Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff owns the 245 Patent, originally issued in 2005, and claims p-GlcNAc, a polymer extracted from another polymer called chitin, that accelerates hemostasis (a process that causes bleeding to stop) and is useful in trauma units for treating serious wounds. The district court found infringement. While the case was pending, the patent was re-examined; the scope of the claims changed. In 2011, the Federal Circuit vacated an injunction and award of damages and remanded. The court subsequently granted reconsideration en banc and affirmed the district court. Although the district court did not have the reexamination before it, the Federal Circuit considered arguments with respect to reexamination and concluded, as an alternative ground for affirmance, that intervening rights do not apply to claims that have not been amended and are not new. View "Marine Polymer Tech., Inc. .Hemcon, Inc." on Justia Law

Revolution is a manufacturer of eye-glass frames and auxiliary sunglasses that can be attached to the eyeglass frames, including by use of magnets. Aspex's 545 patent is directed to magnetic clip-on eyewear, primarily sunglass lenses. The companies have been suing one another for more than a decade. In a case concerning the 545 patent, the district court granted summary judgment on res judicata grounds. The court remanded for determination of whether products introduced during the pendency of earlier California litigation were included within the scope of that litigation, and whether collateral estoppel limits the right of Aspex to proceed under the 545 patent. If the court determines that Aspex is not barred, it must determine infringement based on construction of critical terms of two claims. View "Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc." on Justia Law

Zoltek’s patent, "Controlled Surface Electrical Resistance Carbon Fiber Sheet Product" concerns manufacturing carbon fiber sheets with controlled surface electrical resistivity. The filters were used in F-22 fighter jets, which Lockheed designed and built under government contract. Zoltek claimed infringement in a 1996 suit against the U.S. under 28 U.S.C. 1498(c). The Federal Circuit held that the statute did not waive sovereign immunity because the manufacturing process began in a foreign country and that Zoltek could not allege patent infringement as a taking under the Tucker Act. On remand, the court allowed Zoltek to add a claim against Lockheed under 35 U.S.C. 271(g) and transfer the case. The Federal Circuit court reconsidered its earlier decision and concluded that suit against the government is not barred and that 1498(c) does not apply to this case because the infringement was based on activities in the U.S. An independent cause of action is available under 28 U.S.C. 1498(a) for direct infringement by the government or its contractors that is not dependent on 35 U.S.C. 271(a). When the government is subject to suit under 1498(a) for alleged infringement by a contractor, the contractor is immune from individual liability. View "Zoltek Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

The patents are directed to regulating access to content that is delivered through a computer network. Digital-Vending sued three businesses involved in online education, alleging infringement. The district court issued a claim construction order. Two defendants entered into settlements. The third, University of Phoenix, sought summary judgment of non-infringement. Digital-Vending filed a motion for reconsideration of construction of the term "registered user." The district court granted for summary judgment of non-infringement and entered judgment in favor of Phoenix. The Federal Circuit vacated in part, finding that the determination was based on erroneous construction, and affirmed in part. View "Digital-Vending Servs. Int'l, LLC v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1996, Staats applied for a patent titled "Isochronous Channel Having a Linked List of Buffers.” The 600 patent issued in 1999, describing improvements to management of isochronous data transfers, such as transfer of real-time video data from one component to another in a computer system. Within the two-year period, 35 U.S.C. 251, Staats filed a first broadening reissue application. The first reissue patent issued in 2004. While that application was pending, Staats filed a second broadening reissue application in 2004, as a continuation of the first application. While the second application was pending, but almost seven years after the original patent issued, Staats filed a third broadening reissue application in 2006, as a continuation of the second application. During prosecution of the third application, Staats added broadened claims in 2007. The examiner rejected the third application, finding that the new broadened claims were "not related in any way to what was covered in the original broadening reissue." The Board sustained the rejection. The Federal Circuit reversed. The first broadening reissue application was filed within the two-year limit; that is sufficient to satisfy the requirement.View "In re Staats" on Justia Law

MySpace, FOX, and Craigslist sought declaratory judgment that certain patents owned by GraphOn were invalid and not infringed by plaintiffs. The patents related to the ability to create, modify, and store database records over a computer network. The District Court granted plaintiffs summary judgment. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The district court's claim construction of "database" was reasonable and supported by the context; its overall conclusion that the claims were anticipated or obvious was appropriate. The case was properly decided under sections 102 and 103 of the Patent Act and not under section 101. View "MySpace, Inc. v. Graphon Corp." on Justia Law

On GE’s complaint, the International Trade Commission conducted an investigation and, rejecting the findings of an ALJ determined that GE's 039 patent was not invalid by reason of obviousness or written description, that variable speed wind turbines imported by Mitsubishi do not infringe any of GE's patents, and that the domestic industry requirement is not met as to any of the patents. The Commission concluded that the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. 1337, was not violated. The 039 patent subsequently expired. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the 221 patent is not infringed, but reversed the determination of no domestic industry as to the 985 patent, and remanded. View "Gen. Elec. Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences declared an interference between the claims of a patent belonging to Pioneer and those of a pending application owned by Monsanto. The claims concern transgenic corn. After the Board concluded that Monsanto was not time-barred under 35 U.S.C. 135(b)(1) and that its claims were entitled to seniority, Pioneer stipulated to judgment against it and the Board canceled Pioneer's claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc. v. Monsanto Tech., LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant's patent discloses an investment tool designed to enable property owners to buy and sell properties without incurring tax liability by enabling like-kind exchanges under 26 U.S.C. 1031. The claims require aggregation of multiple properties into a portfolio; interests in the portfolio are divided into "deed shares" and sold to investors similar to the sale of stock. Each deedshare can be encumbered by its own mortgage. The patent allows for a master tenant to perform administrative tasks such as paying insurance, property taxes, and rents. The district court invalidated each of 41 claims in the patent for failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C.101, reasoning that the claims were not tied to a particular machine or apparatus and that none of the claims transform any article to a different state or thing. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the claims attempt to capture unpatentable abstract subject matter. View "Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease, LLC" on Justia Law

The 690 patent is directed to a process for clarifying low alkalinity water using a blend of a high molecular weight quaternized polymer and an aluminum polymer. Claim 1 refers to a process for clarification of water of "raw alkalinity less than or equal to 50 ppm by chemical treatment." A jury found that the 690 patent was valid and indirectly infringed. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, holding that the verdict that the 690 patent was not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 was not supported by substantial evidence.The court affirmed that defendant did not misappropriate the trade secret described in claim 1. View "ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc." on Justia Law