Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Apple alleged that Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus smart-phone infringed patents, including the 604 patent. Asserted claim 6 of the 604 patent is directed to a “unified search” that uses heuristic modules to search multiple data storage locations. Unified search refers to ability to access information on more than one data storage location through a single interface and allows the user to search the device’s local memory and the Internet by entering a single search query. Apple alleged that the Quick Search Box unified search application of Galaxy Nexus infringes claim 6. QSB is a feature of Android, an open-source mobile software platform developed by Google. Any software developer may use Android to create applications and any handset manufacturer can install Android on a device. Galaxy Nexus is one of more than 300 available Android smartphones. The release of the allegedly infringing version of the Android platform predated release of Galaxy Nexus, but Google is not a defendant. The district court enjoined sale of the Galaxy Nexus based on the alleged infringement of the 604 patent. The Federal Circuit reversed. The record did not permit the inference that the allegedly infringing features of the Galaxy Nexus drive consumer demand or the court’s clam construction. View "Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

The holder of the 946 Patent, “System and Apparatus for Interactive Multimedia Entertainment,” issued in 1995, alleged infringement. The district court found that, during prosecution of the 946 patent, the named inventor and his attorney withheld from the United States Patent and Trademark Office three material references and information about PTO rejections in two related prosecutions, thereby committing inequitable conduct and rendering the 946 Patent unenforceable. The Federal Circuit reversed, stating that there was no evidence of a deliberate decision to withhold the references. View "1ST Media, LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc." on Justia Law

K-TEC, a company that manufactures and sells commercial blending equipment, owns U.S. Patents 117 842, which generally disclose and claim a blending system that contains a blending jar with a specific geometry. The benefit of the claimed geometry is that it alters the flow pattern of the liquid during blending in a way that reduces cavitation, which occurs when a pocket of air envelops the area surrounding the blender blade during blending. The 117 patent is the parent of the 842 patent. The district court concluded that the patents were not invalid, that two prior references were not analogous for purposes of showing obviousness, that Vita-Mix willfully infringed, and that K-TEC was entitled to about $11 million in reasonable royalty and lost profit damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision as supported by the evidence. View "K-TEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp." on Justia Law

WhitServe, owned by Whitmyer, an inventor and a practicing patent attorney holds four patents, namely: “Onsite Backup for Internet-Based Data Processing,” “System Automating Delivery of Professional Services,” “System for Delivering Professional Services Over the Internet,”; and “Web Site Providing Professional Services.” Whitserve sued CPi, which helps other businesses pay their patent maintenance fees on time, alleging infringement by CPi’s system, which are used by a CPi customer, such as a law firm, to generate and send reminders to its clients of upcoming patent or trademark annuity or maintenance fee deadlines. A jury found that CPi failed to prove any claims invalid, that CPi’s systems infringed the patents, that CPi’s infringement was willful, and that WhitServe was entitled to $8,378,145 in damages. The court denied WhitServe’s request for a permanent injunction and did not address a request for a compulsory license. WhitServe’s requests for enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, prejudgment remedy, and disclosure were denied. The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of infringement, the finding of no anticipation of most, but not all, claims, and denial of fees and sanctions. The case was remanded for a new trial on damages. View "Whitserve, L.L.C. v Computer Packages, Inc." on Justia Law

DuoProSS and Inviro sell medical syringes designed to prevent accidental needle sticks. A person using an Inviro syringe: rotates the plunger; pulls the plunger back, drawing the needle into the syringe barrel; and snaps off the plunger, sealing the needle inside. Inviro owns the two trademarks at issue: the “SNAP! design mark,” for use with “ medical, hypodermic, aspiration and injection syringes” and the “SNAP SIMPLY SAFER mark,” for use with “cannulae; medical, hypodermic, aspiration and injection needles; medical, hypodermic, aspiration and injection syringes.” Inviro petitioned to cancel a trademark registration owned by DuoProSS for the design mark BAKSNAP, for use with a “safety syringe for medical use.” DuoProSS counterclaimed for cancellation of several Inviro registrations, including the marks at issue. Inviro withdrew its petition and agreed to voluntarily surrender one registration. The Board concluded that other registrations for the SNAP mark in typed format were merely descriptive and ordered cancellation, but declined to cancel the SNAP! design mark and the SNAP SIMPLY SAFER word mark. The Federal Circuit reversed. The Board failed to consider one of the marks as a whole, unduly focusing on one portion (!) and erroneously concluded that puffing could render the marks more than descriptive.View "Duopross Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med.Devices, Ltd." on Justia Law

