Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Ameranth’s patents disclose computer systems with hardware and software and describe a preferred embodiment of the invention for use in the restaurant industry. The specifications note that “ordering prepared foods has historically been done verbally, either directly to a waiter or over the telephone, whereupon the placed order is recorded on paper by the recipient or instantly filled” and explain that the “unavailability of any simple technique for creating restaurant menus and the like for use in a limited display area wireless handheld device or that is compatible with ordering over the internet ha[d] prevented widespread adoption of computerization in the hospitality industry.” The Patent Trial and Appeal Board conducted three Covered Business Method reviews and found certain claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, upholding the construction of “menu” features, determinations that the patents are not patents for technological inventions, a determination that the preamble recitations of “synchronous communications system” are not limiting, the construction of “central processing unit,” and a conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The court reversed with respect to certain independent claims. View "Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc." on Justia Law

The 752 patent, entitled “Method and System for Managing Location Information for Wireless Communications Devices,” describes a system of “privacy preferences” that determine whether “client applications” are allowed to access a wireless device’s location information, based on the time of day, the device’s location at the time of the request, the accuracy of the provided information or the party who is seeking the information. Google petitioned for covered business method (CBM) review of certain claims, 125 Stat. 284, 329–31. The Board found the patent to be a CBM patent, reasoning that its disclosure indicates the “client application” may be associated with a service or goods provider, such as a hotel, restaurant, or store, that wants to know a wireless device’s location so relevant advertising may be transmitted to the device; the subject matter recited in claim 25 is incidental or complementary to the financial activity of service or product sales and is directed to a method for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service. The Board then held that the challenged claims were directed to unpatentable subject matter, 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit vacated; the Board’s reliance on whether the patent claims activities “incidental to” or “complementary to” a financial activity to determine whether a patent is a CBM patent was not in accordance with law. View "Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google, Inc." on Justia Law

The Alfred E. Mann Foundation owns two patents that cover implantable cochlear stimulators and formed Advanced Bionics to manufacture implants. The patents are directed to an ear implant with telemetry functionality for testing purposes, and generally describe a two-part system comprising an external wearable system with a wearable processor (WP) and headpiece, and an internal implantable cochlear stimulator (ICS). Sound is transmitted from the headpiece to the WP, which processes the transmissions before sending them to the ICS. The ICS processes the sound to stimulate the cochlea––the organ that converts sound to nerve impulses––via implanted electrodes, thereby allowing the user to hear. The system allows testers, usually physicians, to measure and adjust various parameters of the implant to assess whether the device is functioning properly. The Foundation sued Cochlear Corporation for infringement. The court found certain claims invalid for indefiniteness, entered judgment as a matter of law of no willful infringement, and granted a new trial on damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, upholding the infringement determination with respect to some claims, but vacated and remanded with respect to willfulness in light of the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. View "Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research v. Cochlear Corp." on Justia Law

Unwired’s patent, entitled “Subscriber Delivered Location-Based Services,” describes a system and method for providing wireless network subscribers (e.g., cell phone users) with prioritized search results based on the location of their mobile device (e.g., the nearest gas station). The specification describes how search results can be personalized for subscribers by taking into account, for example, “favorite restaurants; automobile service plans; and/or a wide variety of other subscriber information.” The specification also describes how search results can be ordered to give priority to “preferred service providers defined by the network administrator,” allowing the network to generate revenue by charging service providers to be put on the preferred-service-provider list. Prioritization based on subscriber information and preferred provider status is independent of a subscriber’s location; it can lead to service providers that are actually farther away from the subscriber being given priority over service providers that are nearer. On inter partes review and covered business method patent review, the Patent Board found certain claims invalid as obvious, 35 U.S.C. 103. The Federal Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the analogous prior art teaches prioritization that results in farther-over-nearer ordering and that a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to combine existing techniques. View "Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google, Inc." on Justia Law

On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board construed the term “perforated” and invalidated several claims of PST’s patent, finding that those claims were anticipated or would have been obvious over Japanese Application Publication No. H1033551 A (JP 551) and that JP 551 qualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). The Board rejected PST’s argument that the Board could not rely on JP 551 as filed because the petitioners (Olympus) failed to translate the bibliographic page containing the publication date. The Board also determined that PST failed to antedate JP 551 because it had not proven that the inventor of its patent was reasonably diligent in reducing his invention to practice. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded. While the Board’s acceptance of Olympus’ submission of JP 551 was harmless, the Board erred in its claim construction. On remand, the Board must determine whether all of PST’s evidence, considered as a whole and under a rule of reason, collectively corroborates testimony that the inventor worked reasonably continuously within the confines of his occupation to diligently finalize the patent application during an 81-day critical period. View "Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus America, Inc." on Justia Law

