Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Ultratec sued CaptionCall for infringement of patents concerning systems for assisting deaf or hard-of-hearing users to make phone calls and won damages of $44.1 million. CaptionCall had filed petitions for inter partes reviews (IPRs). The court stayed post-judgment proceedings pending resolution of the IPRs. CaptionCall retained the same invalidity expert (Occhiogrosso) in the litigation and the IPRs. Ultratec sought to introduce the trial testimony into the IPRs, alleging that Occhiogrosso’s trial testimony conflicted with written declarations he made in the IPRs. Because Ultratec had not first requested authorization to file the motion, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board expunged the motion from the record. Board regulations require that a party seeking to introduce supplemental evidence more than one month after institution first request authorization to file a motion to submit the evidence. The Board held that all challenged claims in the Ultratec patents were either anticipated or would have been obvious in light of prior art references, citing Occhiogrosso’s testimony more than 30 times. The Federal Circuit vacated. The Board failed to consider material evidence and failed to explain its decisions to exclude the evidence to exclude Occhiogrosso’s trial testimony. View "Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC" on Justia Law

Return Mail’s patent is directed to processing mail items that are undeliverable due to an inaccurate or obsolete address, using scannable bar codes. Ex parte reexamination resulted in the cancellation of all original claims and the issuance of new claims in 2011. After trying unsuccessfully to license the patent to the Postal Service, Return filed suit under 28 U.S.C. 1498(a), alleging infringement. The Postal Service sought covered business method (CBM ) review, asserting patent-ineligible subject matter, 35 U.S.C. 101 and anticipation, sections 102 and 103. Return raised patentability arguments and contested the Postal Service’s ability under the America Invents Act (AIA), 125 Stat. 284, to petition for CBM review. The Board held that the Postal Service had statutory “standing,” instituted review, and held that the challenged claims were drawn to ineligible subject matter. The Federal CIrcuit affirmed, first agreeing that the Postal Service has standing. While there are differences between section 1498(a) suits against the government and suits for infringement against private parties, those differences are insufficient to exclude a government-related defendant under section 1498(a) from seeking CBM review. The claims at issue simply recite existing business practices with the benefit of generic computing technology, which is not sufficient to impart patent eligibility. View "Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service" on Justia Law

Stepan’s application is directed to herbicidal formulations containing glyphosate salt with a surfactant system. Surfactants can enhance glyphosate’s effectiveness as an herbicide by providing better leaf-adherence, enhancing penetration; the "invention is based on the unexpected discovery that surfactant systems comprising dialkoxylated alkylamine, water miscible solubilizer and amine oxide allow for formulation of ultra-high loaded (‘high-strength’) glyphosate salt concentrates possessing high or no cloud points” (the temperature at which a solution becomes cloudy due to the surfactants becoming insoluble and separating into layers). Cloudiness can be avoided if the cloud point is higher than the solution’s temperature or if the solution is cooled before adding the surfactant. The specification explains that because glyphosate salt is created at about 75ºC, it is advantageous to formulate glyphosate with a surfactant system exhibiting a high cloud point to “obviate the necessity of waiting for the temperature of the glyphosate salt reaction product to cool.” Surfactant systems with high or no cloud points allow for quicker formulation of glyphosate concentrates and quicker delivery to the market. The Federal Circuit vacated the rejection of 31 claims on grounds of obviousness. The Board failed to adequately articulate its reasoning, erroneously rejected relevant evidence of nonobviousness, and improperly shifted to Stepan the burden of proving patentability. View "In re: Stepan Co." on Justia Law

Nidec’s patent is directed to low-noise heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and includes a permanent magnet electric motor that turns a fan to move air through ductwork. An improved motor controller performs sinewave commutation instead of more conventional square-wave commutation. Commutation is the repeated sequencing of electrical currents applied to windings within the permanent magnet motor that causes the motor to rotate. Square-wave commutation involves abrupt changes in the voltage applied to a given winding as the sequence progresses, similar to repeatedly flipping a switch. Sinewave commutation involves more gradual and continuous oscillations in applied voltage, similar to sliding a dimmer switch between those states, resulting in less vibration and noise. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board conducted inter partes review. The Federal Circuit affirmed its determination that several claims are invalid as obvious over a combination of prior references, 35 U.S.C. 103. And that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 102. View "Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Consolidated appeals involve allegations that the patent-holders for Lipitor and Effexor XR delayed entry into the market by generic versions of those drugs by engaging in a monopolistic scheme that involved fraudulently procuring and enforcing the underlying patents, then entering into a reverse-payment settlement agreement with a generic manufacturer. In 2013, the Supreme Court recognized that reverse payment schemes can violate antitrust laws and that it is normally not necessary to litigate patent validity to answer the antitrust question. The district judge dismissed several claims. The Third Circuit remanded after rejecting an argument that plaintiffs’ allegations required transfer of the appeals to the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from civil actions “arising under” patent law, 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1). Not all cases presenting questions of patent law necessarily arise under patent law; here, patent law neither creates plaintiffs’ cause of action nor is a necessary element to any of plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs plausibly allege the existence of agreements between the patent holders and the generic manufacturers. The court remanded one of the Lipitor appeals, brought by California pharmacists, and involving claims solely under California law, for determination of whether remand to state court was appropriate. The Lipitor plaintiffs made plausible allegations of fraudulent patent procurement and enforcement, and other related misconduct. View "In re: Lipitor Antitrust Litigation" on Justia Law

