Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Hormel met with Howard of HIP, which produced food safety and thermal processing equipment. The parties entered into an agreement to develop an oven for a particular process. Hormel conducted testing relating to color development, using both an infrared oven and a conventional spiral oven. Howard later alleged that it was during the meetings and testing that he disclosed the infrared preheating concept at issue. Hormel conducted additional testing using HIP’s test oven at Hormel's facility. The testing eventually revealed that turning off internal electrical heating elements in the oven solved the charred, off-flavor of bacon, and preheating the bacon with a microwave oven prevented condensation from washing away the flavor. That testing resulted in a two-step cooking process, the first step involving preheating the bacon and the second step involving cooking the meat in a superheated steam oven.Hormel filed a non-provisional patent application for the two-step cooking process in 2011, listing four joint inventors, who assigned their interests to Hormel. The application issued as the 498 patent. HIP sued, alleging that Howard was either the sole inventor or a joint inventor. The district court concluded that he was a joint inventor, 35 U.S.C. 256, based on his alleged contribution of the infrared preheating concept. The Federal Circuit reversed. Howard’s alleged contribution of preheating meat pieces using an infrared oven is “insignificant in quality” to the claimed invention. View "HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp" on Justia Law

Corning filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission alleging FS violated 19 U.S.C. 1337 by importing high-density fiber optic equipment that infringed four patents that generally relate to fiber optic technology commonly used in data centers. After investigating, the ALJ found that FS’ importation of high-density fiber optic equipment violated section 337; that FS induced infringement of two claims of the 320 patent, multiple claims of the 456 patent, and four claims of the 153 patent; and that FS’ accused modules directly infringed claims of the 206 patent. The ALJ adopted the Office of Unfair Import Investigations’ construction of “a front opening” as recited in the claims. The ALJ rejected invalidity challenges, including arguments that certain claims of the 320 and 456 patents were not enabled.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s determination that FS violated section 337, and issuance a general exclusion order prohibiting the importation of infringing high-density fiber optic equipment and components thereof and a cease-and-desist order directed to FS. The court upheld the enablement determination and the claim construction of “a front opening.” View "FS.com Inc. v. International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

Amgen produces apremilast and markets it as a phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor, which is used for treating psoriasis and related conditions, under the brand name Otezla®. The 638, 101, and 541 patents cover Otezla. Sandoz submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of apremilast. Amgen’s predecessor brought a Hatch-Waxman suit, asserting that Sandoz’s generic product would infringe the patents.The Federal Circuit affirmed holdings that claims 3 and 6 of Amgen’s 638 patent and claims 1 and 15 of Amgen’s 101 patent had not been shown to be invalid as obvious and that claims 2, 19, and 21 of its 541 patent”) were shown to be invalid as obvious in light of prior art. The court noted that varying a dose in response to the occurrence of side effects is a well-known, standard medical practice that may well lead to a finding of obviousness. View "Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc." on Justia Law

Rotigotine is used to treat Parkinson’s disease, which causes difficulty swallowing and slow transit times through intestines, which can frustrate oral treatments. Transdermal therapeutic systems deliver drugs through the patient’s skin and avoid those complications. In 2007, UCB invented and marketed Neupro®, the first FDA-approved patch treatment for Parkinson’s disease. Original Neupro® is covered by several UCB patents, including the Muller patents, which claim priority to an application filed in 1999. The Muller patents are listed in the FDA’s “Orange Book,” as covering reformulated Neupro®.In 2013, Actavis submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for FDA approval of a generic transdermal rotigotine patch. UCB sued for infringement. The district court granted UCB an injunction preventing approval of Actavis’s ANDA until March 2021, when the Muller patent expired. In 2018 UCB filed the patent application that matured into the 589 patent, claiming priority from a provisional application filed in 2009, entitled “Polyvinylpyrrolidone for the Stabilization of a Solid Dispersion of the Non-Crystalline Form of Rotigotine.” UCB again filed suit, asserting the 589 patent, to delay FDA approval of a generic for nine additional years.The district court found that the Muller patents anticipate all asserted claims and that the asserted claims would have been obvious in view of multiple prior art references, including the Muller patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of invalidity of the 589 patent. The district court’s fact findings on overlapping ranges, teaching away, unexpected results, and commercial success are not clearly erroneous, View "UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc." on Justia Law

The district court dismissed Sanderling’s infringement suit due to the asserted claims’ lack of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The patents at issue share the title “Dynamic Promotional Layout Management and Distribution Rules,” and are directed to a method using distribution rules to load digital image branding functions to users when certain conditions are met. The patents share a common specification, which describes the digital image branding function as a transformation, using, for example, an icon or a filter, that displays in a client terminal for the user to apply to a digital image. A distribution rule “is a rule used in determining how to target a group of end users, for instance, a rule that determines that only a group of end users having certain characteristics and/or match a certain requirement.”The Federal Circuit affirmed. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, not a specific improvement in computer functionality. The claims describe the use of computers as a tool to identify when a condition is met and then to distribute information based on satisfaction of that condition. The elements of the representative claim, individually and as an ordered combination, do not constitute an inventive concept. View "Sanderling Management Ltd. v. Snap Inc." on Justia Law

