Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

The case concerns a man who sued several parties after negative posts about him appeared in a large Chicago-based Facebook group where women share experiences about local men. The posts, made in late 2023, included a woman he briefly dated recounting her unpleasant experiences, attaching a screenshot of a profane text message he sent her after their breakup. Other posts by unidentified users included supportive comments and, in one instance, a link to a news article about a criminal case involving someone with a different name and appearance. The plaintiff alleged these posts caused him reputational, economic, and emotional harm.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the defendants—including the former date, her parents (for allegedly allowing use of their internet connection), the group’s administrators, and Meta Platforms—moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motions, finding the claims legally insufficient and dismissing the case with prejudice. The plaintiff appealed and voluntarily dismissed claims against unidentified “Jane Doe” defendants to preserve diversity jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff failed to state plausible claims under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act because none of the defendants used his likeness for a commercial purpose. The court also found the “doxing” claim insufficient, as there were no plausible allegations of intent or recklessness regarding harm or stalking. Defamation and related claims failed because the allegedly defamatory material could be innocently interpreted or lacked special damages. The court also concluded that the appeal as to the woman and her parents was frivolous and ordered the plaintiff and his attorneys to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for bringing a meritless appeal and for submitting briefs containing fictitious quotations and misstatements of law. The court awarded costs to other appellees and referred attorney conduct to state disciplinary authorities. View "D'Ambrosio v Meta Platforms, Inc." on Justia Law

The case concerns a patent dispute involving a company that owns a patent for a unified electronic banking system. After most of the patent’s claims were found unpatentable in an inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent and Trademark Office, only four claims remained. The company then sued a bank in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging infringement of these remaining claims. The allegations were supported by claim charts and references to the bank’s online services.The district court first struck the original complaint as a “shotgun pleading” and allowed an amended complaint. The amended complaint was also challenged by the defendant, who argued that the remaining claims were invalid for obviousness and, alternatively, for claiming ineligible subject matter, and that the infringement allegations were inadequate. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding the asserted claims invalid for obviousness as they did not add anything patentably distinct from those already invalidated in the IPR, and also held that infringement was not adequately pleaded. The court denied leave to further amend the complaint and subsequently awarded attorneys’ fees to the defendant under 35 U.S.C. § 285, finding the case “exceptional,” and imposed sanctions on plaintiff’s counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for alleged bad faith litigation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, upholding the finding that the patent claims at issue were invalid for obviousness. However, the appellate court reversed the awards of attorneys’ fees and sanctions, holding that the record did not support a finding that the case was exceptional or that counsel acted in bad faith, as required by the respective statutes. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. View "MCOM IP, LLC v. CITY NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA " on Justia Law

Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd, holder of patents for pharmaceutical compositions involving epoprostenol, alleged that Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s proposed generic drug infringed its patents by manufacturing a bulk solution with a pH of 13 or higher, as claimed in the patents. The dispute centered on whether Mylan’s bulk solution met this pH threshold, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Actelion argued that pH should be measured at the solution’s actual (refrigerated) temperature, while Mylan maintained that its product’s pH, when measured at industry standard temperature, did not meet the claimed threshold.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia held a bench trial after remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which had previously vacated a judgment based on incorrect claim construction. On remand, the district court construed “a pH of 13 or higher” to mean a pH measurement of 12.98 or higher at standard temperature (25±2°C), relying on both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. The court found no literal infringement, as Mylan’s bulk solution did not meet this threshold at standard temperature. It also ruled that Actelion was barred from asserting infringement by an equivalent due to prosecution history estoppel and the disclosure-dedication rule, and that Actelion had not proven equivalence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed claim construction de novo and factual findings for clear error. The court affirmed the district court’s claim construction, finding that “a pH of 13 or higher” refers to standard-temperature measurement, supported by industry standards and patent evidence. It also upheld the district court’s application of prosecution history estoppel and the disclosure-dedication rule, barring Actelion’s equivalents argument. The judgment for Mylan was affirmed. View "ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. " on Justia Law

