Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Exela petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office to “reconsider and withdraw” its revival of the national stage application and to cancel the 218 patent, assigned to SCR Pharmatop. The PTO declined to consider Exela’s petition, stating that no law or regulation authorizes non-party challenge to a PTO ruling to accept a tardy filing. Exela then brought suit under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that the PTO’s action was ultra vires and that Exela’s petition should have been considered and favorably decided. The district court, on reconsideration and in view of new Fourth Circuit precedent, dismissed Exela’s complaint for failing to meet the statute of limitations for claims filed against the United States, including APA claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal, on the ground that PTO revival rulings are not subject to third party collateral challenge, thereby precluding review regardless of whether Exela’s claims were time-barred. View "Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC v. Lee" on Justia Law

Kennametal’s 519 patent was filed in 2004 and issued in 2007. It relates to cutting tools containing ruthenium as a binder that are coated using physical vapor deposition. After being sued for infringement, Ingersoll successfully petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office for inter partes reexamination of the 519 patent. The district court stayed the litigation. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board entered a new anticipation ground of rejection against certain of claims and affirmed the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of certain remaining claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence supported the determinations of anticipation and obviousness. View "Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co." on Justia Law

Cadence’s patents are directed to aqueous phenol formulations— particularly acetaminophen (sometimes referred to as “paracetamol”). The 222 patent, issued in 2000, explains that in aqueous solutions, acetaminophen decomposes into potentially toxic products and is directed at avoiding this decomposition by adding a free-radical capturing agent and a buffer. The 218 patent claims priority to a 2000 French application and discloses a method for obtaining stable acetaminophen formulations by deoxygenating solutions with an inert gas to achieve oxygen concentrations below 2 parts-per-million. Cadence’s FDA-approved injectable acetaminophen product is distributed under the name Ofirmev®. The FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book) lists the patents in connection with Ofirmev®. Exela filed an FDA Abbreviated New Drug Application, seeking approval of a generic equivalent of Ofirmev®. The ANDA included a certification under 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) (Paragraph IV certification) stating that the 222 and 218 patents were invalid and not infringed. Cadence sued Exela for infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)). The district court found the 222 patent not invalid and literally infringed and the 218 patent not invalid and infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the constructions of “buffering agent” and “vacuum stoppering step.” View "Cadence Pharma, Inc. v. Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC" on Justia Law

Senju sued defendants for infringement of the reexamined 045 patent, alleging constructive infringement under the Hatch-Waxman Act, 98 Stat. 1585. Defendants counterclaimed seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity. The patent relates to gatifloxacin, an aqueous liquid pharmaceutical eye drop composition, with added disodium edetate. Seven prior art patents were alleged as the basis for the obviousness determination, each containing some of the same chemistry as the claimed invention. There are several prior patent infringement suits involving the same chemistry and the same 045 patent. The district court adjudged the claims infringed but invalid for obviousness. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The district court properly applied a presumption of validity, considering both the evidence of obviousness and the evidence of unexpected results, to find clear and convincing evidence of invalidity; it was not clear error for the court to conclude that the unexpected results evidence that Senju relied upon during reexamination did not withstand scrutiny by Lupin’s experts and the court. View "Senju Pharma. Co. v. Lupin, Ltd." on Justia Law

TWM filed a patent infringement suit against AT&T. A jury awarded damages. The district court entered judgment consistent with the verdict and denied all of AT&T’s post-trial motions. AT&T failed to file timely notice of appeal. The Federal Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion or clearly err in refusing to extend or reopen the appeal period. With respect to F.R. App. P. 4(a)(5), the court found that the AT&T had failed to show good cause or excusable neglect for its failure to read the underlying orders and check the docket for more than a month after the court issued the final orders. Refusing to reopen the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6), where a party actually received a final judgment, but failed to monitor the electronic docket for a compliant entry of the judgment, the court stated: “In this era of electronic filing … we find no abuse of discretion in a district court’s decision to impose an obligation to monitor an electronic docket for entry of an order which a party and its counsel already have in their possession and know that the clerk at least attempted to enter.” View "Two-Way Media, LLC v. AT&T, Inc." on Justia Law

