Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

In 1989 Krippelz filed for a patent on a vehicle-mounted lamp, titled "Emergency Light" and describing a lamp attached to the side view mirror of an automobile and shining downward. He offered a license to Ford, which was not interested, but in 1997 began offering an option known as a "puddle light," a lamp, attached to the vehicle's side view mirror, that shone light generally downward. In 2008 the district court entered summary judgment finding infringement and awarded $56 million. The Federal Circuit reversed as to validity, vacated other rulings, and remanded for entry of a judgment of non-liability. The district court erred in finding the patent novel over prior art. View "Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. 256 with respect to a patent covering a synthesis protocol for chiral additives, which are used to improve the performance characteristics of LCDs, such as display color, contrast, and brightness. The district court and ordered the Patent and Trademark Office to issue a certificate of correction adding him as a named inventor and found the case to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285, awarding attorney fees to plaintiff. The Federal Circuit affirmed as to inventorship, but did not address the exceptional case determination and attorney fees award, concluding that those determinations were not final. The district court properly determined that plaintiff's contribution to the invention was greater than the exercise of ordinary skill. View "Falana v Kent State Univ." on Justia Law

Plaintiff owns patents, directed to a computer-aided method and system for processing credit applications from car dealers over electronic networks. The patents claim priority to and incorporate the 403 patent, filed in 1995. The district court entered judgment of noninfringement on certain claims; of invalidity for failure to claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 with respect to other claims; and of invalidity for indefiniteness on others. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. With respect to infringement, the district court improperly carved-out the Internet from its construction of "communications medium" and improperly construed "central processing means." Finding "central processing means" indefinite, the court invalidated three claims for failure to recite sufficient structure to perform claimed functions. Certain claims were invalid as being directed to an abstract idea preemptive of a fundamental concept or idea that would foreclose innovation in the area. View "Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged infringement of patents covering systems and devices for testing blood samples against a competitor in the diagnostic field. The patents at issue name defendant as the assignee. Plaintiff claimed ownership based on confidentiality and non-competition clauses in employment and consulting contracts between its predecessor and an employee, the inventor. The district court dismissed, finding that plaintiff lacked standing because the 1999 Consulting Agreement did not continue the 1984 Agreement’s Disclosure and Assignment Covenant. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the company lacked standing with respect to rights assigned long after the inventor resigned from the company. View "Abbott Point of Care, Inc. v. Epocal, Inc." on Justia Law

The patent claims methods for preparing multi-cryopreserved hepatocytes (a type of liver cell), used for evaluating drug candidates. The owner claimed infringement and obtained a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The district court acted within its discretion in finding likelihood of success on the merits, considering defenses of non-infringement, obviousness, written description, and inequitable conduct. The court considered and properly addressed the public's interest in obtaining an adequate supply of pooled multi-cryopreserved hepatocyte products. View "Celsis In Vitro, Inc. v. Cellzdirect, Inc." on Justia Law

The 2006 patent, entitled "Surgical Devices Having a Polymeric Material with a Therapeutic Agent and Methods for Making Same" and the 2007 patent, entitled "Surgical Devices Containing a Heat Bondable Material with a Therapeutic Agent" have identical specifications and are directed to a surgical implant in which a polymeric material is bonded by heat to an expandable implant, where the polymer includes a therapeutic agent such as an antibiotic. The owner of the patents sued. The district court made a finding of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding and construction of the term "bonded." The district court then declared the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 and awarded defendant attorney and expert witness fees totaling $4,683,653.03. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The district court opinion indicates its finding that plaintiff acted in bad faith in filing a baseless infringement action and continuing to pursue it despite no evidence of infringement and engaged in vexatious and unjustified litigation conduct that unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings and forced defendant to incur substantial expenses. View "MarcTec, LLC v. Johnson & Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff owns registration for the mark G THE GOODYMAN. An examining attorney rejected defendant's application to register GOODY MAN for bakery goods, on the ground of likelihood of confusion with G THE GOODYMAN; the rejection is on appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Defendant filed a petition for cancellation of registration for G THE GOODYMAN, citing grounds of fraud and abandonment. Based on failure to comply with discovery orders, the Board entered default judgment against plaintiff and cancelled his registration of G THE GOODYMAN. On remand from the Federal Circuit, the Board held that the suspension of proceedings as required by Rule 2.127(d) was not automatic with plaintiff's filing of a motion for summary judgment, reinstated its default judgment, and cancelled plaintiff's trademark registration. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that default was reasonable, in light of plaintiff's repeated failures to comply, regardless of the court's reading of the Rule. View "Bendict v. Super Bakery, Inc." on Justia Law

The 564 patent, entitled Mobile Screen Assembly for Rubble and Debris, is directed to a vehicle for screening rocks and plant matter (among other things) based on size from, for example, soil or dirt at a construction site. In reexamination proceedings, the PTO rejected some claims as obvious (35 U.S.C. 103). The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences generally affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Every limitation of each claim on appeal is found in one or another of the available references. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to combine the available references in such a way as to practice the alleged invention of each claim and such a person would have had a reason to make such combinations, for the reasons set forth by the Board and by the Examiner. View "In re Constr Equip. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff designed a radial arm saw guard and sold eight prototype units for use by defendant, a major retailer, at stations for cutting lumber. Defendant contracted with another to make copies of the guard for all of its stores at a lower price. The district court concluded that plaintiff had not committed inequitable conduct and declined to hold plaintiff's patent unenforceable. The court made findings of willful infringement and bad faith litigation and awarded enhanced damages and attorney fees. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding the willful infringement and damages determinations are supported by substantial evidence. The trial court properly construed the claim terms "dust collection structure" and "table top." View "Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc." on Justia Law

The patents at issue are titled "Portable Computer with Touch Screen and Computer System Employing Same." The district court held that the patents were invalid and not infringed by defendants, manufacturers or sellers of laptop and tablet computers and handheld devices. The Federal Circuit affirmed rulings concerning the claim terms "memory for storing," "processor for executing," "operating in conjunction," and "keyboardless," supporting the judgment of noninfringement. The court reversed the judgment of invalidity on the ground of claim indefiniteness, which was based on the use of the term “means for cross referencing;” that term is in the statutory form authorized by 35 U.S.C. 112, whose purpose is to allow claiming of an element of an apparatus or a step of a method in terms of the function performed by that element or step. View "Typhoon Touch Tech., Inc. v. Dell, Inc." on Justia Law