Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Uship’s patents are directed to systems and methods of processing packages for shipment. According to the shared specification, the invention fills the need “for a system which accepts and stores items for subsequent pick-up by a commercial carrier.” The claims at issue recite “[a] method of mailing parcels and envelopes using an automated shipping machine” in the preamble. The claims comprise several similar or identical steps, including “receiving payment information from a customer”; “receiving package type information identifying a parcel . . . to be mailed”; “printing a shipping label”; and “validating receipt of said parcel . . . as the parcel . . . for which said . . . label was printed.” In Uship’s infringement action, the Court of Federal Claims found that “only an automated machine can perform” the validating step. On reconsideration, the court explained that its construction was based on both the specification and the prosecution history. After claim construction, the parties stipulated to a judgment of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Uship Intellectual Props., LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

Baron owns the 525 patent, which “generally relates to systems and methods for weather reporting and forecasting, and more particularly, to computerized systems and methods for reporting and forecasting real-time weather information.” ’ In 2011, Baron filed a civil action alleging that MWI’s WeatherCall programs infringed the 525 patent. The district court awarded summary judgment of noninfringement and attorney’s fees to MWI. The federal circuit vacated, finding summary judgment premature because Baron had yet to obtain MWI’s source code and to conduct two scheduled depositions. View "Baron Servs., Inc. v. Media Weather Innovations, LLC" on Justia Law

Combigan®, used to treat glaucoma, is a combination of the well-known alpha2-agonist Alphagan® and the well-known beta-blocker Timoptic® and contains the preservative benzalkonium chloride, which is widely-used in ophthalmic formulations. Allergan holds four patents related to Combigan®. The asserted claims are directed to a composition of 0.2% brimonidine and 0.5% timolol, expressed in different ways, some claims are directed to a fixed combination, others are directed to a method of treatment by administering the composition twice daily, and others are directed to packaging material indicating that twice daily administration of the composition is useful for treating glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Defendants submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration an Abbreviated New Drug Application, seeking approval to market a generic version of Combigan®. Allergan sued under 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A), claiming infringement of Allergan’s four Orange Book-listed patents. Prior to trial, but after claim construction, the district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement as to certain claims, the court then found each asserted claim not invalid. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding the district court erred in finding certain claims not invalid as obvious. Defendants, however, failed to prove that another claim would have been obvious. View "Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc." on Justia Law

Versata’s patents relate to computer-based pricing of products. In prior art, each factor required separate database queries, so that determining a price was highly inefficient. The claimed invention identifies all the groups to which a customer belongs and all corresponding price adjustments and product-related factor. Versata marketed a successful product, Pricer, sold as a package with other Versata software or as an addition to enterprise systems offered by companies like SAP. While Versata’s patent application was pending, SAP released a new version of its software that contained hierarchical pricing capability, which, it stated, was like Pricer. Pricer sales faltered. Versata sued for infringement. In the first trial, the jury found that SAP directly infringed asserted claims, induced and contributed to infringement of one claim, and that the claims were not invalid, and awarded $138,641,000. The court granted JMOL of noninfringement of the 400 patent, but denied JMOL of noninfringement of the 350 patent. Before the second trial, SAP modified its products with a patch that prevented users from saving data into certain fields. The jury concluded that the products still infringed and awarded $260 million in lost profits and royalties of $85 million. The court entered a permanent injunction. The Federal Circuit vacated the injunction as overbroad, but otherwise affirmed. View "Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc." on Justia Law

The 753 patent is directed to a heart rate monitor that purports to improve upon the prior art by effectively eliminating noise signals during the process of detecting a user’s heart rate. According to the patent, prior art monitors did not eliminate signals given off by skeletal muscles (EMG signals), which are brought about when users move their arms or squeeze the monitor with their fingers. Biosig, the assignee of the 753 patent, brought a patent infringement action against Nautilus. After claim construction of the disputed term ”space relationship,” the district court declared the patent invalid. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded, finding the claims at issue not invalid for indefiniteness. View "Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc." on Justia Law

