Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

This case involved a confidential document called the Project Tulip Financial Analysis (Tulip FA), which projected profits, as well as discussed the appropriate terms and benefits from a settlement, involving Solvay's highly lucrative patent on AndroGel, a topical testosterone gel. Solvay subsequently appealed the district court's decision to modify an earlier protective order and unseal the Tulip FA. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion to modify its own protective order. The district court found that the passage of time had altered the balance enough so that the value of public access to the Tulip FA exceeded the value of confidentiality to Solvay. The court also vacated the stay entered by a panel of the court. View "Federal Trade Commission v. AbbVie Products LLC" on Justia Law

Cordis sued Abbott, alleging infringement of patents for drug-eluting stents. The PTO reexamined the 844 patent and issued an initial office action rejecting all claims as obvious. Cordis submitted an expert affidavit asserting secondary considerations of nonobviousness, including that Abbott had copied its patent. The examiner issued a further action, affirming rejection of all claims, finding that Cordis had failed to present evidence of copying. A different examiner issued an initial action rejecting all challenged claims of the 773 patent as obvious. The parties submitted dueling expert declarations. The reexamination of the 773 patent remains pending, while reexamination of the 844 patent is on appeal before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Cordis obtained subpoenas from the district court ordering Abbott to produce documents believed to establish copying and other secondary considerations for use in the pending PTO reexaminations. The court subsequently quashed the subpoenas. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that 35 U.S.C. 24 only empowers a district court to issue a subpoena for use in a “contested case,” and that contested cases are limited to those in which the regulations of the PTO authorize the parties to take depositions. The PTO does not provide for depositions in inter partes reexamination proceedings. View "Abbott Labs v. Cordis Corp." on Justia Law

Wilson Sporting Goods agreed to pay Frolow royalties for “Licensed Article(s),” defined as “tennis rackets which are covered by one or more unexpired or otherwise valid claims” of Frolow’s 372 patent. After conducting an audit, Frolow concluded that Wilson was not paying royalties on all the Licensed Articles and filed suit alleging that Wilson breached the License Agreement and infringed the 372 patent. Due to an arbitration provision in the Agreement, the court limited the breach of contract case to determining which Wilson racket models were Licensed Articles and summarily dismissed the patent infringement claim. The court ultimately entered summary judgment for Wilson. The Federal Circuit reversed with respect whether certain rackets were Licensed Articles, reasoning that the fact that Wilson marked their products with Frolow’s patent number supports his allegation that Wilson’s products fall within the claims. View "Frolow v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co." on Justia Law

The patent, entitled “Slot Machine Game and System with Improved Jackpot Feature,” issued in 2006 and relates to a system of linked gaming machines through which an allegedly improved jackpot mechanism is provided to a player. Incremental jackpots are well known in the prior art, but the patent claims that prior art systems lack flexibility in both operator control and ability to tailor prizes to player preferences, through a bonus game that may appear. The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement, explaining that the accused products require two separate actors, the casino via the gaming machine and the player, and that the lack of a single entity performing all of the steps of the asserted claims precluded direct infringement as a matter of law. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim constructions and its ruling on direct infringement but, in light of an intervening decision, vacated and remanded the ruling on indirect infringement. View "Aristocrat Tech., Australia v. Int'l Game Tech." on Justia Law

High-efficiency DC-DC power converter systems are used to power circuitry in large computer systems and telecommunication and data communication equipment. The patents at issue involve converters with separate “isolation” and “regulation” stages and improved prior art power converter systems that used integrated converters, each performing both isolation and regulation, to step the 48 volt input down to the voltage levels required to power logic circuitry. Large computer and communication systems use multiple voltage levels for different logic circuitry housed on a single load board, and the prior art systems required a separate isolating/regulating converter for each voltage level, which took up valuable space on the load board, which could otherwise accommodate more memory and other logic circuitry. The district court entered summary judgment of infringement and awarded $95 million in lost profits plus enhanced damages for post-trial infringement, finding that the “isolation” limitations of the patents appeared in defendants’ products. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Synqor, Inc. Artesyn Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

