describe systems that combine multiple components—a “heat-exchanging interface,” a “reservoir,” and a “pump”—into a single “integrate element.” Asetek asserted infringement by products branded “Cooler Master.” Asetek obtained a judgment of infringement, and of no invalidity, plus a damages award against CMI of $404,941. The court entered an injunction covering the specific “Cooler Master” products found to infringe, running not only against CMI but also against Cooler Master—which was not then a party (though it later intervened and became one) and which was not adjudicated liable for infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to infringement, invalidity, and damages, but remanded for development of the record as to part of the injunction that reaches conduct by Cooler Master and goes beyond abetting a new violation by CMI. The standards for reaching such conduct by persons not adjudicated liable for the underlying wrong, (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)), are highly fact-specific. View "Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA Inc." on Justia Law