Lazare Kaplan owns the 351 patent, which claims methods and systems for using lasers to make microinscriptions on gemstones. In 2006, Lazare Kaplan brought suit for infringement of two patents, including the 351 patent, against Photoscribe. In response, Photoscribe filed counterclaims seeking declarations of invalidity. Following a remand, the district court entered summary judgment of invalidity. The Federal Circuit held that the court erred in revisiting the issue of validity on remand, reversed the grant of relief, vacated the finding of invalidity, instructed the court to assess infringement, and declined to reassign the matter to a new judge on remand. View "Lazare Kaplan Int'l, Inc. v. Photoscribe Techs, Inc." on Justia Law

Aspex’s complaint charged Zenni with infringement of three patents directed to clip-on eyewear in which magnets secure the bridge portions of the eyewear. The district court held that Aspex was collaterally estopped from pursuing the suit, based on earlier litigation between Aspex and Altair Eyewear for infringement of the same patents that resulted in summary judgment of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that certain of the patent claims in suit against Zenni Optical were not included in the Altair litigation, and that several terms now at issue had not previously been construed or were incorrectly construed. View "Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2011, K-Tech sued DirecTV for patent infringement against DirecTV. On the same day, K-Tech filed a similar action against TWC. The complaints named four patents identifying systems and methods for modifying a major channel number, a minor channel number, and/or a carrier frequency to identify a television program. The district court dismissed both complaints and K-Tech’s amended complaints, for failure to state a claim. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the district court applied the incorrect standard in evaluating the adequacy of K-Tech’s complaints. District courts must evaluate complaints alleging direct infringement by reference to Form 18 of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. K-Tech’s amended complaints satisfied those standards. DirecTV and TWC know what K-Tech’s patents claim, and they know what K-Tech asserts their systems do, and why. K-Tech has alleged that DirecTV and TWC must and do modify or “translate” digital signals they receive, and it has alleged that they do so using K-Tech’s patented methods and systems. View "K-Tech Telecomm., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc." on Justia Law

In the mid-1990s, Biogen scientists discovered that patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia could be treated using anti-CD20 antibodies like Biogen’s Rituxan. Biogen obtained the 612 patent covering a method for treating patients with CLL involving administering a therapeutically effective amount of the anti-CD20 antibody, entitled “Treatment of Hematologic Malignancies Associated with Circulating Tumor Cells Using Chimeric Anti-CD20 Antibody.” The patent was not limited to any particular type of antiCD20 antibody. In 2002, GSK and Genmab developed a breakthrough anti-CD20 antibody, Arzerra, which is distinctly different from Rituxan in several respects. Unlike Rituxan, which is a chimeric antibody, Arzerra is a fully human antibody, with less risk that the body will reject it and it can bind longer, giving the antibody more time to kill the target B cell. In 2010, Biogen sued GSK for infringement. The district court applied a construction of “anti-CD20 antibody” that narrowed the term based on prosecution history disclaimer. Under that construction, Biogen stipulated that it could not prove infringement and appealed the claim construction. The Federal Circuit affirmed; the district court did not err in finding a clear and unmistakable disclaimer. View "Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC" on Justia Law

First introduced in 1960, combined oral contraceptive (COC) “birth control pills,” deliver synthetic hormones that regulate the natural ovarian cycle and prevent pregnancy. Bayer filed an application directed to a low-dose, extended-regimen COC in 1993, which eventually led to the 564 patent. Bayer received final approval to market YAZ in the U.S. in 2006. Defendants filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking approval to market generic versions of YAZ, with certifications asserting that the 564 patent is invalid (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV). Bayer responded with patent infringement actions. The district court entered summary judgment that the patent’s claims are not invalid for obviousness in view of numerous cited prior art references. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that Bayer did not present evidence that overcomes the plain disclosures and express motivation to combine those disclosures in the prior art. View "Bayer Healthcare Pharma, Inc. v. Watson Pharma, Inc." on Justia Law