Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Bard and AngioDynamics both manufacture vascular access ports, devices implanted underneath a patient’s skin that allow the injection of fluid into the patient’s veins on a regular basis without starting an intravenous line each time. Vascular access ports were traditionally used to administer injections at low pressure and flow rates. Certain procedures, like computed tomography (CT) imaging, required the injection of fluids into patients at high pressure and high flow rates (power injection). As of 2005, vascular access ports were not FDA-approved for power injection but certain medical providers were using existing ports for power injection; in some cases, the pressure ruptured the port, seriously injuring the patient. Bard obtained FDA approval for PowerPort as the first vascular access port labeled for power injection and obtained the patents-in-suit. AngioDynamics then obtained FDA approval to market its own vascular access port products as suitable for power injection.Bard sued AngioDynamics for infringement. During the trial, the court granted judgment that the asserted claims were not infringed, were not willfully infringed, and were invalid as directed to printed matter. The Federal Circuit reversed. There was substantial evidence to support a jury finding of infringement and willfulness; the asserted claims are not directed solely to printed matter and are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. A genuine dispute of material fact precludes summary judgment as to anticipation. View "C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc." on Justia Law

Uniloc sued Apple for patent infringement in the Western District of Texas (WDTX). Apple moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California (NDCA), arguing that it would be clearly more convenient to litigate the case there, 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). Apple moved to stay activity in the case unrelated to its transfer motion. The district court denied the stay motion without explanation, then held a hearing on Apple’s transfer motion and stated that it would deny the motion and issue a written order soon. After the hearing, but before issuing a written order, the court held a Markman hearing, issued its claim construction order, held a discovery hearing regarding protective order, and issued a corresponding discovery order.Apple filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, which the Federal Circuit granted. The “district court barreled ahead on the merits in significant respects” and clearly abused its discretion in denying transfer. The district court erred by failing to meaningfully consider the wealth of important information in NDCA and misapplied the law by giving too much significance to the fact that the inventors and patent prosecutor live closer to WDTX than NDCA and in concluding that judicial economy weighed against transfer because NDCA has more pending cases than WDTX. View "In Re Apple Inc." on Justia Law

Guitar effects pedals are electronic devices that affect the amplified sound of a guitar., usually placed on a pedalboard and controlled by foot operation. Pro Stage’s 023 patent asserts that prior art pedalboards were essentially wooden boards to which guitar effects pedals were mounted. IThe patent explained that there was a need for “an improved pedal effects board which allows easy positioning and changing of the individual guitar effects while providing a confined and secure area for cable routing and placement.”On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejected Donner’s arguments that the claims were invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103, finding that Donner did not prove that “Mullen” is analogous art. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded. While the 023 patent and Mullen are not from the same field of endeavor, the Board also failed to properly identify and compare the purposes or problems to which Mullen and the patent relate. The Board’s articulation of the purpose of or problem to be solved by the 023 patent is so intertwined with the patent’s field of endeavor that it would effectively exclude consideration of any references outside that field. View "Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC" on Justia Law

The Valeant plaintiffs reside in Japan, Ireland, and Delaware. The defendants are incorporated and have principal places of business in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and India. The brand-name FDA-approved drug Jublia® has nine patents listed in the Orange Book. Defendant, a generic drug company, executed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking approval to market a generic version of Jublia®, sending the ANDA from its West Virginia office to the FDA in Maryland. Valeant sued for infringement in the District of New Jersey, alleging that the district is a likely destination for the generic solution; each defendant does business in New Jersey and is registered to do so; each defendant has previously submitted to the court's jurisdiction and has a place of business in New Jersey; the generic drug will be “purposefully directed at … New Jersey. The district court dismissed for improper venue, finding that the ANDA was submitted from West Virginia, rendering venue proper there, while acknowledging that MLL, a foreign entity, was subject to venue in every judicial district.The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, citing the 2017 Supreme Court “TC Heartland” holding: the general venue provision in 28 U.S.C. 1391, which provides that a corporation is deemed to “reside” in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction, does not modify the term “resides” in 28 U.S.C. 1400, the specific patent venue statute; “resides” refers only to a corporation’s state of incorporation. A corporation may be sued for patent infringement in districts in the state of its incorporation and those in which it has a regular and established place of business and an act of infringement has occurred. In Hatch-Waxman Act, 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A) infringement cases, section 1400 “acts of infringement” occur only in districts where actions related to the ANDA submission occur, not in all locations where future distributions of the products specified in the ANDA is contemplated. The court remanded the dismissal of the foreign defendant. View "Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc." on Justia Law

The University of Wyoming’s 425 patent is directed to a procedure whereby solvents of increasing strength are successively passed over asphaltenes that have been segregated in a packed column from a hydrocarbon such as oil and amounts of asphaltenes dissolved and eluted from the column by the various solvents yield information about the oil. Chevron was also studying the analysis of asphaltene impurities in crude oil. Wyoming initiated an interference by copying into its pending application claims from a pending Chevron application.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that Wyoming’s 425 patent had an adequate written description for the count limitation and held that Wyoming was entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing dates of two patent applications, Because Chevron had filed a Priority Statement that indicated its earliest corroborated conception coupled with diligence date was March 1, 2009, the Board determined that Chevron was unable to prevail on priority and assigned Wyoming status as the senior party and entered judgment in its favor in the interference. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the Board’s constructions of the limitation “gradually and continuously changing the alkane mobile phase solvent to a final mobile phase solvent.” View "Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. University of Wyoming Research Corp." on Justia Law

