Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

The University, an agent or instrumentality of the Swiss Confederation, having a place of business in Bern, Switzerland, granted an exclusive license of its 114 patent to the German company LABOKLIN, whose principal place of business is in Bad Kissingen, Germany. Under the License Agreement, LABOKLIN was required to commercialize the invention in North America. LABOKLIN entered into sublicenses in the U.S. PPG, a corporation headquartered in Washington State, offers laboratory services. After obtaining the University’s consent, LABOKLIN sent a cease-and-desist letter to PPG in Spokane, Washington. PPG sued LABOKLIN and the University, requesting a declaratory judgment that the Asserted Claims of the 114 patent are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the district court had jurisdiction over both LABOKLIN and the University. LABOKLIN had sufficient minimum contacts with the U.S. to comport with due process; the University, a foreign sovereign in the U.S., had engaged in “commercial activity” sufficient to trigger an exception to jurisdictional immunity under 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(2) by “obtain[ing] a patent and then threaten[ing] PPG by proxy with litigation.” PPG had stipulated to infringement of the Asserted Claims; the courts found those Claims patent-ineligible as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, namely the discovery of the genetic mutation that is linked to HNPK. View "Genetic Veterinary Sciences, Inc. v. LABOKLIN GMBH & Co. KG" on Justia Law

Lilly markets the compound pemetrexed in the form of a disodium salt as Alimta®, which is indicated, both alone and in combination with other active agents, for treating certain types of non-small cell lung cancer and mesothelioma. Patent disputes about Alimta® reach back more than a decade. DRL, Hospira, and Actavis submitted New Drug Applications (NDA) under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 355(b)(2), relying on Lilly’s clinical data for pemetrexed disodium but each seeks to market different pemetrexed salts. The district court concluded that the NDA submission infringed the 209 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2) and prohibited FDA approval of the products at issue until the expiration of that patent. The Federal Circuit reversed in part. The finding of literal infringement in the Hospira Decision was clearly erroneous in light of the court’s claim construction of “administration of pemetrexed disodium.” The court otherwise affirmed the infringement holding; the district court did not err in its application of the doctrine of equivalents in either decision. View "Eli Lilly and Co. v. Hospira, Inc." on Justia Law

Uniclass and ATEN make and sell switch systems that allow a user to control multiple computers from a single keyboard, video device, and mouse. ATEN sued Uniclass and the customer defendants alleging infringement of its 141 and 289 patents. A jury found that Uniclass did not infringe the asserted claims and that the asserted claims of the 141 patent were invalid as anticipated (35 U.S.C. 102) without specifying which reference was the basis for its finding. The Federal Circuit reversed as to invalidity and affirmed as to infringement. The court affirmed the denial of Uniclass’s motion to declare the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285. Uniclass argued that ATEN did not conduct an adequate pre-filing investigation, unnecessarily increased the costs of claim construction, drastically increased discovery costs by frequently changing counsel and infringement positions, and engaged in unreasonable litigation behavior requiring additional motion practice and leading to an expensive and disproportionate trial. The court noted that note that ATEN’s primary argument on appeal—that the court improperly gave claim construction disputes to the jury—was rejected because ATEN did not timely raise the issue below and found that ATEN’s positions were not so objectively unreasonable or exceptionally meritless as to stand out from other cases. View "ATEN International Co., Ltd. v. Uniclass Technology Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Uniclass and ATEN make and sell keyboard-video-mouse (KVM) switch systems that allow a user to control multiple computers from a single keyboard, video device, and mouse. ATEN sued Uniclass and the customer defendants alleging infringement of its 141 and 289 patents. The 141 patent is directed to technology for switching between computers that share a keyboard, monitor, and mouse through a KVM switch, such as a keyboard shortcut. A jury found that Uniclass did not infringe the asserted claims and that the asserted claims of the 141 patent were invalid as anticipated (35 U.S.C. 102) without specifying which reference was the basis for its finding. The Federal Circuit reversed as to invalidity and affirmed as to infringement. The finding of anticipation was not supported by substantial evidence that “each and every element is found within a single prior art reference, arranged as claimed.” View "ATEN International Co., Ltd. v. Uniclass Technology Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Anjinomoto’s 655 patent claims E. coli bacteria that have been genetically engineered to increase their production of aromatic L-amino acids, such as L-tryptophan, during fermentation, as well as methods of producing aromatic L-amino acids using such bacteria. Ajinomoto filed a complaint against CJ with the International Trade Commission, alleging that CJ was importing certain products that infringed the patent. CJ used several strains of E. coli to produce L-tryptophan products, which it then imported into the United States. The Commission determined that CJ’s earlier strains did not infringe but that CJ’s two later strains did, and that the relevant claim of the 655 patent is not invalid for lack of an adequate written description. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the Commission’s construction of “replacing the native promoter . . . with a more potent promoter.” The court rejected CJ’s claim of prosecution history estoppel and held that the 655 patent expressly provides four examples of “more potent promoters,” so that the Commission supportably found that a skilled artisan could make relatively predictable changes to the native promoter to arrive at a more potent promoter. View "Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board sustaining Hybrid Athletics' opposition to Hylete's trademark registration application. Hylete's application sought to register a design mark for a stylized letter "H" in International Class 25 for athletic apparel. The court held that Hylete waived the arguments on which its appeal relies because it raises new issues that could have been raised and were not considered. In this case, Hylete waived its argument that Hylete's mark is sufficiently different from Hybrid's "composite common law mark" to avoid a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the athletic apparel sold bearing those marks. View "Hylete LLC v. Hybrid Athletics, LLC" on Justia Law

