Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

The 2006 patent, entitled "Surgical Devices Having a Polymeric Material with a Therapeutic Agent and Methods for Making Same" and the 2007 patent, entitled "Surgical Devices Containing a Heat Bondable Material with a Therapeutic Agent" have identical specifications and are directed to a surgical implant in which a polymeric material is bonded by heat to an expandable implant, where the polymer includes a therapeutic agent such as an antibiotic. The owner of the patents sued. The district court made a finding of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding and construction of the term "bonded." The district court then declared the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 and awarded defendant attorney and expert witness fees totaling $4,683,653.03. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The district court opinion indicates its finding that plaintiff acted in bad faith in filing a baseless infringement action and continuing to pursue it despite no evidence of infringement and engaged in vexatious and unjustified litigation conduct that unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings and forced defendant to incur substantial expenses. View "MarcTec, LLC v. Johnson & Johnson" on Justia Law

The owner of a patent, is entitled "Mobile Screen Assembly for Rubble and Debris," and directed to a vehicle for screening rocks and plant matter (among other things) based on size from, for example, soil or dirt at a construction site, appealed a reexamination during which the PTO rejected a number of claims as obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the that every limitation of each claim on appeal is found in an available references and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to combine the available references in such a way as to practice the alleged invention of each claim. View "In re Constr. Equip. Co." on Justia Law

The 564 patent, entitled Mobile Screen Assembly for Rubble and Debris, is directed to a vehicle for screening rocks and plant matter (among other things) based on size from, for example, soil or dirt at a construction site. In reexamination proceedings, the PTO rejected some claims as obvious (35 U.S.C. 103). The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences generally affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Every limitation of each claim on appeal is found in one or another of the available references. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to combine the available references in such a way as to practice the alleged invention of each claim and such a person would have had a reason to make such combinations, for the reasons set forth by the Board and by the Examiner. View "In re Constr Equip. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff's 502 patent for a statin drug is a reissue of a patent that claims the benefit of a provisional application filed on April 10, 2000. The earliest date by which plaintiff asserts that it conceived and reduced to practice its claimed invention is December 1, 1999. In 2008 plaintiff sued for infringement by the drug Crestor. The district court found the 502 claims invalid, based on defendant's showing that it had conceived and reduced its drug to practice prior to plaintiff's first conception of the claimed subject matter (35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2)). The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Teva Pharm. Indus., Ltd. v. Astrazeneca Pharm., LP" on Justia Law

The owner of the patent, directed to systems and processes for the design of application-specific integrated circuits , sued customers of Synopsys. The owner alleged Synopsys sold software for an infringing process. Synopsys filed an action against the patent owner, seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability. After nearly seven years of litigation, the district court granted Synopsys summary judgment of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Synopsys then filed an amended bill of costs seeking $1,208,616.09. The Clerk allowed costs to $938,957.72. The Federal Circuit affirmed the award of costs related to all depositions and transcriptions, reversed the award of costs for use of a third-party discovery database, because the parties had agreed to share the costs, vacated the award of copying costs, and remanded. View "In re Ricoh Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff designed a radial arm saw guard and sold eight prototype units for use by defendant, a major retailer, at stations for cutting lumber. Defendant contracted with another to make copies of the guard for all of its stores at a lower price. The district court concluded that plaintiff had not committed inequitable conduct and declined to hold plaintiff's patent unenforceable. The court made findings of willful infringement and bad faith litigation and awarded enhanced damages and attorney fees. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding the willful infringement and damages determinations are supported by substantial evidence. The trial court properly construed the claim terms "dust collection structure" and "table top." View "Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit, asserting infringement of patents. Defendant argued invalidity on the ground that its employee was the earlier inventor. The jury answered "No" to: Has defendant proven by clear and convincing evidence that its employee was the first to invent and did not abandon, suppress or conceal that invention? The court declined to stay the suit pending completion of the Patent and Trademark Office interference. The PTO awarded priority to defendant's employee, but, in a subsequent civil action for interference under 35 U.S.C. 146, the district court awarded priority to plaintiffs. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Section 146 establishes de novo review; the court is not required to accept the PTO findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. The judicial process is the final arbiter of the rights and issues administratively assigned to the PTO. View "Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

In the first appeal in a case regarding clopidogrel bisulfate tablets, sold by plaintiff under the brand name Plavix®, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction concerning defendants' generic product. In the second appeal, the court affirmed a judgment that the patent-in-suit is not invalid, was infringed, and not unenforceable. The district court then awarded prejudgment interest and denied defendants' motion for leave to file a supplemental answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims pleading patent misuse and breach of contract. The Federal Circuit reversed in part. The district court erred by awarding prejudgment interest in addition to actual damages specified in a settlement agreement. The court affirmed the district court’s holding that defendant is jointly and severally liable for all damages and denial of defendant's motion. View "Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex" on Justia Law

Plaintiff develops and sells windshield wiper blades and owns patents covering beam blade technology, a new technology for distributing pressure more evenly over the length of the blade. Defendant is a competitor. The district court found certain of plaintiff's patents valid and infringed, but denied plaintiff an injunction. The Federal Circuit reversed. Although a finding of infringement does not automatically justify an injunction, the application of the four-factor test indicated that plaintiff was entitled to an injunction. The court examined: plaintiff's irreparable injury; whether remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, would be inadequate to compensate for that injury; the balance of hardships; and the public interest. View "Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp." on Justia Law

The companies sell competing software products that track lost or stolen electronic devices, using a global network. Each side asserted claims of patent infringement.The district court entered summary judgment of non-infringement for each. The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor or plaintiff, but concluded that issues of fact precluded granting summary judgment of non-infringement to defendant. The court did not alter any of the district court's claim constructions of "communication links used to enable transmission between said electronic device and said host system;" "semi-random rate;" "unique usage information agreement;" and "terms of said usage agreement imbedded in said software."View "Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc." on Justia Law