In 2018, Cameron sued Nitro in the Southern District of Texas, where both parties are headquartered, alleging infringement of three of Cameron’s patents. That court has not issued a claim construction ruling and a trial date has not been set. In 2020, Cameron filed this suit against Nitro in the Western District of Texas, alleging that the same accused products infringe two other Cameron patents. The Western District denied a motion to decline jurisdiction or transfer the action, reasoning that when a balance of the 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) transfer factors “does not weigh in favor of transfer" compelling circumstances exist to avoid application of the first-to-file rule. The court concluded that two factors—access to sources of proof and the local interest— favored transfer while the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion and the practical problems factor weighed against transfer.The Federal Circuit vacated. The district court erred in concluding that the first-to-file rule only applies when the balance of factors favors the first-filed court. Unlike in an ordinary transfer analysis, the focus of the first-to-file rule is to avoid potential interference in the affairs of another court. Requiring that the balance of the transfer factors favor the second-filed court helps to ensure that more compelling concerns exist. The district court erred in not making that adjustment and did not expressly resolve whether balancing the factors favors the second-filed court. View "In Re Nitro Fluids, L.L.C." on Justia Law

TecSec’s patents, entitled “Distributed Cryptographic Object Method,” claim particular systems and methods for multi-level security of various kinds of files being transmitted in a data network. The patents describe a method in which a digital object—e.g., a document, video, or spreadsheet—is assigned a level of security that corresponds to a certain combination of access controls and encryption. . The encrypted object can then be embedded or “nested” within a “container object,” which, if itself encrypted and access-controlled, provides a second layer of security.In 2010, TecSec sued several companies, including Adobe, alleging direct and indirect infringement. Before trial, in response to Adobe’s motion in limine, the court excluded all evidence of induced infringement from March 2011, through the October 2013 expiration of the patents. Earlier, the court had rejected Adobe’s challenge to the asserted claims as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. A jury found for TecSec on direct infringement, but not induced infringement; rejected Adobe’s prior-art validity challenges; and awarded damages. The court reduced the damages award to zero on the ground that there was no proof of any damages from direct infringement and the jury had rejected induced infringement.The Federal Circuit remanded, reversing the evidentiary ruling that eliminated TecSec’s inducement case for a substantial period and rejecting Adobe’s challenge to the district court’s eligibility ruling. View "TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc." on Justia Law

The Snyders patent describes and claims an artificial heart valve and a system for inserting the valve. In 2017, St. Jude filed two petitions under 35 U.S.C. 311–19, seeking inter partes reviews (IPR) of claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–13, 17–19, 21, 22, and 25–30. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted two reviews, each addressing all the challenged claims. In IPR-105, the Board ruled that St. Jude failed to establish unpatentability of any of the challenged claims, rejecting the contention that all the challenged claims were anticipated by the Leonhardt patent and would have been obvious over Leonhardt plus either the Anderson patent or the Johnson and Imachi patents. In IPR-106, the Board found claims 1, 2, 6, and 8 anticipated by the Bessler patent, but it rejected St. Jude’s contentions as to all other claims, finding that St. Jude had not proved, as to all but claims 1, 2, 6, and 8, anticipation by Bessler or obviousness over Bessler combined with either Anderson or Johnson and Imachi. The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision in IPR-105; reversed the finding in IPR-106 that Bessler anticipated claims 1, 2, 6, and 8; did not reach the anticipation argument as to claim 28; and affirmed the obviousness rejection in IPR-106. View "St. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLC" on Justia Law

Under the 1999 Agreement, Medtronic purchased Dr. Sasso's inventions, agreeing to royalty payments based on Medtronic’s sales of the defined Medical Device until “the last to expire of the patents included in Intellectual Property Rights, or if no patent application(s) issue into a patent having valid claim coverage of the Medical Device, then seven (7) years from the Date of First Sale of the Medical Device.” The initial patent application was filed in November 1999; two patents issued, both entitled “Screw Delivery System and Method.” Medtronic made royalty payments in 2002-2018. Sasso claimed that Medtronic was not paying royalties on sales of all relevant devices, and filed suit in Indiana state court. A judgment in Sasso's favor is on appeal.Medtronic sought a federal declaratory judgment. While Sasso describes the state court action as a contract case for payment for patent rights, Medtronic describes the federal action as a patent case in which payment requires valid patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit without prejudice, based on abstention in view of the concurrent action in Indiana state court between the same parties concerning the same dispute. District courts possess significant discretion to dismiss or stay claims seeking declaratory relief, even when they have subject matter jurisdiction. View "Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. Sasso" on Justia Law

Immunex’s 487 patent is directed to antibodies that bind to the human interleukin-4 receptor, the resulting inhibition of which is significant for treating various inflammatory disorders, such as arthritis, dermatitis, and asthma. Amid infringement litigation, Sanofi filed three inter partes review (IPR) petitions challenging claims 1–17 of the patent. Two were instituted. In one final written decision, the Board concluded that claims 1–17 were unpatentable as obvious over two prior references. Immunex appealed, contesting the construction of the claim term “human antibodies.” In the other IPR, involving a subset of the same claims, the Board did not invalidate the patents for reasons of inventorship. Sanofi contested the Board’s inventorship determination. In consolidated appeals, the Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s claim construction, affirming the invalidity decision, leaving valid no claims at issue in the inventorship appeal. View "Immunex Corp v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC" on Justia Law