Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

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

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