Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

A subsidiary of Marathon hired Preston as a relief pumper in Marathon’s coal bed methane well operation. After beginning work, Preston signed an Employee Agreement containing the assignment at issue. Later, Preston worked with Marathon Engineer Smith on a baffle system to improve machinery used to extract methane gas from water-saturated coal in a coal bed methane gas well. Marathon installed the system on wells. After Preston’s employment ended, both Marathon and Preston pursued patents. The district court declared that Preston is the sole inventor of one patent and that Smith was misjoined as an inventor; ordered the PTO to issue a new certificate reflecting Preston as the sole inventor; declared Marathon the owner of other patents pursuant to the employment agreement and that Preston breached the agreement for failing to assign his rights. The court entered summary judgment in favor of Marathon on its shop right claim, finding that, even if Marathon did not own the patents, it had a shop right to practice the inventions. The Federal Circuit affirmed that Preston assigned his rights in two inventions to Marathon pursuant to his employment agreement. Because that assignment was automatic, there was no breach of that agreement. View "Preston v. Marathon Oil Co." on Justia Law

Alice Corporation owns three patents covering a computerized trading platform for exchanging obligations in which a trusted third party settles obligations between a first and second party so as to eliminate “settlement risk.” Settlement risk is the risk that only one party’s obligation will be paid, leaving the other party without its principal. The trusted third party eliminates this risk by either exchanging both parties’ obligations or exchanging neither obligation. CLS sought a declaration of invalidity; Alice counterclaimed infringement. The district court ruled in favor of CLS, holding that each asserted claim of the four patents is invalid for failure to claim patent eligible subject matter. The Federal Circuit reversed. The system, method, and media claims at issue are not drawn to mere “abstract ideas” but are directed to practical applications of invention falling within the categories of patent eligible subject matter defined by 35 U.S.C. 101. View "CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd." on Justia Law

Lupin submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to the Food and Drug Administration seeking approval to market a generic version of Fortamet, an extended-release tablet of metaformin hydrochloride. Shionogi, which markets Fortamet, sued Lupin for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A) asserting, among others, the 866 patent), which is listed in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book) entry for Fortamet. Lupin attempted to launch its generic Fortamet “at risk,”( without a final judgment on the merits in the litigation). Shionogi obtained a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded. The district court incorrectly concluded that Lupin failed to raise a substantial question of validity regarding the asserted claims of the 866 patent, an abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction. View "Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin, Ltd." on Justia Law

In 2006 the inventor submitted a utility patent application entitled “Crossbar Arithmetic Processor,” disclosing a computing device for processes such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division using nanoscale materials in a crossbar array. The examiner rejected all claims. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). The Federal Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. View "In re: Mouttet" on Justia Law

Wrigley and Cadbury compete in selling chewing gum that provides a cooling sensation. Historically, gum makers have achieved that sensation with menthol. Menthol has disadvantages, including a strong peppermint flavor and bitterness in high concentrations. WS-3 and WS-23 are alternative coolants: Cadbury owns the 893 patent, claiming a combination of menthol with WS-3. Wrigley owns the 233 patent, claiming menthol with WS-23. After Cadbury introduced its WS-3/menthol gum, Wrigley introduced a gum with menthol and WS-23. Cadbury then reformulated its products. Cadbury’s reformulated gum contained both WS-23 and menthol. Wrigley sued, accusing Cadbury of infringing the 233 patent. Cadbury counterclaimed, accusing Wrigley of infringing the 893 patent. The district court granted Wrigley summary judgment of noninfringement. Addressing Cadbury’s summary judgment motion, the district court concluded that claim 34 of the 233 patent was invalid for anticipation and obviousness. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The inventors were on notice of potential interchangeability of WS-23 and WS-3, but drafted claims of the 893 patent narrowly to recite certain N-substituted-p-menthane carboxamides, not a broader category of carboxamides that would include WS-23. The trial court properly held that Cadbury could not expand the coverage of its patent to include WS-23 through the doctrine of equivalents. View "Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA, LLC" on Justia Law

Once a user records all of the data on the DVD, the user may choose to "finalize" the DVD. A recordable DVD can be played in the drive in which it was recorded without finalization, but not on other recorders or conventional DVD players. A finalized DVD can be played on any standardized DVD player or drive. Toshiba accused defendants of infringing claims patents related to optical disc technology. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding that the use of unfinalized DVDs was a substantial non-infringing use and that both theories of indirect infringement – contributory and inducing infringement – fail if there are any substantial non-infringing uses. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part. The district court correctly granted summary judgment of non-infringement as to contributory infringement of the asserted claims of one patent, but erred in granting summary judgment of non-infringement as to induced infringement of the asserted claims of that patent and in granting summary judgment of non-infringement of the other patent based on an erroneous claim construction. View "Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp." on Justia Law

