In 1995, Raniere assigned all rights in the five patents to GTI. Raniere is not listed on GTI’s incorporation documents as an officer, director, or shareholder. GTI dissolved in 1996. In 2014, Raniere executed a document on behalf of GTI, as its “sole owner,” purportedly transferring the patents to himself. Raniere subsequently sued Microsoft and AT&T for infringement, identifying himself as the patents’ owner. Microsoft moved to dismiss for lack of standing, noting that the PTO’s records indicated that Raniere did not own the patents. Raniere produced documents that, according to the court, failed to indicate that Raniere had an ownership interest in GTI at any time or had the right to assign the patents. Raniere obtained documents from an attorney, showing the GTI shareholders’ consent to a transfer of shares from Raniere’s ex-girlfriend (75% owner of GTI) to Raniere. The documents did not indicate that any transfer was completed and did not establish that Raniere owned the patents. The district court held a hearing, found that Raniere’s testimony contradicted Raniere’s earlier representation that the shares had already been transferred and was “wholly incredible and untruthful,” concluded that Raniere was unlikely to be able to cure the standing defect, dismissed the case, and found that Raniere’s conduct demonstrated “a clear history of delay and contumacious conduct.” The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal and a subsequent award of prevailing parties attorney fees and costs, 35 U.S.C. 285. View "Raniere v. Microsoft Corp." on Justia Law

In 1995, Raniere assigned all rights in the five patents to GTI. Raniere is not listed on GTI’s incorporation documents as an officer, director, or shareholder. GTI dissolved in 1996. In 2014, Raniere executed a document on behalf of GTI, as its “sole owner,” purportedly transferring the patents to himself. Raniere subsequently sued Microsoft and AT&T for infringement, identifying himself as the patents’ owner. Microsoft moved to dismiss for lack of standing, noting that the PTO’s records indicated that Raniere did not own the patents. Raniere produced documents that, according to the court, failed to indicate that Raniere had an ownership interest in GTI at any time or had the right to assign the patents. Raniere obtained documents from an attorney, showing the GTI shareholders’ consent to a transfer of shares from Raniere’s ex-girlfriend (75% owner of GTI) to Raniere. The documents did not indicate that any transfer was completed and did not establish that Raniere owned the patents. The district court held a hearing, found that Raniere’s testimony contradicted Raniere’s earlier representation that the shares had already been transferred and was “wholly incredible and untruthful,” concluded that Raniere was unlikely to be able to cure the standing defect, dismissed the case, and found that Raniere’s conduct demonstrated “a clear history of delay and contumacious conduct.” The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal and a subsequent award of prevailing parties attorney fees and costs, 35 U.S.C. 285. View "Raniere v. Microsoft Corp." on Justia Law

Kamstrup filed a petition for inter partes review of the 559 patent. The Board instituted review, based in part on the Nielsen patent. During trial, Apator attempted to swear behind Nielsen’s effective filing date (March 25, 2010), 18 days before its own effective filing date of April 12 and proffered a declaration in which the inventor, Drachmann, declared he conceived of his invention, an ultrasonic consumption meter, before Nielsen’s effective filing date. Apator further proffered: an email from Drachmann to Tunheim dated February 15, 2010 that the Drachmann Declaration states attached an image file; a March 22, 2010 email to Tunheim that the Drachmann Declaration states attached a presentation; an email from Drachmann to Bjerngaard dated March 22, 2010 that the Drachmann Declaration states attached a file; and several drawings that the Drachmann Declaration states were created between February 15 and March 22, 2010. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejected Apator’s attempt to swear behind Nielsen and found the claims anticipated and obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Apator failed to sufficiently corroborate Drachmann’s testimony of conception. None of the emails themselves indicate what file was attached or what such attachment disclosed. View "Apator Miitors ApS v. Kamstrup A/S" on Justia Law

Stereochemistry is the study of a molecule’s three-dimensional structure. Stereoisomers are molecules with the same chemical formula and structure but different three-dimensional configurations. Enantiomers, non-superimposable mirror images of one another, often have identical physical properties, such as density and boiling point, but can exhibit different pharmacological properties in the human body. Sumitomo’s 372 patent relates generally to “novel imide compounds and their acid addition salts” that are useful as antipsychotic agents. The patent discloses and claims more than one billion compounds, some of which have stereo and optical isomers. Lurasidone, the (–)-enantiomer of an imide compound covered by the patent, is the active ingredient in Sunovion’s schizophrenia and bipolar depression drug LATUDA®. After Emcure filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications with the FDA, seeking approval to market generic versions of LATUDA®, Sumitomo sued for infringement. The claim construction question centered on what combination of enantiomers claim 14 encompassed. The Federal Circuit rejected Sumitomo’s attempt to “import limitations from the specification into the claim” and affirmed the district court, holding that the patent covers at least the specific orientation depicted in the claim, which is the active pharmaceutical ingredient in each party’s commercial product. View "Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd. v. Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd." on Justia Law

