Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Odyssey Logistics & Technology Corp. filed a patent application for a web service interface for transit time calculation in 2007. The application was rejected by a patent examiner in 2015, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) affirmed the rejection in 2018. Odyssey appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the PTAB's decision in 2020. Odyssey did not raise an Appointments Clause challenge during this appeal.After the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. in 2021, which held that PTAB administrative judges' unreviewable authority violated the Appointments Clause, Odyssey requested Director review of the PTAB's 2018 decision. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied this request, stating that it did not accept requests for Director review of ex parte appeal decisions. Odyssey then filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking to compel the Director to consider its request. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal, but on different grounds. The Federal Circuit concluded that the PTO did not abuse its discretion in denying Odyssey's request for Director review, noting that Odyssey had forfeited its Appointments Clause challenge by not raising it during the initial appeal. The court held that the PTO's decision to deny the request for review was reasonable given the significant delay and lack of justification for Odyssey's failure to raise the issue earlier. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision for failure to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6). View "ODYSSEY LOGISTICS & TECHNOLOGY CORP. v. STEWART" on Justia Law

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

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

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

Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corp. (Healthgen) appealed a final determination from the International Trade Commission (Commission) which found that Healthgen’s clinical grade albumin products infringed claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,618,951, owned by Ventria Bioscience Inc. (Ventria). The patent pertains to cell culture media containing recombinant human serum albumin produced in a genetically modified plant. Healthgen imports clinical and medium grade recombinant human serum albumin (rHSA) products, and Ventria alleged that these imports violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 due to patent infringement.The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found that Healthgen’s clinical and medium grade rHSA products infringed the patent and that Ventria satisfied the domestic industry requirement based on six rHSA products. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s finding of infringement for the clinical grade products but not for the medium grade products. The Commission also affirmed that Ventria satisfied the domestic industry requirement based on one product, Optibumin, without further analysis of the other five products.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Commission’s findings. The court affirmed the Commission’s determination that Healthgen’s clinical grade products infringed the patent based on SEC-HPLC data showing less than 2% aggregated albumin. The court also upheld the Commission’s finding that Ventria satisfied the domestic industry requirement, noting that all investments and activities related to Optibumin occurred within the United States and that the investment-to-revenue ratio indicated significant investment despite low revenue.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s decision, concluding that Healthgen’s clinical grade products infringed the patent and that Ventria met the domestic industry requirement. View "WUHAN HEALTHGEN BIOTECHNOLOGY CORP. v. ITC " on Justia Law

HD Silicon Solutions LLC (HDSS) appealed a decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) which held claims 1–7 and 9–17 of U.S. Patent 6,774,033 (the '033 patent) unpatentable as obvious. The '033 patent pertains to a local interconnect layer in an integrated circuit, specifically involving a method of forming this layer using titanium nitride and tungsten films.Microchip Technology Inc. (Microchip) petitioned for inter partes review (IPR), arguing that the claims were obvious over U.S. Patent 5,847,463 (Trivedi). The Board construed the term "comprising tungsten" to include both elemental tungsten and tungsten compounds, and found that the claims were unpatentable based on Trivedi alone or in combination with other references. HDSS appealed this decision, challenging the Board's claim construction and its findings on the motivation to combine references.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with HDSS that the Board's construction of "comprising tungsten" was incorrect, determining that the term should be limited to elemental tungsten. However, the court found that this error was harmless because Trivedi disclosed both elemental tungsten and tungsten-silicide layers, either of which would render the claims obvious. The court also upheld the Board's findings on the motivation to combine references, rejecting HDSS's arguments that the Board misinterpreted Trivedi and failed to explain the motivation to combine references to meet specific claim limitations.Ultimately, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the claims of the '033 patent were unpatentable as obvious. View "HD SILICON SOLUTIONS LLC v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INC. " on Justia Law