R+L, owns a patent relating to the less-than-a-load trucking industry and uses the patented method in its business. Carriers in the industry pick up freight from several different customers, often destined for different locations around the country. Freight is taken to a terminal where it is unloaded from the truck and consolidated with other freight headed in the same direction, then reloaded. The patent claims a method that “automates the process of receiving transportation documentation and producing advance loading manifests therefrom to optimize load planning and dynamic product shipment and delivery control.” The patented method enables shipping documents to be sent directly from the truck driver to a common point, such as a terminal, so billing and load planning can occur while the driver is en route with the freight. In 2008, R+L sent cease-and-desist letters to defendants, suspecting infringement. Defendants sought declaratory judgments of invalidity and non-infringement; R+L counterclaimed. The district court ruled against R+L. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. R+L failed to state a claim of contributory infringement, but adequately stated a claim of induced infringement View "R&L Carriers, Inc. v. Drivertech, LLC" on Justia Law

Harari's 880 application, filed in 1999, is a continuation of the 708 application, which was a continuation of the 838 application, which was a divisional of the 566 application, filed in 1989 on the same day as Harari's 579 application. An incorporation statement from the 566 application, referring to copending applications, was copied into the subsequent applications. The 880 application included a photocopy of 566, a transmittal sheet identifying the filing as a continuation, and a preliminary amendment. During interference proceedings, Hollmer argued that Harari's claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 112, because the 579 application was not properly identified in the 880 application because 579 was not filed "on the same day" as the 880 application. The Board agreed. On remand, the Board found that continuity between the 566 and 880 applications was maintained; the intervening 838 and 768 applications contain incorporation language copied from the 566 application but, unlike the 880 application, were never amended to refer to 579 by serial number and filing date. The Board found that a reasonable examiner would have had access to all filing papers, including transmittal sheets and would have understood that the incorporation language in those applications referred to the 579 application. The Federal Circuit reversed. View "Hollmer v. Harari" on Justia Law

The patents involve topical compositions for protecting pets from fleas and ticks. The 940 patent, now expired, claimed fipronil for pest control by direct toxicity. Merial, as exclusive licensee, developed compositions sold as Frontline. Merial also devised compositions, covered by the 329 patent, combining fipronil with an insect growth regulator, sold as Frontline Plus, the leading flea and tick treatment. In 2007 Merial sued Cipla and other internet retailers, alleging infringement. No defendant responded. The district court found that the patents were not invalid, that Cipla had infringed each patent, and entered a permanent injunction barring Cipla from directly or indirectly infringing the patents. In 2008 Cipla filed an informal communication, not intended to constitute an appearance, denying infringing or having any presence in the U.S., and requesting dismissal. The district court entered final judgment. Velcera, led by former Merial executives, engaged with Cipla to develop, test, manufacture, and distribute products to compete with Merial. Both Velcera and Cipla entered into development and supply agreements with various companies. In 2011, they began selling PetArmor Plus. The district court held Velcera and Cipla in contempt. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to jurisdiction and to the contempt order’s application to Velcera. View "Merial, Ltd. v. Cipla, Ltd." on Justia Law

The 148 patent claims a structure for encasing meat products. It describes prior art, which use netting that allows meat to bulge between strands and produce a desirable checkerboard pattern on the meat’s surface, but causes difficulty in peeling netting off the cooked meat. Prior art tried to solve this problem by using a separate layer of collagen film, or stockinette; this required a two-step stuffing process that was labor intensive and expensive. The 148 patent integrates a stockinette into a netting to make a new kind of meat encasement. The integrated stockinette has more stretching ability than the netting and solves the adherence problem without the two-step stuffing process while allowing some bulging to create the grid-like pattern on the meat. Mintz asserts that the 148 patent covers its Jif-Pak knitted meat encasement products. PCM, previously a distributor of Mintz’s Jif-Pak products, now competes with Mintz. Mintz accused PCM’s bubble netting, collagen replacement, and cubic netting product lines of infringement. The district court ruled in favor of PCM. The Federal Circuit affirmed the non-infringement determination and vacated the invalidity holding. With respect to determining obviousness, entirely omitting meat encasement art led the validity search astray View "Mintz v. Dietz & Watson" on Justia Law