Bissell, Inc. and Bissell Homecare, Inc. accused Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. and related entities of importing and selling wet dry surface cleaning devices that allegedly infringed certain claims of two U.S. patents concerning surface cleaning apparatuses. After the complaint was filed with the United States International Trade Commission, Tineco introduced redesigned versions of the accused products, which were also evaluated for infringement. The key patent claims at issue involved limitations related to a battery charging circuit being disabled during a self-cleaning mode.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the International Trade Commission conducted an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ found that Tineco's original products infringed the asserted patent claims but that the redesigned products did not, as they did not meet the requirement that the battery charging circuit remain disabled during the automatic cleanout cycle. The ALJ also found that Bissell’s domestic industry products practiced the relevant claim limitations, and that all accused products met other disputed limitations. The Commission adopted the ALJ’s findings and issued a limited exclusion order barring importation of only the original infringing products.On appeal, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Bissell challenged the finding of non-infringement for the redesigned products, while Tineco cross-appealed on domestic industry findings and certain infringement determinations. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s Final Determination, holding that substantial evidence supported the findings that Tineco’s redesigned products did not infringe the relevant patent claims, that Bissell’s domestic industry products met the asserted limitations, and that the accused products satisfied the “brushroll within the recovery pathway” and “suction nozzle” limitations. The court affirmed the exclusion order for the original products and denied relief on all appeals. View "BISSELL, INC. v. ITC " on Justia Law

Trojan Battery, a well-established manufacturer of golf cart batteries with valuable trademark rights in the “TROJAN” name and related marks, sued Golf Carts of Cypress and Trojan EV. The defendants, owned by the same individual, began selling golf carts under the “TROJAN-EV” brand, which led to alleged confusion among dealers and customers about the origin or affiliation of the products. Trojan Battery sent a cease-and-desist letter, but the defendants continued their use of the TROJAN-EV mark. The evidence showed that both companies operated within the golf industry, used similar advertising channels, and targeted the same customer base.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held a bench trial. The district court found the defendants liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and Texas law, based on a likelihood of confusion between the marks. The court awarded Trojan Battery the defendants’ profits as a remedy and issued a permanent injunction against further infringement. The district court also rejected the defendants’ post-trial motions and denied their request to amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Defendants appealed these rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s liability judgment and the award of profits, finding no clear error in the determination that there was a likelihood of confusion and that disgorgement of profits was warranted. However, the appellate court vacated the permanent injunction, holding that it was overbroad because it extended beyond the golf cart and battery markets, where confusion was likely, to unrelated products and markets. The case was remanded for the district court to narrow the scope of the injunction. View "Trojan Battery v. Golf Carts of Cypress" on Justia Law

A volunteer affiliated with a nonprofit focused on innovation requested documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The request sought information related to an adversary proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), particularly concerning the panel of judges assigned, changes to the panel, and drafts of the written decision. The proceeding involved a motion for recusal due to a judge’s stock ownership and subsequent reassignment of panel members. The FOIA request specifically targeted documents reflecting the identities and opinions of involved judges, membership of the Circulation Judge Pool, legal bases for judge participation, and information about stock holdings.The PTO produced about 1,500 pages of documents but withheld drafts of decisions and related communications, citing FOIA Exemption 5, which covers predecisional and deliberative documents. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment and ruled in favor of the PTO, finding that the withheld documents were both predecisional and deliberative. The court rejected arguments that the communications constituted unlawful ex parte communications or government misconduct, determining there was no basis under FOIA to compel disclosure. The court also concluded that the plaintiff’s broader claims were not appropriately raised in a FOIA action.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the PTO properly withheld the drafts and related communications under Exemption 5, finding them categorically predecisional and deliberative. The court further determined that intra-agency circulation of draft opinions among judges did not constitute ex parte communications and that FOIA does not provide a government misconduct exception for Exemption 5. View "Malone v. United States Patent & Trademark Office" on Justia Law

A renowned photographer entered into a 2014 agreement with a licensing agency, granting it the exclusive worldwide right to license, market, and promote certain of her images. However, she reserved for herself the right to collaborate with or deliver these images to specific individuals or entities for special projects or other endeavors she deemed of interest. In subsequent years, the photographer took photographs for a magazine under agreements that reserved rights to her studio. The agency discovered that some of these photographs appeared on websites operated by the defendants and sued them for copyright infringement, supplying an authorization letter from the photographer permitting it to act on her behalf in matters relating to copyright infringement.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the defendants argued that the agency lacked statutory standing under the Copyright Act because it was not the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under the copyright. The district court agreed, finding that the photographer’s retention of certain rights in the agreement meant the agency did not have an exclusive license, and therefore lacked standing. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants. It also denied the agency’s late motion to amend the complaint to add the photographer as a co-plaintiff.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court’s analysis was mistaken: the reservation of certain rights by the photographer did not automatically eliminate the agency’s ability to hold other exclusive rights. The appellate court vacated the summary judgment, affirmed the denial of the motion to amend, and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to reconsider the standing issue and the effect of the authorization letter in light of its opinion. View "Great Bowery Inc. v. Consequence Sound LLC" on Justia Law

Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. held a patent covering methods for treating poultry during processing, specifically by using peracetic acid to increase the weight of the poultry. The method involved several steps, including adjusting the pH of peracetic acid-containing water to a range described as “about 7.6 to about 10” by adding an alkaline source. Enviro Tech alleged that Safe Foods Corp. infringed upon various claims of this patent.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas reviewed the case and conducted claim construction. Safe Foods argued that the terms “about” and “an antimicrobial amount” in the patent were indefinite. The district court agreed, finding both terms indefinite and holding the asserted claims invalid. The court entered judgment accordingly.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit examined whether the district court was correct in finding the term “about,” as used to define the pH range, indefinite. The Federal Circuit analyzed the claim language, the patent’s specification, and the prosecution history. The court found that the intrinsic record did not provide reasonable certainty to those skilled in the art about the scope of “about,” especially since the specification and prosecution history showed inconsistent and conflicting guidance regarding permissible pH deviations. Because the term “about” was indefinite, the Federal Circuit concluded that all asserted claims were invalid. The court therefore affirmed the judgment of invalidity entered by the district court. View "ENVIRO TECH CHEMICAL SERVICES, INC. v. SAFE FOODS CORP. " on Justia Law

Adidas America, Inc. brought a lawsuit against Thom Browne, Inc., alleging trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition, based on Thom Browne’s use of certain stripe motifs on its apparel. Adidas’s claims focused on Thom Browne’s Four-Bar Signature and Grosgrain designs, which adidas argued infringed on its well-known Three-Stripe Mark, particularly in a new line of activewear. At trial, the jury heard extensive evidence, including testimony from sixteen witnesses and more than four hundred exhibits, and ultimately found Thom Browne not liable on all counts.Subsequently, during related litigation in the United Kingdom, adidas discovered that Thom Browne had failed to disclose several relevant emails during discovery in the U.S. action. These emails contained internal discussions among Thom Browne employees acknowledging the potential for confusion between Thom Browne’s stripe designs and adidas’s mark. Adidas moved in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for relief from the final judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) (newly discovered evidence) and 60(b)(3) (misconduct), arguing that the emails warranted a new trial. The district court denied the motion, finding that the emails probably would not have changed the verdict and that Thom Browne’s discovery violation was, at most, negligent rather than intentional misconduct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The Second Circuit held that adidas failed to demonstrate that the newly discovered emails probably would have altered the outcome at trial, as required under Rule 60(b)(2). The court further held that “misconduct” under Rule 60(b)(3) does not include merely negligent discovery violations; only intentional or reckless conduct could justify such relief. Therefore, adidas was not entitled to a new trial. View "Adidas America, Inc. v. Thom Browne, Inc." on Justia Law

A corporation owns a patent concerning systems and methods for providing access to shipment information using sensors, which can be attached to items for tracking and reporting data to a central location. The patent allows for customization and control over notifications about shipments, including limiting access to sensor information based on certain rules. Some claims of the patent specify restricting access by delaying when information is reported.Litigation began when the corporation sued another company for infringing this patent in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. While the litigation was pending, a third party, who was not a defendant in the district court case, filed petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging some claims of the patent as obvious. The patent owner argued that the PTAB should not consider the petitions because the third party failed to identify all real parties in interest, specifically the company being sued, as required by statute. The PTAB disagreed, instituted review, and later denied a motion to terminate the proceedings for failure to name all real parties in interest. The PTAB issued a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it lacked authority to review the PTAB’s refusal to determine whether all real parties in interest were named and its denial of the motion to terminate the proceedings, because such issues are barred from judicial review by statute. However, the appellate court found that the PTAB had erred in concluding that the patent owner had not contested one ground of obviousness and vacated the PTAB’s findings of obviousness for certain claims, remanding those issues for further proceedings. View "FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED " on Justia Law