Direct purchasers of Wellbutrin XL, a drug for treating depression, sued, alleging that GSK violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by entering into an unlawful conspiracy with Biovail, GSK’s partner in the development of Wellbutrin XL, to delay the launch of generic versions of the drug. Indirect-purchasers asserted similar theories under state law. The purchasers claim that GSK delayed the launch of generic versions by supporting baseless patent infringement suits and a baseless FDA Citizen Petition aimed at generic drug companies and by entering into an unlawful reverse payment settlement agreement with potential competitors. The district court granted GSK summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence that GSK’s patent litigation was a sham or that the settlement delayed the launch of generic Wellbutrin XL. The court granted GSK’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of the purchasers’ economic expert; decertified the indirect-purchaser class for lack of ascertainability; dismissed the indirect-purchaser claims brought under the laws of states that were not the home of a named class representative; and denied Aetna’s motion to intervene. The Third Circuit affirmed. After considering the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision, FTC v. Actavis, the court concluded that the purchasers failed to establish a genuine dispute of fact either as to whether GSK engaged in sham litigation or whether GSK’s actions delayed the launch of generic Wellbutrin XL. View "In re: Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation" on Justia Law

Georgetown’s patent relates to a system for inspecting the steel tie plates that connect rail tracks to wooden ties, using digital technology. Georgetown's Aurora System uses lasers and cameras mounted on a vehicle to collect and process information about track ties to allow customers to “manage the logistics of crosstie replacement.” Holland purchases track and crosstie measuring technologies from Rail Vision and places those technologies on its own track inspection "TrackStar" vehicles. Data from the track is sent to third-parties for processing. Rail Vision sends finished reports to Holland for distribution to Holland’s customers. Holland and Georgetown knew of each other’s place in the track-tie market. The companies participated in a “head-to-head challenge,” and demonstrated their services to potential customer Union Pacific. Following the demonstrations, Union Pacific and Holland agreed to alter an existing contract to allow Holland to provide Rail Vision Systems technology to Union Pacific. Georgetown sued Holland for infringement and was granted a preliminary injunction, ending Holland’s potential sales to Union Pacific. A jury found that Holland willfully infringed Georgetown's patent and awarded $1,541,333 in damages. The court awarded Georgetown an additional $1,000,000 in enhanced damages based on a finding of willful infringement, 35 U.S.C. 284. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence supports a finding that subjective recklessness led to willful infringement in this case. View "Georgetown Rail Equipment Co. v. Holland L.P." on Justia Law

Visual’s 740 patent purports to overcome deficiencies in computer systems using a three-tiered memory hierarchy to enhance performance by creating a memory system with programmable operational characteristics that can be tailored for use with multiple different processors without an accompanying reduction in performance. The Federal Circuit reversed the dismissal of Visual’s patent infringement complaint against NVIDIA. The patent claims an improvement to computer memory systems and is not directed to an abstract idea, so it is patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. The patent includes a microfiche appendix having a combined total of 263 frames of computer code. View "Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp." on Justia Law

AIA sued Avid for infringement of patents directed to research technologies stemming from the discovery of a genetic mutation that is associated with early-onset familial Alzheimer’s disease. Mullan is named as the sole inventor of both patents. Avid responded that AIA lacked standing to assert the patents and that Sexton, AIA’s founder, and Mullan orchestrated a scheme to appropriate for themselves inventions from Imperial College in London and the University of South Florida. AIA claimed that Dr. Mullan was properly named as sole inventor and that his employer, USF, waived any ownership rights. The district court held a jury trial on standing, in which 12 witnesses testified and over 200 exhibits were introduced. The jury determined that USF did not knowingly and intentionally waive its ownership rights and that Dr. Hardy was a co-inventor; the court found AIA lacked standing and entered judgment for Avid. The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed. Avid sought attorney’s fees. The district court allowed the parties to submit briefing, evidence, and declarations and held a hearing, then awarded Avid $3,943,317.70 in fees. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting AIA’s argument that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial to decide the facts forming the basis to award attorney’s fees under Patent Act section 285. The district court did not err by making factual findings not foreclosed by the jury’s verdict on standing; AIA’s due process rights were not violated. View "AIA America, Inc. v. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals" on Justia Law

AIA sued Avid for infringement of patents directed to research technologies stemming from the discovery of a genetic mutation that is associated with early-onset familial Alzheimer’s disease. Mullan is named as the sole inventor of both patents. Avid responded that AIA lacked standing to assert the patents and that Sexton, AIA’s founder, and Mullan orchestrated a scheme to appropriate for themselves inventions from Imperial College in London and the University of South Florida. AIA claimed that Dr. Mullan was properly named as sole inventor and that his employer, USF, waived any ownership rights. The district court held a jury trial on standing, in which 12 witnesses testified and over 200 exhibits were introduced. The jury determined that USF did not knowingly and intentionally waive its ownership rights and that Dr. Hardy was a co-inventor; the court found AIA lacked standing and entered judgment for Avid. The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed. Avid sought attorney’s fees. The district court allowed the parties to submit briefing, evidence, and declarations and held a hearing, then awarded Avid $3,943,317.70 in fees. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting AIA’s argument that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial to decide the facts forming the basis to award attorney’s fees under Patent Act section 285. The district court did not err by making factual findings not foreclosed by the jury’s verdict on standing; AIA’s due process rights were not violated. View "AIA America, Inc. v. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals" on Justia Law