Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

The patent examiner rejected all of the inventors’ pending claims in an application entitled “Enzyme-Mediated Modification of Fibrin for Tissue Engineering,” filed in 2003, relating generally to the field of tissue repair and regeneration, and more specifically to matrices containing bidomain peptides or proteins. The examiner found obviousness-type double patenting over several patents. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed; tO'Mahe Board did not err in concluding that the pending claims were barred under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. View "In re Hubbell" on Justia Law

Bumper Boy holds two patents on improvements to electronic animal collars; the 082 patent is a continuation-in-part of the 014 patent. Although the 082 patent contains some new matter, the asserted claims from the 082 patent are supported by the 014 patent specification. Both patents generally disclose and claim a collar having “high point surfaces” that extend the inside surface of the collar above the base of electrodes 24 toward the animal “to relieve and distribute the load caused by collar tension around the animal’s neck” and reduce discomfort. The district court construed “inside surface” as “the portion of the collar housing facing inwards towards the animal” and “electrode base” as “the portion of the electrode where it intersects the inside surface of the collar housing” and held that Radio Shack and Innotek did not infringe the patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to claim construction, but reversed with respect to the district court’s reliance on equitable estoppel. View "Radio Sys. Corp. v Lalor" on Justia Law

REAL owns the 989 patent, now expired, directed to methods for locating available real estate properties using a zoom-enabled map on a computer. Move operates and maintains multiple interactive websites that allow users to search for available real estate properties and sought a declaratory judgment that REAL’s patents were invalid and that Move’s websites did not infringe them. REAL counterclaimed, alleging that the “Search by Map” and “Search by Zip Code” functions employed by Move infringed REAL’s claimed search methodologies. In 2009, the parties stipulated to non-infringement based on the district court’s claim construction, and after judgment was entered in favor of Move, REAL appealed regarding only one claim. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that “selecting an area” as recited in the claim means that “the user or a computer chooses an area having boundaries, not when the computer updates certain display variables to reflect the selected area.” On remand, the district court entered summary judgment for Move. The Federal Circuit again vacated, holding that while Move cannot be liable for direct infringement, the district court erred by not analyzing inducement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b). View "Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance, Ltd." on Justia Law

The patents generally relate to circuits that measure the timing errors of digital signals in high-speed microprocessors. These circuits, which are referred to as time interval analyzers, detect timing errors by analyzing a digital circuit’s clock signal and output signals. The inventor left GuideTech to found Brilliant. Brilliant obtained a judgment that its product did not infringe GuideTech’s patents. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. Detailed application of the function-way-result test to the claim element and the allegedly equivalent feature of the accused product were sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for the jury to resolve. The main difference between the accused circuit and the claimed circuit is that the capacitor in the accused circuit aids in delivering power and is thus part of the first current circuit. There is no evidence suggesting that this added advantage of the accused design alters the function-way-result analysis. View "Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, LLC" on Justia Law

The patents relate to a method of drug delivery via the mucous membrane lining or mucosa in the oral cavity. The oral mucosal route provides direct access to the bloodstream without having to travel through the gastrointestinal tract, which allows the drug to avoid the “first pass effect,” the percentage of drug lost to metabolization in the liver. Drug delivery across the oral mucosa potentially provides patients with rapid onset of action at a lower dosage. The patents disclose use of effervescent agents used as penetration enhancers, which influence drug absorption across the buccal, sublingual and gingival mucosae and use of an additional pH adjusting substance in combination with an effervescent agent for promoting the absorption. Watson filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application for a generic version of FENTORA®. In response, Cephalon instituted a patent infringement suit. The district court found that Watson’s ANDA products did not infringe and held the asserted patents invalid for lack of enablement. The Federal Circuit reversed on the issue of enablement, holding that Watson failed as a matter of law to show with clear and convincing evidence that Cephalon’s patents require undue experimentation to practice the invention. The court upheld the noninfringement finding. View "Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharm., Inc. " on Justia Law

