Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Stereochemistry is the study of a molecule’s three-dimensional structure. Stereoisomers are molecules with the same chemical formula and structure but different three-dimensional configurations. Enantiomers, non-superimposable mirror images of one another, often have identical physical properties, such as density and boiling point, but can exhibit different pharmacological properties in the human body. Sumitomo’s 372 patent relates generally to “novel imide compounds and their acid addition salts” that are useful as antipsychotic agents. The patent discloses and claims more than one billion compounds, some of which have stereo and optical isomers. Lurasidone, the (–)-enantiomer of an imide compound covered by the patent, is the active ingredient in Sunovion’s schizophrenia and bipolar depression drug LATUDA®. After Emcure filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications with the FDA, seeking approval to market generic versions of LATUDA®, Sumitomo sued for infringement. The claim construction question centered on what combination of enantiomers claim 14 encompassed. The Federal Circuit rejected Sumitomo’s attempt to “import limitations from the specification into the claim” and affirmed the district court, holding that the patent covers at least the specific orientation depicted in the claim, which is the active pharmaceutical ingredient in each party’s commercial product. View "Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd. v. Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd." on Justia Law

Vanda had an exclusive license to the now-expired 198 patent and owns the 610 patent, relating to treatment of schizophrenia with iloperidone wherein the dosage range is based on the patient’s genotype. Vanda owns the New Drug Application for Fanapt® (iloperidone), an atypical antipsychotic approved by the FDA in 2009 under 21 U.S.C. 355(b) and based on the invention disclosed in the 610 patent, which reduces the side effects, enabling safer treatment of schizophrenia. The 198 and 610 patents are listed in connection with Fanapt® in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, (Orange Book). In 2013, West-Ward filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking approval to commercially manufacture, use, offer to sell, and sell a generic version of Fanapt® for the treatment of schizophrenia (21 U.S.C. 355(j)). At that time, the 610 patent had not yet issued and only the 198 patent was listed in the Orange Book. The ANDA contained a Paragraph IV certification that the 198 patent was invalid and/or would not be infringed by West-Ward. The proposed ANDA label is substantially identical in all material respects to the Fanapt® label. The Federal Circuit affirmed a holding that the 610 patent is infringed and not invalid. View "Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International, Ltd." on Justia Law

Knowles’s patent, entitled “Silicon Condenser Microphone and Manufacturing Method,” generally discloses a silicon condenser microphone apparatus, including a housing for shielding a transducer, used in certain types of hearing aids to protect the transducer from outside interferences. The components of the microphone apparatus (package) may specifically be processed “in panel form” that can be separated later into individual units, so that the invention purportedly improves over the prior art’s “drawbacks associated with manufacturing these housings, such as lead time, cost, and tooling.” Following inter partes reexamination, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed an examiner’s findings that several claims are unpatentable as anticipated and several claims would have been obvious over various prior art references. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the Board’s claim construction of the term “package” as “a structure consisting of a semiconductor device, a first-level interconnect system, a wiring structure, a second-level interconnection platform, and an enclosure that protects the system and provides the mechanical platform for the sublevel.” The Board did not rely upon a new ground of rejection in its motivation to combine analysis. View "Knowles Electronics LLC v. Iancu" on Justia Law

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed an examiner’s obviousness rejection of patent application claims related to “high density polyurethane or polyisocyanurate construction boards, as well as their use in flat or low-slope roofing systems.” The Federal Circuit affirmed; substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual findings and the Board did not err in its conclusion of obviousness, 35 U.S.C. 103(a). The Board did not apply a per se rule but grounded a prima facie obviousness conclusion on the facts before it and specifically agreed with the examiner’s factual finding that the difference between the claimed range of density and prior art range was “virtually negligible.” The applicants failed to support a “teaching away" argument that there is some criticality to having a coverboard density of greater than 6 pounds per cubic foot. View "In re: Brandt" on Justia Law

Spireas earned $40 million in technology license royalties in 2007-2008s. Royalties paid under a license agreement are usually taxed as ordinary income at 35 percent but Spireas claimed capital gains treatment (15 percent) under 26 U.S.C. 1235(a), which applies to money received “in consideration of” “[a] transfer . . . of property consisting of all substantial rights to a patent.” The IRS disagreed and gave Spireas notice of a $5.8 million deficiency for the two tax years. The Tax Court and Third Circuit affirmed. To qualify for automatic capital-gains treatment, income must be paid in exchange for a “transfer of property” that consists of “all substantial rights” to a “patent.” Not every transfer of “rights” qualifies because the statute grants capital gains treatment only to transfers of property. Spireas’s original theory was that he reduced the formulation to practice in 2000, giving him the required property interest, and later assigned his interest. Spireas later abandoned that theory, arguing that he transferred his rights prospectively in 1998. Because that was two years before the invention of the formulation, Spireas’s second position cannot depend on the legal standard of reduction to actual practice to establish that he held a property right at the time of transfer. Spireas’s sole claim on appeal was, therefore, waived. View "Spireas v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

