Justia Patents Opinion Summaries
Uber Technologies, Inc. v. X One, Inc.
X One’s patent describes a “Buddy Watch application” that allows a mobile device user to add other mobile device users to her “Buddy List.” A user may set up “instant buddies.” For example, a stranded motorist may wish to be instant buddies with the driver of a tow truck, allowing each phone to show the location of the other phone on its moving map. Uber sought inter partes review asserting that claims of the patent were obvious, 35 U.S.C. 103, in view of prior art that generally describes transmitting location information between mobile devices. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held the claims were not unpatentable. The Federal Circuit reversed. The Board erred in determining that the combination of prior art does not render obvious the limitation “software . . . to transmit the map with plotted locations to the first individual.” Because terminal-side plotting and server-side plotting, as described in prior art, would have been two of a finite number of known, predictable solutions at the time of the invention of the patent, a person of ordinary skill would have faced a simple design choice between the two, and would have been motivated to combine the teachings of prior art to achieve the limitation. View "Uber Technologies, Inc. v. X One, Inc." on Justia Law
Ciena Corp. v. Oyster Optics, LLC
Oyster sued, alleging that Ciena infringed several patents. Ciena petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for inter partes review of the asserted patents. The district court stayed the litigation. The Board concluded that Ciena had failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the challenged claims were unpatentable. The Federal Circuit denied Ciena’s motion to vacate the decision. Ciena forfeited its argument that the members of the Board panel that issued the decision were not appointed in compliance with the Appointments Clause. Ciena requested that the Board adjudicate its petition and affirmatively sought a ruling from the Board members, regardless of how they were appointed. Ciena was content to have the assigned Board judges adjudicate its invalidity challenges until the Board ruled against it. View "Ciena Corp. v. Oyster Optics, LLC" on Justia Law
Hitkansut LLC v. United States
Hitkansut owns the patent, entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Stress Relief Using Multiple Energy Sources.” While the application that later issued as that patent was pending, Hitkansut entered into a non-disclosure agreement with Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and provided ORNL with a copy of the then-unpublished patent application. ORNL staff prepared research reports, received funding, authored publications, and received awards for research, based upon unauthorized use of the patent. Hitkansut sued ORNL, alleging infringement under 28 U.S.C. 1498. The Claims Court determined that certain claims of the patent were invalid but that other claims were valid and infringed. Although Hitkansut originally sought a royalty between $4.5-$5.6 million, based on a percentage of the research funding obtained by ORNL, the Claims Court awarded $200,000, plus interest, as the hypothetically negotiated cost of an up-front licensing fee. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Hitkansut then sought attorneys’ fees and expenses under 28 U.S.C. 1498(a). The Claims Court awarded $4,387,889.54.The Federal Circuit affirmed. Section 1498(a) provides for the award of attorneys’ fees under certain conditions, unless “the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified.” The “position of the United States” in this statutory provision refers to positions taken during litigation and does not encompass pre-litigation conduct by government actors, but the examples of conduct cited by the Claims Court demonstrate that the position of the United States was not substantially justified even under this narrow definition View "Hitkansut LLC v. United States" on Justia Law
Uniloc USA, INC. v. LG Electronics USA, INC.
Uniloc’s patent is directed to a communication system comprising a primary station (base station) and at least one secondary station (computer mouse or keyboard). In conventional systems, such as Bluetooth networks, two devices that share a common communication channel form ad hoc networks called “piconets.” Joining a piconet requires the completion of “inquiry” procedure and “page” procedures, which can take tens of seconds to complete. The invention improves conventional communication systems by including a data field for polling as part of the inquiry message, thereby allowing primary stations to send inquiry messages and conduct polling simultaneously, enabling “a rapid response time without the need for a permanently active communication link” between a parked secondary station and the primary station. In an infringement action, the district court held that the patent’s claims were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit reversed, applying the “Alice” test. The claims are directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality--the reduction of latency experienced by parked secondary stations in communication systems. The claims do not merely recite generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity but are directed to “adding to each inquiry message prior to transmission an additional data field for polling at least one secondary station.” View "Uniloc USA, INC. v. LG Electronics USA, INC." on Justia Law
Grit Energy Solutions, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLC
Oren’s patent covers a system for storing and discharging proppant—a material, such as sand or other particulates, that prevents ground fractures from closing during hydraulic fracturing. Oren sued Grit for infringement, Grit transferred ownership of all the products accused of infringement. Oren and Grit jointly stipulated to dismissal without prejudice of all claims and counterclaims related to the patent. Grit sought inter partes review of claims 1–7. The Board ultimately determined that Grit had not established that any of the challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious over prior art or that the challenged claims were unpatentable, reasoning that neither of the prior references disclosed the patent's configuration. The Federal Circuit vacated, first holding that Grit had standing because Oren previously sued for infringement and is free to reassert those infringement claims. The Board’s determination that prior art does not disclose the patent’s configuration is unsupported by substantial evidence. The Board failed to adequately explain its reasoning. View "Grit Energy Solutions, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLC" on Justia Law
In Re Rudy
In 1989, Rudy originally filed the 360 application, entitled “Eyeless, Knotless, Colorable and/or Translucent/Transparent Fishing Hooks with Associatable Apparatus and Methods.” Its lengthy prosecution included numerous amendments and petitions, and four Board appeals. In 2014, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the obviousness of all claims then on appeal. Several claims were the subject of a 2015 office action in which the Examiner rejected them as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Board upheld the determination. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that it was applying its own law and the relevant Supreme Court precedent, not the Office Guidance, in analyzing subject matter eligibility. Claim 34 is directed to the abstract idea of selecting a fishing hook based on observed water conditions; its three elements (observing water clarity, measuring light transmittance, and selecting the color of the hook) are each abstract, being mental processes akin to data collection or analysis. Claim 34 fails to recite an inventive concept at step two of the “Alice/Mayo test,” and.nothing in the remaining claims meaningfully distinguishes them from claim 34 in a patent eligibility analysis. View "In Re Rudy" on Justia Law
Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
Apotex filed a petition for inter partes review of Novartis’s patent. The Board instituted proceedings and granted Sun, Teva, Actavis, and Argentum (with Apotex, the petitioners) joinder. The Board concluded that the petitioners had not demonstrated unpatentability of the claims. During the appeal process, all petitioners other than Argentum settled with Novartis. Before opening briefs were filed, Novartis moved to dismiss Argentum’s appeal for lack of standing. Argentum argued that its standing need not be addressed because only one party must have standing for an action to proceed in an Article III Court; the other petitioners undisputedly had standing. Following the settlement of all the other parties, Apotex argued that “now that Argentum is the only appellant, Article III standing has become a threshold issue.” The Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of Article III standing. Argentum argued that it demonstrated concrete injuries in fact: a real and imminent threat of litigation as it jointly pursues, with its partner KVK-Tech, a generic version of Novartis’ Gilenya® product for which they are in the process of filing an ANDA. Argentum failed to provide sufficient evidence that it invested in KVK’s generic Gilenya® product or ANDA. View "Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp." on Justia Law
Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc.
