by
Quest’s patent relates to a system for displaying inspection data collected from certain commercial furnaces (e.g., a furnace used in a refinery). The patent attempts to improve upon how prior art systems displayed collected inspection data, but does not purport to improve upon how inspection data is collected or the type of data collected; the system comprises “a storage device for storing the inspection data collected by an inspection tool flushed through the furnace” and a computer programmed to generate a plurality of data markers in relation to that data, partition the data at the data markers, and generate a display of the partitioned inspection data, “wherein the display is a two-dimensional or three-dimensional representation of one or more of the tube segments of the furnace.” On summary judgment, the district court held that five claims of the patent were invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) because the claimed invention was offered for sale more than one year before the filing of the patent application. The Federal Circuit held that the district court properly construed the claims and that three claims are invalid based on that construction but that the court erred in disregarding declarations of the inventors under the sham affidavit doctrine, and that Quest raised a genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of two claims. View "Quest Integrity USA, LLC v. Cokebusters USA Inc." on Justia Law

by
PlayNation filed suit against Velez for trademark infringement over the use of the Gorilla Gym mark and the district court entered judgment for PlayNation. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not clearly err in holding that Velez infringed on PlayNation's trademark, and in cancelling Velex's trademark registration on that basis. However, the district court abused its discretion in holding that PlayNation was entitled to an accounting of Velex's profits due to willful infringement based solely on Velex's continued lawful use of its mark after Velex was served with the complaint. Therefore, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part. View "PlayNation Play Systems, Inc. v. Velex Corp." on Justia Law

by
Tempnology licensed Mission to use Tempnology’s trademarks in connection with the distribution of clothing. Tempnology filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and sought to reject its agreement with Mission as an “executory contract” under 11 U.S.C. 365, which provides that rejection “constitutes a breach of such contract.” The Bankruptcy Court approved Tempnology’s rejection, holding that the rejection terminated Mission’s rights to use Tempnology’s trademarks. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed, holding that rejection does not terminate rights that would survive a breach of contract outside bankruptcy. The First Circuit reinstated the Bankruptcy Court’s decision. The Supreme Court reversed, first holding that the case is not moot. Mission presented a plausible claim for damages, sufficient to preserve a live controversy. A debtor’s rejection of an executory contract under Bankruptcy Code Section 365 has the same effect as a breach of that contract outside bankruptcy and cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted. A licensor’s breach cannot revoke continuing rights given under a contract (assuming no special contract term or state law) outside of bankruptcy; the same result follows from rejection in bankruptcy. Section 365 reflects the general bankruptcy rule that the estate cannot possess anything more than the debtor did outside bankruptcy. The distinctive features of trademarks do not mandate a different result. In delineating the burdens a debtor may and may not escape, Section 365’s edict that rejection is breach expresses a more complex set of aims than facilitating reorganization. View "Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC" on Justia Law

by
Leonel Romero-Ochoa was convicted by jury of burglary, unlawful imprisonment, assault, and multiple counts of rap all arising from an incident in which he broke into a woman's home, beat her, and raped her twice. At trial, Romero-Ochoa wanted to admit evidence that the victim was a U-visa applicant, which would grant her temporary legal resident status if she was the victim of a qualifying crime and helps law enforcement investigate or prosecute that crime. The trial court excluded the U-visa evidence. Romero-Ochoa argued that exclusion violated his constitutional rights to present a defense and confront witnesses. The Court of Appeals agreed and revered all but the unlawful imprisonment conviction, holding the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to that conviction but not the others. The Washington Supreme Court granted the State's petition for review, which raised only the harmless error issue. The Supreme Court reversed, finding any error excluding the U-visa evidence was harmless as to all of Romero-Ochoa's convictions. The convictions were reinstated, and the matter remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider the claim of sentencing error that was not previously reached. View "Washington v. Romero-Ochoa" on Justia Law

by
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as aspirin and naproxen, control pain but have undesirable side effects, including gastrointestinal problem. Some practitioners began prescribing acid inhibitors, including PPIs, to reduce the acidity in the gastrointestinal tract. The combination therapy had complications. Stomach acid degraded the PPI before it could reach the small intestine. To address those complications, Dr. Plachetka invented a drug (Vimovo®.) that coordinated the release of an acid inhibitor and an NSAID in a single tablet with a core of an NSAID, an enteric coating around the NSAID that prevents its release before the pH increases to a certain desired level, and an acid inhibitor like PPI around the outside of the enteric coating that actively works to increase the pH to the desired level. Plachetka’s invention contemplates using some uncoated PPI for immediate release. Manufacturers, wanting to market a generic version of Vimovo®, submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications to the FDA. They stipulated to infringement, except with respect to one ANDA product and alleged that the Vimovo® patents were invalid as obvious over prior art, 35 U.S.C. 103 and for lack of enablement and adequate written description, 35 U.S.C. 112. The Federal Circuit reversed a holding that the Vimovo® patents were valid. The specification provides nothing more than a claim that uncoated PPI might work, even though persons of ordinary skill in the art would not have thought so, and does not satisfy the written description requirement. View "Nuvo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Inc." on Justia Law

