Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Bayer’s patent concerns genetically modifying plants to confer resistance to a common herbicide (2,4-D) by inserting a particular DNA segment into plant cells, which reproduce to create new cells that contain that gene. Those cells produce an enzyme that catalyzes a biochemical reaction with 2,4-D in which the herbicide is broken down into something harmless to the plant. A plant with the gene survives 2,4-D application while surrounding weeds do not. At the time of the patent application, the inventors had sequenced one gene coding for one enzyme, using a test supposedly capable of finding other, similar genes. In writing the application, they claimed a broad category based on the function of the particular enzyme, defining the category by using a term with established scientific meaning. Years before the patent issued, experiments showed that the term did not apply to the particular enzyme whose gene was sequenced, but Bayer did not change its claim language. When Bayer sued Dow for infringement, Bayer recognized that the term’s established scientific meaning, did not cover the accused product, which was, itself, different from the enzyme whose gene Bayer’s inventors had sequenced. Bayer argued for broad functional claim construction. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement, citing particularly the great breadth of the asserted functional construction. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow AgroSciences, LLC" on Justia Law

TT’s 411, 768, 374, and 055 parents relate to software used for electronic trading on a commodities exchange, were issued in 2010-2011, and claim priority to applications filed in 2000. In consolidated infringement proceedings, the district court found the patents invalid for failure to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112 and that prosecution history estoppel barred TT from asserting the 055 patent against software products that include certain display functions. The holdings were premised on a 2010 Federal Circuit decision involving two related patents from TT’s portfolio. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the earlier decision does not control the issues presented in this litigation. View "Trading Techs. Int'l v. Open E Cry, LLC" on Justia Law

Aevoe’s patent is directed to a touch screen protector for electronic devices, consisting of plastic film and a spacer that can be attached and removed without trapping air bubbles or dust. The spacer, sized to fit a particular device and having an adhesive for attachment and removal, surrounds the thin plastic film and is thick enough that the film does not make direct contact with the screen, but thin enough that a user can make contact with the touch screen by pressing the film. Aevoe sued, alleging that AE’s touch screen products infringed the patent. Despite receiving notice of restraining and show cause orders, AE did not respond. The district court issued a preliminary injunction. AE moved to reconsider and vacate, arguing that the patent was invalid. The court amended the injunction to omit “trademark language.” AE did not appeal. Aevoe subsequently filed an amended complaint, claiming that S&F sold infringing products obtained from AE and requested that both AE and S&F be held in contempt. After examining a redesigned AE product, the court found that added channels were a nonfunctional and trivial attempt to design around the patent and held all defendants in contempt. The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal as untimely; amendment of the injunction was a mere clarification and did not substantially change the legal relationship between the parties. View "AEVOE Corp. v. AE Tech Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

SkinMedica owns the 494 and 746 patents, which relate to methods for producing pharmaceutical compositions containing “novel conditioned cell culture medium compositions ... [and] uses for the[m].” Skinmedica filed a patent infringement suit against Histogen for producing dermatological products according to methods covered by the claims of those patents. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement after construing the phrase “culturing ... cells in three-dimensions” as “growing ... cells in three dimensions (excluding growing in monolayers or on microcarrier beads).” The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "SkinMedica Inc v. Histogen Inc" on Justia Law

Apple sued Samsung, asserting that Samsung’s smartphones and tablets infringed several of Apple’s patents and infringed Apple’s trade dress embodied in its iPhone and iPad products. Samsung counterclaimed that the iPhone and iPad infringed several of Samsung’s patents. A jury returned a verdict awarding Apple more than $1 billion in damages. The trial drew an extraordinary amount of attention and the press was given extraordinary access to the judicial proceedings. The district court agreed to seal only a small number of trial exhibits. After each trial day, the parties, by court order, provided the press with electronic copies of every exhibit used that day. Most exhibits attached to pre-trial and post-trial motions were ordered unsealed. The parties appealed denial of requests to seal confidential exhibits. The Federal Circuit reversed, stating that the public’s interest in judicial proceedings does not extend to mere curiosity about the parties’ confidential information where the information is not central to a decision on the merits. View "Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Bass, a professor of biochemistry at UUtah, studies RNA interference (RNAi), a phenomenon in which RNA plays a role in silencing expression of individual genes. Her employment contract assigns all patent rights arising from her work to UUtah. Tuschl, a researcher employed by UMass, is also active in RNAi research. Bass claims that Tuschl’s patents disclosed and claimed her conception. UUtah believes that Bass is the sole or a joint inventor of the Tuschl patents. UUtah asked assignees of those patents to cooperate in petitioning the U.S Patent and Trademark Office to correct the inventorship by adding Bass as an inventor. Defendants declined and UUtah filed suit under 35 U.S.C. 256. UMass moved to dismiss, arguing that because UUtah and UMass were both arms of the state, the dispute fell within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. UUtah amended its complaint, replacing UMass with four UMass officials. The district court rejected jurisdictional, failure to join an indispensable party (UMass), and sovereign immunity arguments, reasoning that relief under section 256 is prospective in nature, not retroactive remedy and that correction of inventorship was not a core sovereign interest sufficient to make this a dispute between states. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Univ of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung der Wissenschaften E.V." on Justia Law

