Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed suit, asserting infringement of patents. Defendant argued invalidity on the ground that its employee was the earlier inventor. The jury answered "No" to: Has defendant proven by clear and convincing evidence that its employee was the first to invent and did not abandon, suppress or conceal that invention? The court declined to stay the suit pending completion of the Patent and Trademark Office interference. The PTO awarded priority to defendant's employee, but, in a subsequent civil action for interference under 35 U.S.C. 146, the district court awarded priority to plaintiffs. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Section 146 establishes de novo review; the court is not required to accept the PTO findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. The judicial process is the final arbiter of the rights and issues administratively assigned to the PTO. View "Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

In the first appeal in a case regarding clopidogrel bisulfate tablets, sold by plaintiff under the brand name Plavix®, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction concerning defendants' generic product. In the second appeal, the court affirmed a judgment that the patent-in-suit is not invalid, was infringed, and not unenforceable. The district court then awarded prejudgment interest and denied defendants' motion for leave to file a supplemental answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims pleading patent misuse and breach of contract. The Federal Circuit reversed in part. The district court erred by awarding prejudgment interest in addition to actual damages specified in a settlement agreement. The court affirmed the district court’s holding that defendant is jointly and severally liable for all damages and denial of defendant's motion. View "Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex" on Justia Law

Plaintiff develops and sells windshield wiper blades and owns patents covering beam blade technology, a new technology for distributing pressure more evenly over the length of the blade. Defendant is a competitor. The district court found certain of plaintiff's patents valid and infringed, but denied plaintiff an injunction. The Federal Circuit reversed. Although a finding of infringement does not automatically justify an injunction, the application of the four-factor test indicated that plaintiff was entitled to an injunction. The court examined: plaintiff's irreparable injury; whether remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, would be inadequate to compensate for that injury; the balance of hardships; and the public interest. View "Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant, a domestic manufacturer of cast steel railway wheels, owns two secret processes for manufacturing such wheel. It uses one process at three of its domestic foundries and has licensed the other to firms with foundries in China. Unsuccessful in obtaining a license for plaintiff's process, defendant hired employees that had been trained in plaintiffs' processes and began manufacturing wheels in China for sale in the U.S. The International Trade Commission found violation of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, finding that found that the wheels were manufactured using a process developed in the U.S., protected under domestic trade secret law, and misappropriated abroad. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the wheel imports threaten to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the U.S., in violation of section 337, which covers "[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles . . . into the United States." The Commission has authority to investigate and grant relief based in part on extraterritorial conduct insofar as it is necessary to protect domestic industries from injuries arising out of unfair competition in the domestic marketplace. View "Tianrui Grp. Co., Ltd. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

The companies sell competing software products that track lost or stolen electronic devices, using a global network. Each side asserted claims of patent infringement.The district court entered summary judgment of non-infringement for each. The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor or plaintiff, but concluded that issues of fact precluded granting summary judgment of non-infringement to defendant. The court did not alter any of the district court's claim constructions of "communication links used to enable transmission between said electronic device and said host system;" "semi-random rate;" "unique usage information agreement;" and "terms of said usage agreement imbedded in said software."View "Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc." on Justia Law

The patents describe a networked system of gaming machines. The district court entered summary judgment, finding that that defendant's use of promotions to provide incentives for use of certain gaming machines infringed certain claims. The district court correctly construed claims referring to "issuing a command over the network to one of said preselected gaming devices responsive to a predetermined event; and paying at said one gaming device in accordance with the command." View "IGT v. Bally Gaming Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

The company's patent covers polyol-based resin blends and methods of using them to create closed-cell polyurethane and polyisocyanurate-based foams, used for thermal insulation boards for the walls of homes and buildings. On reexamination, the examiner ruled that all the claims were invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) or, in the alternative, obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). The Board affirmed, relying upon the identical prior art references the examiner had cited. The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that the Board relied on new findings of fact to support rejection and failed to identify this rejection as a new ground, so that the company's notice rights were violated (5 U.S.C. 554(b)(3); 35 U.S.C. 6(b). Had the Board labeled its rejection as a new ground of rejection, the company could have reopened its prosecution to address the newly-alleged deficiencies in its Declaration with the examiner. View "In Re Stepan Co." on Justia Law

A manufacturer of cable connectors that are used to connect coaxial cables to electronic devices filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission asserting that the importation, sale for importation, and sale after importation of certain coaxial cable connectors infringed four of its patents and therefore violated 19 U.S.C. 1337. Its 539 design patent patent issued in 2001 and describes an ornamental design for a coaxial cable connector. The Commission ruled that the company failed to satisfy the requirement of showing that a "domestic industry" exists or was being established. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The company's enforcement litigation expenses did not constitute "substantial investment in exploitation" of the 539 patent. Those costs were not sufficiently related to licensing. The company has no formal licensing program and the litigation opponent was its only licensee. View "John Mezzalingua Assocs., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

The patent, entitled "Low Friction Rotary Knife," is directed to a power operated knife used principally in the meat packing and other commercial food processing industries. While plaintiff's claim of invalidity, asserting anticipation in its pre-1998 prior art blades, was pending, defendant sought reexamination. The validity of the claims was affirmed. The district court rejected a claim of invalidity, but found no infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed denial of judgment as a matter of law on the issue of anticipation and affirmed with respect to infringement. The district court had excluded references and denied a new trial on the issue of obviousness, based on its interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 315(c)'s reference to "final determination." The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded that decision. View "Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant's process patent is directed to methods for preventing the contamination of exposed semiconductor chip terminals during encapsulation of the chips in molded plastic. Plaintiff, one of defendant's licensees, sought a declaration of non-infringement. The parties have been involved in other litigation. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit reversed. The dispute between the parties, as to whether the license agreement requires royalty payments to be tied to valid patent coverage, is sufficient to support declaratory judgment jurisdiction. View "Powertech Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc." on Justia Law