Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

US Synthetic Corp. (USS) filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) alleging that several intervenors violated 19 U.S.C. § 1337 by importing and selling products that infringe five of USS’s patents. The focus of this appeal is U.S. Patent No. 10,508,502 (’502 patent), which claims a polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) with specific structural and magnetic properties.The Commission instituted an investigation, and the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that the asserted claims of the ’502 patent were infringed and not invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, or 112. However, the ALJ found the claims patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as they were directed to an abstract idea. The Commission reviewed and affirmed the ALJ’s determination, concluding that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of achieving desired magnetic properties, which were seen as side effects of the manufacturing process.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the asserted claims of the ’502 patent are not directed to an abstract idea but to a specific, non-abstract composition of matter defined by its constituent elements, dimensional information, and quantified material properties. The court found that the magnetic properties are integrally related to the structure of the PDC and are not merely side effects. Therefore, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one, and the court did not reach Alice step two.The court also addressed the alternative argument that the claims were not enabled. The court found no error in the Commission’s conclusion that the claims were enabled, as the respondents failed to prove a lack of enablement by clear and convincing evidence. The court reversed the Commission’s conclusion on patent ineligibility, affirmed the enablement conclusion, and remanded the case. View "US SYNTHETIC CORP. v. ITC " on Justia Law

Kroy IP Holdings, LLC sued Groupon, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,061,660, which relates to providing incentive programs over a computer network. Groupon moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Kroy was collaterally estopped from alleging infringement based on two prior inter partes review (IPR) decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that found other claims of the same patent unpatentable.The district court granted Groupon’s motion to dismiss, determining that the PTAB’s final judgments on the unpatentability of certain claims had preclusive effect on the district court action. The court concluded that collateral estoppel could apply to patent claims not previously adjudicated if the differences between the unadjudicated and adjudicated claims did not materially alter the question of invalidity. The district court found that the newly asserted claims were immaterially different from the previously adjudicated claims and thus dismissed Kroy’s complaint with prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The Federal Circuit held that collateral estoppel does not apply when the second action involves a different legal standard, such as a different burden of proof. The court noted that in IPR proceedings, the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, whereas in district court, the burden is clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, the PTAB’s findings under a lower burden of proof could not preclude Kroy from asserting the newly asserted claims in district court. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "KROY IP HOLDINGS, LLC v. GROUPON, INC. " on Justia Law

Trudell Medical International Inc. (Trudell) owns U.S. Patent No. 9,808,588, which relates to devices for performing oscillatory positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) therapy. Trudell sued D R Burton Healthcare, LLC (D R Burton) for patent infringement. D R Burton sells OPEP devices, including the vPEP®, vPEP® HC, iPEP®, PocketPEP®, and PocketPEP® Advantage products. Trudell alleged that these products infringed certain claims of the ’588 patent.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina allowed D R Burton to present infringement testimony by Dr. John Collins at trial. After a three-day trial, the jury found that the asserted claims of the ’588 patent were valid but not infringed. Trudell filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on infringement or, alternatively, for a new trial. The district court denied this motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by allowing Dr. Collins to testify on noninfringement because his testimony was untimely and did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Additionally, the court found Dr. Collins' testimony unreliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The Federal Circuit vacated the jury’s finding of noninfringement and remanded for a new trial, excluding Dr. Collins’ noninfringement testimony. The court also affirmed the district court’s denial of Trudell’s motion for JMOL of infringement, as the jury could have reasonably found noninfringement based on the evidence presented.The Federal Circuit ordered that the case be reassigned to a different district court judge on remand to preserve the appearance of justice and fairness, given the trial judge’s statements indicating a predisposition to quickly resolve the case. View "TRUDELL MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. D R BURTON HEALTHCARE, LLC " on Justia Law

Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corp. (Healthgen) appealed a final determination from the International Trade Commission (Commission) which found that Healthgen’s clinical grade albumin products infringed claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,618,951, owned by Ventria Bioscience Inc. (Ventria). The patent pertains to cell culture media containing recombinant human serum albumin produced in a genetically modified plant. Healthgen imports clinical and medium grade recombinant human serum albumin (rHSA) products, and Ventria alleged that these imports violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 due to patent infringement.The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found that Healthgen’s clinical and medium grade rHSA products infringed the patent and that Ventria satisfied the domestic industry requirement based on six rHSA products. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s finding of infringement for the clinical grade products but not for the medium grade products. The Commission also affirmed that Ventria satisfied the domestic industry requirement based on one product, Optibumin, without further analysis of the other five products.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Commission’s findings. The court affirmed the Commission’s determination that Healthgen’s clinical grade products infringed the patent based on SEC-HPLC data showing less than 2% aggregated albumin. The court also upheld the Commission’s finding that Ventria satisfied the domestic industry requirement, noting that all investments and activities related to Optibumin occurred within the United States and that the investment-to-revenue ratio indicated significant investment despite low revenue.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s decision, concluding that Healthgen’s clinical grade products infringed the patent and that Ventria met the domestic industry requirement. View "WUHAN HEALTHGEN BIOTECHNOLOGY CORP. v. ITC " on Justia Law

