Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Triton sued Nintendo alleging that the Wii Remote™ used in combination with an accessory infringes the 181 patent, which covers a computer input device. It discloses that a user can communicate with a computer by moving the device in three dimensions. The device sends commands to the computer based on its three-dimensional position, orientation, and motion. In the preferred embodiment, its components include three accelerometers and three rotational rate sensors for measuring linear acceleration along, and rotational velocity about, three orthogonal axes. This embodiment also includes a conventional microprocessor that is programmed to periodically read and numerically integrate over time digitized acceleration and rotational rate values to calculate the position, orientation, and motion values for the input device. The patent does not further explain how the numerical integration is performed, only that it is performed in a “conventional manner.” Each claim recites an “integrator means.” The district court held that this term rendered the claims indefinite, holding that the corresponding structure for performing the recited integrating function was a “conventional microprocessor having a suitably programmed read-only memory.” It found that the patent did not disclose any algorithm for performing the recited integrating function, stating that the patent broadly discloses using “numerical integration,” but that this alone was not a sufficient disclosure because “‘[n]umerical integration’ ... is not a single algorithm, but rather a whole class of algorithms that can be used to calculate definite integrals. The Federal Circuit affirmed. . View "Triton Tech of TX, LLC v. Nintendo of Am, Inc." on Justia Law

BMS owns the 244 patent and markets a drug for the treatment of hepatitis B. Claim 8 of the patent is directed to a nucleoside analog composed of two regions: a carbocyclic ring and a guanine base. Nucleoside analogs are manmade compounds designed to mimic the activity of natural nucleosides, the building blocks of DNA and RNA. These compounds are modified slightly from their natural counterparts to interfere with the replication of viral DNA—which means that they can serve as possible antiviral compounds. Claim 8 covers one such compound, entecavir. BMS markets entecavir as a treatment for hepatitis B, under the trade name Baraclude®. In an infringement case, the district court found claim 8 invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting that three other drugs for treating hepatitis B were invented before the filing date of entecavir; that the three drugs also gained FDA approval before entecavir; and that entecavir’s inventors did not know about its hepatitis B properties until four years after the filing date, and by then the first FDA-approved hepatitis B treatment was launched. View "Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The patents at issue involve a 0.03% bimatoprost ophthalmic solution that can is effective as eye drops to treat glaucoma, by alleviating intraocular pressure, or to promote hair growth. The 029 patent was assigned to Duke University and issued in 2008. The 404 patent, assigned to Allergan. Apotex submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) to the FDA seeking to market a generic version of Allergan’s Latisse® product, which treats hair loss. Allergan and Duke filed suit. In a consolidated Hatch-Waxman action, the district court held that the asserted claims of the 029 and 404 patents are not invalid for anticipation, obviousness, insufficient written description, or lack of enablement, and that Apotex infringed the patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction that a method of “treating hair loss” may include a method of promoting hair growth without also arresting or reversing hair loss; that that in this case a previous disclosure was too sparse and ambiguous for a person of ordinary skill to comprehend as anticipating the 029 patent; and that the 819 patent does not inherently anticipate the claims of the 029 patent, but reversed findings that asserted claims of the 029 and 404 patents are non-obvious and that the 404 patent was conceived prior to the date of publication of the2001 Brandt references. View "Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc." on Justia Law

The inventors named in the application for the 568 patent, entitled “Miniature x-ray source with improved output stability and voltage standoff,” recorded a terminal disclaimer in response to rejections for obviousness-type double patenting. The disclaimer declares that the 568 patent “shall be enforceable only for and during such period” as it is commonly owned with the patent that underlay the double-patenting rejections, referring to a 2003 patent that named one of the inventors as sole inventor. The patent issued in 2007. In their reissue application (35 U.S.C. 251) the inventors sought to modify the recorded terminal disclaimer to delete the common-ownership provision, and to modify the claims that gave rise to the disclaimer, because the two patents are not and never were commonly owned. A PTO examiner rejected the reissue application; the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Federal Circuit affirmed. The applicants, knowing that the patents were not commonly owned, intentionally surrendered a possible right (the ability to obtain all or some of the 568 patent claims in a form enforceable independently of the other patent) in exchange for a benefit, overcoming an obviousness-type double-patenting rejection of several of the proposed claims. They are simply seeking to revise that choice, not to remedy the result of a mistaken belief. Theirs is not an error remediable under the reissue statute. View "In re: Dinsmore" on Justia Law

Quad/Tech owns the 423 patent, which relates to a visual inspection system for printing presses and discloses an imaging system for web printing (printing with large rolls of paper) that uses an image sensor system containing an optical sensor to inspect printed pages (the substrate) for defects, such as misalignments or poor color, in order to change the printing process to correct those errors. In an inter partes reexamination, an examiner rejected some claims for obviousness and others on written description grounds. The PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences reversed. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part, finding that the Board erred in failing to consider the same obviousness rejection of claims 61–72 in connection with claims 1–17 and 19–60 . View "Q. I. Press Controls, B.V. v. Kappos" on Justia Law

