Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Profectus’s patent discloses a mountable digital picture frame for displaying still digital images. The specification discusses how a user can display digital images on a wall or desktop similar to conventional photographs. Profectus sued manufacturers and sellers of tablet computer devices. After construing the term “mountable,” the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement on grounds that the accused devices do not satisfy the “mountable” limitation. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Although certain intrinsic physical features may combine to aid in mounting with external components, those features must be for mounting to meet the claim limitations. While the accused devices are capable of mounting by exploiting the communication ports and being easy to prop up due to their size and weight, those characteristics do not make the accused devices mountable as claimed and fail to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether features for mounting (or their equivalents) are present within the accused devices. View "Profectus Tech., LLC v. HuaweiI Techs. Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Aqua’s patent concerns automated swimming pool cleaners. Using motor-driven wheels that enable the cleaner to move in a controlled pattern requires a drive motor and integrated circuitry. Cleaners that use suction or water jets do not require a drive motor, but often move in erratic patterns. The patent discloses an automated pool cleaner that uses “an angled jet drive propulsion system” to move in a controlled pattern. Zodiac sought inter partes review, citing prior art cleaners that use an internal pump to create a filtered water jet. Aqua moved to substitute new claims to require that the jet creates a downward vector force rear of the front wheels; the wheels control the directional movement of the cleaner; the cleaner has four wheels; and the jet shoots filtered water. Aqua argued that the combination of prior art did not render the substitute claims obvious because it does not suggest the vector limitation. The Patent Board denied Aqua’s motion to amend. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to Board procedures, which require the patentee to demonstrate that amended claims would be patentable over the art of record. The Board rebutted Aqua’s sole argument that the vector limitation made the substitute claims patentable over the combination of prior art. View "In re: Aqua Prods., Inc." on Justia Law

Diamond sued the auto companies, alleging infringement of its patents. The district court dismissed the actions finding that agreements between Diamond and Sanyo, the original assignee of the patents-in-suit, did not confer patentee status on Diamond, allowing Diamond to sue without joining Sanyo. The court later held that nunc pro tunc agreements executed by Diamond and Sanyo after its decision in Diamond did not affect its determination. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The original agreements did not convey all of the substantial rights in the patents to Diamond. Precedent bars consideration of the subsequent agreements. View "Diamond Coating Techs., LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am." on Justia Law

TLI filed suits, alleging that the defendants infringed its 295 patent by making, selling, and/or using products and services that allow uploading of digital photos from a mobile device, such as a cell phone. The 295 patent “relates generally to an apparatus for recording of a digital image, communicating the digital image from the recording device to a storage device, and to administering the digital image in the storage device.” The specification notes that a “wide variety of data types” can be transmitted, including audio and image stills. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the cases for pre-trial purposes in the Eastern District of Virginia. That court dismissed, concluding that the patent fails to claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, and that, in the alternative, certain claims are invalid for failing to recite sufficient structure as required by 35 U.S.C. 112. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that limiting the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner to a particular environment—a mobile telephone system—does not make the claims any less abstract. View "TLI Commc'ns LLC v. AV Auto., L.L.C." on Justia Law

Finacea® Gel contains azelaic acid as the therapeutically active ingredient in a concentration of 15% by weight and is indicated for the topical treatment of rosacea. Finacea® is manufactured as a “hydrogel,” which the court construed to mean “a semisolid dosage form that contains water and a gelling agent to form a gel, which may contain dispersed particles and/or insoluble liquids.” The FDA Orange Book lists the 070 patent as covering Finacea® Gel. The 070 patent, entitled “Composition with Azelaic Acid,” issued in 2003 and claims priority to a 1998 provisional application. Glenmark submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application to the FDA seeking to market a generic version of Finacea®, including a paragraph IV certification (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV)) that the patent was invalid and not infringed. Unlike Finacea®, the proposed generic product substituted isopropyl myristate for the claimed triglyceride and lecithin. The court held that certain claims were infringed under the doctrine of equivalents and not invalid. The court concluded that the isopropyl myristate in Glenmark’s generic product met the claim elements triglyceride and lecithin under the doctrine of equivalents, relying on the function-way-result test. The court rejected arguments that infringement under the doctrine of equivalents would encompass the prior art and was barred by prosecution history estoppel. The Federal Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the asserted claims would not have been obvious. View "Intendis GMBH v. Glenmark Pharma., Inc." on Justia Law

