Articles Posted in US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

by
TT’s patents relate to a graphical user interface for electronic trading. The 056 and 999 patents, which share a specification, disclose “a user interface for an electronic trading system that allows a remote trader to view trends in the orders for an item, and provides the trading information in an easy to see and interpret graphical format.” The 374 patent, which is from a different patent family, discloses “a display and trading method to ensure fast and accurate execution of trades by displaying market depth on a vertical or horizontal plane, which fluctuates logically up or down, left or right across the plane as the market prices fluctuate.” IBG sought review under the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents (CBM review), Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 125 Stat. 284, 329–31. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, that the patents meet the criteria to be eligible for CBM review and the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims are directed to a covered business method, so CBM review was appropriate. Th claims are directed to a financial trading method used by a computer; there is no technological invention in this software method for trading. View "Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. IBG LLC" on Justia Law

by
DuPont’s 926 patent, entitled “Composite Flame Barrier Laminate for a Thermal and Acoustic Insulation Blanket,” issued in December 2013 and claims composite laminates that are incorporated into thermal-acoustic blankets installed on the interior of the fuselage in aircraft to shield passengers from flames and reduce noise. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s construction of the term “100% by weight” to mean “[t]here is no carrier material such as resin, adhesive, cloth, or paper in addition to the inorganic platelets. The court also upheld findings that the patent was not invalid and that Unifrax’s flame barrier product infringed the patent. Substantial evidence supported a finding that the patent was not anticipated by prior art. View "E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Unifrax I LLC" on Justia Law

by
On inter partes review of ATI’s “Unified Shader Patents,” LGE cited multiple prior references. A “shader” as used in this field is a computer-implemented system that specifies how a computer-graphics three-dimensional image is generated and presented on a two-dimensional screen. ATI argued that the invention in each of the three patents preceded the primary reference dates for that patent. In conformity with 37 C.F.R. 1.131, ATI presented evidence of conception, reduction to practice, and diligence for each patent. the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held all but one of the challenged claims unpatentable as anticipated or obvious, The Board held that ATI had not established actual reduction to practice and had not established diligence to constructive reduction to practice, for all three patents. The Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that the Board erred in its application of the law of diligence and that on the correct law, diligence was shown, thereby antedating the relevant references. The undisputed rulings established conception and constructive reduction to practice. View "ATI Technologies ULC v. Iancu" on Justia Law

by
Omega sued CalAmp for infringement of patents that generally relate to multi-vehicle compatible systems that can remotely control various vehicle functions (for example, remote vehicle starting), and read the status of various vehicle devices (for example, battery health). The systems can also be used to notify the driver, or the driver’s employer, if certain conditions occur (for example, speeding). CalAmp operates in the telematics industry, assisting businesses and government entities monitor and collect data for their assets (for example, a fleet of vehicles). CalAmp sells its Location Messaging Unit products, which are multi-vehicle compatible devices that include a GPS receiver for vehicle tracking. The Federal Circuit upheld a finding that the patents are not invalid; reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded as to direct infringement; and vacated and remanded for a new trial on indirect infringement, compensatory damages, willful infringement, enhanced damages, and attorney’s fees. View "Omega Patents, LLC v. CalAmp Corp." on Justia Law

by
SSI is an original equipment manufacturer (OEM): a manufacturer who resells another company’s products under its own name and branding. TEK sells tire repair kits to various OEMs and owns the 110 patent, which is directed to an emergency kit for repairing vehicle tires deflated by a puncture. When TEK filed the 110 patent, a common way to handle a flat tire was to simply replace it with a spare tire. Because the repair kit disclosed in the patent comprises a small compressor and a container of sealing liquid to mend the hole, it is intended to serve as a smaller, lighter, and less complicated alternative to conventional spare tires. TEK sued SSI for infringement. Following a remand, the district court found several claims infringed and not invalid, awarded $2,525,482 in lost profits and $255,388 in the form of a reasonable royalty for infringing sales for which TEK did not prove its entitlement to lost profits, and granted TEK a permanent injunction. The Federal Circuit vacated in part. The district court improperly restricted SSI’s efforts to present the jury with relevant evidence of invalidity. With respect to the other issues, the Federal Circuit affirmed, “if the patent is found to be not invalid on remand.” View "TEK Global, S.R.L. v. Sealant Systems International, Inc." on Justia Law