Hamilton Beach and Sunbeam compete in the small kitchen appliance industry; both sell “slow cookers.” Hamilton Beach’s patent disclosed a “portable” slow cooker with clips to seal the detachable lid of the device on the housing of the cooker and limit leaking during transport. Hamilton Beach’s Stay or Go® slow cooker was a commercial success and increased the company’s market share by more than 30 percent. In response, Sunbeam, the previous market leader, developed the Cook & Carry® and attempted to design around the 831 patent by mounting sealing clips on the lid of the slow cooker rather than on the body. Hamilton Beach filed a continuation that matured into the 928 patent, which claimed a slow cooker with sealing clips on the lid, then filed suit alleging that Sunbeam infringed the 928 patent. The district court found certain claims invalid as anticipated and that Sunbeam did not literally infringe asserted claims of the 928 patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding the asserted claims invalid under the on-sale bar. View "Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc." on Justia Law

MPS and O2 Micro compete in the market for integrated circuit products that control LCD and LED lighting. O2 had filed several prior patent infringement claims against MPS and its customers. MPS sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity with respect to four related O2 patents (the 519 family). After O2 learned of the suit, O2 filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC), under section 337 of the Tariff Act, against MPS and its customers, claiming that their imports infringed the 519 patents and the 382 patent. In the court action, O2 counterclaimed for infringement, added MPS customers, as counter-defendants, and moved to stay proceedings. The court denied the motion. O2 later withdrew assertions concerning the 519 family from both proceedings and covenanted not to sue MPS or its customers for infringement of those patents. O2 insisted that the 382 patent was entitled to a 1998 conception date and filed verified interrogatories attesting to that. O2’s story ultimately unraveled and it “sought to mask its proffer of false testimony.” Ultimately, the court ruled that the earliest invention date was 1999: O2 signed a covenant not to sue with respect to the patent. The district court later dismissed all claims with prejudice and granted fees and costs, based on an exceptional case finding on O2’s “vexatious litigation strategy, litigation misconduct and unprofessional behavior.” The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. O2 Micro Int'l, Ltd." on Justia Law

Prior art concerning treatment of the skin disease, psoriasis, discloses a combination treatment of a vitamin D analog and a corticosteroid. Leo’s patent calls for simultaneous treatment with vitamin D and corticosteroids to heal psoriasis faster and more effectively; a storage-stable combination of vitamin D and corticosteroids in a single formulation did not exist in prior art because vitamin D and corticosteroids have different pH requirements for optimum stability. Because of the storage-stability problem, doctors had to prescribe a regimen that required patients to apply one drug in the morning and another at night, which caused patient compliance issues. Leo discovered that a new set of solvents, including polyoxypropylene 15 stearyl ether, solved the storage stability problem by allowing the vitamin D analog and corticosteroid to coexist in a single pharmaceutical product. The Board of Patent Appeals rejected several claims. The Federal Circuit reversed. The Board incorrectly construed the term “storage stable,” incorrectly found the claimed invention would have been obvious in view of prior art, and incorrectly weighed the objective indicia of nonobviousness. View "Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Kappos" on Justia Law

Conventional tests for prenatal abnormalities caused by genetic abnormalities have relied on invasive and potentially risky techniques like amniocentesis to obtain fetal cells. As an alternative, scientists developed methods of analyzing DNA extracted from fetal cells floating in maternal blood to determine fetal abnormalities and other fetal traits. These methods require separating fluids from the cells and then discarding the fluids, either plasma or serum, and then separating fetal cells from the much more common maternal cells. The 540 patent discloses methods to identify fetal genetic defects by analyzing the fluid that had commonly been discarded as medical waste: maternal plasma or serum. The new tests presented fewer risks and a better rate of abnormality detection. Ariosa sought a declaratory judgment that it could use its Harmony test without infringing the 540 patent. The district court denied the patent holder’s motion for summary judgment. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, finding that the district court incorrectly interpreted the asserted claim terms “amplifying” and “paternally inherited nucleic acid” and improperly balanced factors regarding issuance of a preliminary injunction. View "Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc." on Justia Law