The 321 patent, titled “Method for Manufacture of Quantum Sized Periodic Structures in Si Materials,” resulted from contributions of Brueck, Zaidi, Chu, employed by UNM, and Draper, employed by Sandia, and issued in 1998. In 1996, the four executed an assignment to UNM that defined all assignors as employees of UNM. UNM executed an assignment to Sandia to correct Draper’s assignment. While the 321 application was pending, in 1997, Brueck and Zaidi filed the application that led to the 998 patent, titled “Method and Apparatus for Extending Spatial Frequencies in Photolithography Images.” The application incorporated the 321 patent by reference, but did not claim priority to any earlier application. Draper was not listed as an inventor and had no inventive contribution. UNM obtained assignments from Brueck and Zaidi. During prosecution the PTO rejected claims for double patenting. UNM filed a terminal disclaimer, which specified that “any patent granted on this instant application shall be enforceable only for and during such period” that the 998 and 321 patents “are commonly owned.” UNM stated that it was the owner of a 100 percent interest in the application. The 998 patent issued in 2000. In 2008 successfully sought a certificate of correction indicating that the 998 patent is a continuation-in-part of the 321 patent. In 2010 UNM filed an infringement suit concerning the 998 patent. Although Sandia had an ownership interest since the Draper Assignment, Sandia had never claimed any interest in the 321 patent. The district court dismissed for lack of standing. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Sandia did not voluntarily join as a co-plaintiff and could not be involuntarily joined. All co-owners must ordinarily join in an infringement suit .View "STC.UNM v. Intel Corp." on Justia Law

Source manufactures water reservoirs in which drinking water can be stored inside backpacks for use during outdoor activities and is the assignee of the 276 patent, which focuses on a reservoir with a hermetic seal to prevent leakage and a wide opening for easier cleaning and filling. Attorney Yonay prosecuted the 276 patent application. Yonay and his partner signed the complaints in an infringement action against Hydrapak, which also manufactures a flexible hydration reservoir, the Reversible Reservoir. Hydrapak served a sanctions motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which allows the party against whom the sanctions will be sought 21 days to withdraw the offending claim. Source declined to withdraw its amended complaint. The district court granted Hydrapak summary judgment and sanctions, stating that there was “nothing complicated or technical” about the claim limitation “slot being narrower than the diameter of the rod,” and that none of the words of this limitation “requires definition or interpretation beyond its plain and ordinary meaning.” The court determined that in Hydrapak’s products the slot is larger than the diameter of the rod, even under Source’s proposed construction. After the Federal Circuit affirmed and denied Hydrapak sanctions for a frivolous appeal, the district court imposed a sanction of $200,054.00. The Federal Circuit affirmed.View "Source Vagabond Sys., Ltd. v. Hydrapak, Inc." on Justia Law

The 916 patent discloses a method and system for improving the efficiency of computer memory. It attempts to improve the general memory transfer system with the addition of an external clock to synchronize the timing of the data transfer and, for a particular memory transfer request, delaying the transfer by a specific, known amount of time. In an inter partes reexamination of two claims in the patent, the PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that the claims were anticipated by the Bennett Patent. The owner of the 916 patent appealed, arguing that Bennett does not disclose the claimed “value that is representative of an amount of time to transpire after which the memory device outputs the first amount of data.” Micron, which had requested reexamination, was allowed to withdraw from the case. The Federal Circuit held that the owner has the right to appeal the Board’s rejection of its claims irrespective of Micron’s participation on appeal, 35 U.S.C. 315(a)(1), and that a live controversy regarding the patentability of the claims remains for resolution. The court reversed the anticipation decision as unsupported by substantial evidence.View "In re: Rambus, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1987, Krauser, a periodontist, designed a dental implant system. He paid BHI’s predecessor to produce drawings and prototypes. In1991, the parties entered into a written agreement that specified that Krauser would develop new products for the company to produce and sell and that the drawings were “property of [BHI].” Krauser was entitled to royalties. Krauser obtained a patent covering one component of the system and listing Krauser as the inventor. The company subsequently secured patents covering dental implant systems, naming Shaw as the sole inventor. Krauser sued the company and Shaw for a declaration of ownership rights and for copyright and patent infringement. While the suits were pending, the company filed for bankruptcy, and Krauser filed claims in bankruptcy court. In a settlement agreement, Krauser granted the company a 10-year patent license and “all rights . . . [to] the dental implant system currently being manufactured.” The bankruptcy court approved the agreement. Later, several patents on dental implant systems issued to BHI. None listed Krauser as an inventor. Krauser alleged that BHI failed to pay the full amount of royalties or submit to required audits and claimed default. The district court granted BHI summary judgment, construing the settlement to apply only to implants being manufactured in 1996, not implants manufactured at the time of litigation, and finding that Krauser had no ownership rights. The Eleventh Circuit transferred the case “[b]ecause the Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction … relating to patents.” The Federal Circuit transferred the case back, noting that Krauser had dropped his claim of inventorship. View "Krauser v. Biohorizons, Inc." on Justia Law

Hear-Wear's patent is directed to a hearing aid with a behind-the-ear audio processing module, an in-the-canal module, and a connector between the modules. During prosecution of the patent, the examiner initially rejected claims 3 and 9 as obvious. For claim 3, the examiner found that “providing a plurality of prongs for the electrical connections or for the plugs is known in the art.” Hear-Wear never challenged the finding of “known in the art,” but instead focused on the independent claims. All claims were allowed. The Patent and Trademark Office granted a third party request by HIMPP for inter partes reexamination. HIMPP argued in its request that claims 3 and 9 would have been obvious because “such detachable connections were known at the time of the alleged invention as concluded by the Examiner during prosecution.” HIMPP also argued that to include detachable connections for a signal cable “would have been no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision to reject HIMPP’s obviousness contention. HIMPP failed to cite any evidence to support its contention that claims 3 and 9 of the patent contained only known prior art limitations. View "K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC" on Justia Law