by
BTG’s 438 Patent, entitled “Methods and Compositions for Treating Cancer,” discloses the administration of a therapeutically effective amount of a CYP17 inhibitor, such as abiraterone acetate, in combination with at least one additional therapeutic agent such as an anti-cancer agent or a steroid. The patent defines an “anti-cancer agent” as “any therapeutic agent that directly or indirectly kills cancer cells or directly or indirectly prohibits[,] stops[,] or reduces the proliferation of cancer cells.” BTG sued Amneal, asserting that its Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) for the generic version of BTG’s abiraterone product ZYTIGA® infringed the patent. On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that the patent’s claims would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103. The district court affirmed, accepting the Board’s claim construction and the same combination of prior art. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board correctly concluded that the claims cover a therapy in which abiraterone has an anticancer effect, while prednisone either has its own anti-cancer effect or has a palliative/side-effect reduction effect, and that the “prior art provides a reasonable expectation that prednisone could be used as a therapeutic agent in the treatment of prostate cancer.” View "BTG International Ltd. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC" on Justia Law

by
Bradium’s patents, entitled “Optimized Image Delivery over Limited Bandwidth Communication Channels,” are broadly directed to retrieving large-scale images over network communication channels in low bandwidth conditions and to displaying such images on client devices with limited processing power. The preferred embodiment of the invention includes an image server and a client device connected to each other over a network. In two inter partes review proceedings, Patent Trial and Appeal Board found the claims of both patents unpatentable as obvious in light of prior references, 35 U.S.C. 103. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the Board’s construction of “limited bandwidth communications channel” in both proceedings to mean “a communications channel whose bandwidth is limited.” Substantial evidence supports the Board’s obviousness determinations. View "Bradium Technologies LLC v. Iancu" on Justia Law

by
Presidio's 639 patent describes and claims single-layer ceramic capacitors with certain features. Competitor AVX, which manufactures and sells various electronic components, including capacitors, petitioned for an inter partes review (IPR), under 35 U.S.C. 311−319, of all 21 claims of the 639 patent, asserting obviousness (35 U.S.C. 103). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted a review (35 U.S.C. 314), held claims 13–16 and 18 unpatentable, but held that AVX failed to establish unpatentability of all other claims. Presidio did not appeal the as to the unpatentable claims. AVX appealed as to the upheld claims. Presidio responded to AVX on the merits and argued that AVX lacked Article III standing. The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal, rejecting AVX’s estoppel and “competitor standing” theories and concluding that AVX lacks standing. A person does not need Article III standing to file an IPR petition and obtain a Board decision, because Article III requirements do not apply to administrative agencies, but AVX has no present or nonspeculative interest in engaging in conduct arguably covered by the patent claims at issue. AVX has not shown that it is engaging in or has nonspeculative plans to engage in, conduct arguably covered by the upheld claims of the patent. View "AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc." on Justia Law

by
The Novartis 131 patent claims methods of using the compound everolimus to treat advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Advanced RCC is a cancer of the kidneys that has spread to other parts of the body. Everolimus is the active ingredient in Novartis’s Afinitor product. West-Ward’s predecessor filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking to manufacture and sell generic versions of Afinitor. Novartis filed an infringement suit in response. The district court ruled that West-Ward failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that claims 1–3 of the 131 patent are invalid as obvious in light of prior art, 35 U.S.C. 103(a). The Federal Circuit affirmed. While the district court erred in its analysis of whether there was a motivation to combine, a person of ordinary skill would not have reasonably expected success in using everolimus to treat advanced RCC as of February 2001. View "Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International, Ltd." on Justia Law

by
Segway filed a complaint (19 U.S.C. 337) with the International Trade Commission based on infringement of six patents and two trademarks--stylized and non-stylized SEGWAY marks, which cover “motorized, self-propelled, wheeled personal mobility devices, namely, wheelchairs, scooters, utility carts, and chariots.” The complaint alleged that Swagway’s self-balancing hoverboard products, marketed under the names SWAGWAY and SWAGTRON infringed Segway’s marks. Swagway proposed a consent order stipulating that Swagway would not sell or import “SWAGWAY-branded personal transporter products ... all components thereof, packaging and manuals.” Segway opposed the proposal as addressing only a subset of the claims and products at issue. After a hearing, the ALJ found that the accused products did not infringe certain patents and that use of the SWAGWAY designation, but not the SWAGTRON designation, infringed the trademarks. The Commission determined not to review the ALJ’s denial of Swagway’s consent order motion. The Federal Circuit upheld that determination and the trademark infringement determination based on the evidence supporting factors other than likelihood of confusion, including the degree of similarity between the two marks in appearance, the pronunciation of the words, and the strength of the SEGWAY marks. View "Swagway, LLC v. International Trade Commission" on Justia Law