NuVasive’s patent describes and claims implants for spinal fusion surgery. On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cancelled all but one challenged claim under 35 U.S.C. 103, finding in one prior-art reference (Michelson), a spinal fusion implant that meets two of the claim requirements of the NuVasive patent—having a length both greater than 40 mm and at least 2.5 times its width. NuVasive argued that it did not receive adequate notice of or opportunity to address that reading of Michelson and its consequences for the overall obviousness analysis. The Federal Circuit vacated in part and remanded Medtronic’s petition put NuVasive on notice that Medtronic was relying on particular portions of Michelson to teach the NuVasive patent’s claimed long-and-narrow implants. Medtronic’s petition did not, however, notify NuVasive of the assertions about the pertinent portions of Michelson that later became critical; the Board’s ultimate reliance on that material, together with its refusal to allow NuVasive to respond fully once that material was called out, violated NuVasive’s rights under the Administrative Procedure Act. View "In re: NuVasive, Inc.." on Justia Law

REG’s patent is directed to paraffin compositions containing primarily even-carbon-number paraffins and methods of making them. Even-carbon-number paraffins are useful as phase change materials (PCMs), which can be used as insulation in a house; they can absorb heat during the warm portions of the day by undergoing a solid-liquid phase transition and return the heat during the cooler portions of the day by re-freezing. The thermal storage capacity of PCMs is determined by their latent heat of fusion, which is higher for even-carbon-number paraffins. The patent seeks to increase the production of compositions with higher percentages of even-carbon-number paraffins. One method disclosed in the patent is the hydrogenation and deoxygenation of naturally occurring fatty acids and esters, such as bio-oils, to produce primarily even-carbon-number paraffins. On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board excluded several REG exhibits based on hearsay and other grounds and found certain claims invalid as anticipated by other patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed that certain claims were anticipated, but reversed a finding that REG failed to establish conception of the invention prior to another patent’s filing date. The court remanded for further fact finding on diligence and reduction to practice and vacated the exclusion of certain exhibits. View "REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj" on Justia Law

Amdocs's patents concern parts of a system designed to solve an accounting and billing problem faced by network service providers. Each written description describes the same system, which allows providers to account for and bill for internet protocol network communications. The system's components are arrayed in a distributed architecture that minimizes the impact on network and system resources. Each patent explains that this is an advantage over prior art systems that stored information in one location, making it difficult to keep up with massive record flows from the network devices and which required huge databases. The court granted Openet summary judgment of non-infringement and no inequitable conduct and made claim constructions. The Federal Circuit affirmed two constructions, but vacated a third. On remand, following the Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014), the district court invalidated all four patents as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. While noting each abstract idea that the district court found to be disqualifying, the court reasoned that the claims at issue, understood in light of their written descriptions, could be eligible for patenting. The claims are not necessarily valid, having not yet been tested for novelty, non-obvious subject matter, and written description and enablement. View "Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc." on Justia Law

Bosch sued Cardiocom, alleging infringement of two patents. Cardiocom petitioned for inter partes review of those patents. The petitions were denied because Cardiocom failed to show a reasonable likelihood that any of the challenged claims was unpatentable. Medtronic (Cardiocom’s parent company) then filed petitions seeking inter partes review of the same patents, listing Medtronic as the sole real party in interest. Bosch argued that Medtronic had failed to name Cardiocom as a real party in interest as required by 35 U.S.C. 312(a)(2). The Patent Board granted additional discovery regarding Cardiocom’s status, then dismissed, “persuaded … that Medtronic [was] acting as a proxy for Cardiocom.” The Board cited evidence that Cardiocom was the defendant in the infringement suits, that Cardiocom had filed its own petitions for inter partes review, that Cardiocom communicated with Medtronic while Medtronic’s petitions were being prepared, and that Cardiocom paid some of the fees for preparing Medtronic’s petitions. In November 2015, the Federal Circuit dismissed Medtronic’s appeals for lack of jurisdiction and denied mandamus relief, but later recalled the mandate, following the Supreme Court’s 2016 Cuozzo decision. The court subsequently reaffirmed. The Board’s vacatur of its institution decisions and termination of the proceedings constitute decisions whether to institute inter partes review and are “final and nonappealable” under section 314(d). Nothing in Cuozzo is to the contrary. View "Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

The 141 application relates to methods of treating or preventing influenza by administering the drug zanamivir by oral inhalation. The examiner rejected the pending claims as obvious over Australian Patent No. AU-A1-27242/92 (Von Itzstein I), in view of WIPO Publication WO 91/16320 (Von Itzstein II) and other references. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board agreed, finding that Von Itzstein II’s disclosure of “inhalation” for treating influenza with its compounds “is reasonably understood to disclose inhalation by either the nose alone, mouth alone, or both” and concluded that Von Itzstein II ,in view of Von Itzstein I’s disclosure of zanamivir, rendered the claims obvious. The Board also considered the applicant’s evidence of secondary considerations—namely of unexpected results—but found it to be unpersuasive. The Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection as supported by substantial evidence. View "In re: Efthymiopoulos" on Justia Law