Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

OSRAM’s patent claims a closed-loop tubular electrodeless lamp, having certain and specific discharge current and pressure parameters. The invention generally relates to “a low pressure, high intensity fluorescent light source that can produce considerably more light per unit length than conventional electroded fluorescent lamps.” Electrodeless fluorescent lamps were first disclosed in several patents issued to and articles authored in the 1960s and 1970s. The district court entered summary judgment of invalidity on certain claims. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact that preclude a finding of anticipation and obviousness on summary judgment and that the district court erred in failing to consider objective indicia of nonobviousness.View "OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

Raylon’s patent, directed to a hand-held identification investigating and ticket issuing system is intended to provide an affordable system that reduces the amount of time a user spends identifying and issuing tickets and allows the user to maintain visual contact with the individual throughout the process. The system has a housing containing an input assembly for entering data, an elongated slot for receiving identification forms that have a magnetic tape, an elongated aperture for access to the housing’s interior, a transceiver assembly to communicate remotely with a computer, a printer assembly for printing tickets, and a display, pivotally mounted on the housing. Raylon alleged infringement by three defendants. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, denied their motions for Rule 11 sanctions, and denied attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. 285, citing its Rule 11 decision. The Federal Circuit reversed as to Rule 11. The district court erroneously evaluated Raylon’s damages model and early settlements to determine whether it brought its suits in good faith or merely to obtain nuisance value settlements; it should have conducted an objective inquiry and “expressly rejected any inquiries into the motivation behind a filing.”View "Raylon, LLC v. Complus Data Innovations, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1995, Yamazaki filed a patent application, “Improved Semiconductor Having Low Concentration of Phosphorus.” The examiner issued an obviousness-type double patenting rejection based on Yamazaki’s earlier-issued 476 patent. Yamazaki filed a terminal disclaimer in November, 1996, disclaiming the statutory term of any patent granted on the application that would extend beyond expiration of the 476 patent In December, 2003. Yamazaki later amended each claim of the 1995 application, such that, in Yamazaki’s view, the pending claims became patentably distinct over the claims of the 476 patent and the terminal disclaimer became unnecessary. Yamazaki petitioned (37 C.F.R. 1.182) for withdrawal of the recorded terminal disclaimer The PTO did not act. Notice of Allowance issued in July, 2000. With the Petition to Withdraw still pending, Yamazaki paid the issue fee; the 991 patent issued in 2001; it would have expired in 2018, given a 17-year term (35 U.S.C. 154(c)(1)); however, adopting the 476 patent expiration date gave it 35-month term. The PTO dismissed the Petition to Withdraw. Yamazaki filed a Reissue Application, to correct “errors” that rendered the 991 patent inoperative during part of the statutory term. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed rejection, for lack of a correctable error. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "In re Yamazaki" on Justia Law

Free-Flow and Pregis are competitors in the air-filled packaging cushion industry. Air-filled cushions are used to fill space in shipping boxes carrying lightweight items that do not take up all the available space in a box. Demand for lightweight packaging rose rapidly with the growth of internet retail sales. “Air-pillow” packaging emerged as a preferred alternative to polystyrene foam, “peanuts,” or crumpled paper as filling material. Free-Flow holds three patents relating to air-filled packaging technology that claim priority to applications filed in 1999-2000. Free-Flow claims to have improved on prior art machines by increasing the ease of loading film, and by creating a more reliable seal to produce uniformly-inflated air cushions. Pregis sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity and took the unusual step of suing the PTO, its then-director, and Free-Flow under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701–706, to prevent the issuance of two pending Free-Flow patent applications. The district court dismissed Pregis’ APA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but upheld a verdict of noninfringement and invalidity against Free-Flow. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Pregis Corp. v. Kappos" on Justia Law

Since 2003, Cummins and TAS have been engaged in three separate actions regarding idle-control technologies for heavy-duty truck engines. Earlier suits concerned breach of a master license agreement between the parties. In a 2009 action, Cummins sought a declaratory judgment that claims of TAS’s 703 and 469 patents are invalid and unenforceable. The district court found that the suit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata in light of a decision in an earlier claim. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Cummins could have pursued claims regarding invalidity and unenforceability of the TAS patents in prior litigation, which featured the same parties, arose from the same group of operative facts, and resulted in a final resolution on the merits so that res judicata bars Cummins’ defenses under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. View "Cummins, Inc. v. TAS Distrib. Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s patent discloses an “easy clean dual wall deck” for a rotary cutter. Defendants manufacture rotary cutters that are pulled behind a tractor and used to mow wide swaths of ground. The accused rotary cutters can “rough cut” fields after a harvest or clear weeds and brush along roadsides. Plaintiff’s patent addresses a problem encountered by rotary cutters. Prior art cutters had structural components such as gearboxes and deck bracings mounted either on top of or underneath the cutter deck; the patent discloses a dual-wall deck that encloses the structural components in a torsionally-strong box, leaving smooth surfaces on the top and bottom of the deck for easing cleaning. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit vacated, affirming the construction of “rotary cutter deck” and the determination that the terms “substantially planar” and “easily washed off” do not render the asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, but holding that the district court erroneously construed the term “into engagement with” to require direct contact. View "Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, L.L.C." on Justia Law

