Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

The 435 patent relates to an automated financial accounting system that allows a user to connect to the computers of companies with which the user conducts business for transmission of financial information . Plaintiff asserted that Quicken and QuickBooks products infringed claims that contain an "access means" limitation. The parties agree that this is a means-plus-function limitation performed by a processor. As such, the specification of the 435 patent must contain an algorithm to perform the function associated with the "access mean"” limitation, or the limitation is indefinite. The district court entered summary judgment of invalidity. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the "access means" limitation is indefinite. View "Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff's 561 and 512 pharmaceutical patents for "Taxotere" are related to administration of the chemotherapy cancer drug docetaxel (a successor to the cancer drug paclitaxel, covered by a now-expired patent). To stabilize the perfusion and delay precipitation, the cancer drugs are mixed with additives like surfactants and ethanol. Prior art used the surfactant Cremophor, but it was known to trigger serious allergic reactions. The 561 and 512 patents relate to using surfactants other than Cremophor and decreasing the amount of ethanol to reduce alcohol intoxication and anaphylactic effects in patients. After defendants applied for FDA approval to market generic versions of Taxotere, plaintiff claimed infringement, 35 U.S.C. 271(e). The district court found certain claims invalid for obviousness and that the patents were unenforceable for inequitable conduct. The Federal Circuit affirmed, concluding that withheld references to prior art were material View "Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc." on Justia Law

The patent involves screening devices used in the pulp and paper industry. According to the specification of the asserted patent, a persistent problem in the screening process is clogging of the openings in the screen resulting in reduced efficiency. The patent purports to include specially-designed screening devices that offer substantially increased efficiency and flow capacity. Submission for reissue in 2003 was initially rejected as anticipated by prior art 35 U.S.C. 102 (b). After the examiner withdrew the rejection, the patent-holder filed suit for infringement. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement and lack of willfulness. The Federal Circuit affirmed on willfulness, but reversed with respect to infringement, finding that the court erred in its construction of the term "perforated."View "Advanced Fiber Tech. Trust. v. J&L Fiber Serv., Inc." on Justia Law

In 1996, RG, exclusive licensee of a German patent and corresponding patents in the U.S., Europe, and Japan relating to genetic identification, entered into a license agreement with Promega, granting Promega certain licenses. The agreement included a clause, providing that “all controversies or disputes arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or relating to the breach thereof, shall be resolved by arbitration” and prohibited assignment without consent. Assignments were approved in 2001 and 2003; a subsequent assignment from IP to LT was not approved. In 2008 LT believed that Promega was paying less than required royalties. Negotiations failed and LT demanded arbitration. Promega sought a declaratory judgment of non-arbitrability, alleging infringement of five patents and contenting that rights under the 1996 agreement had never been assigned to LT. IP then moved to compel arbitration. The district court ordered arbitration, finding that IP was the assignee, remained in existence, and that it was irrelevant that Promega alleged that IP was merely a puppet of LT. The Federal Circuit affirmed.View "Promega Corp. v. Life Tech. Corp." on Justia Law

Avery and 3M are competitors in the market for retroreflective sheeting technology, used in applications including road signs. In 2001, Avery sued 3M concerning patents not currently at issue; during the course of settlement discussions, 3M became aware that Avery was prosecuting reissue of the Heenan patents. Avery indicated that certain 3M sheeting products might infringe the patents and that licenses were available. 3M rejected the suggestion and asked for more information. Avery responded that it had performed an analysis of 3M’s product and would send claim charts, but never did so. The patents emerged from reissue 2009. n 2010 Avery filed another unrelated patent infringement claim and 3M filed with respect to the Heenan patents. 3M conceded that conversations prior to 2009 were covered by a confidentiality agreement that precluded their use as a basis to support a declaratory judgment action, then cancelled its declaratory judgments claims and refiled those claims separately (the current action). The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit vacated, noting that the court would have jurisdiction under facts alleged by 3M and that the court did not resolve those factual issues. View "3M Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp." on Justia Law

The patent describes an infusion system used to meter and deliver fluids from multiple sources into a patient's body. Different fluids may be discharged at different rates using a central control device. Ergo sued CareFusion for infringement of several of the patent's claims; the parties stipulated that several terms were means-plus-function terms, including the terms "programmable control means" and "control means." The parties agreed that the analysis for both terms is the same and that the function for the terms is "controlling the adjusting means." The district court held that the "control means" terms are indefinite for failure to disclose corresponding structure. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc." on Justia Law

The patent claims at issue covered processes that help doctors who use thiopurine drugs to treat patients with autoimmune diseases determine whether a given dosage level was too low or too high. The claims purported to apply natural laws describing the relationships between the concentration in the blood of certain thiopurine metabolites and the likelihood that the drug dosage would be ineffective or induce harmful side-effects. At issue was whether the claimed processes have transformed these unpatentable natural laws into patent-eligible applications of those laws. The Court concluded that they have not done so and that therefore the processes were not patentable. The steps in the claimed processes involved well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by researchers in the field. At the same time, upholding the patents would risk disproportionately tying up the use of the underlying natural laws, inhibiting their use in the making of further discoveries. Therefore, the Court reversed the judgment of the Federal Circuit. View "Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff owns the 245 Patent, originally issued in 2005, and claims p-GlcNAc, a polymer extracted from another polymer called chitin, that accelerates hemostasis (a process that causes bleeding to stop) and is useful in trauma units for treating serious wounds. The district court found infringement. While the case was pending, the patent was re-examined; the scope of the claims changed. In 2011, the Federal Circuit vacated an injunction and award of damages and remanded. The court subsequently granted reconsideration en banc and affirmed the district court. Although the district court did not have the reexamination before it, the Federal Circuit considered arguments with respect to reexamination and concluded, as an alternative ground for affirmance, that intervening rights do not apply to claims that have not been amended and are not new. View "Marine Polymer Tech., Inc. .Hemcon, Inc." on Justia Law

Revolution is a manufacturer of eye-glass frames and auxiliary sunglasses that can be attached to the eyeglass frames, including by use of magnets. Aspex's 545 patent is directed to magnetic clip-on eyewear, primarily sunglass lenses. The companies have been suing one another for more than a decade. In a case concerning the 545 patent, the district court granted summary judgment on res judicata grounds. The court remanded for determination of whether products introduced during the pendency of earlier California litigation were included within the scope of that litigation, and whether collateral estoppel limits the right of Aspex to proceed under the 545 patent. If the court determines that Aspex is not barred, it must determine infringement based on construction of critical terms of two claims. View "Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc." on Justia Law

Zoltek’s patent, "Controlled Surface Electrical Resistance Carbon Fiber Sheet Product" concerns manufacturing carbon fiber sheets with controlled surface electrical resistivity. The filters were used in F-22 fighter jets, which Lockheed designed and built under government contract. Zoltek claimed infringement in a 1996 suit against the U.S. under 28 U.S.C. 1498(c). The Federal Circuit held that the statute did not waive sovereign immunity because the manufacturing process began in a foreign country and that Zoltek could not allege patent infringement as a taking under the Tucker Act. On remand, the court allowed Zoltek to add a claim against Lockheed under 35 U.S.C. 271(g) and transfer the case. The Federal Circuit court reconsidered its earlier decision and concluded that suit against the government is not barred and that 1498(c) does not apply to this case because the infringement was based on activities in the U.S. An independent cause of action is available under 28 U.S.C. 1498(a) for direct infringement by the government or its contractors that is not dependent on 35 U.S.C. 271(a). When the government is subject to suit under 1498(a) for alleged infringement by a contractor, the contractor is immune from individual liability. View "Zoltek Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law