Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Info-Hold’s 374 patent is directed to systems, apparatuses, and methods for playing music and messages (advertisements) through telephones and public speaker systems. Playback order of the music and message tracks is set on a remote server that generates and sends control signals to message playback devices. One use of the technology involves public address systems at retail stores, so customers can hear the music and advertisements while shopping. The output an also be directed to a music-on-hold system, which plays the tracks over the telephone to callers who are on hold. Info-Hold filed suit in 2003, accusing AMTC’s devices of infringement. During the litigation, a third-party initiated an ex parte reexamination, resulting in a stay of the suit. While the reexamination was pending, Info-Hold brought a separate suit against Muzak. After the patent emerged from reexamination, the court construed claims: “when a caller is placed on hold,” “transmit,” “message play back device,” and “operable to generate and transmit control signals.” All constructions in both cases were unfavorable to Info-Hold. The parties requested final judgment of noninfringement to allow Info-Hold to appeal. The Federal Circuit reversed with respect to AMTC, finding that the construction improperly narrowed the scope of the claims. View "Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Tech. Corp." on Justia Law

Ineos accused Berry Plastics of infringing its 863 patent, which is directed to polyethylene-based compositions which can be used to form shaped products, such as screw caps for bottles. Prior art polyethylene bottle caps incorporated a lubricant to optimize the cap’s slip properties and to facilitate unscrewing of the cap, but those compositions suffered the disadvantage of imparting bad odor and flavor to food products stored in contact with the compositions. The 863 patent explains that its compositions having specific amounts of polyethylene, lubricants, and additives solve this problem. The district court entered summary judgment, finding that the 863 patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102. The Federal Circuit affirmed. When a patent claims a range, as in this case, that range is anticipated by a prior art reference if the reference discloses a point within the range. View "Ineos USA, LLC v. Berry Plastics Corp." on Justia Law

Oplus filed a patent infringement suit in Illinois that was transferred to California. Oplus moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the case back and consolidate it with other cases. The Panel denied the motion. Ultimately, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. Defendant sought attorneys’ and expert witness fees under 35 U.S.C. 285 and 28 U.S.C. 1927. The court made numerous findings regarding misconduct, found the case exceptional under section 285, and held that Oplus and its counsel were vexatious litigants. The court nonetheless denied the request, stating that “[a]though Oplus’s behavior has been inappropriate, unprofessional, and vexatious, an award of attorney fees must take the particular misconduct into account,” the “case has been fraught with delays and avoidance tactics to some degree on both sides,” and “[t]here is little reason to believe that significantly more attorney fees or expert fees have been incurred than would have been in the absence of Oplus’s vexatious behavior.” Concerning section 1927, the court stated that “there is no evidence suggesting that Oplus’s behavior stemmed from bad faith or a sufficient intent to harass,” although there was “ample evidence of Oplus’s litigation misconduct.” The Federal Circuit vacated, finding the denial an abuse of discretion. View "Oplus Techs., Ltd. v. Vizio, Inc." on Justia Law

AMS sued Crane for infringement of four patents. In 2011, Crane requested an inter partes reexamination of each patent under 35 U.S.C. 311–318. Finding that Crane raised substantial new questions of patentability, the PTO initiated four inter partes reexaminations. While they were underway, AMS and Crane settled their suit. The court issued a consent judgment stating that “[t]he parties stipulate that [the patents] are valid,” that “[a]ll claims . . . are dismissed with prejudice,” and that “[t]his judgment is final.” AMS argued that the reexaminations must stop because, under 35 U.S.C. 317(b), the judgment was a “final decision . . . entered against a party in a civil action . . . that the party has not sustained its burden of proving the invalidity of any patent claim in suit.” The PTO denied AMS’s petition. The district court reasoned that the consent judgment, though final, was not a decision that Crane failed to prove invalidity of the patents, but only that the parties stipulated to validity. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the PTO’s refusal to terminate pending reexaminations is not subject to judicial review because it is not a “final agency action” under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 704. View "Automated Merch. Sys., Inc. v. Lee" on Justia Law

Pfizer’s patent discloses methods of treating eye infections by topical administration of azithromycin to the eye and states that before the invention, azithromycin was commonly administered orally for the treatment of antibacterial infections, but was not known to be effective when topically administered to the eye. Insite owns three patents. Inspire is the licensee of all four patents and markets the FDA-approved topical azithromycin solution, “Azasite®.” The FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations lists the four patents. Sandoz filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application for its generic version of Azasite® with a certification under 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) that the patents were invalid or not infringed. The patent holders sued under 35 U.S.C. 271(e). After claim construction, Sandoz stipulated to infringement. The district court ruled that Sandoz failed to show that the asserted claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and upheld the validity of the patents under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the court “misframed” the inquiry relating to development of “improved topical treatments for ocular infections,” rather than the narrower problem of topically administering azithromycin to treat conjunctivitis. View "Insite Vision, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc." on Justia Law