Vanda had an exclusive license to the now-expired 198 patent and owns the 610 patent, relating to treatment of schizophrenia with iloperidone wherein the dosage range is based on the patient’s genotype. Vanda owns the New Drug Application for Fanapt® (iloperidone), an atypical antipsychotic approved by the FDA in 2009 under 21 U.S.C. 355(b) and based on the invention disclosed in the 610 patent, which reduces the side effects, enabling safer treatment of schizophrenia. The 198 and 610 patents are listed in connection with Fanapt® in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, (Orange Book). In 2013, West-Ward filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking approval to commercially manufacture, use, offer to sell, and sell a generic version of Fanapt® for the treatment of schizophrenia (21 U.S.C. 355(j)). At that time, the 610 patent had not yet issued and only the 198 patent was listed in the Orange Book. The ANDA contained a Paragraph IV certification that the 198 patent was invalid and/or would not be infringed by West-Ward. The proposed ANDA label is substantially identical in all material respects to the Fanapt® label. The Federal Circuit affirmed a holding that the 610 patent is infringed and not invalid. View "Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International, Ltd." on Justia Law

The district court held Early Education in contempt and awarded Rainbow School $60,000, plus attorney's fees and costs, after Early Education violated the terms of a consent judgment and permanent injunction. The Fourth Circuit affirmed and held that the district court did not clearly err in finding multiple violations of the injunction; Early Education's violations harmed the Rainbow School; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding damages and attorney's fees and costs. The court dismissed Early Education's appeal from the order requiring it to undergo an audit based on lack of appellate jurisdiction. The court held that the question of whether Early Education should initially pay for an audit was neither inextricably linked nor a necessary precursor to the issues presented in the appeal from the district court's prior order, which made a determination of contempt and had nothing to do with paying for an audit. View "Rainbow School, Inc. v. Rainbow Early Education Holding LLC" on Justia Law

Knowles’s patent, entitled “Silicon Condenser Microphone and Manufacturing Method,” generally discloses a silicon condenser microphone apparatus, including a housing for shielding a transducer, used in certain types of hearing aids to protect the transducer from outside interferences. The components of the microphone apparatus (package) may specifically be processed “in panel form” that can be separated later into individual units, so that the invention purportedly improves over the prior art’s “drawbacks associated with manufacturing these housings, such as lead time, cost, and tooling.” Following inter partes reexamination, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed an examiner’s findings that several claims are unpatentable as anticipated and several claims would have been obvious over various prior art references. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the Board’s claim construction of the term “package” as “a structure consisting of a semiconductor device, a first-level interconnect system, a wiring structure, a second-level interconnection platform, and an enclosure that protects the system and provides the mechanical platform for the sublevel.” The Board did not rely upon a new ground of rejection in its motivation to combine analysis. View "Knowles Electronics LLC v. Iancu" on Justia Law

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed an examiner’s obviousness rejection of patent application claims related to “high density polyurethane or polyisocyanurate construction boards, as well as their use in flat or low-slope roofing systems.” The Federal Circuit affirmed; substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual findings and the Board did not err in its conclusion of obviousness, 35 U.S.C. 103(a). The Board did not apply a per se rule but grounded a prima facie obviousness conclusion on the facts before it and specifically agreed with the examiner’s factual finding that the difference between the claimed range of density and prior art range was “virtually negligible.” The applicants failed to support a “teaching away" argument that there is some criticality to having a coverboard density of greater than 6 pounds per cubic foot. View "In re: Brandt" on Justia Law

Oracle’s Java platform for computer programming allows programmers to write programs that “run on different types of computer hardware without having to rewrite them for each different type.” Java Application Programming Interface (API) is a collection of “pre-written Java source code programs for common and more advanced computer functions.” To include a particular function in a program, the programmer invokes the Java “declaring code,” and “implementing code,” which takes the input(s) and gives the computer step-by-step instructions to carry out the declared function. Oracle sued, alleging that Google’s unauthorized use of Oracle Java API packages in its Android operating system infringed Oracle’s copyrights, 17 U.S.C. 107(1). The Federal Circuit held that declaring code and the API packages' structure, sequence, and organization are entitled to copyright protection. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. At the second trial, Google prevailed on its fair use defense. The Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that Google’s use of the Java API packages was not fair as a matter of law, and remanded for a trial on damages. Google’s commercial use of the API packages weighs against a finding of fair use. Google merely copied the material and moved it from one platform to another without alteration, not a transformative use. Given the evidence of actual and potential harm, “unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by” Google would result in “a substantially adverse impact on the potential market for the original” and its derivatives. View "Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc." on Justia Law

Oracle’s Java platform for computer programming allows programmers to write programs that “run on different types of computer hardware without having to rewrite them for each different type.” Java Application Programming Interface (API) is a collection of “pre-written Java source code programs for common and more advanced computer functions.” To include a particular function in a program, the programmer invokes the Java “declaring code,” and “implementing code,” which takes the input(s) and gives the computer step-by-step instructions to carry out the declared function. Oracle sued, alleging that Google’s unauthorized use of Oracle Java API packages in its Android operating system infringed Oracle’s copyrights, 17 U.S.C. 107(1). The Federal Circuit held that declaring code and the API packages' structure, sequence, and organization are entitled to copyright protection. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. At the second trial, Google prevailed on its fair use defense. The Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that Google’s use of the Java API packages was not fair as a matter of law, and remanded for a trial on damages. Google’s commercial use of the API packages weighs against a finding of fair use. Google merely copied the material and moved it from one platform to another without alteration, not a transformative use. Given the evidence of actual and potential harm, “unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by” Google would result in “a substantially adverse impact on the potential market for the original” and its derivatives. View "Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc." on Justia Law