Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Sandoz sought a declaratory judgment that two patents, exclusively licensed to Amgen, were invalid and unenforceable and would not be infringed if Sandoz uses, offers to sell or sells, or imports a drug product “biosimilar” to Amgen’s Enbrel®, which is a drug used for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Sandoz has not yet filed an application for approval of its contemplated product by the FDA and had only begun certain testing required for its contemplated FDA filing. The district court dismissed the case, determining that no Article III controversy (yet) existed between the parties and also that the suit was barred by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA), 42 U.S.C. 262. The Federal Circuit affirmed, concluding that Sandoz did not allege an injury of sufficient immediacy and reality to create subject matter jurisdiction. The court did not address interpretation of the BPCIA. View "Sandoz, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc." on Justia Law

DDR’s patents are directed to generating a web page that combines visual elements of a “host” website with content of a third-party merchant. Prior art allowed third-party merchants to “lure the [host website’s] visitor traffic away” from the host website; visitors would be taken to the merchant’s website upon clicking the merchant’s advertisement. The patents disclose that, on activation of a third-party hyperlink on a host website, instead of taking visitors to the merchant’s website, the system generates and directs them to a page that displays product information from the merchant, but retains the host website’s “look and feel.” DDR sued NLG, a travel agency that sells cruises online in partnership with travel websites and cruise lines, asserting infringement by providing a system for cruise-oriented (host) websites that allows visitors to book cruises on cruise lines (merchants). In reexamination of the patents based on prior art, the PTO confirmed the patents’ validity. The parties stipulated to construction of terms, including “look and feel” and “visually perceptible elements.” The district court found the patents not invalid and infringed. The Federal Circuit affirmed except with respect to the 572 patent, which it found to be anticipated as a matter of law. View "DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.Com, L.P." on Justia Law

Tyco sued alleging that Ethicon’s ultrasonic cutting and coagulating surgical devices infringed certain claims in three of its patents. The district court held that certain claims of those patents would not have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103, but that the other asserted claims are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(g). The Federal Circuit upheld the section102(g) findings, but held that the section 103 determination was improper, including the court’s decision to exclude the section 102(g) prior art from the obviousness analysis. View "Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc." on Justia Law

Interoperability, enabling electronic devices to charge and connect to the wireless Internet anywhere, requires compliance with technical standards. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) publishes the prevailing wireless internet standard. Creating such standards involves collaboration; the chosen standard may include technology developed by different parties, which may be covered by patents. Because the standard requires that devices utilize specific technology, compliant devices necessarily infringe certain claims in “standard essential patents” (SEPs), which can inhibit widespread adoption of a standard. IEEE asks SEP owners to pledge that they will grant licenses to an unrestricted number of applicants on “reasonable and nondiscriminatory” (RAND) terms. Ericsson’s patents are SEPs for IEEE’s standard. Ericsson promised IEEE it would offer licenses at a RAND rate. The accused infringers produce devices incorporating Intel’s wireless chips. Dell claimed that it has a license based on its prior agreement with Ericsson’s subsidiary. In Ericsson’s infringement suit, the court rejected that claim and found that D-Link infringed three Ericsson patents; held that the 625 patent was valid over a prior art; found that Intel violated its obligation to negotiate a royalty rate in good faith; and awarded Ericsson $10 million (15 cents per infringing device). The Federal Circuit affirmed two infringement findings, but reversed as to another; affirmed that the 625 patent was not invalid; and vacated the damages and ongoing royalty awards. View "Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Megestrol was used to treat wasting in cancer patients. In 1993, Squibb marketed an oral suspension of micronized megestrol, Megace OS, for treatment of anorexia and cachexia in AIDS patients. Other manufacturers submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications to market generic versions of Megace OS. Par received approval, but continued to experiment and eventually formulated nanosized megestrol. Patients taking Megace OS with a meal showed a significantly higher rate and extent of absorption compared with patients in a fasting state. The nanosized formulation showed a greatly reduced food effect, especially vital for patients with reduced appetites. The Patent Office rejected Par’s claims covering methods for nanosized megestrol formulations as obvious in light of prior art. Par amended to address the lack of a food effect in the nanosized formulation. The FDA approved Par’s New Drug Application for its nanoparticle formulation, Megace ES, which has generated more than $600M in net sales since 2005. Par pled guilty to marketing Megace ES without FDA approval as an effective weight-gain method for geriatric patients and as having superior clinical efficacy over Megace OS despite lack of clinical studies. TWi filed an ANDA for a generic nanosized megestrol, asserting that the Par patent was invalid or would not be infringed. Par sued under 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A). The Federal Circuit vacated the district court finding of invalidity; that court incorrectly applied the law on inherency in the context of obviousness. View "Par Pharma., Inc. v TWi Pharma., Inc." on Justia Law

