Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a condition defined and diagnosed by its constellation of symptoms. A patient’s symptoms define the type of IBS with which a patient is diagnosed. Prometheus sued, alleging infringement of the 770 patent, which claims a method of treatment for IBS-D utilizing alosetron (brand name Lotronex), and has a priority date of 1997. The The district court found the claims invalid as obvious over the prior art or, in the alternative, invalid on grounds of obviousness-type double patenting over the now-expired 800 patent (issued in 1994). The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding the claims of the 770 patent invalid as obvious over the 800 patent and other prior art. View "Prometheus Labs, Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc." on Justia Law

Belden and Berk-Tek compete in making and selling telecommunications cable and cabling systems. Belden’s 503 patent, issued in 2000, discloses a method of making a cable by passing a core and conducting wires through one or more dies, bunching the wires into grooves on the core, twisting the bunch to close the cable, and jacketing the entire assembly. On Berk-Tek’s motion, the PTO instituted inter partes review and rejected claims 1–4 of the 503 patent for obviousness, while confirming claims 5 and 6. The Federal Circuit affirmed rejection of claims 1–4, reversed at to claims 5 and 6, and rejected Belden’s contention that the Board denied it procedural rights. View "Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC" on Justia Law

Tesco sued NOV for infringement of patents that involve an apparatus and method for handling sections of pipe used for lining a well-bore. NOV filed an answer, counterclaims, a request for attorney’s fees, and motions to compel requesting information about documents to show what occurred during the six months before the on-sale bar date. Ultimately, based on non-production of an original brochure, the court sanctioned Tesco by reversing the burden of proof on validity, setting the burden at a preponderance of evidence. The jury concluded that NOV infringed the relevant claims, found certain of those claims to be not invalid, and found that the brochure was not enabling. During post-trial discovery on the brochure. NOV filed “post-trial summary judgment motions of invalidity” (35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 103) based on what it asserts was disclosed in the brochure. The court granted NOV’s motion for obviousness, relying on an obvious-to-try analysis, set a trial date for the exceptional case counterclaim, and, later, issued an order sua sponte dismissing the case with prejudice under its inherent authority, finding that certain testimony was “contrary to the representations Tesco made to the Court during trial,” stating that the attorneys’ conduct was “entirely out of character ... serious and has had significant and costly ramifications.” The parties, including the attorneys, later entered into a settlement resolving all outstanding issues, and signed releases. The attorneys contend that, despite the settlement, the harm to their reputation from the court’s opinion justified continued jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit dismissed, finding no remaining case or controversy. View "Tesco Corp. v. Nat'l Oilwell Varco, L.P." on Justia Law

Atlas’s patent describes a protocol for controlling wireless network communications between a hub and remotes. The patent notes the existence of prior-art, but says those systems consumed large amounts of battery power; the remotes had to leave their receivers on at all times. The specification describes means of conserving battery power. Atlas sued, alleging that St. Jude’s medical products for monitoring a patient’s condition infringed claims 11 and 14 of the patent. The district court adopted constructions of the “establishing” and “transmitting” limitations, which are also found in claim 21, the subject of another case, Atlas v. Medtronic. It construed “the hub transmitting information to the remotes to establish the communication cycle and a plurality of predeterminable intervals during each communication cycle,” to mean “the hub transmitting to the remotes information necessary to know in advance the starting time and duration of the communication cycle and of each of two or more predeterminable intervals during each communication cycle.” The court held that its “in advance” requirement meant that information specifying “when the communication cycle starts and its duration . . . must be transmitted in advance of the very communication cycle at issue,” inconsistent with the Medtronic case. The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit vacated. The district court erred in construing the “transmitting” limitation to require that the starting time and duration of a communication cycle be sent in advance of the communication cycle. View "Atlas IP, LLC v. St. Jude Med., Inc." on Justia Law

Atlas owns the patent, which describes and claims a protocol for controlling wireless network communications between a hub and remotes. The patent, entitled “Medium Access Control Protocol for Wireless Network,” notes the existence of prior-art techniques for communication between a hub and multiple remotes in wireless network systems, but says those systems consumed large amounts of battery power, as the remotes had to leave their receivers on at all times. The specification describes means of conserving battery power. Atlas sued Medtronic, alleging that certain Medtronic medical products for monitoring a patient’s condition infringed the patent. In a related case, the District Court for the Southern District of Florida adopted claim constructions that, by agreement, govern this case.. The district court in this case then issued two summary judgment orders concerning claim 21, the only claim at issue. It granted summary judgment of non-infringement by Medtronic and summary judgment rejecting anticipation and obviousness challenges to claim 21. The Federal Circuit affirmed the non-infringement ruling, but reversed and remanded the validity ruling. View "Atlas IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2013 the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection of claims 181, 184, 188-203, 206, 210-25, 228, 232-47, 250, and 254-68 of utility patent application No. 60/211228, as obvious in light of the prior art. The court vacated and remanded as to the Board’s determination that claims 2712 and 272 were anticipated because the Board performed an incorrect enablement analysis.. On remand, the Board looked to Morsa’s specification to determine what a person of ordinary skill in this particular field of art would know and found that the specification showed that only “ordinary” computer programming skills were needed to make and use the claimed invention; the Board determined that the anticipating reference, PMA, was enabled. The Board determined that the PMA disclosure combined with what a skilled computer artisan would know rendered the PMA reference enabling and therefore anticipatory of claims 271 and 272. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "In re: Morsa" on Justia Law

