Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

by
Godo sued TCL, alleging infringement, arguing that the patents-in-suit are essential to the Long-Term Evolution (LTE) standard and that TCL’s accused devices are LTE-compatible. A jury found that TCL was liable for infringement by its sale of LTE standard-compliant devices, including mobile phones and tablets. In post-trial motions, TCL unsuccessfully argued that Godo’s theory of infringement was flawed because the “narrow exception” to proving infringement in the standard way—i.e., by showing that each element in the asserted claim is present in the accused devices—only applies in circumstances where the patent owner asks the court to assess essentiality in the context of construing the claims of the asserted patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting TCL’s contention that whether a patent is essential to any standard established by a standard-setting organization is a question of law to be resolved in the context of claim construction. Where, as here, there are material disputes of fact regarding whether asserted claims are in fact essential to all implementations of an industry standard, the question of essentiality must be resolved by the trier of fact in the context of an infringement trial. Substantial evidence supports the jury’s infringement verdict. View "Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd." on Justia Law

by
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims under the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Plaintiff alleged claims of copyright infringement and copyright management information (CMI) removal based on an underlying controversy involving defendants' promotion of their own version of a honey harvesting product, which replaced one that plaintiff had invented and that defendants had sold for many years through a website defendants owned. The court held that plaintiff was not entitled to statutory damages or attorneys' fees, because the first allegedly infringing act occurred before the date of the copyright registration and no genuine issue of material fact exists concerning this issue. The court also held that plaintiff failed to establish a CMI removal claim under the DMCA, because "Fischer's" cannot be construed as a CMI with respect to the advertising text at issue because it is simply the name of the product being described. View "Fischer v. Forrest" on Justia Law

by
The Navy began a program to design and build littoral combat ships (LCS) and issued a request for proposals. During the initial phase of the LCS procurement, FastShip met with and discussed a potential hull design with government contractors subject to non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements. FastShip was not awarded a contract. FastShip filed an unsuccessful administrative claim, alleging patent infringement. The Claims Court found that the FastShip patents were valid and directly infringed by the government. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Claims Court awarded FastShip attorney’s fees and expenses ($6,178,288.29); 28 U.S.C. 1498(a), which provides for a fee award to smaller entities that have prevailed on infringement claims, unless the government can show that its position was “substantially justified.” The court concluded that the government’s pre-litigation conduct and litigation positions were not “as a whole” substantially justified. It unreasonable for a government contractor to gather information from FastShip but not to include it as part of the team that was awarded the contract and the Navy took an exceedingly long time to act on FastShip’s administrative claim and did not provide sufficient analysis in denying the claim. The court found the government’s litigation positions unreasonable, including its arguments with respect to one document and its reliance on the testimony of its expert to prove obviousness despite his “extraordinary skill.” The Federal Circuit vacated. Reliance on this pre-litigation conduct in the fee analysis was an error. View "FastShip, LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

by
Bio-Rad’s patents are directed to systems and methods for forming microscopic droplets (plugs) of fluids to perform biochemical reactions. Microfluidic systems—often called “labs-on-a-chip”—allow scientists to conduct microscale chemical and biological reactions. For example, the technology allows scientists to analyze and compare DNA, RNA, and proteins within large numbers of individual cells. This technology has applications in medical diagnostics and high-throughput screening. In an infringement suit, the jury found all three patents valid and willfully infringed and awarded damages of $23,930,716. The court granted Bio-Rad’s motion for a permanent injunction. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of infringement of one patent (which covers all six accused products) and the entire damages award. Prosecution history estoppel does not apply and 10X’s challenges concerning the infringement under the doctrine of equivalents fail. The court reversed the district court’s construction of the asserted claims of two patents, vacated the judgment of infringement of those patents, and remanded for a new trial on the issue of whether 10X’s accused products infringe those patents under the proper claim construction. The court also vacated the injunction with respect to 10X’s Linked-Reads and CNV product lines. View "Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc." on Justia Law

by
Takeda sued Mylan for patent infringement based on Mylan’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for a generic version of Takeda’s Colcrys® version of the drug colchicine. The parties settled, entering into a License Agreement that allows Mylan to sell a generic colchicine product on a specified date or under circumstances defined in Section 1.2, which refers the date of a final court decision holding that all unexpired claims of the licensed patents that were asserted and adjudicated against a third party are not infringed, invalid, or unenforceable. The parties stipulated that Mylar's breach of Section 1.2 “would cause Takeda irreparable harm.” Takeda also sued Hikma based on Hikma’s FDA-approved colchicine product Mitigare®. The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement. After Mylan launched its product, Takeda sued, alleging breach of contract and patent infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction. Takeda failed to show it is likely to succeed on the merits or that it will suffer irreparable harm. Section 1.2(d) was triggered by the third-party litigation; all unexpired claims of the three patents that were “asserted and adjudicated” were held to be not infringed. An objective, reasonable third party would not read Section 1.2(d) to be limited to generic equivalents of Colcrys® excluding section 505(b)(2) products like Mitigare®. Because Takeda had not established that Mylan breached the Agreement, the irreparable harm stipulation did not apply. Money damages would remedy any harm Takeda would suffer as a result of Mylan launching its generic product. View "Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc." on Justia Law

