Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Aspex’s complaint charged Zenni with infringement of three patents directed to clip-on eyewear in which magnets secure the bridge portions of the eyewear. The district court held that Aspex was collaterally estopped from pursuing the suit, based on earlier litigation between Aspex and Altair Eyewear for infringement of the same patents that resulted in summary judgment of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that certain of the patent claims in suit against Zenni Optical were not included in the Altair litigation, and that several terms now at issue had not previously been construed or were incorrectly construed. View "Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2011, K-Tech sued DirecTV for patent infringement against DirecTV. On the same day, K-Tech filed a similar action against TWC. The complaints named four patents identifying systems and methods for modifying a major channel number, a minor channel number, and/or a carrier frequency to identify a television program. The district court dismissed both complaints and K-Tech’s amended complaints, for failure to state a claim. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the district court applied the incorrect standard in evaluating the adequacy of K-Tech’s complaints. District courts must evaluate complaints alleging direct infringement by reference to Form 18 of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. K-Tech’s amended complaints satisfied those standards. DirecTV and TWC know what K-Tech’s patents claim, and they know what K-Tech asserts their systems do, and why. K-Tech has alleged that DirecTV and TWC must and do modify or “translate” digital signals they receive, and it has alleged that they do so using K-Tech’s patented methods and systems. View "K-Tech Telecomm., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc." on Justia Law

In the mid-1990s, Biogen scientists discovered that patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia could be treated using anti-CD20 antibodies like Biogen’s Rituxan. Biogen obtained the 612 patent covering a method for treating patients with CLL involving administering a therapeutically effective amount of the anti-CD20 antibody, entitled “Treatment of Hematologic Malignancies Associated with Circulating Tumor Cells Using Chimeric Anti-CD20 Antibody.” The patent was not limited to any particular type of antiCD20 antibody. In 2002, GSK and Genmab developed a breakthrough anti-CD20 antibody, Arzerra, which is distinctly different from Rituxan in several respects. Unlike Rituxan, which is a chimeric antibody, Arzerra is a fully human antibody, with less risk that the body will reject it and it can bind longer, giving the antibody more time to kill the target B cell. In 2010, Biogen sued GSK for infringement. The district court applied a construction of “anti-CD20 antibody” that narrowed the term based on prosecution history disclaimer. Under that construction, Biogen stipulated that it could not prove infringement and appealed the claim construction. The Federal Circuit affirmed; the district court did not err in finding a clear and unmistakable disclaimer. View "Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC" on Justia Law

First introduced in 1960, combined oral contraceptive (COC) “birth control pills,” deliver synthetic hormones that regulate the natural ovarian cycle and prevent pregnancy. Bayer filed an application directed to a low-dose, extended-regimen COC in 1993, which eventually led to the 564 patent. Bayer received final approval to market YAZ in the U.S. in 2006. Defendants filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking approval to market generic versions of YAZ, with certifications asserting that the 564 patent is invalid (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV). Bayer responded with patent infringement actions. The district court entered summary judgment that the patent’s claims are not invalid for obviousness in view of numerous cited prior art references. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that Bayer did not present evidence that overcomes the plain disclosures and express motivation to combine those disclosures in the prior art. View "Bayer Healthcare Pharma, Inc. v. Watson Pharma, Inc." on Justia Law

Morsa’s patent application, entitled “Method and Apparatus for the Furnishing of Benefits Information and Benefits,” discloses both a method and an apparatus for receiving a benefit-information request from a user, searching a benefit information database for benefits matching the request, and then returning benefit information to the user. In the specification, Morsa defines benefits as any “‘things’ of value” given away to target entities. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed rejection of multiple claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, finding that many claims would have been obvious in light of prior art. Vacating in part, the court held that the Board performed an incorrect enablement analysis in determining that certain claims were anticipated. View "In re: Morsa" on Justia Law

Saffran is the owner and sole named inventor of the 760 patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Managing Macromolecular Distribution,” which concerns “treatment of injured tissues within human or animal bodies, specifically ... the way injured tissues are joined and the way macromolecules are directed to promote healing.” The patent discloses methods and devices for treating injured tissues by sequestering particles and macromolecules in a defined space using a selectively permeable barrier. The specification primarily describes the invention in terms of a strategy for treating serious bone fractures, known as complex or comminuted fractures, where the bone has been shattered into numerous fragments. The district court held Cordis liable for infringing multiple claims of the patent. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the district court erroneously construed the “device” and “release means” limitations of the asserted claims. View "Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson" on Justia Law

The district court held that Fairchild willfully infringed several valid patents belonging to Power Integrations and awarded compensatory and enhanced damages in the amount of $12,866,647.16. The patented technology is used in electric chargers for mobile phones. The Federal Circuit affirmed the ruling on obviousness, but reversed construction of the “soft start circuit” limitations in certain claims. The court vacated the award of damages based on infringement by inducement, and remanded for a new trial on damages resulting from direct infringement, with an accounting limited to post-verdict infringing sales related to Fairchild’s direct infringement. The court also vacated the finding of willful infringement. View "Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductors Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences rejected the 172 design patent application, a continuation of the 709 application, which claimed a design for a bottle with specific shapes and boundaries. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that nothing in the parent application’s disclosure suggested anything uniquely patentable about the top portion of the bottle’s front panel. View "In re Owens" on Justia Law

Checkpoint and All-Tag are competitors in the manufacture and sale of “resonance tags,” electronic anti-shoplifting devices that are attached to merchandise whereby if the attached tag is not deactivated, the tag triggers an alarm when the tagged goods move past detectors located at the store’s exit. Checkpoint sued All-Tag for infringement of a patent entitled “Resonance Label and Method for its Fabrication.” A jury found the patent not infringed, invalid, and unenforceable. The district court entered judgment on the verdict, held the case “exceptional” in terms of 35 U.S.C. 285, and awarded the defendants $6.6 million in attorney fees, costs, and interest. The patent term has expired and only the award of attorney fees was appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed. The infringement charge was not shown to have been made in bad faith or objectively baseless. View "Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A." on Justia Law

1999, Drs. Dawson and Bowman submitted the patent application that led to the issuance of the two patents at issue, which concern a method for topically treating and preventing infections of the eye. They claim to overcome difficulties in existing methods through a process for topically applying an azalide antibiotic to the eye. Both patents are entitled “Topical Treatment or Prevention of Ocular Infections.” In 2007, in order to provoke an interference, UCSF filed a patent application that named Dr. Dawson as the sole inventor and generally copied the specification and claims from the patents. Dr. Dawson declined to join UCSF’s submission. The Patent and Trademark Office’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences found that Dr. Dawson did not conceive of the claimed inventions by himself prior to his collaboration with Dr. Bowman. The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting that, apart from reduction to practice, conception requires that the inventor know how his “definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention ... is hereafter to be applied in practice.” View "Dawson v. Dawson & Bowman" on Justia Law