Leucovorin is a compound used to ameliorate the toxic effects of methotrexate, a chemotherapy treatment; to treat folate deficiency; and to enhance the efficacy of a 5-fluorouracil cancer treatment. Spectrum, the exclusive licensee of the 829 patent, holds the approved New Drug Application for a levoleucovorin formulation, and listed the patent as claiming the drug product in the Food and Drug Administration publication, Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book), and markets Fusilev®. Sandoz submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) in 2011, seeking FDA approval for a drug product that will be imported in the form of single-use vials with 175 mg or 250 mg of levoleucovorin, indicated for methotrexate rescue at doses of 7.5–75 mg per dose. Its ANDA contained a certification that the 829 patent was invalid or would not be infringed by the ANDA product, 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV). After receiving notice of that certification, Spectrum filed suit. The district court found certain claims invalid as obvious and others not infringed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting Spectrum’s argument that an aggregation of Sandoz’s approved product—that is, the total amount of levoleucovorin drug product to be imported—would infringe the claims. View "Spectrum Pharma., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc." on Justia Law

In 1997 Seagate recruited Dr. Shukh, a native of Belarus, to move to the U.S. Shukh executed Seagate’s standard Employment Agreement, assigning to Seagate all “right, title, and interest in and to any inventions” made while at Seagate. Seagate prohibited employees from filing patent applications for their inventions. During his employment, Shukh was named as an inventor on 17 patents. Shukh’s time at Seagate was tumultuous. His performance evaluations indicated that he did not work well with others due to his confrontational style. In 2009, Seagate terminated Shukh and 178 others. Shukh has not yet secured employment and claims that he was told that he would never find employment at certain companies with his reputation. Shukh alleges that Seagate wrongfully omitted him as an inventor from several patents relating to semiconductor technologies; that Seagate discriminated against and terminated him based national origin and in retaliation for complaining about discrimination. He sought correction of inventorship of the disputed patents under 35 U.S.C. 256. The district court held that Shukh had no interest in the patents based on the assignment; dismissed claims for rescission of his Employment Agreement, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment; and rejected claims of reputational harm, retaliation, fraud, and discrimination on summary judgment. The Federal Circuit vacated with respect to correction of inventorship, but otherwise affirmed. There is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Shukh’s negative reputation is traceable to Seagate’s omission of Shukh as an inventor from disputed patents. View "Shukh v. Seagate Tech., LLC" on Justia Law

The 600 Application, entitled “Web-Integrated OnLine Financial Database System and Method for Debt Recovery,” was filed in 2004, with priority claimed to a provisional application filed on November 13, 2003. The invention is a web-integrated debt records and collection system that can be accessed and operated across the Internet by various users in various roles. The Examiner rejected claims as obvious in view of the Evans publication, entitled “System and Method for Debt Presentment and Resolution.” After unsuccessfully attempting to distinguish the Evans Rejections on the merits, the applicants undertook to remove Evans as a reference by “swearing back” or “swearing behind” under 37 C.F.R. 1.131; the Applicant establishes that it was in possession of the claimed subject matter before the effective date of the reference. The Evans effective date was December 2002. The applicants submitted a Rule 131 Declaration with exhibits and statements to show “diligence continuing to the constructive reduction to practice.” The Examiner found the Declaration and the exhibits insufficient, as showing “only a broad overview of the idea.” The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trial and Appeal Board and the Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection on grounds of obviousness, 35 U.S.C. 103.1. View "In re: Steed" on Justia Law

Achates sued QuickOffice, Apple, and others for infringing its patents.Apple sought inter partes review. The Patent and Trademark Office found certain claims invalid, rejecting Achates’s claim that, based on a blank indemnification agreement, Apple had a relationship with QuickOffice and that such relationship caused Apple’s petitions for IPR to be time-barred under 35 U.S.C. 315(b). The Board denied Achates’s motion for discovery of evidence to prove Apple’s specific relationships with the codefendants, finding no basis to believe that even if the blank indemnification agreement had been signed, it would show QuickOffice or any other codefendants to be real parties in interest or in privity with Apple as those terms are used in section 315(b). The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the decision to institute inter partes review were final and nonappealable under 35 U.S.C. 314(d). View "Achates Reference Publ'g, Inc. v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law