The 290 patent, which issued in 2000 and is assigned to DSS, is directed to a wireless communication network for a single host device and multiple peripheral devices. It discloses a data network for bidirectional wireless data communications between a host or server microcomputer—described in the specification as a personal digital assistant or “PDA”—and a plurality of peripheral devices that the specification refers to as personal electronic accessories or “PEAs” and provides “highly reliable” communication, “requires extremely low power consumption, particularly for the peripheral units,” “avoids interference from nearby similar systems,” and “is of relatively simple and inexpensive construction.” On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found several claims unpatentable as obvious, 35 U.S.C. 103(a). The Federal Circuit reversed. The Board’s finding that it would have been obvious to modify the base station transmitter in a prior reference to be “energized in low duty cycle RF bursts,” as required by the claims of the 290 patent was not supported by a sufficient explanation. View "DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law

Alcon Laboratories Holding Corporation, a developer of artificial lenses, was exploring electroactive intraocular lens (“EAIOL”) that used electric power and changes in eye pupil size to “trigger” the focus of an artificial lens. Elenza, Inc. and Alcon decided to jointly pursue the technology, first by signing a Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”), followed by a Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”). Unfortunately, the project fizzled after Elenza failed to meet development milestones in the SPA. Much to Elenza’s surprise, two years later, Alcon filed a patent application for an EAIOL and announced that it was working with Google, Inc. to develop an EAIOL. Elenza filed suit in Delaware, claiming Alcon breached its agreements with Elenza and misappropriated Elenza’s EAIOL trade secrets. Before trial, the Superior Court granted in part Alcon’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Elenza failed to support its trade secret claims. The court also limited Elenza’s damage claims. The contract claims went to trial, and a jury found against Elenza on all claims. On appeal, Elenza argued to the Delaware Supreme Court that the Superior Court erred when it granted summary judgment on its trade secret claims. According to Elenza, at the summary judgment stage, its trade secret disclosures were sufficient to prove that trade secrets existed and that Alcon used or disclosed those secrets in its later development efforts. The Supreme Court did not reach Elenza’s claim on appeal that it raised disputed factual issues about the existence of trade secrets because the Court agreed with the Superior Court that, at summary judgment, Elenza failed to support its claim that Alcon improperly used or disclosed any of Elenza’s alleged trade secrets. View "Elenza, Inc. v. Alcon Laboratories Holding Corporation, et al." on Justia Law

Acceleron’s 021 patent is directed to a computer network appliance containing a number of hot-swappable components that can be removed and replaced without turning off or resetting the computer system as a whole. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes review of the patent based on Dell’s petition under 35 U.S.C. 311, citing a prior art reference, Hipp, that is directed to a high-density server network in which a large number of web server processing cards are installed within a single chassis. The Federal Circuit remanded to allow Acceleron to respond to Dell’s evidence, which had been first presented at oral argument. On remand, the Board declined to consider both Dell’s new argument and Acceleron’s proposed response. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board was not required to consider Dell’s new evidence presented during oral argument and did not abuse its discretion by not considering Dell’s new evidence on remand. The Board’s determination that Hipp does not anticipate claim 3 of the patent was supported by substantial evidence. View "Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC" on Justia Law

Power’s 876 patent, “Frequency Jittering Control for Varying the Switching Frequency of a Power Supply,” describes a technique for reducing electromagnetic interference noise “by jittering the switching frequency of a switched mode power supply.” Power sued Fairchild, alleging willful infringement, arguing that the term “coupled” in claim 1, in light of the specification and surrounding claim language, required two circuits to be connected in a manner “such that voltage, current or control signals pass from one to another” and that the “recited coupling” between the counter and the digital to analog converter must be “present for the purposes of control.” The court agreed, emphasizing that the term “coupled” did not “require a direct connection or . . . preclude the use of intermediate circuit elements.” The Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of nonobviousness. The Patent and Trademark Office commenced ex parte reexamination. The board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated. The Federal Circuit vacated, stating that the board is not generally bound by a prior judicial claim construction and, in reexamination applies a different claim construction standard but that because Power's principal argument was tied to the court’s claim construction, the board was obligated to evaluate that construction and determine whether it was consistent with the broadest reasonable construction. On remand, the board again affirmed the examiner’s rejections. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the board’s rejections were based on an unreasonably broad claim construction. View "In re: Power Integrations, Inc." on Justia Law

Smith & Nephew’s patent relates to an endoscope and method to remove uterine tissue; it claims priority to an earlier-filed PCT application by the same inventor with a nearly identical specification. On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that S&N’s earlier-filed PCT application has sufficient written description to make it a priority document instead of an invalidating obviousness reference. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence supported the finding that the PCT application reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor had possession of the “first channel having a light guide permanently affixed therein.” The court also upheld the Board’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art as a “degreed engineer having at least 5 years of experience designing and developing devices used in minimally invasive surgery (endoscopes, resectoscopes, shavers, tissue removal devices, etc.).” View "Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc." on Justia Law