Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

The Intellectual Ventures (IV) patents are directed to tracking and storing information relating to a user’s purchases and expenses; methods and systems for providing customized Internet content to a user as a function of user-specific information and the user’s navigation history; and methods of scanning hardcopy images onto a computer. IV unsuccessfully sued Capital One for infringement in the Eastern District of Virginia and in the District of Maryland. Capital filed antitrust counterclaims, alleging monopolization and attempted monopolization (Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2) and unlawful acquisition of assets (Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18), claiming that IV is principally engaged in the business of acquiring patents and asserting them in litigation. IV acquired approximately 3,500 patents relating to commercial banking and attempted to obtain large licensing fees from banks by threatening infringement suits. Capital alleged that IV concealed the identity of its patents and insisted that banks license IV’s entire portfolio of financial services patents, knowing that many were invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed. The Virginia court dismissed the antitrust counterclaims for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The Maryland district court granted summary judgment against Capital on all the antitrust claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Maryland holding, citing collateral estoppel. The Virginia decision that Capital failed to plausibly allege a proper relevant antitrust market and failed to plausibly allege that IV wields monopoly power within that market was conclusive in the Maryland action. View "Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp." on Justia Law

University of Texas System (UT) sued BSC for patent infringement in the Western District of Texas. The patents resulted from research conducted at UT and are directed to implantable drug-releasing biodegradable fibers. BSC is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Massachusetts. BSC does not own or lease any property or maintain a business address in the Western District of Texas but has 46 employees in the District; all maintain home offices and do not work in spaces that are owned or controlled by BSC. UT asserted that venue was proper because UT has sovereign immunity. The district court transferred the case to the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit affirmed, first holding that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the collateral order doctrine. State sovereignty principles do not grant UT the right to bring suit in an otherwise improper venue; 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement actions and venue is proper where a defendant resides or has a regular and established place of business. Sovereign immunity is a shield, not a sword. There was no claim or counterclaim against UT that placed it in the position of a defendant. View "Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. Boston Scientific Corp." on Justia Law

Allergan’s patents, entitled “Combination of Brimonidine and Timolol for Topical Ophthalmic Use,” the Patents-in-Suit share a common specification that relates “to the topical ophthalmic use of brimonidine in combination with timolol . . . for treatment of glaucoma or ocular hypertension.” Allergan sued Sandoz, asserting that Sandoz’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for a generic version of Allergan’s ophthalmic drug Combigan® infringed those patents. The district court granted Allergan a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit affirmed, limiting a number of “wherein” clauses in the patents. Both Allergan and the Examiner explicitly relied on the “wherein” clauses to distinguish the claimed methods over the prior art during prosecution. The “wherein” clauses were neither unnecessary nor irrelevant. View "Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2014, BioDelivery filed three petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of Aquestive’s 167 patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted review on a single ground in each petition. For the 14 non-instituted grounds, the Board found that BioDelivery failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits. The Board sustained the patentability of the three claims. The Supreme Court then issued its SAS Institute (2018) holdings that IPR proceedings must proceed in accordance with the petition including the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based. On remand, the Board modified the institution decisions, denied the petitions, and terminated the proceedings, emphasizing its discretion to institute IPR under 35 U.S.C. 314(a) even upon a showing of a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The Board considered the merits of the previously noninstituted grounds, finding that BioDelivery had not “establish[ed] a reasonable likelihood of success in relation to those claims and grounds.” The Federal Circuit dismissed BioDelivery’s appeals as barred by 35 U.S.C. 314(d). In following the remand order to “implement SAS,” the Board corrected its partial institution errors by revisiting its institution decisions and properly exercising its discretion not to institute review at all. Nothing in the order divested the Board of that discretion. View "BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc." on Justia Law

Guangdong is a foreign manufacturer of aerogel insulation products currently subject to a limited exclusion order entered by the U.S. International Trade Commission following an unfair competition investigation. The exclusion order is based in part on the Commission’s final determination that Alison’s products infringe Aspen’s 359 patent, 19 U.S.C. 1337. The Commission found that certain claims of the 359 patent are not indefinite based on their use of the term “lofty . . . batting” and that certain claims of the patent are not invalid on anticipation and obviousness grounds. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The written description of the 359 patent informs the meaning of “lofty . . . batting” with reasonable certainty and the Commission’s factual findings regarding anticipation are supported by substantial evidence View "Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