Wake Forest is the owner of asserted patents, and KCI are the exclusive licensees of the patents, which claim methods and apparatuses for treating difficult-to-heal wounds by applying suction or negative pressure. In response to S&N’s 2008 announcement that it was launching a new foam-based negative pressure wound treatment product, Wake Forest and KCI asserted that S&N infringes two apparatus claims of the patent and induces infringement of four method claims. Rejecting the jury’s findings of non-obviousness, the district court found obviousness, based on prior art, and rejected infringement claims. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. The objective evidence strongly supported the jury’s findings under the first three Graham factors and cut against the view that the claimed inventions were an obvious combination of known elements from the prior art. View "Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc." on Justia Law

Whoever “invents or discovers and asexually re-produces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor,” 35 U.S.C. 161. In 1980, Beineke noticed two white oak trees with superior genetic traits, such as excellent timber quality and strong central stem tendency. The trees were in the yard of another and about 105-118 years old. Beineke planted acorns from each. An examiner rejected patent applications because Beineke did not provide evidence that the trees were in a cultivated state. The Board affirmed, finding that the land on which the trees grew had existed as a wooded pasture until a house was constructed around 1930, after the trees began growing; there was no evidence that human activity contributed to the creation of the trees. The Federal Circuit affirmed, without addressing cultivation. Congress recognized that the relevant distinction was not between living and inanimate things, but between products of nature, whether living or not, and human-made inventions.” The trees were not “newly found seedlings,” and do not fall within the broadened protection of the 1954 amendments. View "In re Beineke" on Justia Law

In 1998, the U.S.PTO issued Registration 334 to WJ for the mark LENS in connection with “computer software featuring programs used for electronic ordering of contact lenses in the field of ophthalmology, optometry and opticianry.” In 2001, Lens.com, an online retailer of contact lenses applied for the mark LENS in connection with “retail store services featuring contact eyewear products rendered via a global computer network.” The PTO cited the 334 Registration as a bar based on likelihood of consumer confusion and refused registration of the mark as merely descriptive of services. In 2002, WJ assigned the registration to Lens.com, which withdrew its cancellation petition under a settlement agreement and obtained the 334 Registration for the mark LENS in connection with “computer software featuring programs used for electronic ordering of contact lenses in the field of ophthalmology, optometry and opticianry.” In 2008, 1-800 Contacts filed Cancellation 925 alleging that Lens.com abandoned or fraudulently obtained the mark LENS because Lens.com never sold or otherwise engaged in the trade of computer software. The Board granted summary judgment of abandonment on the ground that the software is merely incidental to sale of contact lenses, and is not a “good in trade,” solicited or purchased in the market for its intrinsic value.’” The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc." on Justia Law

Defense contractor Raytheon, specializes in infrared imaging. Indigo, also specializing in infrared imaging, was founded by former Raytheon employees including Woolaway, who promised not to recruit Raytheon employees. Indigo began consulting for Raytheon, governed by Confidential Disclosure Agreements. In 1997, Raytheon became concerned that Indigo was recruiting Raytheon personnel to gain access to trade secrets. The companies settled the matter by agreement. The relationship between Raytheon and Indigo terminated in 2000. In 2000, Indigo won a military contract; in 2003, Indigo was selected over competitors, including Raytheon, to receive another subcontract. In 2004, Raytheon acquired and disassembled an Indigo infrared camera and found what it believed was evidence of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation. In 2007, Raytheon found a correlation with the expertise of former employees who had departed for Indigo. The district court dismissed claims of trade secret misappropriation as time barred. The Federal Circuit reversed. The district court erred by resolving genuine factual disputes in favor of Indigo, the moving party, and concluding that Raytheon should have discovered its claims before March 2, 2004. View "Raytheon Co. v. Indigo Sys. Inc." on Justia Law

01 Communique is the owner of the 479 Patent, which relates to technology that enables one computer to access another computer remotely via the Internet. The patent contains five independent claims describing systems, methods, and products for enabling such remote access, as well as numerous claims dependent therefrom. It discloses use of a “locator server computer” as an intermediary between a “remote computer” (the computer seeking access) and a “personal computer” (the computer to be accessed). The locator server computer “includes” software, referred to in the patent as a “location facility,” that locates the personal computer. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement, based on construction of a single claim term, “location facility.” The Federal Circuit vacated, finding the claim construction erroneous. View "01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. Logmein, Inc." on Justia Law