The patent examiner rejected all of the inventors’ pending claims in an application entitled “Enzyme-Mediated Modification of Fibrin for Tissue Engineering,” filed in 2003, relating generally to the field of tissue repair and regeneration, and more specifically to matrices containing bidomain peptides or proteins. The examiner found obviousness-type double patenting over several patents. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed; tO'Mahe Board did not err in concluding that the pending claims were barred under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. View "In re Hubbell" on Justia Law

Bumper Boy holds two patents on improvements to electronic animal collars; the 082 patent is a continuation-in-part of the 014 patent. Although the 082 patent contains some new matter, the asserted claims from the 082 patent are supported by the 014 patent specification. Both patents generally disclose and claim a collar having “high point surfaces” that extend the inside surface of the collar above the base of electrodes 24 toward the animal “to relieve and distribute the load caused by collar tension around the animal’s neck” and reduce discomfort. The district court construed “inside surface” as “the portion of the collar housing facing inwards towards the animal” and “electrode base” as “the portion of the electrode where it intersects the inside surface of the collar housing” and held that Radio Shack and Innotek did not infringe the patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to claim construction, but reversed with respect to the district court’s reliance on equitable estoppel. View "Radio Sys. Corp. v Lalor" on Justia Law

REAL owns the 989 patent, now expired, directed to methods for locating available real estate properties using a zoom-enabled map on a computer. Move operates and maintains multiple interactive websites that allow users to search for available real estate properties and sought a declaratory judgment that REAL’s patents were invalid and that Move’s websites did not infringe them. REAL counterclaimed, alleging that the “Search by Map” and “Search by Zip Code” functions employed by Move infringed REAL’s claimed search methodologies. In 2009, the parties stipulated to non-infringement based on the district court’s claim construction, and after judgment was entered in favor of Move, REAL appealed regarding only one claim. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that “selecting an area” as recited in the claim means that “the user or a computer chooses an area having boundaries, not when the computer updates certain display variables to reflect the selected area.” On remand, the district court entered summary judgment for Move. The Federal Circuit again vacated, holding that while Move cannot be liable for direct infringement, the district court erred by not analyzing inducement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b). View "Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance, Ltd." on Justia Law

The patents generally relate to circuits that measure the timing errors of digital signals in high-speed microprocessors. These circuits, which are referred to as time interval analyzers, detect timing errors by analyzing a digital circuit’s clock signal and output signals. The inventor left GuideTech to found Brilliant. Brilliant obtained a judgment that its product did not infringe GuideTech’s patents. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. Detailed application of the function-way-result test to the claim element and the allegedly equivalent feature of the accused product were sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for the jury to resolve. The main difference between the accused circuit and the claimed circuit is that the capacitor in the accused circuit aids in delivering power and is thus part of the first current circuit. There is no evidence suggesting that this added advantage of the accused design alters the function-way-result analysis. View "Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, LLC" on Justia Law

In an infringement suit, the district court declared Minton’s patent invalid under the “on sale” bar since he had leased his interactive securities trading system to a brokerage more than one year before the patent application, 35 U. S. C. 102(b). Seeking reconsideration, Minton argued for the first time that the lease was part of testing and fell within the “experimental use” exception to the bar. The Federal Circuit affirmed denial of the motion, concluding that the argument was waived. Minton sued for legal malpractice in Texas state court. His former attorneys argued that Minton’s claims would have failed even if the experimental-use argument had been timely raised. The trial court agreed. Minton then claimed that the court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. 1338(a), which provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction over any case “arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents.” The Texas Court of Appeals rejected Minton’s argument and determined that Minton failed to establish experimental use. The state’s highest court reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Section 338(a) does not deprive state courts of subject matter jurisdiction over Minton’s malpractice claim. Federal law does not create that claim, so it can arise under federal patent law only if it necessarily raises a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which may be entertained without disturbing an approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. Resolution of a federal patent question is “necessary” to Minton’s case and the issue is “actually disputed,” but it does not carry the necessary significance. No matter the resolution of the hypothetical “case within a case,” the result of the prior patent litigation will not change. Nor will allowing state courts to resolve these cases undermine development of a uniform body of patent law. View "Gunn v. Minton" on Justia Law