VirnetX appealed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision related to three inter partes reexaminations maintained by Apple and Cisco. In this case, the PTO concluded that Apple was not barred from maintaining its reexams by the estoppel provision of the pre-America Invents Act (AIA) version of 35 U.S.C. 317(b), and the Board affirmed the examiner's determination that the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,418,504 and 7,921,211 are unpatentable as anticipated or obvious over the prior art of record. The '504 and '211 patents describe systems and methods for establishing a secure communication link between a first computer and a second computer over a computer network, such as the Internet.The Federal Circuit held that there has been a final decision entered against Apple that it has not sustained its burden of proving invalidity, and thus section 317(b) estoppel applied to the Apple reexams. Therefore, the court vacated the Board's decisions in the Apple reexams with respect to claims 1–35 of the '504 patent and claims 36–59 of the '211 patent and remanded with instructions to terminate. The court affirmed the Board's decision on all remaining claims of both patents in the Apple reexam not subject to section 317(b) estoppel and fully affirmed the Board's decision regarding the claims of the '211 patent in the Cisco reexam. View "VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law

A teratogen is an agent known to disturb the development of an embryo or fetus. Teratogenic drugs, such as thalidomide, can cause birth defects or other abnormalities following fetal exposure during pregnancy. Celgene’s 501 and 720 patents are generally directed to methods for safely distributing teratogenic or other potentially hazardous drugs while avoiding exposure to a fetus to avoid adverse side effects of the drug. The patents describe the System for Thalidomide Education and Prescription Safety that compiles information about patients and prescribers to prevent the prescription from being filled before appropriate counseling. The Coalition for Affordable Drugs (CFAD) sought inter partes review. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined that all of the claims of the 501 patent and multiple claims of the 720 patent were obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed and held that the retroactive application of IPR proceedings to pre-Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 125 Stat. 284-341, patents is not an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. IPRs do not differ sufficiently from the PTO reconsideration avenues available when the patents here were issued to constitute a taking. View "Celgene Corp. v. Peter" on Justia Law

Solutran’s patent, issued in 2012, describes a system for processing paper checks. It explains that the digital age ushered in a faster approach to processing checks, where the transaction information on the check is turned into a digital file at the merchant’s point of sale terminal and is sent electronically; the funds are then transferred electronically from one account to another, so that it is not always necessary to physically move the paper check from one entity to another to debit or credit the accounts.. The patent discloses a method proposed by the National Automated Clearing House Association for “back office conversion” where merchants scan their checks in a back office, typically at the end of the day, “instead of at the purchase terminal.” The district court held that the patent was not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101 for failing to recite patent-eligible subject matter and was infringed. The Federal Circuit reversed, applying the “Alice” test. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of crediting a merchant’s account as early as possible while electronically processing a check and do not “contain a sufficiently transformative inventive concept so as to be patent-eligible. The patent's claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity. View "Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc." on Justia Law

Recombinant therapeutic proteins are a class of biologic medicines that are manufactured inside living cells. Before a protein can be therapeutically useful, it must first be purified from contaminants. Amgen’s patent claims methods of purifying proteins using hydrophobic interaction chromatography. Amgen sued Coherus for infringing the patent under the doctrine of equivalents because the salt combination used in Coherus’s process did not match any of the three expressly claimed salt combinations in the Amgen patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit, reasoning that prosecution history estoppel bars Amgen from succeeding on its infringement claim under the doctrine of equivalents. During prosecution of the patent, Amgen clearly and unmistakably surrendered salt combinations other than the particular combinations recited in the claims. View "Amgen Inc. v. Coherus Biosciences Inc." on Justia Law