Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

The technology involves prosthetic vascular grafts, fabricated from highly-expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, and used to bypass or replace blood vessels to assure adequate and balanced blood flow to particular parts of the body. The 135 patent application was filed in 1974, but the patent did not issue until 2002. The district court found that the patent had been willfully infringed and was not invalid for improper inventorship, anticipation, obviousness, or lack of written description, and awarded enhanced damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and an ongoing royalty. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding substantial evidence to support the jury verdict. View "Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff markets, under the name CRESTOR, a cholesterol-lowering drug, rosuvastatin calcium, a member of a class of drugs known as statins, and holds related patents, 314, 618, and 152. After filing its 2003 New Drug Application and obtaining FDA approval, the company complied with the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Hatch-Waxman Act), notifying the FDA that those patents were among those it believed could be infringed by the unlicensed manufacture, use, or sale of rosuvastatin calcium to be published in the FDA's "Orange Book," 21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1). Defendants are generic pharmaceutical manufacturers that filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications with the FDA seeking to market generic rosuvastatin calcium. The district court ruled in favor of plaintiff in a case claiming infringement of the 314 patent. Plaintiff brought a second action, claiming that defendants' ANDA filings infringed the other patents. The district court dismissed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff failed to state a 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2) claim based on defendants' existing ANDA filings, and claims premised on presumed future labeling amendments were not ripe for adjudication. View "AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P. v Apotex Corp." on Justia Law

In an action under the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. 1337, the International Trade Commission found unfair trade practices based on infringement of Epson's U.S. patents by importation and sale of ink printer cartridges produced in China by Ninestar and imported into and sold in the U.S. by entities including Ninestar's subsidiaries, The Commission issued a general exclusion order, limited exclusion orders, and cease and desist orders. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Final Orders prohibited importation and sale of infringing cartridges, including cartridges in the inventory of U.S. subsidiaries. Subsidiaries continued to import and sell cartridges that were subject to the orders. An Administrative Law Judge determined that Ninestar was in violation and levied a penalty under 19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(2). The Commission reduced the penalty. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding Ninestar China jointly and severally liable for the penalty ($55,000 per day, a total of $11,110,000) along with the U.S. subsidiaries. Ninestar was aware that refurbishing and reselling spent cartridges, not first sold in the U.S., would be patent infringement View "Ninestar Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

The 547 and 052 patents relate to technology for weighing objects, such as large commercial trucks. Mettler sued B-Tek alleging infringement of certain claims of the patents. The district court construed the claims and the jury found that B-Tek did not infringe any of the asserted claims and that the asserted claims of the 052 patent would have been obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the court correctly construed the claims, particularly: "circuit means associated with said counterforce, said circuit means being responsive to external control," "means for producing digital representations of loads applied to said counterforce," and "means for transmitting said digital representations." Substantial evidence supported the verdict. The court properly denied sanctions for Mettler's alleged withholding and destruction of documents; the documents were not highly relevant.View "Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. B-TEK Scales, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2005, plaintiff filed the 261 application and requested an interference based on defendant's 213 patent. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences held that the single count of the interference, drawn to humanized antibodies, was barred under 35 U.S.C. 135(b)(1). The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Adair v. Carter" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs accused Sony and Sony entities of infringing claims of a patent relating to a tactile feedback system for computer video games. The district court construed disputed claim terms and the parties stipulated to a judgment of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, finding that the district court improperly limited the term "attached to said pad" to mean attachment only to an external surface and erred in its construction of the term "flexible." View "Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm't Am., LLC" on Justia Law

HTC sought a declaration that it did not infringe a valid and enforceable claim of the 830 patent, which covers a handover in a cellular telephone network to reduce the chance of interrupted service for a user in transit. IPCom counterclaimed, alleging infringement. The district court concluded that two claims in the 830 patent were invalid. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the district court misconstrued the claims, which cover only an apparatus, not an apparatus and method steps. The specification adequately discloses a processor and transceiver for use in performing the functions recited in the claims.View "HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG" on Justia Law

In 1989 Krippelz filed for a patent on a vehicle-mounted lamp, titled "Emergency Light" and describing a lamp attached to the side view mirror of an automobile and shining downward. He offered a license to Ford, which was not interested, but in 1997 began offering an option known as a "puddle light," a lamp, attached to the vehicle's side view mirror, that shone light generally downward. In 2008 the district court entered summary judgment finding infringement and awarded $56 million. The Federal Circuit reversed as to validity, vacated other rulings, and remanded for entry of a judgment of non-liability. The district court erred in finding the patent novel over prior art. View "Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. 256 with respect to a patent covering a synthesis protocol for chiral additives, which are used to improve the performance characteristics of LCDs, such as display color, contrast, and brightness. The district court and ordered the Patent and Trademark Office to issue a certificate of correction adding him as a named inventor and found the case to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285, awarding attorney fees to plaintiff. The Federal Circuit affirmed as to inventorship, but did not address the exceptional case determination and attorney fees award, concluding that those determinations were not final. The district court properly determined that plaintiff's contribution to the invention was greater than the exercise of ordinary skill. View "Falana v Kent State Univ." on Justia Law

Plaintiff owns patents, directed to a computer-aided method and system for processing credit applications from car dealers over electronic networks. The patents claim priority to and incorporate the 403 patent, filed in 1995. The district court entered judgment of noninfringement on certain claims; of invalidity for failure to claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 with respect to other claims; and of invalidity for indefiniteness on others. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. With respect to infringement, the district court improperly carved-out the Internet from its construction of "communications medium" and improperly construed "central processing means." Finding "central processing means" indefinite, the court invalidated three claims for failure to recite sufficient structure to perform claimed functions. Certain claims were invalid as being directed to an abstract idea preemptive of a fundamental concept or idea that would foreclose innovation in the area. View "Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber" on Justia Law