Versata sued Callidus, alleging infringement the 326, 304, and 024 patents, concerning management and tracking of sales information by a financial services company. Seven months after briefing on motions to dismiss or to transfer, the district court denied both. Callidus answered and counterclaimed, asserting its own patents against Versata and stated that it would seek post-grant review of Versata’s patents under the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method (CBM) Patents under the America Invents Act, 125 Stat. 284, 329–31. The district court declined to consider a stay until the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decided to institute CBM review. PTAB instituted CBM review for each patent, finding each challenged claim more likely than not directed to unpatentable subject matter. Callidus renewed its motion. The court granted a stay as to the 326 patent but denied it as to the other patents. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the court “clearly erred” in evaluating the burden-of-litigation factor exclusively through a backward-looking lens. The correct test focuses prospectively on the impact of the stay on the litigation, not on the past actions of the parties. Framed appropriately, it is clear that a stay will reduce the future burdens of litigation. View "Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc." on Justia Law

In a Colorado district court, e.Digital asserted claims 1 and 19 of the 774 patent, disclosing a device with a microphone and a removable, interchangeable flash memory recording medium that allows for audio recording and playback. Claims 1 and 19 recited “flash memory module which operates as sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals.” The court construed that limitation to require “that the device use only flash memory, not RAM or any other memory system” to store processed sound electrical signals, finding that the use of RAM had been disclaimed during prosecution and that the existence of a microprocessor did not require use of RAM. The parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice. The Patent and Trademark Office cancelled claims 1 and 19 in an ex parte reexamination, issued reexamined claim 33, which recites the limitations of the cancelled claims, including an identical sole memory limitation, and added limitations like a microprocessor. e.Digital sued in a California district court, asserting reexamined claim 33 and claims of the 108 patent. The court adopted the Colorado court’s construction. The Federal Circuit upheld the application of collateral estoppel with respect to the 774 patent, but reversed as to the unrelated 108 patent. View "eDigital Corp. v. Futurewei Tech., Inc." on Justia Law

Antares’s 015 patent, entitled “needle assisted jet injector,” discloses a system in which a needle punctures the skin before forcefully expelling a medication. With typical injectors the medication itself ruptures the outer layers of skin. During prosecution, the applicants distinguished prior art by emphasizing the “jet injector” limitation. The originally issued claims all contained the “jet injection” limitation. Antares later sought reissue under 35 U.S.C. 251, stating that the patentee claimed “more or less than he had a right to claim.” The 846 reissue patent was granted. Specification and claims 1–22 were unaltered; claims 23–37 were added. The original claims recite embodiments of a jet injection device and specify, for example, the exact plunge depth of the needle assist. The reissue claims are not restricted to jet-injection devices, but concern safety features; they recite a different invention than originally claimed. Defendants submitted an FDA new drug application for pre-filled methotrexate syringes. Antares sought a preliminary injunction. Defendants counterclaimed for invalidity, arguing that the reissue claims were invalid for violating the recapture rule and failing the original patent requirement. The district court denied a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit affirmed; the reissue claims are invalid under section 251’s “original patent” requirement. View "Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma, Inc." on Justia Law

The 545 patent claims a method for distributing copyrighted products (songs, movies, books) over the Internet where the consumer receives a copyrighted product for free in exchange for viewing an advertisement, and the advertiser pays for the copyrighted content. The district court dismissed an infringement claim. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. The patent claims a "process" within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101. The Supreme Court vacated in 2012. In 2013 the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing for failure to claim statutory subject matter. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court clarified that a claim that is directed to an abstract idea does not move into section 101 eligibility territory by “merely requir[ing] generic computer implementation” and again vacated. On remand, the Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal, referring to the claim as an abstract idea. View "Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued for alleged infringement of the 129 patent, entitled “Personal Area Network with Automatic Attachment and Detachment.” The patent describes a network for wireless communications between a central hub device and a number of surrounding peripheral devices in close proximity with the hub device. The specification details the use of “a wireless personal area network [PAN] that permits a host device to communicate with a varying number of peripheral devices with minimal interference from neighboring networks. The district court dismissed plaintiff Tri-County for lack of standing, finding that Tri-County had effectively assigned the patent to Azure. The court also construed the term “MAC address” in the patent as “a device identifier generated by the hub device” and not, as Azure and Tri-County suggested, “an address that uniquely identifies a device or group of devices on a shared communication medium.” Azure stipulated to a judgment of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Tri-County, but vacated and remanded in part, holding that the district court improperly construed the term. View "Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR, PLC" on Justia Law