MobileMedia filed suit, asserting infringement of 16 patents by various Apple iPhone products. The district court found claim 73 of the 078 patent and claim 23 of the 068 patent to be infringed and not invalid, but found three claims of the 075 patent and two claims of the 231 patent not to be infringed, and three claims of the 075 patent to also be invalid. The Federal Circuit affirmed as to the 078 patent, but reversed as to the 078 and 068 patents. As to MobileMedia’s cross-appeal, the court affirmed that the 075 patent claims are invalid, but vacated the judgment that claims 2–4 and 12 of the 231 patent are not infringed because the judgment is based on an erroneous claim construction of “to change a volume of the generate alert sound.” View "Mobilemedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple, Inc." on Justia Law

Eidos alleged that the Display Manufacturers infringed claim 1 of the 958 patent, which is directed toward manufacturing processes for an electro-optical device, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD). The specification of the patent contains 17 embodiments, each identified by a letter. Each embodiment describes a manufacturing process that reduces the number of photolithographic steps in creating an LCD panel compared to prior art processes, lowering the production cost and improving yield and production efficiency. Each embodiment is broken down into a series of “forming” steps that deposit material, such as metal, insulator, or passivation material, on the substrate or previous layers, plus a series of “photolithographic” steps that etch or remove portions of previously-formed material. The district court entered summary judgment, finding the claim invalid as indefinite. The Federal Circuit reversed. The claim, when read in light of the specification and prosecution history, informed with reasonable certainty those skilled in the art at the time the patent was filed about the scope of the claimed invention. View "Eidos Display, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp." on Justia Law

Warsaw owns the 973 patent, which claims oversized spinal implants, and the 933 patent, which claims methods and devices for retracting tissue to create a working channel for minimally invasive spinal surgery. NuVasive owns the 236 patent, which relates to neuromonitoring during surgery. Warsaw sued NuVasive, alleging infringement; NuVasive counterclaimed, asserting infringement. A jury found that the asserted claims of the 973 patent were not invalid (infringement was not in dispute), that the asserted claims of the 933 patent were infringed under the doctrine of equivalents (validity was not in dispute), and that the asserted claims of the 236 patent were infringed (validity was not in dispute), and awarded damages for each. The district court denied motions for JMOL or a new trial; denied Warsaw’s requests for supplemental damages and a permanent injunction; and set ongoing royalty rates. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to invalidity and infringement of all three patents, but remanded for a new trial on damages with respect to the 973 and 933 patents. On remand, Warsaw will be limited to a reasonable royalty and cannot recover lost profits. View "Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v Nuvasiive, Inc." on Justia Law

Licensees entered into a licensing agreement with Safeblood Tech for the exclusive rights to market patented technology overseas. After learning that they could not register the patents in other countries, Licensees sued Safeblood for breach of contract and sued Safeblood, its officers, and patent inventor for fraud, constructive fraud, and violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), Ark. Code 4-88-101 to -115. The district court dismissed the fraud claims at summary judgment. The remaining claims proceeded to trial and a jury found for Licensees, awarding them $786,000 in contract damages and no damages for violations of the ADTPA. The district court awarded Licensees $144,150.40 in prejudgment interest. The Eighth Circuit reversed as to the common-law fraud claim and the award of prejudgment interest, but otherwise affirmed. Licensees produced sufficient evidence that the inventor made a false statement of fact; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it gave the jury a diminution-in-product-value instruction; and Licensees waived their inconsistent-verdict argument. View "Yazdianpour v. Safeblood Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

Before 1994, 35 U.S.C. 154 provided that a patent’s term ran from the date of issue. That term still begins on the date of issuance, but generally ends 20 years after the application was filed. Patent Term Adjustments (PTAs) address delays in the examination process. Category A applies when the PTO does not issue section 132 notification or provide section 151 notice of allowance within 14 months. Category B applies if the PTO fails to issue a patent three years after the actual filing date; category C covers delays due to interference, secrecy order, or successful appeal. Gilead filed the 374 application covering the compound cobicistat on February 22, 2008. The Examiner, finding more than one patentably distinct invention, issued a “restriction requirement” on November 18, 2009, dividing Gilead’s claims into four groups and directing it to select a subset. Gilead responded on February 18, 2010, selecting one for examination. Gilead filed a supplemental information disclosure statement on April 16, 2010, disclosing co-pending applications. The PTO issued notice of allowance on July 29, 2011; the patent issued on April 3, 2012. The PTO issued 245 days of “A Delay” and 406 days of “B Delay,” reduced by 35 days of overlapping and 57 days of applicant-induced delay (between Gilead’s initial reply and its supplemental IDS). The PTO rejected an argument that the supplemental IDS did not cause actual delay. The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment upholding the calculation. View "Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Lee" on Justia Law