Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Nash has been in the water recreational device industry for more than 50 years and designs and manufactures water skis, kneeboards, wakeboards, and similar recreational devices. ZUP entered the market in 2012 with its “ZUP Board,” designed to assist riders who have difficulty pulling themselves up out of the water into a standing position while being towed behind a motorboat. ZUP owns the 681 patent, which includes 12 claims that generally cover a water recreational board and a method of riding that board in which a rider simultaneously uses side-by-side handles and side-by-side foot bindings to help maneuver between various riding positions to allow the rider to more readily move from lying prone, to kneeling, to crouching, to standing. The district court invalidated claims 1 and 9 as obvious and, in the alternative, held that Nash does not infringe claim 9. The Federal Circuit affirmed that claims 1 and 9 are invalid as obvious, 35 U.S.C. 103(a), and did not reach the infringement question. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the various elements from prior art references, “to aid in rider stability, to allow a wide variety of users to enjoy the device, and to aid users in maneuvering between positions”—all motivations that were “a driving force throughout the prior art." View "ZUP, LLC v. Nash Manufacturing, Inc." on Justia Law

Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are semiconductor devices that emit light when an electric current is applied. They provide illumination in products such as printers, phones, and televisions. LEDs typically consist of a substrate, an n-type semiconductor layer, and a p-type semiconductor layer. Gallium nitride (GaN) is a semiconductor that emits blue light in LEDs. Fabricating monocrystalline GaN films is difficult because of the lack of available substrates with a matching lattice structure. BU’s 738 patent relates to the preparation of monocrystalline GaN films via molecular beam epitaxy, which addresses the GaN lattice-mismatch problem with a two-step growth process. A jury found that defendants infringed the patent and failed to prove its invalidity. The district court rejected defendants’ argument that the patent is invalid for not meeting the enablement requirement, 35 U.S.C. 112. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding the asserted claim not enabled as a matter of law. The patent’s specification does not teach one of skill in the art how to make the claimed semiconductor device with a monocrystalline growth layer grown directly on an amorphous buffer layer. Defendants’ expert testified that it is impossible to epitaxially grow a monocrystalline film directly on an amorphous structure; the specification does not enable what the experts agree is physically impossible. View "Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co." on Justia Law

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes review (IPR) over AIT’s objection that the RPX's IPR petitions were time-barred under 35 U.S.C. 315(b) because RPX was acting as a “proxy” for its client, Salesforce, on whom AIT had served a complaint alleging infringement of the patents more than one year before RPX filed its petitions. AIT alleged that RPX that the time bar applicable to Salesforce was applicable to RPX. The Board held certain claims of the patents unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Federal Circuit vacated, concluding that the Board applied an unduly restrictive test for determining whether a person or entity is a “real party in interest” under section 315(b) and failed to consider the entirety of the evidentiary record. The term “real party in interest” has an expansive common-law meaning. RPX, unlike a traditional trade association, is a for-profit company whose clients pay for its portfolio of “patent risk solutions” to help extricate themselves from non-practicing entity lawsuits. Its SEC filings reveal one of its “strategies” is “the facilitation of challenges to patent validity,” to “reduce expenses.” The Board did not consider these facts, which, taken together, imply that RPX files IPRs to serve its clients and that a key reason clients pay RPX is to benefit from this practice if they are sued. View "Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp." on Justia Law

Allergan’s Restasis Patents relate to a treatment for alleviating the symptoms of chronic dry eye. In 2015, Allergan sued, alleging infringement of the Restasis Patents based on Mylan’s filings of Abbreviated New Drug Applications. Mylan, Teva, and Akorn sought inter partes review of the patents. The Patent Board instituted IPR and scheduled a consolidated oral hearing. Before the hearing, Allergan and the Tribe entered into an agreement Mylan alleges was intended to protect the patents from review. A patent assignment transferring the Restasis patents from Allergan to the Tribe was recorded with the Patent Office. The Tribe moved to terminate the IPRs, arguing it is entitled to assert tribal sovereign immunity; Allergan moved to withdraw. The Board denied both motions. The Federal Circuit affirmed. IPR is neither clearly a judicial proceeding instituted by a private party nor clearly an enforcement action brought by the federal government: tribal sovereign immunity may not be asserted in IPR proceedings. View "Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc." on Justia Law

The patent describes an “attention manager [that] makes use of ‘unused capacity’” of a display device, by displaying content in that unused capacity; it can display content when the display device is turned on but the user is not actively engaged or display content in an area of the display screen not used by already-displayed content with which the user is engaged. In 2014, the Federal Circuit upheld a judgment invalidating various claims on indefiniteness grounds but remanded with respect to four claims; the court construed “attention manager” as “a system that displays images to a user either when the user is not engaged in a primary interaction or in an area of the display screen that is not used by the user’s primary activity.” On remand, the district court found that the claims fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter, 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, presentation of two sets of information, in a nonoverlapping way, on a display screen. The claimed “attention manager,” broadly construed as any “system” for producing that result, is not limited to a means of locating space on the screen and displaying the second set of information in that space. The claim limitations for accessing, scheduling, and then displaying the second information set are conventional functions stated in general terms. The claims lack any arguable technical advance over conventional computer and network technology. View "Interval Licensing, LLC v. AOL, Inc." on Justia Law