FM sued Google for infringing three patents relating to advertising on multiple outlets such as newspapers and websites. The specification characterizes the prior art as inefficient because it requires advertisers to manually ensure that their ads conform to the differing requirements of each advertising venue. The invention is designed to eliminate this inefficiency by automatically formatting the ads to fit each publisher’s requirements and sending them out for publication. In each of the patents, a “central computer” coordinates interactions between sellers (wishing to place ads), media venues, and buyers (targets of the ads). The central computer hosts a number of databases and software processes, including the presentation rules database and the Presentation Generating Program. The district court invalidated of one of FM’s patents as indefinite and a jury found that two others were invalid and not infringed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the court abdicated to the jury its responsibility to construe disputed claim terms; that the court incorrectly denied its motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; and that the verdicts of infringement and invalidity are irreconcilable. View "Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc." on Justia Law

SEL owns the 463 patent, which names Nagata as a co-inventor. During prosecution in 1991, Nagata assigned his rights to applications and patents related to the patent to SEL’s founder Yamazaki, and subsequently signed a substitute Declaration and Assignment of those applications and patents. From 2002 to 2003, Nagata assisted SEL in a patent infringement suit against another party and was paid for his cooperation and services. In 2009, SEL sued Samsung and others for infringement and contacted Nagata for further assistance, but learned that Nagata had agreed to assist Samsung as a fact witness. Nagata gave testimony repudiating his signature on the 1991 Declarations and Assignments. Samsung then claimed that the patents, including the 463 patent, were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. SEL sued Nagata, alleging violation of patent law, anticipatory breach of contract, slander of title, and unjust enrichment. The district court dismissed the federal claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1338(a). The Federal Circuit affirmed; there is no federal cause of action based on assignor estoppel. View "Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Inc. v. Nagata" on Justia Law

Before the mid-2000s, automobile manufacturers used a refrigerant called R-134a for automobile air conditioners. In 2006 the European Union enacted regulations requiring automobiles to use refrigerants with low “global warming potential.” The U.S. has not adopted similar regulations, but U.S. and foreign automobile manufacturers are both transitioning to 1234yf, which has a low global warming potential, and has become “remarkably successful,” according to Honeywell. Both Arkema and Honeywell wish to supply the industry with 1234yf, and both have invested substantial resources in its production. Arkema built a manufacturing facility in France and plans to build another facility to meet growing demand. Honeywell has a plant in New York and is developing a larger facility in Louisiana. Honeywell owns a number of patents relating to 1234yf. Arkema sought a declaratory judgment that by entering into contracts to supply 1234yf, it would not incur liability as an indirect infringer under the patents. The district court concluded that there was no justiciable controversy. The Federal Circuit reversed to allow Arkema to supplement. View "Arkema, Inc. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Accent’s 877 and 992 patents arose from the same patent application and share a nearly identical specification, disclosing a wire tier device that is used to bale recyclables or solid waste for easier handling. Accent claims that its 470 wire tire device is the commercial embodiment of the patents and that Leggett obtained a 470 device, studied, and eventually began selling its own copy of the 470 device (Leggett Pinnacle wire tire device). Accent acknowledges differences between the devices. Accent filed suit, asserting claims for infringement of the patents and a claim for violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 417.450–.467. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Leggett with respect to construction of the terms “each” and “a respective one,” but affirmed summary judgment to Leggett with respect to other claims and dismissal of Accent’s Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act claims.View "Accent Packaging, Inv. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc." on Justia Law

The Tote Towel is a large towel with binding around all the edges, zippered pockets at both ends, and an angled cloth loop in the middle. Hall applied for a design patent for the Tote Towel in 2008 and began producing the item soon after the filing, with a label marked “patent pending.” While the application was pending, Hall contacted Bed Bath & Beyond to discuss whether BB&B would sell the Tote Towel at retail stores. Hall left samples of packaged Tote Towels with BB&B. The package and the towel were marked “patent pending.” BB&B had copies of the Hall towel manufactured in Pakistan, for retail sale by BB&B. The patent issued, and Hall sued for patent infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and for misappropriation under New York law. The district court dismissed all claims and counterclaims on the pleadings. The Federal Circuit held that the counts of patent infringement, unfair competition, and misappropriation were not subject to dismissal on the pleadings, but affirmed dismissal of claims against BB&B executives who had been sued in their personal capacities, and affirmed dismissal of the counterclaims. View "Hall v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc." on Justia Law