Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

K-TEC, a company that manufactures and sells commercial blending equipment, owns U.S. Patents 117 842, which generally disclose and claim a blending system that contains a blending jar with a specific geometry. The benefit of the claimed geometry is that it alters the flow pattern of the liquid during blending in a way that reduces cavitation, which occurs when a pocket of air envelops the area surrounding the blender blade during blending. The 117 patent is the parent of the 842 patent. The district court concluded that the patents were not invalid, that two prior references were not analogous for purposes of showing obviousness, that Vita-Mix willfully infringed, and that K-TEC was entitled to about $11 million in reasonable royalty and lost profit damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision as supported by the evidence. View "K-TEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp." on Justia Law

Santarus is the exclusive licensee of patents on formulations of benzimidazole proton pump inhibitors, a class of chemical compounds that inhibit gastric acid secretion and help prevent and treat stomach acid-related diseases and disorders. Santarus provides the PPI product omeprazole in formulations covered by the Phillips patents, brand name Zegerid. Par filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for FDA approval to sell a generic counterpart of the Santarus Zegerid products, invoking the Hatch-Waxman Act (the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984), which established Paragraph IV certification, 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV), whereby an entity that seeks to market a generic counterpart of a patented drug product or method of use, before the patent has expired, may challenge the patent before actually marketing the drug. The district court found that Par’s ANDA products infringe the patents, but found all asserted claims invalid on the ground of obviousness, 35 U.S.C 103 and found certain claims invalid on the ground of inadequate written description, 35 U.S.C. 112. The district court held that there was not inequitable conduct by the inventor, his assignee, or their counsel in procuring the patents. The Federal Circuit reversed with respect to obviousness, but otherwise affirmed. View "Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharma., Inc." on Justia Law

Mirror Worlds sued Apple, alleging direct and induced infringement of three patents directed to searching, displaying, and archiving computer files. The specification discloses a “document streaming” operating system that, unlike traditional operating systems, identifies documents with a time stamp instead of a file name and maintains them in chronologically ordered “streams.” Every document created and every document sent to a person or entity is stored in a main stream. The documents in the stream “can contain any type of data” including “pictures, correspondence, bills, movies, voice-mail and software programs.” By constantly keeping track of all the documents on the computer in these chronologically ordered streams and making the location and nature of file storage transparent to the user, the invention purportedly improves filing operations and enhances the quality of the user’s experience. The district court granted Apple judgment as a matter of law that Apple did not induce infringement. The jury found Apple liable for willfully infringing and awarded $208.5 million in damages. The court granted Apple’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, vacated the verdict, and concluded that Mirror Worlds failed to present substantial evidence of direct infringement and damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Mirror Worlds, L.L.C. v. Apple, Inc." on Justia Law

Akamai owns a method patent for delivery of web content, consisting of placing some of a provider’s content elements on a set of replicated servers and modifying the provider’s web page to instruct browsers to retrieve content from those servers. Akamai sued Limelight, alleging direct and indirect infringement. Limelight maintains a network of servers that places some content on its servers. Limelight does not modify content pages itself, but instructs customers on doing so. McKesson owns a method patent for electronic communication between healthcare providers and patients. McKesson alleged that Epic induced infringement. Epic licenses software that permits healthcare providers to communicate electronically with patients. Epic does not perform any steps of the patent; patients initiate communication and healthcare providers perform remaining steps. In the district court, Limelight and Epic were held not to infringe because they did not perform the steps in the method. The Federal Circuit reversed. When a single actor commits all elements of infringement, that actor is liable for direct infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(a)). When a single actor induces another to commit all elements of infringement, the first actor is liable for induced infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(b)). When the acts necessary to give rise to direct infringement are shared between actors, a single party may be liable for induced infringement. View "Akamai Tech., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc." on Justia Law

LaserDynamics owns the 981 Patent, issued in 1996, directed to a method of optical disc discrimination that essentially enables an optical disc drive to automatically identify the type of optical disc (CD or DVD) inserted into the ODD. LaserDynamics entered into at least 29 licensing agreements from 1998 to 2003 for lump sum amounts of $1 million or less. QSI is a manufacturer of ODDs headquartered in Taiwan. QSI first sold its ODDs for integration into laptop computers in the U.S. in 2001. In 2002, LaserDynamics offered QSI a license under the 981 Patent, but QSI disputed whether its ODDs were within the scope of the patent and declined the offer. In 2006, LaserDynamics brought suit against QCI (a parent that manufactures laptop computers of QSI) and QSI for infringement. The Federal Circuit remanded regarding the damages owed by QCI pertaining to the infringing ODDs not purchased by QCI via specific suppliers, and for which QCI does not have an implied license to the 981 Patent. On remand, the hypothetical negotiation date shall be set in 2003. View "LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc." on Justia Law

