Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Magnetar filed suit alleging that Intamin maliciously prosecuted a patent infringement action against it and claiming that Intamin prosecuted the action even though the ‘350 Patent was invalid pursuant to the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. 102 (on-sale bar). The district court granted summary judgment to Intamin. The court concluded that a reasonable attorney could have determined that the on-sale bar did not apply due to the genuine dispute concerning whether the magnetic braking system had been (1) offered for sale before the critical date; and (2) was ready for patenting before the critical date. Therefore, the court affirmed as to this issue. The court also affirmed the district court's conclusion that Magnetar has not alleged sufficient facts to show a causal antitrust injury stemming from Intamin’s actions. Finally, the court concluded that the district court properly refused to sanction Magnetar for filing a frivolous action where Magnetar proceeded in good faith in not admitting facts related to the antitrust injury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in its entirety. View "Magnetar Techs. v. Intamin, Ltd." on Justia Law

The three patents at issue share the same written description and explain that medical implements, such as catheters and luer ports, are common sites for transmissions of pathogens into patients. To prevent such transmissions, medical staff traditionally swabbed a site before making connections to medical implements. Swabs came in a small pad of cotton gauze soaked in a cleaning agent (e.g., isopropyl alcohol) and packed in a foil package to prevent evaporation. After swabbing, the site is allowed to dry, killing any pathogens. In practice, these swabbing procedures were often “overlooked” or “poorly executed.” The inventors provided a cleaning device that includes a cap that twist on to the medical implements and, when used, reliably disinfects a medical implement. In an infringement suit, the district court granted summary judgment of invalidity, finding the asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Federal Circuit reversed. The patent holder established a genuine dispute over whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a vent to the disinfecting cap described in prior art. View "Ivera Med. Corp. v. Hospira, Inc." on Justia Law

National Graphics owns the 196 patent, which is directed to making molded plastic articles bearing a “lenticular” image. The patent issued in 2003, from an application filed in 2000. Dynamic petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office for inter partes review of the patent, arguing that claims 1, 8, 12, and 14 were anticipated by the Raymond patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board declined to reject two of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) and found that National Graphics reduced to practice its invention by March 28, 2000, before the May 5, 2000 filing date of the Raymond patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Dynamic failed to carry its burden of proving unpatentability. View "Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc." on Justia Law

Media Rights sued Capital One, alleging infringement of its patent, entitled “Method of Controlling Recording of Media.” The patent prevents unauthorized recording via a compliance mechanism, which diverts incoming media content protected by law or agreement from being output from a system in order to stop the illegal copying or sharing of that content. The district court found that all claims were invalid for indefiniteness. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding a determination that the term “compliance mechanism,” which is a limitation in every single claim, is a means-plus-function term that lacks sufficient structure. View "Media Rights Techs, Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp." on Justia Law

Dome owns a patent for making contact-lens materials that are rigid and gas permeable. On reexamination, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office found that the claimed method at issue was obvious and therefore unpatentable. The district court found that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the prior art and that the prior art did not teach away from the claimed invention, so that the claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103. The court found that Dome’s proffered evidence of objective indicia did not indicate nonobviousness. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee" on Justia Law

In 2005, Dow sued NOVA, alleging infringement of claims of patents covering ethylene polymer compositions (a type of plastic) with improved modulus, yield strength, impact strength, and tear strength. These polymers can be made into films that can be down-gauged (made thinner) without losing strength. A jury found the asserted claims to be infringed and not invalid. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the asserted claims were not indefinite. The district court granted supplemental damages in the form of lost profits and reasonable royalties and denied Dow’s request for enhanced damages. Subsequently, the Supreme Court decided Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments (2014), establishing a new standard: “a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. The Federal Circuit then held that the intervening change resulting from Nautilus provides an exception to the doctrine of law of the case or issue preclusion. Reviewing the supplemental damages award, the court evaluated the indefiniteness of the claims under the Nautilus standard, held that the claims are indefinite, and reversed the award of supplemental damages. View "Dow Chem. Co. v. NOVA Chems. Corp." on Justia Law

