Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Amdocs and Openet compete in the market for “data mediation software,” which helps internet service providers (ISPs), such as Verizon and AT&T, track customer’s network usage and generate bills. When a customer sends an email, surfs the internet, sends a text message, or participates in a video conference, records of the activity are generated at various locations throughout the network. Data mediation software collects, processes, and compiles these records. Openet successfully moved for summary judgment of noninfringement. With regard to three patents, Openet argued that Amdocs was unable to point to actual infringing use and that the accused products did not practice all claim limitations. The district court held that Amdocs did not raise a genuine question of material fact as to whether the accused devices practiced “completing” or “enhance[ing]” “in a distributed fashion,” a requirement which it construed as common to all asserted claims. The Federal Circuit reversed, agreeing with the construction of enhancement and completion, but finding that Amdocs’ documentary evidence describing the structure and operation of the accused product created factual issues regarding whether the product meets these constructions. The district court also granted summary judgment of noninfringement of a fourth patent. The Seventh Circuit vacated, citing erroneous claim construction . View "Amdocs Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc." on Justia Law

ePlus owns patents that relate to methods and systems for electronic sourcing: using electronic databases to search for product information and ordering selected products from third-party vendors. Claim 26 recites a “method comprising the steps of”: “maintaining at least two product catalogs on a database,” “selecting product catalogs to search,” “searching for matching items,” “building a requisition,” “processing the requisition to generate one or more purchase orders,” and “determining whether a selected matching item is available in inventory.” In 2009, ePlus sued Lawson for infringement. The district court found certain claims not invalid, and a jury found that Lawson infringed those claims. The Federal Circuit reversed in part on the ground that the system claims were invalid and that two of the asserted method claims were not infringed, but affirmed the infringement verdict as to claim 26. On remand, the district court modified the injunction in one respect and found Lawson in civil contempt for violating the injunction. During the pendency of Lawson’s appeals, the United States Patent and Trademark Office completed a reexamination of the patent and determined that claim 26 was invalid. The Federal Circuit affirmed and the PTO cancelled claim 26. The Federal Circuit then vacated the injunction and contempt order. View "ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc." on Justia Law

Align’s Invisalign System, an alternative to conventional braces, uses a series of clear dental aligners that are worn sequentially over time to adjust the position of a patient’s teeth. The aligners must be custom-designed for the patient’s unique teeth. Align’s asserted patents are directed to methods and treatment plans using digital data sets. In 2005, Align’s founder and former CEO founded OrthoClear and used former Align employees to manufacture dental aligners. Align filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission, alleging that OrthoClear violated 19 U.S.C. 1337 by importing, selling for importation, or selling within the U.S., aligners that infringe Align’s patents, and by misappropriating Align’s trade secrets. A 2006 settlement required OrthoClear to assign its entire intellectual property portfolio to Align. The Commission entered the Consent Order and terminated the investigation. Suspecting that OrthoClear and others were violating the Consent Order, Align sought an enforcement proceeding. Rather than issuing an “initial determination,” the ALJ issued an order, denied a motion to terminate and scheduled a trial. The Commission concluded that the order constituted an “initial determination,” subject to its review, reversed, and terminated the enforcement proceeding, finding that the accused digital data sets were not covered by the scope of the consent order. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that the Commission erred in reviewing the order. View "Align Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

Arlington manufactured and sold electrical connectors that could be snapped into place, including the Snap2It® brand connectors. Bridgeport sold a competing line of quick-connect fittings called Snap-In and Speed-Snap connectors. In 2002, Arlington filed suit, alleging that Bridgeport’s connectors infringed claim 1 of its 488 patent. Bridgeport signed a settlement agreement stating that the 488 patent was not invalid, was not unenforceable, and was infringed by Bridgeport’s 590-DCS and 590-DCSI Speed-Snap products. Bridgeport agreed to be “permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing . . . the Speed-Snap products identified … 590-DCS and 590-DCSI or any colorable imitations.” The district court dismissed without prejudice and maintained jurisdiction to enforce the injunction. In 2005, Bridgeport redesigned its connectors to have a frustoconical leading edge and began selling the 38ASP and 380SP connectors (New Connectors), under the Whipper-Snap® brand. In 2012, Arlington filed a motion for contempt, alleging that Bridgeport’s New Connectors violated the 2004 Injunction. The district court acknowledged that the dispute centered around two limitations of claim 1 of the 488 patent, and construed those limitations, finding that Bridgeport directly and indirectly infringed the patent. The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the contempt order is not a final judgment or otherwise appealable. View "Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc." on Justia Law

Medisim owns the 668 patent, which claims a device that is placed against the skin, takes temperature readings from sensors, determines time-dependent parameters of temperature change responsive to those readings, calculates a deep tissue temperature, and then calculates a core body temperature. Before filing that patent’s application, Medisim sold the FHT-1 thermometer, so that its own product qualified as prior art to the 668 patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The FHT-1 thermometer uses a heatflux algorithm disclosed in another Medisim patent. From 2004 to 2007, BestMed marketed and sold Medisim’s thermometers in the U.S. under International Distribution Agreement (IDA). Best-Med was privy to technical information concerning Medisim thermometers and testing procedures, including its water bath testing protocol, which enabled Medisim’s thermometers to be FDA-approved for U.S. sales. In 2008, the parties entered into a “Purchase and Sale Agreement” (PSA), which governed their separation; it authorized the parties to offer competing products to current customers as long as delivery occurred after May 1, 2009. The parties released all claims based in past performance or disputes regarding the IDA. After the PSA expired, BestMed began selling competing thermometers. Medisim sued, accusing Best-Med of directly and indirectly infringing the 668 patent and of unjust enrichment. Entering judgment as a matter of law, the district court found the patent anticipated by Medisim’s own prior art FHT-1 thermometer. The Federal Circuit remanded.View "Medisim Ltd. v. Bestmed, LLC" on Justia Law

A Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) system wireless cellular network has a base station and mobile stations, such as cellular telephones. To establish communication between a mobile station and a base, the mobile station transmits a known signal (preamble) over a random access channel (RACH). The CDMA system allows multiple signals to be sent over the same RACH by using different numerical spreading codes that enable the stations to distinguish a particular wireless communication from other concurrent communications. If too many mobile stations transmit simultaneously at high power levels, the signals can interfere with each other. GBT’s patents disclose an improvement that reduces the risk of interference: a mobile station seeking to communicate with the base will transmit preambles at increasing power levels until it receives an acknowledgment signal from the base. Once the mobile station receives that acknowledgment, it stops transmitting preambles and starts transmitting message information, so that each data signal is transmitted at the lowest power necessary to reach the base, reducing the risk of interference. In Texas litigation, the court construed preamble as “a signal used for communicating with the base station that is spread before transmission” and granted summary judgment of anticipation, which the Federal Circuit affirmed. While appeal was pending, GBT sought new claims during reexamination of one patent and in a pending continuation application and submitted the claim construction order from the Texas litigation and filings setting forth GBT’s stipulated definition of preamble. The claims GBT asserted, in this case, against Apple were added during the proceedings. The district court construed the disputed terms, including preamble, and granted Apple summary judgment of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law

H-W, the owner of the 955 patent, sued Overstock, alleging that Overstock’s smartphone application infringed claims 9 and 17 of the patent, relating to an apparatus and method for performing “contextual searches on an Internet Protocol (IP) Phone.” According to the specification of the 955 patent, “[a]n IP Phone is a telephone which can operate and execute voice communication in the same way as conventional telephones either via a Plain Old Telephone System (POTS) or an IP network.” H-W filed suit in March 2012 and submitted infringement contentions in July. In October, Overstock notified H-W that claim 9, as issued, was missing a limitation. In late May 2013 H-W obtained a certificate of correction from the PTO and submitted it to the district court. The parties had completed summary judgment and claim construction briefing. A few months later, the district court construed the claims and granted summary judgment of invalidity, holding that the claims were indefinite. H-W appealed construction of “user of said phone” and “said user” in claim 17 to mean “a consumer operating the IP Phone” The Federal Circuit affirmed as modified, holding that that the district court correctly held claim 17 invalid but erred in holding corrected claim 9 invalid.View "H-W Tech., L.C. v. Overstock.com, Inc." on Justia Law

Digital image processing involves electronically capturing an image of a scene with a “source device,” such as a digital camera, altering the image in a desired fashion, and transferring the altered image to an “output device,” such as a color printer. According to the 414 patent, all imaging devices impose some level of distortion on color and spatial properties because different devices allow for slightly different ranges of colors and spatial information to be displayed or reproduced. Prior art attempted to correct distortions using device-dependent solutions that calibrate and modify the color and spatial properties of the devices and device independent solutions that translate an image’s pixel data from a device dependent format into an independent color space, which can then be translated to output devices at a reduced level of distortion. The patent expands the device independent paradigm to disclose an improved device profile that includes both chromatic characteristic information and spatial characteristic information. Digitech filed infringement suits against 32 defendants. The district court found that all of the asserted claims were subject matter ineligible and invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101: the device profile claims are directed to a collection of numerical data that lacks a physical component or physical manifestation and the asserted method claims for generating a device profile encompass the abstract idea of organizing data through mathematical correlations. The Federal Circuit affirmed.View "Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc." on Justia Law

The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences declared an interference between Troy’s 451 patent, which claims priority to a provisional application filed in February 2005, and Samson’s 665 patent application, claiming priority to a provisional application filed in January 2005. Samson was named senior party. Troy’s priority motion alleged reduction to practice in early February 2004, conception prior to February 2004, inurement, and derivation. Samson’s motion alleged reduction to practice in late February or early March 2004 and conception in early February 2004. The Board concluded that Troy failed to prove actual reduction to practice in February 2004 and ordered all claims of the 451 patent cancelled. Troy had proffered new evidence of prior conception at the dates asserted, new evidence of actual reduction to practice in February 2004, and a claim that Samson engaged in “inequitable conduct” by including in its provisional application confidential drawings misappropriated from Troy. The district court affirmed, refusing to consider new evidence, not raised before the Board. The court acknowledged that Troy had proven, in state court, that Samson improperly submitted as its own at least one drawing of Troy’s and that Samson violated a confidentiality agreement in developing its inventions, but concluded that neither proved that Troy conceived all the elements and timely reduced them to practice. The Federal Circuit vacated. View "Troy v. Samson Mfg. Corp." on Justia Law

Stauffer, pro se, filed a qui tam action against Brooks Brothers under the then-version of the false-marking statute, 35 U.S.C. 292, claiming that Brooks Brothers marked its bow ties with expired patent numbers. In 2011, while the action was pending, the President signed into law the America Invents Act, 125 Stat. 284A, which eliminated the false-marking statute’s qui tam provision, so that only a “person who has suffered a competitive injury” may bring a claim. The AIA also expressly states that marking a product with an expired patent is not a false-marking violation and that the amendments apply to all pending cases. Stauffer argued that the AIA amendments were unconstitutional because they amounted to a pardon by Congress, violating the doctrine of separation of powers, and also violated the common-law principle that prohibits use of a pardon to vitiate a qui tam action once the action has commenced. The district court dismissed for lack of standing. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the amendments did not constitute a pardon and that even if the law had not changed, Stauffer might have lost his lawsuit, and, therefore, could not have acquired a private-property interest in his share of the statutory penalty. View "Stauffer v. Brooks Brothers, Inc." on Justia Law