Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Williamson's patent describes methods and systems for “distributed learning” that utilize industry standard computer hardware and software linked by a network to provide a virtual classroom). The system includes a presenter computer that controls information that appears on the audience member’s computer screen, audience member computers that display the presentation and can communicate with the presenter and other audience members, and a distributed learning server that implements a “virtual classroom” over a network, such as the Internet.. Williamson accused defendants of infringement based on their alleged manufacture, sale, use, and importation of systems and methods of online collaboration. The district court construed “graphical display representative of a classroom” and “first graphical display comprising . . . a classroom region” as requiring “a pictorial map illustrating an at least partially virtual space in which participants can interact, and that identifies the presenter(s) and the audience member(s) by their locations on the map.” The court concluded that the limitation, “distributed learning control module,” was a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. 112(6) and that the specification failed to disclose necessary algorithms for performing all claimed functions, so that claims were invalid as indefinite. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding the constructions erroneous. View "Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC" on Justia Law

Halo is a supplier of electronic components and owns three patents directed to surface mount electronic packages containing transformers for mounting on a printed circuit board inside electronic devices such as computers and internet routers. Halo alleged that Pulse infringed its patents. The district court entered summary judgment that Pulse did not sell or offer to sell certain accused products within the U.S. and, therefore, did not directly infringe, and that that Pulse’s infringement with respect to accused products that Pulse sold and delivered outside the U.S. was not willful. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Pulse did not sell or offer to sell within the U.S. those accused products that Pulse manufactured, shipped, and delivered outside the U.S., so there was no direct infringement by those products. The court upheld the constructions of the claim limitations “electronic surface mount package” and “contour element,” found the patents not invalid for obviousness, and affirmed the judgment of direct infringement with respect to products that Pulse delivered in the U.S. and the judgment of inducement with respect to products that Pulse delivered outside the U.S. but were ultimately imported by others. View "Halo Elec., Inc. v. Pulse Elec., Inc." on Justia Law

IRIS owns the 506 patent, titled “Method of Making an Improved Security Identification Document Including Contactless Communication Insert Unit.” The patent discloses methods for making a secure identification document containing an embedded computer chip that stores biographical or biometric data. Japan Airlines Corporation (JAL) examines passports according to the Enhanced Border Security Act, 8 U.S.C. 1221, the Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, 19 C.F.R. 122.75a(d), and international treaties. According to IRIS, some of these passports are made using the methods claimed in the 506 patent. IRIS sued, alleging that JAL infringed the patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(g) by “using . . . electronic passports in the processing and/or boarding of passengers . . . at . . . JAL services passenger check-in facilities throughout the United States.” JAL argued that federal laws requiring the examination of passports conflict with the patent laws and therefore exempt JAL from infringement liability and that IRIS’s exclusive remedy was an action against the United States under 28 U.S.C. 1498(a). The district court agreed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, concluding that JAL’s allegedly infringing acts are carried out “for the United States” under 28 U.S.C. 1498(a). View "IRIS Corp. v. Japan Airlines Corp." on Justia Law

Ormco owns a patent, entitled “Self-Ligating Orthodontic Bracket,” that describes a bracket for orthodontic braces that avoids or reduces interference with the gums even when being mounted on a molar tooth. The bracket includes a slot to hold the archwire that connects (and exerts the desired corrective force on) the teeth, with a slide that moves across the slot opening to hold the wire in place. The specification notes that self-ligating brackets were already known in the art, but that the prior-art brackets did not work well for molars, explaining that when the slide opened to release the wire it would bump into the gums, causing discomfort. Ormco accused World Class Technology of infringing the patent. The district court construed two claim terms: “support surface” and “ledge.” In view of the court’s constructions, the parties stipulated to a judgment of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting Ormco’s challenge to the district court’s construction of “support surface.” View "World Class Tech. Corp. v. Ormco Corp." on Justia Law

AntiCancer, Inc. owns patents for technology related to the imaging of gene expression using a green fluorescent protein linked to a gene promoter. The fluorescent protein is derived from a species of green-glowing jellyfish, Aequorea victoria. The patented inventions are described as useful for drug discovery and evaluation in cancer control and treatment. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement, not on the substantive merits of any issue, but on a procedural aspect at the threshold of the litigation arising from application of the Patent Local Rules of the Southern District of California. The court imposed a fee-shifting sanction as a condition of permitting AntiCancer to supplement the Preliminary Infringement Contentions that found to be defective under Patent Local Rule 3.1. The Federal Circuit vacated the condition and remanded. Considering the language and purposes of the Local Rule, and the record of what Anti-Cancer disclosed in its Contentions and the limited, specific criticisms of the Contentions’ sufficiency, there was no reasonable basis for making the finding of bad faith that would be required to sustain the fees sanction. View "Anticancer Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc." on Justia Law