Integrated circuits are formed on a substrate “by the sequential deposition of conductive, semiconductive or insulative layers” that are “etched [after deposition] to create circuitry features.” Because the substrate surface becomes increasingly non-planar through this process, the substrate must be periodically flattened. CMP is a method in which the substrate is placed against a rotating polishing pad, and a polishing slurry is applied. Problems included the uneven distribution of slurry, the accumulation of waste material during pad conditioning, and a polishing problem associated with pad flexibility. The claimed inventions are “sufficiently rigid” pads with grooves that advantageously distribute the slurry, remove waste material, and increase pad life. Applied’s amended patents were rejected on reexamination as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based on prior art. The Board and the Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board correctly found the limited evidence Applied provided of commercial success could not over-come the prima facie finding of obviousness. View "In re Applied Materials, Inc." on Justia Law

Water jacketed marine exhaust systems cool exhaust as it exits the engine of a marine vessel. These devices generally consist of two cylinders with exhaust flowing through the inner cylinder and water flowing through the space between the inner and outer cylinders. Woods exclusively licensed his 670 and 633 patents to MES. Sometime before 2006 MES became aware that DeAngelo was selling exhaust systems that were believed to infringe the Woods patents and filed suit. The district court ruled in favor of MES. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding exclusion of engineering drawings as an untimely interrogatory supplement despite DeAngelo’s identification of the drawings immediately upon finding them and on the final day of the scheduled discovery period. The court also upheld the district court's claim construction and rejection of claims of obviousness. View "Woods v. DeAngelo Marine Exhaust, Inc." on Justia Law

ActiveVideo asserted that Verizon’s video on demand (VoD) feature of the FiOS-TV system infringed its 578, 678, and 883 patents, which share a common specification and generally disclose and claim interactive television systems and methods for delivering interactive television to subscribers. Verizon counterclaimed that ActiveVideo infringed three of its patents. The jury found that Verizon infringed four ActiveVideo patents and that ActiveVideo infringed two Verizon patents and awarded damages to both. The court entered an injunction against Verizon but delayed enforcement for six months during which Verizon was ordered to pay a sunset royalty. The Federal Circuit reversed the injunction and the judgment of infringement against Verizon as to one patent; vacated the grant of summary judgment of invalidity as to one Verizon patent is vacated and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed other findings of infringement and the imposition of a sunset royalty. View "ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'n, Inc." on Justia Law

AFTG filed two actions in the District of Wyoming, claiming that defendants infringe several of its patents. Pegatron, PTS, and Unihan are named as defendants in one case; ASUSTeK and ASUS are named as defendants in the other. AFTG’s allegations are the same in both cases. The complaints generally allege that the defendants’ manufacturing, use, testing, and importation of computer chips, motherboards, computers, and other products directly infringe AFTG’s patents and that the defendants knowingly and intentionally induce and contribute to others’ infringement. The complaint against Pegatron, PTS, and Unihan also alleges misappropriation of trade secrets. The court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Wyoming’s personal jurisdiction statute explicitly reaches to the full extent of the United States and Wyoming constitutions. Specific (as opposed to general) jurisdiction examines: whether the defendant purposefully directs activities at the forum’s residents; whether the claim arises out of or relates to those activities; and whether assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair. AFTG’s complaint represented nothing more than “bare formulaic accusation” that the defendants maintain sufficient contacts with Wyoming. View "AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp." on Justia Law

Generic pharmaceutical manufacturers filed abbreviated new drug applications, seeking FDA approval to market generic formulations of the chemotherapy agent pemetrexed, currently marketed as Alimta. Permetrexed won FDA approval in 2004 for use in treating mesothelioma and then in 2008 for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. A 1989 patent application claimed pemetrexed and a broader group of related antifolates containing pemetrexed’s characteristic core structure. The application, eventually abandoned, founded a family of related applications that yielded the three patents at issue; two have expired, but the 932 patent remains in effect until 2016, due to a patent term extension of over four years to compensate for delays, 35 U.S.C. 156. The ANDAs asserted that the 932 patent was invalid, unenforceable, or would not be infringed by the proposed generic products, 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV). Lily, which markets Alimta, sued alleging infringement, 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A). The district court rejected arguments that the 932 patent claims were invalid for obviousness-type double patenting over two earlier-issued claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Med., Inc." on Justia Law