The patents relate to pharmaceutical formulations containing omeprazole, the active ingredient in Astra’s prescription drug, Prilosec, which is effective in treating acid-related gastrointestinal disorders. The omeprazole molecule can be unstable. To protect it from stomach acid, formulators have used an enteric coating. Enteric coatings contain acidic compounds, which can cause the omeprazole to decompose. To enhance storage stability, alkaline reacting compounds must be added, which can compromise a conventional enteric coating. The inventors of the patents at issue added a water-soluble, inert subcoating, separating the alkaline material from the enteric coating. The resulting formulation provides a dosage form of omeprazole with good storage stability, sufficient gastric acid resistance, and rapid release. After a finding of infringement, the district court awarded $76,021,994.50 plus prejudgment interest on a reasonable royalty theory of recovery. The Federal Circuit rejected challenges to the evidentiary analysis and conclusion that a 50 percent royalty rate constituted fair compensation under the reasonable royalty theory; upheld a finding that there was no reason to exclude the value of the active ingredient when calculating damages and refusal to discount the value of Astra’s patents based on the existence of alternatives to the infringing formulation that Apotex actually used; and reversed the award relating to the pediatric exclusivity period. View "Astrazeneca AB v. Apotex Corp." on Justia Law

VSi’s patents are directed to features of an online analytical processing (OLAP) cube capable of collecting and processing “live” data from multiple incompatible databases. According to the patents, before the invention, data from different databases had to be converted into a compatible format and stored in a data warehouse before it could be analyzed. Prior art systems were thus analyzing “stale” data. The inventions sought to overcome that problem by creating an OLAP cube capable of collecting and processing information from incompatible databases at run-time without going through an intermediate warehouse repository of “stale” data. VSi sued MicroStrategy and TIBCO in separate infringement suits. The district court did not consolidate the suits, but considered the claim construction issues relating to the expression “disparate databases.” The district court construed that term in favor of defendants, granted summary judgment that all claims asserted against MicroStrategy were invalid for lack of enablement, and granted summary judgment that all claims asserted against TIBCO were invalid for lack of enablement and written description. The Federal Circuit affirmed the claim construction, but remanded, finding that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the asserted claims are enabled and have sufficient written description support. View "Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. Tibco Software, Inc." on Justia Law

IV alleged infringement of five patents. A year later, JPMC moved to stay the case pending the result of four covered business method reviews (CBMR) JPMC planned to file with respect to the patents. JPMC filed CBMR petitions for two patents, but never filed the other two promised petitions. Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board acted on the petitions, the district court denied JPMC’s motion to stay, applying the four-factor test from the America Invents Act, 125 Stat. 284, 329–31. The court stated that, because there are multiple patents and claims in suit, it would be inappropriate to stay the entire litigation while waiting to see if the PTAB would initiate review of only two; that the litigation would likely be resolved more quickly than any extended CBM review; that it was largely speculative to argue that the PTAB’s resolutions of the CBMR petitions would reduce the court’s workload; and that any reduction was offset by IV’s right to a speedy trial. The Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory appeal from a decision on a motion to stay until the PTAB institutes a CBMR proceeding. View "Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co." on Justia Law

Enzo’s 767 patent involves the use of nucleotide probes that allow a scientist to detect, monitor, localize, or isolate nucleic acids when present in extremely small quantities, as is necessary for the sequencing of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). A jury found that Applera directly infringed all of the asserted claims, that Applera induced its customers to infringe all of the asserted claims, and that the claims at issue were not proven by clear and convincing evidence to lack enablement or written description. The Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of infringement and remanded, finding error in the district court’s claim construction, which construed the claims at issue to cover both direct and indirect detection of a signalling moiety. View "Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp." on Justia Law

Daiichi markets Benicar® for treating hypertension. In seeking FDA approval, Daiichi listed, in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations publication, (Orange Book), the 599 patent covering the drug’s active ingredient, olmesartan medoxomil, which expires in 2016, and the 703 patent covering methods of treatment, which expires in 2021. After Mylan filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application in 2006, Daiichi disclaimed the 703 patent, 35 U.S.C. 253. The district court upheld the validity of the 599 patent. Apotex filed an ANDA for generic olmesartan medoxomil, acknowledging that the 599 patent is valid, barring an effective date of FDA approval earlier than 2016. Daiichi did not sue Apotex for infringing the 703 patent. The FDA has not removed the patent from the Orange Book, despite Daiichi’s request. Apotex sought a declaratory judgment that it will not infringe that patent, to enable it to receive FDA marketing approval. The district court dismissed for lack of a case or controversy. The Federal Circuit reversed. Apotex has a concrete, potentially high-value stake in obtaining a judgment; Daiichi has a concrete, potentially high-value stake in denying Apotex that judgment and delaying Apotex’s market entry, as does Mylan, the first applicant for approval of a generic. View "Apotex, Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc." on Justia Law