ArcelorMittal’s patent covers boron steel sheet with an aluminum-based coating applied after rolling the sheet to its final thickness. The steel is used for “hot-stamping:” rapidly heating the steel, stamping it into parts of the desired shape, and rapidly cooling them. The rapid heating and cooling alters the crystalline structure of the steel, converting it to austenite and then martensite. By altering the steel’s microstructure, hot-stamping produces particularly strong steel, but there are associated problems. The aluminum-based coating claimed in the patent prevents oxidation during hot-stamping, so that scale does not form and decarburization does not occur, making hot-stamping less costly, reducing environmental impact, and allowing its use in production of delicate parts. ArcelorMittal brought an infringement action, alleging that AK Steel’s aluminum coated steel sheet products infringe the patent. After construing the terms “a hot-rolled steel sheet coated with an aluminum or aluminum alloy coating” and “the steel sheet has a very high mechanical resistance after thermal treatment,” the district court found no infringement and held that the asserted claims were obvious and anticipated. The Federal Circuit upheld the claim construction in part, reversed in part, reversed the verdict of anticipation, and stated that a new trial is required on obviousness. View "Arcelor Mittal France v. AK Steel Corp." on Justia Law

Fox owns the 130 patent, which claims a low defect silicon carbide (SiC) crystal and relates to a method and apparatus of said crystal and claims priority from a 1997 application. SiC crystal is a semiconductor material grown via man-made methods and used in high-temperature and high-power electronics such as light sources, power diodes, and photodiodes. SiC material must contain a relatively low level of defects. Cree has engaged in research to grow low defect SiC crystals since 1987. In 1995, Cree grew boule G0259; Dr. Dudley, of the State University of New York, advised that a wafer sliced from that boule, (the Kyoto Wafer), had an exceptionally low defect area. At the 1995 International Conference on SiC and Related Materials and in a 1996 article, Cree inventors showed a cropped image and described the low defect nature of the Kyoto Wafer. Fox claimed that Cree infringed claims of its patent. The district court entered summary judgment that the 130 patent is invalid and rejected other claims and counterclaims. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to two claims of the 130 patent, but vacated in part. There was no controversy at the time of the judgment over other claims of the patent. View "Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc." on Justia Law

Revision and Balboa design, manufacture, and sell protective eyewear. Revision markets its ballistic protective eyewear primarily to military establishments and law enforcement agencies, and to others who require eye protection, such as hunters and range shooters. Revision alleges that Balboa’s new “Bravo” design protective goggles copied and infringes Revision’s “Bullet Ant” goggles covered by two patents. After the infringement suit was filed Revision sought to enjoin Balboa from making and selling the Bravo goggles while the litigation was pending. The district court denied the preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that the district court erred in applying the Second Circuit’s heightened standard of proof of likelihood of success on the merits (clear and substantial) likelihood, instead of the Federal Circuit standard for consideration of whether to impose relief. On remand, the district court should employ the design-as-a-whole criterion and the more-likely-than-not standard. View "Revision Military, Inc. v. Balboa Mfg. Co." on Justia Law

Superior owns three patents, which claim priority to a 2006 application and cover a “Braced Telescoping Support Strut and System” that supports a portable conveyor assembly to transport and stockpile rock, sand, grain, and other aggregate material. Superior alleges its patents claim an improved undercarriage that enables portable conveyors to safely and stably operate at heights above previous conveyors by using cross bracing between the upper and lower support beams that does not interfere with the extension or retraction of upper support beams. Superior claims to have coined the term “fully braced” and owns the registered trademark “FB.” Thor competes in the portable conveyor market and, in 2007, filed a U.S. patent application for an “Undercarriage for a Telescopic Frame,” disclosing a telescoping frame similar to that claimed in the Superior patents. Thor issued a press release describing a conveyor system with a new “PATENT-PENDING FB Undercarriage.” Superior initiated a trademark infringement action that ended in a 2010 Consent Judgment, enjoining Thor from use of the “FB” trademark. Superior then sued for patent infringement. The district court dismissed, citing claim preclusion. The Federal Circuit reversed in part. Superior’s prior trademark infringement action did not arise from the same operative facts. View "Superior Indus., L.L.C. v. Thor Global Enter., Ltd." on Justia Law