Inline’s patented products are plastic food containers with tamper-evident and tamper-resistant features. The containers have a hinged plastic bridge between the top and bottom portions of the container, the bridge having a frangible section that must be severed in order to open the container, so that tampering or opening of the container is readily evident. Inline sued EasyPak for infringement. Following claim construction, Inline moved for entry of final judgment of non-infringement of its 003 patent, on the premise that the claims as construed are not infringed and granted EasyPak a covenant not to sue on the 680 patent. The district court then entered final judgment of non-infringement of the 003 patent, dismissed without prejudice EasyPak’s declaratory judgment counterclaims for invalidity, and dismissed Inline’s count for infringement of the 680 patent with prejudice. The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that the terms “frangible section” and “tamper evident bridge” were incorrectly construed with respect to the 003 patent. The district court erred in limiting the claims to a specific embodiment, for the invention as claimed is supported by the patent’s broader disclosure. View "Inline Plastics Corp.. v. Easypak, LLC" on Justia Law

Hyatt is the named inventor on at least 75 issued patents and nearly 400 pending applications, all filed before June 8, 1995. Each pending application incorporates by reference, and claims the benefit of priority from, a network of applications dating back to the 1970s. The PTO estimated that the applications include 45,000 independent claims and 115,000 total claims when combined, but consist of only 12 distinct specifications. In 2013, the PTO began to issue “Requirements,” corresponding to Hyatt’s “families” of applications having a common specification, requiring Hyatt to select claims from that family for prosecution, not to exceed 600, absent a showing that more are necessary, and identify the earliest applicable priority date and supporting disclosure for each selected claim. Each Requirement is entered in the prosecution history of a particular application, but also contains information about other applications in that family. Requirements attached to pending applications that are not parents to issued patents will remain confidential. A few issued patents claim priority from a pending application, so that Requirements in their history will become publicly available, disclosing otherwise-confidential information. Hyatt sought to expunge the confidential information, citing 35 U.S.C. 122(a), which provides that the PTO keep applications confidential unless “necessary to carry out the provisions of an Act of Congress or in such special circumstances as may be determined by the Director.” The Director denied the petitions. The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the PTO, agreeing there was no genuine dispute that the “extraordinary” nature and prosecution history of Hyatt’s applications constituted “special circumstances.” View "Hyatt v. Lee" on Justia Law

The 017 patent relates to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and explains that prior art thermostats for forced-air HVAC systems typically have two modes of operation for the system fan. The first is for operating the fan only when there is a call for heating or cooling from the thermostat, as necessary to distribute air from the heating or cooling elements to the space to be conditioned (“auto” mode). Some prior art thermostats include settings for continuous system fan operation regardless of a call for heating or cooling. The 017 patent claims an apparatus for running an HVAC system fan intermittently during periods when there is no call for heating or cooling. In a suit for infringement, a jury found the asserted claims not invalid by reason of obviousness and infringed by Emerson’s “Big Blue” thermostats. Based on a royalty rate of $2.25 per unit, the jury awarded damages of $311,379 on sales of 138,891 thermostats. The Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of noninvalidity, vacated the judgment of infringement, and remanded for dismissal. The asserted claims were obvious in light of prior art. View "ABT Sys., LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co." on Justia Law

Konig’s SRI Employment Agreement, stated: I agree ….To promptly disclose… all discoveries, improvements, and inventions, including software … during … my employment, and … to effect transfer of ownership … to SRI . . . . I understand that termination of this employment shall not release me from my obligations. While employed by SRI, Konig started generating documents relating to a personalized information services idea called “Personal Web” and formed a company, Utopy. Konig left SRI and filed a provisional patent application in 1999; the 040 patent issued in 2005. In 2001, Konig asked an SRI scientist to test the Utopy products. The 040 patent was eventually assigned to PUM. Konig filed another patent application in 2008. PUM was the assignee; the 276 patent issued in 2010. In 2009, PUM sued Google, asserting infringement. PUM provided interrogatory responses that asserted that the conception of the inventions was while Konig was still at SRI. Google had acquired “any rights” that SRI had and counterclaimed breach of contract. The court stated that no reasonable juror could have found that the injury was “inherently unknowable,” applied the three-year limitations period for contracts claims, and granted PUM judgment on the counterclaim. The court also entered judgment of invalidity and noninfringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting that the claim construction had no effect on the outcome and declining to issue an advisory opinion. View "Personalized User Model, LLP v. Google, Inc." on Justia Law