HD Silicon Solutions LLC (HDSS) appealed a decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) which held claims 1–7 and 9–17 of U.S. Patent 6,774,033 (the '033 patent) unpatentable as obvious. The '033 patent pertains to a local interconnect layer in an integrated circuit, specifically involving a method of forming this layer using titanium nitride and tungsten films.Microchip Technology Inc. (Microchip) petitioned for inter partes review (IPR), arguing that the claims were obvious over U.S. Patent 5,847,463 (Trivedi). The Board construed the term "comprising tungsten" to include both elemental tungsten and tungsten compounds, and found that the claims were unpatentable based on Trivedi alone or in combination with other references. HDSS appealed this decision, challenging the Board's claim construction and its findings on the motivation to combine references.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with HDSS that the Board's construction of "comprising tungsten" was incorrect, determining that the term should be limited to elemental tungsten. However, the court found that this error was harmless because Trivedi disclosed both elemental tungsten and tungsten-silicide layers, either of which would render the claims obvious. The court also upheld the Board's findings on the motivation to combine references, rejecting HDSS's arguments that the Board misinterpreted Trivedi and failed to explain the motivation to combine references to meet specific claim limitations.Ultimately, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the claims of the '033 patent were unpatentable as obvious. View "HD SILICON SOLUTIONS LLC v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INC. " on Justia Law

Cardinal Motors, Inc. filed a lawsuit against H&H Sports Protection USA Inc., alleging that H&H unlawfully copied the design of its motorcycle helmet, "The Bullitt." Cardinal claimed trade dress infringement and unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and analogous state laws. Cardinal described two alternative trade dresses for The Bullitt: the "General Trade Dress" and the "Detailed Trade Dress," each specifying various design features of the helmet.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Cardinal's complaint with prejudice, ruling that Cardinal failed to articulate a precise expression of the trade dress, including how it was distinct. The court focused on the General Trade Dress and did not separately consider the sufficiency of the Detailed Trade Dress, assuming it was inadequate based on the General Trade Dress.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court erred in its application of the articulation requirement for trade dress infringement cases. The appellate court clarified that the articulation requirement is separate from the distinctiveness requirement. A plaintiff satisfies the articulation requirement by listing with precision the features that comprise its trade dress, without needing to prove distinctiveness at this stage.The Second Circuit held that both the General Trade Dress and the Detailed Trade Dress were articulated with the requisite precision. Therefore, the district court's dismissal was incorrect. The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether Cardinal's trade dress claims meet the elements of distinctiveness, likelihood of confusion, and nonfunctionality. The district court was also instructed to address Cardinal's state law claims of unfair competition. View "Cardinal Motors, Inc. v. H & H Sports Prot. USA Inc." on Justia Law

Pie Development, L.L.C. was formed to develop an application to streamline the process of purchasing workers compensation insurance. The company alleged that Dax Craig, a consultant, stole the idea and shared it with John Swigart. Craig and Swigart then used the idea to create Pie Insurance Holdings, Inc. and other affiliated entities, generating significant profits. Pie Development sued Craig, Swigart, Pie Insurance Holdings, and Pie Insurance Services, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets under the Mississippi Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA) and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), among other claims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the complaint for failing to provide sufficient detail on each claim, but allowed Pie Development to amend its complaint within thirty days. Pie Development chose not to amend and instead appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, noting that Pie Development did not sufficiently plead that it took reasonable measures to protect its business plan's secrecy.While the appeal was pending, Pie Development filed a new lawsuit against additional defendants, including Pie Carrier Holdings, Gallatin Point Capital, Sirius Point Ltd., and Pie Casualty Insurance Company, and later added the original defendants. The district court dismissed the new claims, citing res judicata, as the claims were identical to those in the first lawsuit. Pie Development appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that res judicata applied because the prior action was concluded by a final judgment on the merits when Pie Development chose to appeal rather than amend its complaint. The court also found that Pie Development failed to state a claim against Gallatin and Sirius, as the complaint did not plausibly allege that they knew or should have known about the misappropriation of trade secrets. View "Pie Development v. Pie Carr Holdings" on Justia Law