Truckai and his NovaCept team developed NovaSure, which was FDA-approved to detect perforations in the uterus. NovaCept incorporates the 183 and 348 patents, which list Truckai as an inventor. Truckai assigned to NovaCept his interests in the applications from which those patents claim priority and all continuation applications. Hologic is the current assignee of the patents and markets NovaSure. Truckai left NovaCept and founded Minerva, which developed EAS; EAS received FDA approval for the same indication as NovaSure. Hologic sued Minerva for infringement. In addition to asserting defenses of lack of enablement and failure to provide an adequate written description, Minerva sought inter partes review (IPR). The Patent Board instituted IPR of the 183 patent but denied IPR of the 348 patent and found the 183 claims unpatentable as obvious. Hologic appealed to the Federal Circuit. The district court declined to dismiss the infringement claim as moot and granted Hologic summary judgment that the doctrine of assignor estoppel bars Minerva from challenging the patents' validity, of no invalidity, and of infringement. A jury awarded damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision that the 183 patent claims are invalid. The district court determined that the decision did not affect the verdict. The Federal Circuit affirmed that assignor estoppel bars the assignor from asserting the invalidity of the 348 patent in district court. Assignor estoppel does not preclude Minerva from relying on the Board's decision to argue that the 183 patent claims are void ab initio, justifying the denial of a permanent injunction, enhanced damages, and ongoing royalties. View "Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc." on Justia Law
Biogen International GmbH v. Banner Life Sciences, LLC
Biogen holds the New Drug Application for the active ingredient dimethyl fumarate (DMF), which was FDA-approved in 2013 as Tecfidera®, a twice-daily pill for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis at a daily dose of 480 mg. The 001 patent, “Utilization of Dialkylfumarates,” discloses that dialkyl fumarates may have therapeutic uses “in transplantation medicine and for the therapy of autoimmune diseases,” including multiple sclerosis. After the five-year data exclusivity for Tecfidera® expired, Banner submitted an application under 21 U.S.C. 355(b)(2) to market a twice-daily monomethyl fumarate (MMF) pill at a daily dose of 380 mg. Biogen alleged infringement of the 001 patent. Banner argued that section 156(b)(2) limits the scope of the patent’s extension to methods of using the approved product as defined in 156(f)—DMF, its salts, or its esters—and that MMF is none of those things. Biogen responded that section 156(b)(2) limits extension only to uses of any product within the original scope of the claims. The patent will expire in June 2020. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of non-infringement. The monomethyl ester, covered by claim 1, is not covered by the extension. The scope of a patent term extension under 35 U.S.C. 156 only includes the active ingredient of an approved product, or an ester or salt of that active ingredient; the product at issue does not fall within those categories. View "Biogen International GmbH v. Banner Life Sciences, LLC" on Justia Law
Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. DISH Network LLC
Dragon sued 10 defendants, alleging patent infringement. Based on petitions by DISH and SXM (collectively, “DISH”), the Board instituted inter partes review (IPR) of the patent. The district court stayed proceedings as to DISH but proceeded as to the other defendants. After the court issued a claim construction order, Dragon, DISH, and the other defendants stipulated to noninfringement as to the accused products. The court entered judgment in favor of all defendants. In the parallel IPR, the Board issued a final decision holding unpatentable all asserted claims. DISH sought attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. 285 and 28 U.S.C. 1927. Before the motions were resolved, Dragon appealed both the judgment of noninfringement and the Board’s decision. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision and dismissed the district court appeal as moot. On remand, the district court vacated the judgment of noninfringement as moot but denied DISH’s motions for attorneys’ fees, holding that “success in a different forum is not a basis for attorneys’ fees” in the district court. The Federal Circuit vacated. The judgment of noninfringement was vacated only because DISH successfully invalidated the claims in parallel IPR proceedings, rendering moot Dragon’s infringement action. DISH’s success in obtaining a judgment of noninfringement, although later vacated because of its success in IPR, supports holding that they are prevailing parties. View "Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. DISH Network LLC" on Justia Law