by
The patent relates to computer networking and is specifically directed to offloading certain network-related processing tasks from a host computer’s central processing unit (CPU) to an “intelligent network interface card” (INIC) to improve performance by accelerating network communications while freeing the CPU to focus on other tasks. According to the patent, one of the tasks that can be offloaded from the CPU to the INIC is the reassembly of data from packets received by the host computer from the network. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board found certain claims unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit vacated in part. The Board did not adequately support its finding that the asserted prior art combination teaches or suggests a limitation recited in claims 41–43. The court remanded for the Board to reconsider whether the asserted prior art teaches or suggests the entirety of the reassembly limitations, including the requirement that reassembly takes place in the network interface. The court otherwise affirmed. View "Alarcritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp." on Justia Law

by
XY sued Trans Ova for infringement of seven patents relating to technology for sex selection of non-human mammals. Its 559 patent is titled “Enhancing Flow Cytometry Discrimination with Geometric Transformation.” Flow cytometers can be used as “high-speed jet-in-air sorters to discriminate particles and cells that are only subtly different.” The patent relates to “apparatus and methods for real-time discrimination of particles while being sorted by flow cytometry . . . resulting in enhanced discrimination between populations of particles” and “can be used to separate X from Y bearing sperm,” an application useful in animal husbandry to “guarantee[] the sex of offspring.” The district court found asserted claims 1–23 of the 559 patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 and that XY’s patent-infringement allegations with respect to certain claims of other patents were claim-precluded based on a prior lawsuit filed by XY against Trans Ova. The Federal Circuit reversed. The asserted claims of the patent are directed to a patent-eligible improvement to a method of sorting particles using flow cytometry technology, not to an abstract idea. The district court did not apply the proper legal standard to its claim-preclusion analysis. The court vacated the claim-preclusion judgment. View "XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC" on Justia Law

by
IBSA's patent, entitled “Pharmaceutical Formulations for Thyroid Hormones,” provides “pharmaceutical formulations based on thyroid hormones enabling a safe and stable oral administration in the framework of the strict therapeutic index prescribed in case of thyroid disorders.” It is listed in the FDA’s “Orange Book” for IBSA’s Tirosint® product, a soft gel capsule formulation containing the active ingredient levothyroxine sodium. Teva sought to market a generic version of Tirosint® and filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) that included a “Paragraph IV certification” that the 390 patent is invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed by Teva’s generic product. IBSA filed suit, alleging infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed a holding that certain claims are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112. The intrinsic evidence fails to establish the boundaries of the claim term “half-liquid” and there was no clear error in the court’s determination that the extrinsic evidence does not supply “half-liquid” with a definite meaning under section 112. View "IBSA Institut Biochimique v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA" on Justia Law

by
Interactive’s patent describes a gaming system wherein a gaming service provider—such as a casino—wirelessly communicates with users’ mobile devices, allowing them to gamble remotely. The system stores rules to determine the “game configuration” based on the location of a user’s “mobile gaming device” and associates different gaming configurations with different locations, using a “lookup table.”. FanDuel petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of the patent on several grounds of obviousness. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board found unpatentable all challenged claims except claim 6, finding that FanDuel failed to prove that claim 6 was obvious in view of asserted prior art. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting a claim that the Board violated the Administrative Procedure Act by basing its finding on obviousness issues that Interactive did not raise in its responses. The Board’s purported new theory was merely an assessment of the arguments and evidence FanDuel put forth in its petition. The APA does not require the Board to alert a petitioner that it may find the asserted theory of obviousness lacking in evidence before it actually does so, nor is a petitioner entitled to a pre-decision opportunity to disagree with the Board’s assessment. The obviousness findings are supported by substantial evidence. View "FanDuel, Inc. v. Interactive Games, LLC" on Justia Law

by
In 2000, Australian started advertising and selling condoms with the marks NAKED and NAKED CONDOM in Australia. In 2003, Australian, through its website, began advertising, selling, and shipping condoms featuring its unregistered mark to customers in the U.S. Naked owns Registration No. 3,325,577 for the mark NAKED for condoms. The companies engaged in settlement negotiations. Naked asserts that email communications demonstrate that the parties reached an agreement whereby Australian would discontinue its use of its unregistered mark in the U.S. and consent to Naked’s use and registration of its NAKED mark. Australian filed a petition to cancel the registration of the NAKED. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board determined that Australian lacked standing and could not show an interest in the cancellation proceeding or a reasonable belief of damage because it had contracted away its proprietary rights in its unregistered marks. The Federal Circuit reversed. An absence of proprietary rights does not in itself negate an interest in the proceeding or a reasonable belief of damage. A petitioner seeking to cancel a trademark registration establishes an entitlement to bring a cancellation proceeding under 15 U.S.C. 1064 by demonstrating a real interest in the cancellation proceeding and a reasonable belief of damage regardless of whether the petitioner lacks a proprietary interest in an asserted unregistered mark. View "Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty., Ltd. v. Naked TM, LLC" on Justia Law