Aquarian Foundation, Inc., a non-profit religious organization, alleged that Bruce Lowndes infringed on its copyrights by uploading spiritual teachings of its late founder, Keith Milton Rhinehart, to various websites. Lowndes claimed he had a license from Rhinehart, granted in 1985, to use the materials. Rhinehart passed away in 1999, bequeathing his estate, including the copyrights, to Aquarian.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted partial summary judgment, confirming that Rhinehart's copyrights were properly transferred to Aquarian via his will. After a bench trial, the court ruled against Aquarian on its claims of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and false designation of origin. The court found that Rhinehart created the works as his own, not as works for hire, and that he had validly licensed them to Lowndes. The court also determined that Lowndes did not breach the licensing agreement and that Aquarian could not terminate the license under 17 U.S.C. § 203(a). The court denied attorneys’ fees to both parties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s findings that Rhinehart’s works were not created as works for hire, that he validly licensed the works to Lowndes, and that Lowndes did not breach the licensing agreement. The court also affirmed the decision not to award Lowndes attorneys’ fees under the Lanham Act. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s determination regarding the termination of the license, holding that Aquarian’s termination letter in May 2021 was effective. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address any infringement that may have occurred after the license termination, as well as the denial of injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act. View "AQUARIAN FOUNDATION, INC. V. LOWNDES" on Justia Law

Gesture Technology Partners, LLC owns U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949, which is directed to image capture technology using a portable device with an electro-optical sensor and a digital camera. Apple Inc. filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition challenging the patent's claims as obvious over prior art references Numazaki and Nonaka. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the "Board") found claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-17 unpatentable but upheld claims 4, 11, and 18. Gesture cross-appealed the unpatentability findings, and Apple appealed the findings regarding claims 4, 11, and 18.The Board concluded that claims 1-3 and 5-7 were obvious based on the combination of Numazaki and Nonaka, which disclosed a device that captures images in response to detected gestures. However, the Board found that claim 4, which required the electro-optical sensor to be "fixed" in relation to the digital camera, was not obvious because Numazaki did not disclose this limitation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the Board's determination that claims 1-3 and 5-7 were unpatentable. The court found that the Board had substantial evidence to support its conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of Numazaki and Nonaka to render these claims obvious.However, the court reversed the Board's determination regarding claim 4. The court found that the Board had improperly ignored Apple’s expert testimony, which demonstrated that fixing the electro-optical sensor and digital camera in relation to each other was desirable and obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The court concluded that the record showed that the fixed relationship was necessary to maintain overlapping fields of view, which was essential for the device's functionality.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's findings for claims 1-3 and 5-7 and reversed the finding for claim 4, holding it unpatentable. View "APPLE INC. v. GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC " on Justia Law

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. holds a Biologics License Application (BLA) for EYLEA®, a therapeutic product containing aflibercept, a VEGF antagonist used to treat angiogenic eye diseases. Regeneron also owns U.S. Patent No. 11,084,865, which covers VEGF-trap formulations suitable for intravitreal injection. Several companies, including Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (SB), filed abbreviated Biologics License Applications (aBLAs) seeking approval to market EYLEA® biosimilars. Regeneron sued these companies, including SB, for patent infringement in the Northern District of West Virginia.The district court consolidated the cases and granted Regeneron’s motion for a preliminary injunction against SB, enjoining it from marketing its biosimilar product in the U.S. without a license from Regeneron. The court found it had personal jurisdiction over SB based on SB’s aBLA filing and its distribution agreement with Biogen, which indicated plans for nationwide marketing, including West Virginia. The court also found that Regeneron was likely to succeed on the merits, as SB had not raised a substantial question of invalidity of the ’865 patent for obviousness-type double patenting or lack of written description.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that the district court had personal jurisdiction over SB, as SB’s actions indicated plans to market its biosimilar nationwide. The court also upheld the district court’s findings that SB had not raised a substantial question of invalidity for the ’865 patent. The court found that the patent’s specific stability and glycosylation requirements were patentably distinct from the reference patent and adequately supported by the specification. The court also agreed that Regeneron had established a causal nexus between SB’s infringement and the irreparable harm it would suffer without an injunction. View "REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. " on Justia Law