Blackbird’s 747 patent is directed to energy-efficient lighting apparatuses. One embodiment discloses retrofitting an existing light fixture with a more energy efficient lighting apparatus. The district court entered a judgment of noninfringement of the patent based on its construction of “attachment surface.” The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that the district court erred in construing “attachment surface” to be secured to the ballast cover. By its plain language, claim 12 does not require the attachment surface to be secured to the ballast cover. Claim 12 expressly recites a fastening mechanism for securing the attachment surface to the illumination surface. It does not refer to any other fastening mechanism. It does not require the attachment surface be secured to anything other than the illumination surface. View "Blackbird Tech LLC v. ELB Electronics, Inc." on Justia Law

The Jazz patents relate to a drug distribution system for tracking prescriptions of a “sensitive drug.” “A sensitive drug is one which can be abused, or has addiction properties or other properties that render the drug sensitive.” One such sensitive drug is Xyrem®. Jazz exclusively markets Xyrem®, which the FDA has approved to treat symptoms associated with narcolepsy. The active ingredient in Xyrem®, gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB), may also be illicitly used as a “date-rape drug.” Under the Controlled Substances Act any approved drug product containing GHB is classified as a Schedule III depressant, so the FDA approved Xyrem® under “restricted distribution regulations contained in [21 C.F.R. 314.500] (Subpart H) to assure safe use of the product.” On inter partes review, the Patent Board found certain claims invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding a conclusion that implementing prior art, consisting of background materials and the meeting minutes, transcript, and slides on the FDA website, on multiple computers “would have been a predictable use of a known distributed data system according to its established function.” View "Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC" on Justia Law

Tre Milano challenged the validity of claims 1–5 and 11, and did not challenge the validity of claims 6–10 and 12–15 of the 118 Patent, which covers a device that automates the curling of hair. A strand of hair is fed into a chamber of the device, the hair is wound around a rotating curling member in the chamber, the wound hair is heated to preserve the curl, and the curled hair slides off the curling member and exits the chamber so that the curvature of the curls created by the device can be substantially maintained. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted Inter partes review of all of the claims that were challenged. The Federal Circuit concluded that the Board erred in its finding of anticipation by erroneously construing two claim terms: “the length of hair can pass through the secondary opening” and “free end,” broadening the claims beyond the description in the 118 Patent specification. On the correct claim construction, the claims are not anticipated by prior art, 35 U.S.C. 102(b). View "TF3 Ltd. v. Tre Milano, LLC" on Justia Law

Endo holds the approved New Drug Application for Aveed®, a testosterone undecanoate intramuscular injection. Bayer owns the 640 and 395 patents listed in the Orange Book for Aveed®. Custopharm’s predecessor submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to the FDA for approval to produce and market a generic version of Aveed® and made a Paragraph IV certification and gave notice of the certification to Endo and Bayer in October 2014. Endo and Bayer brought an action alleging infringement of the 640 and 395 patents. Custopharm stipulated to infringement; Endo and Bayer limited their asserted claims to claim 2 of the 640 patent and claim 18 of the 395 patent. After a bench trial on invalidity, the district court concluded that Custopharm had not proven that the claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Custopharm failed to meet its burden of showing that a skilled artisan would combine a lowered dose with the injection schedule in the manner claimed. View "Endo Pharmaceuticals Solutions, Inc. v. Custopharm Inc." on Justia Law

Raytheon produces infrared imaging equipment, including infrared cameras, which enable people to see in the dark and through obstructions such as smoke. Indigo’s founders included three former Raytheon employees. By 2000, Indigo was manufacturing and selling infrared cameras. In 2007, Raytheon sued, alleging patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation under California and Texas law. The district court granted Indigo summary judgment, finding Raytheon’s trade secrets claims time-barred. The parties settled Raytheon’s patent claims. The Federal Circuit reversed, reasoning that there were factual questions regarding when Raytheon should have become aware of its misappropriation cause of action and vacated the denial of Indigo’s motion for attorney fees under the under the Texas Theft Liability Act (TTLA). On remand, a jury ruled in Indigo’s favor on all 31 alleged trade secrets. Raytheon unsuccessfully moved for judgment as a matter of law, contending that it had conclusively established misappropriation of two trade secrets. Indigo moved for attorney fees under the TTLA arguing Raytheon had withdrawn its TTLA claim to avoid an adverse ruling that California law, rather than Texas law, governed Raytheon’s misappropriation claims. Denying Indigo’s motion, the district court observed that Raytheon’s continued pursuit of its misappropriation claims under California law established that Raytheon’s withdrawal of its TTLA claim was not motivated by a desire to avoid an unfavorable ruling. The Federal Circuit affirmed both the judgment of no liability in favor of Indigo and the denial of attorney fees. View "Raytheon Co. v. Indigo Systems Corp." on Justia Law