Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Lashify, Inc., an American company, distributes and sells eyelash extensions and related products in the United States, which are manufactured abroad. Lashify holds patents on these products and filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging that other importers were infringing on its patents, specifically a utility patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,721,984) and two design patents (U.S. Design Patent Nos. D877,416 and D867,664). Lashify sought relief under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which requires the existence of a domestic industry related to the patented articles.The ITC denied Lashify relief, ruling that Lashify failed to meet the economic-prong requirement of the domestic-industry test, which demands significant investment in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor or capital, or substantial investment in exploitation of the patents. The ITC excluded expenses related to sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, and distribution, deeming them insufficient to establish a domestic industry. Additionally, the ITC found that Lashify's products did not satisfy the technical-prong requirement for the utility patent, as the products did not meet the "heat fused" claim limitations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with Lashify that the ITC applied an incorrect legal standard for the economic-prong requirement. The court held that significant employment of labor or capital should include expenses related to sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, and distribution. The court vacated the ITC's decision on the economic prong and remanded for reevaluation regarding the design patents. However, the court affirmed the ITC's finding that Lashify failed to satisfy the technical-prong requirement for the utility patent, upholding the construction of "heat fused" to mean joined to form a single entity. View "LASHIFY, INC. v. ITC " on Justia Law

Apple Inc., LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics USA Inc., and Google LLC filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431, which relates to camera-based sensing in handheld devices. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) joined the petitions and issued a final written decision, holding claims 1–10, 12, and 14–31 unpatentable, while claims 11 and 13 were not found unpatentable.Apple appealed the PTAB's decision regarding claims 11 and 13, arguing that the Board applied the wrong legal standard for obviousness and ignored Apple's arguments. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC cross-appealed the decision, arguing that claims 1, 7, 12, and 14 were not unpatentable and that the Board lacked jurisdiction over expired patents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Gesture forfeited its argument that Apple was estopped from appealing under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) because Gesture did not raise this issue before the Board. On the merits, the court affirmed the PTAB's decision that claims 11 and 13 were not shown to be unpatentable, finding that the Board did not misapply the legal standard for obviousness and did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act.Regarding Gesture's cross-appeal, the court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings that Numazaki taught the disputed limitations of claims 1, 7, 12, and 14. The court also rejected Gesture's argument that the Board lacked jurisdiction over expired patents, affirming that the Board has jurisdiction over IPRs concerning expired patents.The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision in its entirety, holding that claims 1–10, 12, and 14–31 of the '431 patent are unpatentable and that claims 11 and 13 were not shown to be unpatentable. View "APPLE INC. v. GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC " on Justia Law

Restem, LLC (Restem) appealed a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176, owned by Jadi Cell, LLC (Jadi Cell). The patent is related to stem cells with specific cell markers obtained from the subepithelial layer (SL) of mammalian umbilical cord tissue through a two-step process. Restem challenged claims 1–15 of the patent, arguing they were inherently anticipated or obvious based on prior art references.The Board held that Restem failed to prove the claims were unpatentable. The Board found that the prior art did not necessarily produce cells with the claimed cell marker expression profile, and thus did not inherently anticipate the claims. Additionally, the Board found that the prior art did not render the claims obvious, as the specific cell marker expression profile was not shown to be produced by the prior art processes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that the prior art did not inherently anticipate the claims because the processes disclosed did not necessarily result in cells with the claimed marker profile. The court also upheld the Board's finding that the claims were not obvious, as Restem did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the prior art would produce the claimed cell marker expression profile. The court concluded that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the decision in favor of Jadi Cell. View "RESTEM, LLC v. JADI CELL, LLC " on Justia Law

