Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Morsa’s patent application, entitled “Method and Apparatus for the Furnishing of Benefits Information and Benefits,” discloses both a method and an apparatus for receiving a benefit-information request from a user, searching a benefit information database for benefits matching the request, and then returning benefit information to the user. In the specification, Morsa defines benefits as any “‘things’ of value” given away to target entities. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed rejection of multiple claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, finding that many claims would have been obvious in light of prior art. Vacating in part, the court held that the Board performed an incorrect enablement analysis in determining that certain claims were anticipated. View "In re: Morsa" on Justia Law

Saffran is the owner and sole named inventor of the 760 patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Managing Macromolecular Distribution,” which concerns “treatment of injured tissues within human or animal bodies, specifically ... the way injured tissues are joined and the way macromolecules are directed to promote healing.” The patent discloses methods and devices for treating injured tissues by sequestering particles and macromolecules in a defined space using a selectively permeable barrier. The specification primarily describes the invention in terms of a strategy for treating serious bone fractures, known as complex or comminuted fractures, where the bone has been shattered into numerous fragments. The district court held Cordis liable for infringing multiple claims of the patent. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the district court erroneously construed the “device” and “release means” limitations of the asserted claims. View "Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson" on Justia Law

The district court held that Fairchild willfully infringed several valid patents belonging to Power Integrations and awarded compensatory and enhanced damages in the amount of $12,866,647.16. The patented technology is used in electric chargers for mobile phones. The Federal Circuit affirmed the ruling on obviousness, but reversed construction of the “soft start circuit” limitations in certain claims. The court vacated the award of damages based on infringement by inducement, and remanded for a new trial on damages resulting from direct infringement, with an accounting limited to post-verdict infringing sales related to Fairchild’s direct infringement. The court also vacated the finding of willful infringement. View "Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductors Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences rejected the 172 design patent application, a continuation of the 709 application, which claimed a design for a bottle with specific shapes and boundaries. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that nothing in the parent application’s disclosure suggested anything uniquely patentable about the top portion of the bottle’s front panel. View "In re Owens" on Justia Law

Checkpoint and All-Tag are competitors in the manufacture and sale of “resonance tags,” electronic anti-shoplifting devices that are attached to merchandise whereby if the attached tag is not deactivated, the tag triggers an alarm when the tagged goods move past detectors located at the store’s exit. Checkpoint sued All-Tag for infringement of a patent entitled “Resonance Label and Method for its Fabrication.” A jury found the patent not infringed, invalid, and unenforceable. The district court entered judgment on the verdict, held the case “exceptional” in terms of 35 U.S.C. 285, and awarded the defendants $6.6 million in attorney fees, costs, and interest. The patent term has expired and only the award of attorney fees was appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed. The infringement charge was not shown to have been made in bad faith or objectively baseless. View "Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A." on Justia Law

1999, Drs. Dawson and Bowman submitted the patent application that led to the issuance of the two patents at issue, which concern a method for topically treating and preventing infections of the eye. They claim to overcome difficulties in existing methods through a process for topically applying an azalide antibiotic to the eye. Both patents are entitled “Topical Treatment or Prevention of Ocular Infections.” In 2007, in order to provoke an interference, UCSF filed a patent application that named Dr. Dawson as the sole inventor and generally copied the specification and claims from the patents. Dr. Dawson declined to join UCSF’s submission. The Patent and Trademark Office’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences found that Dr. Dawson did not conceive of the claimed inventions by himself prior to his collaboration with Dr. Bowman. The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting that, apart from reduction to practice, conception requires that the inventor know how his “definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention ... is hereafter to be applied in practice.” View "Dawson v. Dawson & Bowman" on Justia Law

Cordis sued Abbott, alleging infringement of patents for drug-eluting stents. The PTO reexamined the 844 patent and issued an initial office action rejecting all claims as obvious. Cordis submitted an expert affidavit asserting secondary considerations of nonobviousness, including that Abbott had copied its patent. The examiner issued a further action, affirming rejection of all claims, finding that Cordis had failed to present evidence of copying. A different examiner issued an initial action rejecting all challenged claims of the 773 patent as obvious. The parties submitted dueling expert declarations. The reexamination of the 773 patent remains pending, while reexamination of the 844 patent is on appeal before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Cordis obtained subpoenas from the district court ordering Abbott to produce documents believed to establish copying and other secondary considerations for use in the pending PTO reexaminations. The court subsequently quashed the subpoenas. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that 35 U.S.C. 24 only empowers a district court to issue a subpoena for use in a “contested case,” and that contested cases are limited to those in which the regulations of the PTO authorize the parties to take depositions. The PTO does not provide for depositions in inter partes reexamination proceedings. View "Abbott Labs v. Cordis Corp." on Justia Law

Wilson Sporting Goods agreed to pay Frolow royalties for “Licensed Article(s),” defined as “tennis rackets which are covered by one or more unexpired or otherwise valid claims” of Frolow’s 372 patent. After conducting an audit, Frolow concluded that Wilson was not paying royalties on all the Licensed Articles and filed suit alleging that Wilson breached the License Agreement and infringed the 372 patent. Due to an arbitration provision in the Agreement, the court limited the breach of contract case to determining which Wilson racket models were Licensed Articles and summarily dismissed the patent infringement claim. The court ultimately entered summary judgment for Wilson. The Federal Circuit reversed with respect whether certain rackets were Licensed Articles, reasoning that the fact that Wilson marked their products with Frolow’s patent number supports his allegation that Wilson’s products fall within the claims. View "Frolow v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co." on Justia Law

The patent, entitled “Slot Machine Game and System with Improved Jackpot Feature,” issued in 2006 and relates to a system of linked gaming machines through which an allegedly improved jackpot mechanism is provided to a player. Incremental jackpots are well known in the prior art, but the patent claims that prior art systems lack flexibility in both operator control and ability to tailor prizes to player preferences, through a bonus game that may appear. The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement, explaining that the accused products require two separate actors, the casino via the gaming machine and the player, and that the lack of a single entity performing all of the steps of the asserted claims precluded direct infringement as a matter of law. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim constructions and its ruling on direct infringement but, in light of an intervening decision, vacated and remanded the ruling on indirect infringement. View "Aristocrat Tech., Australia v. Int'l Game Tech." on Justia Law

High-efficiency DC-DC power converter systems are used to power circuitry in large computer systems and telecommunication and data communication equipment. The patents at issue involve converters with separate “isolation” and “regulation” stages and improved prior art power converter systems that used integrated converters, each performing both isolation and regulation, to step the 48 volt input down to the voltage levels required to power logic circuitry. Large computer and communication systems use multiple voltage levels for different logic circuitry housed on a single load board, and the prior art systems required a separate isolating/regulating converter for each voltage level, which took up valuable space on the load board, which could otherwise accommodate more memory and other logic circuitry. The district court entered summary judgment of infringement and awarded $95 million in lost profits plus enhanced damages for post-trial infringement, finding that the “isolation” limitations of the patents appeared in defendants’ products. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Synqor, Inc. Artesyn Techs., Inc." on Justia Law