Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

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

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