Lau, a native and citizen of China, was charged with third-degree trademark counterfeiting in New Jersey. While awaiting trial, he left the United States and upon his return, he was paroled for deferred inspection by immigration authorities. Lau was later convicted and sentenced to probation. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against him, asserting he was inadmissible due to his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT).An Immigration Judge (IJ) found Lau inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). The IJ concluded that Lau’s conviction constituted a CIMT, did not qualify as a petty offense, and that he was properly classified as an applicant for admission upon his return. The IJ also determined that Lau did not meet the continuous residency requirement for a 212(h) waiver. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, agreeing with the findings and dismissing Lau’s appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that DHS improperly classified Lau as an applicant for admission when he returned to the United States while his criminal charge was pending. The court found that a pending charge does not provide clear and convincing evidence of a CIMT necessary for DHS to consider an LPR an applicant for admission. Consequently, the court granted Lau’s petition for review, vacated the final order of removal, and remanded the case to the agency with instructions to terminate removal proceedings against Lau based on his inadmissibility under section 1182(a), without prejudice to any future deportation proceedings. View "Lau v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Jason and Kacie Highsmith hired Shelter, LLC to manage a home renovation project and later contracted with Design Gaps, Inc. to design and install cabinets and closets. The contracts required arbitration for disputes but did not specify completion dates. Design Gaps failed to meet multiple promised deadlines, leading the Highsmiths to terminate the contracts and hire another company. The Highsmiths shared Design Gaps' copyrighted drawings with the new contractor. They then filed for arbitration, alleging breach of contract and other claims, while Design Gaps counterclaimed for various issues, including copyright infringement.The arbitrator held a three-day hearing, during which the Highsmiths presented multiple witnesses, while Design Gaps only presented David Glover. The arbitrator found in favor of the Highsmiths, awarding them damages and attorney’s fees, and denied Design Gaps' counterclaims, including the copyright claim, citing fair use and lack of evidence for copyright registration.Design Gaps petitioned the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina to vacate the arbitration award, arguing the arbitrator disregarded the law and failed to issue a reasoned award. The district court denied the petition and confirmed the arbitration award, also granting the Highsmiths' motion for attorney’s fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed the appeal, citing lack of federal jurisdiction based on the precedent set in Friedler v. Stifel, Nicolaus, & Co., which held that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over motions to vacate arbitration awards unless there is an independent basis for federal jurisdiction beyond the Federal Arbitration Act. The court concluded that the petition did not meet this requirement. View "Design Gaps, Inc. v. Shelter, LLC" on Justia Law

FlightSafety International Inc. (FlightSafety) supplied the U.S. Air Force with commercial technical data under subcontracts awarded by CymSTAR, LLC. The data included restrictive markings, which the Air Force challenged. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) determined that the restrictive markings were improper under applicable statutes and regulations, leading FlightSafety to appeal.The Board found that the restrictive markings placed by FlightSafety on the technical data were improper. The Board concluded that the government had unrestricted rights to the data, as it was necessary for operation, maintenance, installation, or training (OMIT data). The Board also determined that the government could challenge the restrictive markings under the Validation Clause, which was not limited to challenges based on the funding source of the data.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Board's decision. The court held that the government had unrestricted rights to the OMIT data and that the restrictive markings placed by FlightSafety contradicted these rights. The court also held that the government could challenge the restrictive markings under the Validation Clause, which was not limited to challenges based on the funding source of the data. The court found that the restrictive markings, including the terms "proprietary" and "confidential," as well as the requirement for written authorization, were impermissible as they contradicted the government's unrestricted rights. The court also found that the copyright notice in the markings was misleading and contradicted the government's rights. View "FLIGHTSAFETY INTERNATIONAL INC. v. AIR FORCE " on Justia Law

Dewberry Engineers sued Dewberry Group for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, alleging that Dewberry Group's use of the "Dewberry" name violated their trademark rights. Dewberry Group, a real-estate development company, provides services to separately incorporated affiliates, which own commercial properties. The affiliates generate rental income, while Dewberry Group operates at a loss, surviving through cash infusions from its owner, John Dewberry.The District Court found Dewberry Group liable for trademark infringement and awarded Dewberry Engineers nearly $43 million in profits. The court treated Dewberry Group and its affiliates as a single corporate entity, totaling the affiliates' real-estate profits to calculate the award. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing with the District Court's approach to treat the companies as a single entity due to their economic reality.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the District Court erred in treating Dewberry Group and its affiliates as a single corporate entity for calculating profits. The Court ruled that under the Lanham Act, only the profits of the named defendant, Dewberry Group, could be awarded. The affiliates' profits could not be considered as the defendant's profits since they were not named as defendants in the lawsuit. The Supreme Court vacated the Fourth Circuit's decision and remanded the case for a new award proceeding consistent with its opinion. View "Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc." on Justia Law

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