In 1997, Merck and Weider considered jointly introducing, into the U.S., dietary supplements with Merck ingredients, including crystalline calcium salt of a tetrahydrofolic acid (MTHF), agreeing that, until a definitive agreement was signed, neither party was under any legal obligation. Weider later notified Merck that it was no longer interested in a joint venture, but would like to purchase two kilograms of MTHF. Merck quoted a price of $25,000 per kg. After extensive correspondence, in October 1998, Merck sent confirmation of the “first order.” Merck then met with a Weider competitor. Merck contacted Weider in January 1999, asking whether its purchase order was still “active.” Weider sent confirmation that the parties had mutually cancelled Weider’s “existing order for [MTHF].” Merck filed its 168 patent application, including claim 4 (MTHF), in 2000; the patent issued in 2002. In a 2013 infringement suit concerning Abbreviated New Drug Applications, the court held that claim 4 was not anticipated, obvious, or invalid for lack of adequate written description and was not invalid under the on-sale bar. Although the court determined that MTHF was ready for patenting by September 1998, it concluded that there had been no invalidating commercial offer for sale or sale, because Merck’s fax did not include “important safety and liability terms.” The Federal Circuit reversed. Merck’s September 1998, offer to sell MTHF was a premature commercial exploitation of its invention. View "Merck & Cie v. Watson Labs., Inc." on Justia Law

Stryker’s 243 patent concerns a socket assembly used in prosthetic hip implants. The patent addresses three major components involved: a shell member and a bearing member, which together replace the socket (technically the acetabulum) part of the pelvis bone, and the femoral component, the ball-shaped end of the thigh bone that marries with the socket. The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement following claim construction. The Federal Circuit upheld the construction of “relative location” claim language to require that “the recess is essentially midway along the taper such that the effectiveness of each is not compromised” and to require that “the internal taper of the shell mates with the external taper of a metallic securing member (i.e. sleeve) secured to and separate from the bearing member,” essentially requiring the presence of a sleeve in between the shell and the bearing, for the taper type of securement. The district court did not abuse its discretion in applying its local rules to preclude Stryker from arguing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. View "Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc." on Justia Law

Enfish’s 604 and 775 patents are directed to an innovative logical model for a computer database. A logical model is a model of data for a computer database explaining how the various elements of information are related to one another. A logical model generally results in the creation of particular tables of data, but it does not describe how the bits and bytes of those tables are arranged in physical memory devices. Contrary to conventional logical models, the patented logical model includes all data entities in a single table, with column definitions provided by rows in that same table. In Enfrish’s suit against Microsoft, alleging infringement, the district court found all claims invalid as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, some claims invalid as anticipated under section 102, and one claim not infringed. The Federal Circuit reversed with respect to section 101, finding that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and vacated as to section 102, finding that the “pivot table” feature of the prior art Excel product does not contain the “self-referential” feature of the claims. The court affirmed the finding of non-infringement. View "Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp." on Justia Law

Illumina’s patent is directed to a method of labeling nucleotides in a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) strand. At the request of IBS, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–6 and 8 of the patent, on the basis that they were invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Board found that IBS failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating the obviousness of the challenged claims by a preponderance of the evidence. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the Board’s judgment was supported by substantial evidence. View "Intelligent Bio-Sys, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd." on Justia Law

Heartland, an LLC organized and existing under Indiana law is headquartered in Indiana. Kraft, organized and existing under Delaware law, has its principal place of business in Illinois. Kraft filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Heartland’s liquid water enhancer products infringe Kraft’s patents. Heartland moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or to transfer venue to the Southern District of Indiana. Heartland alleged that it is not registered to do business in Delaware, has no local presence there, has not entered into any supply contracts in Delaware or called on any accounts there to solicit sales, but admitted it ships orders of the accused products into Delaware. In 2013, these shipments, 44,707 cases of the product, generated at least $331,000 in revenue, and were about 2% of Heartland’s total sales of the accused products. The Magistrate Judge determined that it had specific personal jurisdiction over Heartland for claims involving the accused products and rejected Heartland’s arguments that 2011 amendments to 28 U.S.C. 1391 negated precedent governing venue for infringement suits. The district court denied Heartland’s motions. The Federal Circuit denied Heartland’s petition for mandamus to either dismiss or transfer the suit. View "In re: TC Heartland LLC" on Justia Law