CardSoft filed suit in 2008 against VeriFone, asserting infringement of the 945 patent and the 683 patent, which are directed to software for small, specialized computers, like payment terminals. The district court held a Markman hearing and adopted CardSoft’s proposed construction for the claim term “virtual machine.” A jury determined that certain VeriFone devices infringed claim 11 of the 945 patent and claim 1 of the 683 patent and that these claims were not invalid. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the district court erred in its construction of “virtual machine,” and CardSoft waived any argument of infringement under the correct construction, View "CARDSOFT, LLC v. VERIFONE, INC. " on Justia Law

SSL Services asserted that Citrix infringed claims contained the 796 patent and the 011 patent, related to multi-tier virtual private networks. The district court held a Markman hearing and construed the terms “intercepting” and “destination address,” and imposed a set step order requirement for the claim. A jury found that Citrix willfully infringed claims 2, 4, and 7 of the 011 Patent, and that those claims were not shown to be invalid, but that Citrix did not infringe claim 27 of the 796 Patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, but vacated the district court’s denial of prevailing party status to SSL and remanded for an assessment of costs and fees. View "SSL Servs., LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Bosch owns the rights to the 313 patent, which claims a diagnostic tester that determines whether the computerized control unit in a motor vehicle needs to be reprogrammed. The claimed external diagnostic tester is made up of a “program recognition device” and a “program loading device,” the only two claim terms at issue. In Bosch’s infringement case, the court found those claim terms invalid as indefinite. The Federal Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the terms invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6 and that the specification does not disclose corresponding structure for the terms. View "ROBERT BOSCH, LLC v. SNAP-ON INC." on Justia Law

Whirlpool purchased injection-molded plastic knobs and decorative metal stampings from Grigoleit. In 1992 Whirlpool told Grigoleit that it would start using products made by Phillips. Grigoleit believed that Phillips was using a method protected by its patents. Ultimately Grigoleit licensed its patents to Whirlpool and Phillips; instead of royalties Grigoleit got Whirlpool’s business for the “Estate” and “Roper” brand lines and a promise of consideration for other business. The agreement and the patents expired in 2003. An arbitrator concluded that Whirlpool had failed to consider Grigoleit’s parts for some lines of washers and dryers and was liable for payment of money royalties or damages. Grigoleit demanded the profit it would have made had Whirlpool purchased its requirements of knobs exclusively from Grigoleit. The district court concluded that a reasonable royalty fell in the range of 1¢ to 12¢ per part and the parties then agreed that royalties would then be $140,000. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, reasoning that lost profits differ from royalties. The caption on the contract is “LICENSE AGREEMENT” and the heading on paragraph 3 is “Royalties.” The agreement is a patent license; the court was not obliged to treat it as a requirements contract. View "Grigoleit Co. v. Whirlpool Corp." on Justia Law

In 1996, Campbell and Ian successfully produced the first mammal ever cloned from an adult somatic cell: Dolly the Sheep. Known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, the process involves removing the nucleus of a somatic cell and implanting that nucleus into an enucleated (i.e., without a nucleus) oocyte. A somatic cell is any body cell other than gametes (egg or sperm). An oocyte is an egg cell prior to maturation and a nucleus is the organelle that holds a cell’s genetic material (DNA). Often called “adult” cells, somatic cells are differentiated, i.e., they are specialized to perform specific functions. Liver, heart, and muscle cells are differentiated, somatic cells. To create Dolly, Campbell and Wilmut fused the nucleus of an adult, somatic mammary cell with an enucleated oocyte. The obtained the 258 patent for the process. The Patent and Trademark Office rejected their claims to the cloned animals, set forth in the 233 application, “Quiescent Cell Populations for Nuclear Transfer.’ In 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the rejection, finding that the claimed subject matter was ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it constituted a natural phenomenon that did not possess “markedly different characteristics than any found in nature” and that the subject matter was anticipated by and obvious in light of prior art (35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) because the clones were indistinguishable from clones produced through prior cloning methods, i.e., embryotic nuclear transfer and in vitro fertilization. The Federal Circuit affirmed, citing Section 101.View "In re: Roslin Inst. (Edinburgh)" on Justia Law