CGI’s 275 patent relates to an apparatus and method for communicating information about the status of a movable barrier, for example, a garage door. The district court rejected TTI’s allegation that the asserted claims are directed to the abstract idea of wireless transmission of content and, therefore, directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, finding the claims directed “to garage door openers that wirelessly transmit status information” and constituted “a particular improvement over prior art which uses a particular manner of sending and experiencing data.” The court granted CGI’s motions for enhanced damages and attorney fees. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, concluding that three claims are directed to an abstract idea and are patent-ineligible. No inventive concept exists in the asserted claims sufficient to transform the abstract idea of communicating status information about a system into a patent-eligible application of that idea. The court affirmed the jury’s verdict with respect to its finding of no anticipation of three claims of CGI’s 966 patent, directed to a rechargeable battery backup system for a barrier movement operator. The court vacated the injunction and awards of enhanced damages and attorney fees and remanded for reconsideration of enhanced damages and attorney fees with respect to only the 966 patent. View "Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd." on Justia Law

Arthrex’s 541 patent describes a surgical suture anchor used to reattach soft tissue to bone. The disclosed “fully threaded suture anchor” includes “an eyelet shield that is molded into the distal part of the biodegradable suture anchor.” In an inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled two claims invalid. In doing so, the Board employed different language than Smith & Nephew, Inc.’s petition to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board’s minor variation in wording does not violate the safeguards of the Administrative Procedure Act and did not deprive Arthrex of an opportunity to be heard. The Board’s findings have substantial evidence support, its claim constructions are correct, and Arthrex has not articulated a cognizable constitutional challenge to inter partes review for its patent. View "Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc." on Justia Law

In September 2017, Anza alleged that Mushkin had infringed its 927 patent, entitled “Flip Chip Bonding Tool and Ball Placement Capillary,” which relates to “dissipative and insulative ceramic flip chip bonding tools and capillaries for ball placement for bonding electrical connections.” After Mushkin was severed from another defendant and the case was transferred, the parties engaged in mediation. Anza conceded that its claims were no longer viable and was permitted to file an amended complaint in June 2018; Anza removed the infringement allegations regarding the 927 patent and alleged infringement of the 479 and 864 patents under 35 U.S.C. 271(g). Anza also omitted 10 of the 16 products that had originally been accused and added two new products. The district court dismissed, finding that Anza’s claim of damages for patent infringement was barred by the six-year statute of limitations, 35 U.S.C. 286 because the claims in Anza’s second amended complaint did not relate back to the date of Anza’s original complaint. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding the district court’s application of the relation-back doctrine overly restrictive. Claims in the second amended complaint that relate to the six originally accused products relate back to the original filing date and are not barred. For the products that were added in the second amended complaint, the district court must determine whether the allegations regarding those products are sufficiently similar that they should relate back to the filing date of the original complaint. View "Anza Technology, Inc. v. Mushkin, Inc." on Justia Law

MyMail’s patents are directed to methods of modifying toolbars that are displayed on Internet-connected devices such as personal computers. MyMail sued ooVoo and IAC for infringement of the MyMail patents. After the Supreme Court’s 2017 opinion in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods, the parties agreed to transfer the lawsuits to the Northern District of California. That court dismissed, finding that the MyMail patents are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit vacated the dismissal finding that the district court erred by declining to resolve the parties’ claim construction dispute before adjudging patent eligibility. MyMail had argued that the claimed inventions are patent-eligible, as evidenced in part by a construction of the term “toolbar” rendered by the Eastern District of Texas in an earlier proceeding involving the patent. View "MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC" on Justia Law

Nalpropion markets Contrave® for weight management in overweight or obese adults, with three Orange Book-listed patents. The 626 patent is drawn to a method for treating overweight or obesity comprising diagnosing an individual as suffering from overweight or obesity by body mass index, administering bupropion in an amount effective to induce weight loss, and administering naltrexone in an amount effective to enhance the weight loss activity of bupropion. The 195 patent is also directed to methods of treating overweight or obesity, but the claims are drawn to specific dosages of sustained-release naltrexone and bupropion that achieve a specific dissolution profile. The 111 patent is directed to a composition of sustained-release bupropion and naltrexone for affecting weight loss. Actavis filed an abbreviated new drug application seeking to enter the market with a generic version of Contrave® before the expiration of those patents. Nalpropion alleged infringement; Actavis brought invalidity counterclaims. The district court held each claim not invalid and infringed. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, rejecting Actavis’s argument that a claim of the 195 patent lacked adequate written description support because its claimed dissolution profile was achieved using one method but the specification discloses data obtained using another method. The court reversed with respect to the 626 patent; it would have been obvious for a person of skill to combine bupropion and naltrexone for treating overweight and obesity because both drugs were known to cause weight loss. View "Nalpropian Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc." on Justia Law