Sequoia’s patent is directed to “a method for managing a logical volume for minimizing a size of metadata and supporting dynamic online resizing,” and “a computer-readable recording medium storing a program or data structure for embodying the method.” The patent describes a preferred embodiment that has three storage virtualizations: extents, disk partitions, and logical volume. The accused product, Red Hat’s software tool, can create and resize logical volumes with units smaller than a whole disk partition, such as extents. Red Hat’s petitions for inter partes reviews were rejected.In infringement litigation, the Federal Circuit reversed a finding of invalidity based on the construction of “computer-readable recording medium” to include transitory media (signals or waves). Transitory media are ineligible statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The district court erred in relying on extrinsic evidence that was clearly at odds with the intrinsic evidence.The Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of noninfringement, upholding the constructions of a “disk partition” to mean a “section of a disk that is a minimum unit of a logical volume” and a “logical volume” to mean an “extensible union of more than one disk partition, the size of which is resized in disk partition units.” View "Sequoia Technology, LLC v. Dell Inc." on Justia Law

HCM sued Philip Morris for allegedly infringing at least one claim of HCM’s patent, which is directed to an electronic nicotine-delivery device. Philip Morris manufactures the IQOS electronic nicotine-delivery system, which “heats tobacco-filled sticks wrapped in paper [HeatSticks] to generate a nicotine-containing aerosol.” Philip Morris markets IQOS as a “heat-not-burn” system; the tobacco is heated at a low enough temperature that the tobacco does not burn, therefore, in Philip Morris’s view, preventing combustion.Philip Morris argued that an exhibit HCM attached to its original complaint conclusively demonstrated that IQOS does not initiate a combustion reaction as required by the asserted claims. The district court agreed that a Modified Risk Tobacco Product Application that Philip Morris submitted to the FDA when it sought a modified risk order to sell IQOS established that IQOS did not initiate a combustion reaction and thus did not infringe the asserted claims. The court granted Philip Morris attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. 285.The Federal Circuit reversed. HCM’s original and amended complaints recite sufficient allegations to raise a facially plausible case of patent infringement and specifically rejected the notion that IQOS does not initiate a combustion reaction. View "Healthier Choices Management Corp. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Arbutus’s 127 patent states that its purpose is to allow for more efficient methods and compositions for introducing nucleic acids into cells and methods of downregulating gene expression. The invention is, in part, the “surprising discovery” of the Morphology Limitation when one controls two factors: the lipid compositions of a SNALP formulation and formation process.Moderna sought inter partes review (IPR), arguing that the 069 patent, which was filed in April 2009, and claims priority to an application filed in April 2008, anticipated every claim. The 069 patent lists five inventors, three of which are listed on the 127 patent. The 069 patent, its child patent (435 patent), and the 127 patent are commonly owned by Arbutus. While the 127 patent was filed during the pendency of the 069 patent, it does not claim priority to it.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board found claims 1–22 of the 127 patent invalid as anticipated. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board’s determination that the Morphology Limitation of claim 1 is inherently anticipated by the 069 patent is supported by substantial evidence as is its finding that the 069 patent and its incorporated references describe nucleic acid-lipid particles and disclose these amounts as an inherent property of the formulations. View "Arbutus Biopharma Corp. v. Modernatx, Inc." on Justia Law

Salazar’s patent describes technology for wireless and wired communications, including command, control, and sensing for two-way communication of sound, voice, and data “with any appliance and/or apparatus capable of transmitting and/or receiving compatible sound, voice, and data signals.” ’The patent expired in 2015. In a subsequent suit, a jury found HTC did not infringe the patent but did not decide whether the patent was valid. Salazar later sued AT&T, asserting the patent against the same products he previously challenged. HTC intervened.At claim construction, the court held that the claims require one microprocessor that is capable of performing the "recited ‘generating,’ ‘creating,’ ‘retrieving,’ and ‘generating’ functions,” explaining that the claim term provided certain functions that the “said microprocessor” must be “necessarily configured to perform as well as the structural relationship between ‘said microprocessor’ and other structural elements.” The court denied AT&T’s motion for summary judgment, based on claim preclusion and Supreme Court precedent, which prevents harassment of customers of an adjudged noninfringer. The jury found that the accused products did not infringe and that the patent was not invalid. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of noninfringement, agreeing with the claim construction, did not reach AT&T’s preclusion arguments, and held that AT&T waived its challenge concerning anticipation. View "Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC" on Justia Law

Ironburg sued Valve for infringing its patent, entitled “Controller for Video Game Console.” In 2021, after much pretrial litigation and a change of venue, a trial was held, with each juror attending remotely through videoconferencing technology. The parties and the court agreed that each juror should have the accused product in hand. The device was mailed to each juror. Before trial, the court rejected invalidity challenges based on the purported indefiniteness of several claim terms and held that Valve was estopped from pressing its prior-art-based invalidity defenses as a consequence of Valve’s partially instituted inter partes review. The jury returned a verdict of willful infringement and assessed damages ($4 million). The court denied Ironburg’s motion to enhance damages.The Federal Circuit affirmed that the terms “elongate member” and “extends substantially the full distance between the top edge and the bottom edge” are not indefinite; the claims are infringed; the infringement was willful; damages will not be enhanced; and Valve is estopped from litigating the prior-art grounds on which IPR was requested but not instituted. The court vacated the holding that Valve was estopped from litigating its later-discovered invalidity grounds; the court erred in placing the burden on Valve concerning whether a skilled searcher conducting a diligent search reasonably would have been expected to discover certain grounds for invalidating claims. View "Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp." on Justia Law