Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff alleged infringement of patents covering systems and devices for testing blood samples against a competitor in the diagnostic field. The patents at issue name defendant as the assignee. Plaintiff claimed ownership based on confidentiality and non-competition clauses in employment and consulting contracts between its predecessor and an employee, the inventor. The district court dismissed, finding that plaintiff lacked standing because the 1999 Consulting Agreement did not continue the 1984 Agreement’s Disclosure and Assignment Covenant. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the company lacked standing with respect to rights assigned long after the inventor resigned from the company. View "Abbott Point of Care, Inc. v. Epocal, Inc." on Justia Law

Hematology controls are used to monitor and test the accuracy and consistency of hematology analyzers, which clinical laboratories use to analyze patient blood samples by measuring components of whole blood. Plaintiff and defendant manufacture and sell hematology control products. In 1999, plaintiff filed a patent application directed to an integrated reticulocyte control; about two months later, defendant filed its application. In 2003, after some of plaintiff's patents issued, defendant copied claims from those patents into its pending application and asked the PTO to declare an interference to determine priority of invention. While the request was pending, defendant began manufacturing and selling integrated hematology controls. Plaintiff filed an infringement suit. The district court dismissed invalidity counterclaims with respect to claims plaintiff did not include in its infringement allegations; ruled in favor of plaintiff on enablement; and issued an injunction in favor of plaintiff. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The district court properly refused to address the validity of unasserted claims and correctly denied written description and enablement defenses as a matter of law. View "Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

The patent claims methods for preparing multi-cryopreserved hepatocytes (a type of liver cell), used for evaluating drug candidates. The owner claimed infringement and obtained a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The district court acted within its discretion in finding likelihood of success on the merits, considering defenses of non-infringement, obviousness, written description, and inequitable conduct. The court considered and properly addressed the public's interest in obtaining an adequate supply of pooled multi-cryopreserved hepatocyte products. View "Celsis In Vitro, Inc. v. Cellzdirect, Inc." on Justia Law

The 2006 patent, entitled "Surgical Devices Having a Polymeric Material with a Therapeutic Agent and Methods for Making Same" and the 2007 patent, entitled "Surgical Devices Containing a Heat Bondable Material with a Therapeutic Agent" have identical specifications and are directed to a surgical implant in which a polymeric material is bonded by heat to an expandable implant, where the polymer includes a therapeutic agent such as an antibiotic. The owner of the patents sued. The district court made a finding of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding and construction of the term "bonded." The district court then declared the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 and awarded defendant attorney and expert witness fees totaling $4,683,653.03. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The district court opinion indicates its finding that plaintiff acted in bad faith in filing a baseless infringement action and continuing to pursue it despite no evidence of infringement and engaged in vexatious and unjustified litigation conduct that unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings and forced defendant to incur substantial expenses. View "MarcTec, LLC v. Johnson & Johnson" on Justia Law

The owner of a patent, is entitled "Mobile Screen Assembly for Rubble and Debris," and directed to a vehicle for screening rocks and plant matter (among other things) based on size from, for example, soil or dirt at a construction site, appealed a reexamination during which the PTO rejected a number of claims as obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the that every limitation of each claim on appeal is found in an available references and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to combine the available references in such a way as to practice the alleged invention of each claim. View "In re Constr. Equip. Co." on Justia Law

The 564 patent, entitled Mobile Screen Assembly for Rubble and Debris, is directed to a vehicle for screening rocks and plant matter (among other things) based on size from, for example, soil or dirt at a construction site. In reexamination proceedings, the PTO rejected some claims as obvious (35 U.S.C. 103). The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences generally affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Every limitation of each claim on appeal is found in one or another of the available references. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to combine the available references in such a way as to practice the alleged invention of each claim and such a person would have had a reason to make such combinations, for the reasons set forth by the Board and by the Examiner. View "In re Constr Equip. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff's 502 patent for a statin drug is a reissue of a patent that claims the benefit of a provisional application filed on April 10, 2000. The earliest date by which plaintiff asserts that it conceived and reduced to practice its claimed invention is December 1, 1999. In 2008 plaintiff sued for infringement by the drug Crestor. The district court found the 502 claims invalid, based on defendant's showing that it had conceived and reduced its drug to practice prior to plaintiff's first conception of the claimed subject matter (35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2)). The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Teva Pharm. Indus., Ltd. v. Astrazeneca Pharm., LP" on Justia Law

The owner of the patent, directed to systems and processes for the design of application-specific integrated circuits , sued customers of Synopsys. The owner alleged Synopsys sold software for an infringing process. Synopsys filed an action against the patent owner, seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability. After nearly seven years of litigation, the district court granted Synopsys summary judgment of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Synopsys then filed an amended bill of costs seeking $1,208,616.09. The Clerk allowed costs to $938,957.72. The Federal Circuit affirmed the award of costs related to all depositions and transcriptions, reversed the award of costs for use of a third-party discovery database, because the parties had agreed to share the costs, vacated the award of copying costs, and remanded. View "In re Ricoh Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff designed a radial arm saw guard and sold eight prototype units for use by defendant, a major retailer, at stations for cutting lumber. Defendant contracted with another to make copies of the guard for all of its stores at a lower price. The district court concluded that plaintiff had not committed inequitable conduct and declined to hold plaintiff's patent unenforceable. The court made findings of willful infringement and bad faith litigation and awarded enhanced damages and attorney fees. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding the willful infringement and damages determinations are supported by substantial evidence. The trial court properly construed the claim terms "dust collection structure" and "table top." View "Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit, asserting infringement of patents. Defendant argued invalidity on the ground that its employee was the earlier inventor. The jury answered "No" to: Has defendant proven by clear and convincing evidence that its employee was the first to invent and did not abandon, suppress or conceal that invention? The court declined to stay the suit pending completion of the Patent and Trademark Office interference. The PTO awarded priority to defendant's employee, but, in a subsequent civil action for interference under 35 U.S.C. 146, the district court awarded priority to plaintiffs. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Section 146 establishes de novo review; the court is not required to accept the PTO findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. The judicial process is the final arbiter of the rights and issues administratively assigned to the PTO. View "Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Sys., Inc." on Justia Law