by
The patents at issue are listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book) for NUCYNTA® ER (extended release), a tapentadol hydrochloride tablet. The 364 patent is directed to the Form A polymorph of the chemical compound tapentadol hydrochloride and a method of treating pain and/or urinary incontinence and states that Form A “is very stable at ambient conditions and therefore useful for producing a pharmaceutical composition.” The 130 patent describes a method of using tapentadol and tapentadol hydrochloride for the treatment of polyneuropathic pain, which is caused by damage to multiple nerves. In an infringement suit, stemming from Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) filings seeking to market generic versions of immediate and extended release tapentadol hydrochloride tablets, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court in finding that the 364 patent is not invalid for obviousness or lack of utility (the defendants had stipulated to infringement) and that the ANDA filings do not infringe the 130 patent, which is not invalid as anticipated. View "Grunenthal GMBH v. Alkem Laboratories Limited" on Justia Law

by
ChargePoint’s patents pertain to charging stations for electric vehicles. At the time the patent application was filed, the charging process “typically require[d] hours and [was] often done overnight or while the electric vehicle [was] parked for a significant time.” Businesses such as restaurants, apartments, and shopping centers have installed electric vehicle charging stations for the convenience of their customers. During periods of high demand, utility companies sometimes reduce the power supply to certain customers based on a preplanned load prioritization scheme, (demand response). In addition to pulling electricity from a local electricity grid, electric vehicles may also supply electricity to the grid. Vehicle-to-grid transfer can be helpful during periods of high demand. ChargePoint contends that its inventors created networked charging stations, managed from a central location, allowing drivers to locate charging stations in advance, and allowing all users to interact intelligently with the electricity grid; the patents suggest that drivers can choose to transfer power from their vehicles to the power grid during periods of high demand. The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of ChargePoint’s infringement suit. The eight asserted claims ChargePoint were ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101, as directed to abstract ideas concerning communication. View "ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc." on Justia Law

by
Endo’s patent, entitled “Method of treating pain utilizing controlled release oxymorphone pharmaceutical compositions and instruction on dosing for renal impairment,” covers a method of using oxymorphone to treat pain in patients with impaired kidney function. Controlled-release dosage forms that maintain optimal levels of pain relief for longer periods are useful to patients and clinicians. Patients’ pain relief levels can be impacted by the way their body processes oxymorphone. The inventor discovered that patients with moderately or severely impaired kidney function need less oxymorphone than usual to achieve a similar level of pain management. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s conclusion that the claims were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The district court incorrectly concluded that the claims at issue are directed to a natural law. The claims prescribe a regimen for specific patients, using a specific compound at specific doses to achieve a specific outcome. Claiming a new treatment for an ailment, albeit using a natural law, is not claiming the natural law. View "Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc." on Justia Law

by
Arctic’s patents, both titled “Power Distribution Module for Personal Recreational Vehicle,” describe an assertedly inventive electrical-connection box having an array of receptacle openings that allow wires to be arranged and secured in various positions for distributing power to various electrical components, including components of a personal recreational vehicle. GEP petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for inter partes reviews of all claims of both patents under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. The Board determined that all claims of the patents are unpatentable. The Federal Circuit affirmed as to the 822 patent but reversed in part as to the 188 patent. The Board did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the deposition-transcript submission and correctly held preamble references to a vehicle in the claims at issue not to be limiting. The Board improperly determined that Boyd was prior art; the inventions antedated Boyd. View "Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Products, Inc." on Justia Law

by
While the interconnectivity of computer networks facilitates access for authorized users, it also increases a network’s susceptibility to attacks from hackers, malware, and other security threats. Some of these security threats can only be detected with information from multiple sources. SRI developed the inventions claimed in patents titled “Network Surveillance” and “Hierarchical Event Monitoring and Analysis.” SRI had performed considerable research and development on network intrusion detection before filing the patents-in-suit. In an infringement suit, the district court denied Cisco’s motion for summary judgment of patent ineligibility, construed the claim term “network traffic data,” granted summary judgment of no anticipation, and denied judgment as a matter of law of no willful infringement. The court awarded enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and ongoing royalties. The Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of summary judgment of ineligibility, adopted the claim construction, and affirmed summary judgment of no anticipation but vacated and remanded the denial of judgment as a matter of law of no willful infringement, and therefore vacated the enhancement of damages. The court also vacated the award of attorneys’ fees and remanded for recalculation and affirmed the award of ongoing royalties on post-verdict sales of products that were actually found to infringe or are not colorably different. View "SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc." on Justia Law