Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

The patents at issue relate to balloon-expandable stents, used to treat occluded blood vessels. Following a remand, the district court found that defendants did not literally infringe the patents and rejected claims that the patents were invalid for lack of description or due to inequitable conduct. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Based on the court's proper clarification of its construction of the term "undulating," there was not substantial evidence to support a finding of infringement, nor was there substantial evidence of inequitable conduct. View "Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff owns the 245 Patent, which originally issued in 2005 and claims p-GlcNAc, a polymer extracted from another polymer called chitin, that accelerates hemostasis (the process which causes bleeding to stop) and is useful in trauma units for treating serious wounds. The district court found infringement. While the case was pending, the patent was re-examined; the scope of the claims changed. The Federal Circuit vacated an injunction and award of damages and remanded. Defendant has absolute intervening rights with respect to products manufactured before the date of reissue. The court must determine whether defendant has equitable intervening rights with respect to products manufactured after the date of reissue. A contention that the patent, as originally issued, was invalid is moot. View "Marine Polymer Tech., Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc." on Justia Law

The Patent, entitled "Spread Spectrum Digital Screening," issued in 1997 and relates to digital half-toning, a process of converting a continuous tone image, such as a photo, to a half-tone image, consisting of a pattern of minute dots. Newspapers are half-tone. In an infringement case, the district court granted a motion to stay the case against the Kodak Customers pending the outcome of plaintiff's action against Kodak in New York. The Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, finding that there was no final judgment within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1), and and that the the decision did not otherwise qualify as an appealable order.View "Spread Spectrum, LLC v. Eastman Kodak Co.O'Malley" on Justia Law

The jury found that Amazon's 1-click purchasing system infringes plaintiff's 710 patent, entitled "Object-Based On-Line Transaction Infrastructure," which covers an online purchasing system, but that all of the claims of the patent were invalid, and that Amazon did not infringe any of the other patents at issue. The judge granted a plaintiff's post-verdict motion and ruled that the 710 patent claims were not invalid. The Federal Circuit reversed the post-verdict ruling and held that each asserted claim of the 710 Patent is invalid as anticipated and the asserted claims of the other patents remain valid and not infringed.View "Cordance Corp. v. Amazon.com" on Justia Law

The 605 and 247 patents cover aspects of genetically modified soybeans. The patent-holder sued one of its licensed seed producers, alleging infringement rather than breach of the agreement between the two. The district found infringement and awarded about $84,000. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that patent rights were exhausted with respect to all of the soybean seeds that are present in grain elevators as undifferentiated commodity. The court also rejected an argument that plaintiff could not recover pre-complaint damages because it did not provide actual notice and did not mark or require growers to mark second-generation seeds in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 287(a). Defendant had actual notice. View "Monsanto Co. v. Bowman" on Justia Law

The patent application discloses an improved diaper; traditional diapers are constructed using an absorbent core of fluff pulp, interposed between a water barrier sheet and a permeable layer. For highest absorption, fluff pulp is treated with a chemical cross-linking agent. The application described a diaper that would avoid the expense of using chemically cross-linked fluff pulp while retaining superior absorbency properties, by extracting wood pulp with a caustic substance at low temperature, followed by dry and fluff. The examiner rejected the application (35 U.S.C. 103) as obvious from a prior patent. The Board sustained the rejection. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded because the basis of the Board's rejection differed from the basis given by the examiner. View "In re Leithem" on Justia Law

The district court granted summary judgment that all of the claims in plaintiff's patents were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, which excludes from patentability "laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" because they were directed to the "abstract idea" that there is a relation between the infant immunization schedule for infectious diseases and the later occurrence of chronic immune-mediated (non-infectious) disorders. The Supreme Court vacated the Sixth Circuit's 2008 decision. On remand the Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to one patent's ineligibility, but vacated a portion of the judgment granted under the "safe harbor" provision of 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(1). One set of claims did not include putting knowledge to practical use, but was directed to the abstract principle that variation in immunization schedules may have consequences for certain diseases. Others require the further act of immunization in accordance with a lower-risk schedule, moving from abstract scientific principle to specific application. View "Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec" on Justia Law

The examiner rejected claims 11 and 21 of Patent Application No. 505, titled "System and Method for Distribution Chain Management" as anticipated by a 2001 application. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed on the alternate ground that there is no permissible construction of the claims, so they fail to satisfy the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112. The court remanded to afford the applicant the right to amend.View "In re Aoyama" on Justia Law

Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the patents, which claim tobacco curing methods. The district court found th patents invalid and entered a judgment of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit reversed with respect to validity but affirmed the finding of non-infringement. No reasonable juror could find that the patents were anticipated by prior use under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), nor were they obvious or indefinite. View "Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff owns a patent on an FDA-approved (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(2) ) pharmaceutical nasal spray Fortical, used to treat osteoporsis, with the active ingredient salmon calcitonin. In its FDA filing, plaintiff identified the drug as bioidentical to Miacalcin. Defendant filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application with the FDA, stating intent to make, use, offer to sell, sell, and/or import a generic version of Fortical product before the expiration of plaintiff's patent. Plaintiff claimed infringement. Defendant alleged invalidity under 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103,and 112, noninfringement and inequitable conduct in failure to disclose an allegedly material piece of prior art and making allegedly misleading statements during patent prosecution. The district court found that the patent would not have been obvious at the time of invention, denied defendant's motion to breach the attorney-client privilege under the crime-fraud exception, and determined that defendant had waived several counter-claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Even accepting that there was a design need and market pressure to develop a pharmaceutical formulation bioequivalent to Miacalcin, there was no evidence that the claim would be an obvious solution to those motivations.View "Unigene Labs, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc." on Justia Law