Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Elm owns the Challenged Patents, which share a specification and all relate to “stacked integrated circuit memory.” The Challenged Patents are the subject of co-pending litigation between Elm and Petitioners. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes review and held that Petitioners did not establish the unpatentability of 105 claims across 11 patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Each challenged claim requires a low-tensile-stress dielectric, and substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably expected success in combining the prior art to meet this limitation. The court construed the term “substantially flexible” as largely able to bend without breaking and contains a circuit layer that is substantially flexible semiconductor substrate and a sufficiently low tensile stress dielectric material. View "Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC" on Justia Law

The asserted patents were originally assigned to AMD, which later purported to transfer “all right, title and interest” in the patents to Lone Star, with several limitations. For example, Lone Star agreed to only assert the covered patents against “Unlicensed Third Party Entit[ies]” specifically listed in the agreement. New entities can only be added if both parties agree to add them. If Lone Star sues an unlisted entity, AMD has the right, without Lone Star’s approval, to sublicense the covered patents to the unlisted target. AMD can prevent Lone Star from assigning the patents or allowing them to enter the public domain. AMD and its customers can continue to practice the patents; AMD shares in any revenue Lone Star generates from the patents through “monetization efforts." Lone Star sued parties listed as Unlicensed Third Party Entities in the agreement, asserting infringement and alleging that AMD transferred “all right, title, and interest” in the asserted patents to Lone Star. The district court concluded that Lone Star does not own the patents and could not assert them. The Federal Circuit vacated the dismissal, while agreeing that Lone Star cannot assert the patents on its own. The court should not have dismissed the case without considering whether AMD should have been joined (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. View "Lone Star Silicon Innovations, LLC v. Nanya Technology Corp." on Justia Law

Pabst’s patent, entitled “Analog Data Generating and Processing Device Having a Multi-Use Automatic Processor,” issued in 2015 and claims priority to a 1999 application through continuations of applications that issued as Pabst’s 399 and 449 patents. That same specification also gave rise to Papst’s 144 and 746 patents. The specification describes an interface device for communication between a data device (on one side of the interface) and a host computer (on the other). The interface device achieves high data transfer rates, without the need for a user-installed driver specific to the interface device, by using fast drivers that are already standard on the host computer for data transfer, such as a hard-drive driver. The interface device signals to the host device that the interface device is an input/output device for which the host already has such a driver. On inter partes review, Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined that claims 1– 38 and 43–45 are unpatentable for obviousness based on a combination of the Aytac patent, a publication setting forth standards for the Small Computer System Interface-2, and “admitted prior art.” The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that Pabst’s arguments are barred by issue preclusion and fail on the merits. View "Pabst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc." on Justia Law

Sony’s patent is directed to “an information recording medium” (e.g., a compact disk, video disk, or magneto-optical disk) that can store audio data having multiple channels and “a reproducing device” that can select which channel to play based on a default code or value stored in nonvolatile memory. The specification states that the reproducing device is provided with “storing means” for storing the audio information (e.g., audio data recorded in different languages), “reading means” for reading codes associated with the audio information (e.g., 0, 1, 2, and 3 for English, French, German, and Japanese, respectively), and “reproducing means” for reproducing the audio information based on the default code or value. The specification gives the example of a device manufactured to record and store audio data (e.g., of a movie) in multiple different languages for various countries. On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found two claims unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit vacated. The Board erred in construing the “reproducing means” limitation, which is more appropriately construed as computer-implemented, and that the corresponding structure is a synthesizer and controller that performs the algorithm disclosed in the specification. View "Sony Corp. v. Iancu" on Justia Law

Quest’s patent relates to a system for displaying inspection data collected from certain commercial furnaces (e.g., a furnace used in a refinery). The patent attempts to improve upon how prior art systems displayed collected inspection data, but does not purport to improve upon how inspection data is collected or the type of data collected; the system comprises “a storage device for storing the inspection data collected by an inspection tool flushed through the furnace” and a computer programmed to generate a plurality of data markers in relation to that data, partition the data at the data markers, and generate a display of the partitioned inspection data, “wherein the display is a two-dimensional or three-dimensional representation of one or more of the tube segments of the furnace.” On summary judgment, the district court held that five claims of the patent were invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) because the claimed invention was offered for sale more than one year before the filing of the patent application. The Federal Circuit held that the district court properly construed the claims and that three claims are invalid based on that construction but that the court erred in disregarding declarations of the inventors under the sham affidavit doctrine, and that Quest raised a genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of two claims. View "Quest Integrity USA, LLC v. Cokebusters USA Inc." on Justia Law

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as aspirin and naproxen, control pain but have undesirable side effects, including gastrointestinal problem. Some practitioners began prescribing acid inhibitors, including PPIs, to reduce the acidity in the gastrointestinal tract. The combination therapy had complications. Stomach acid degraded the PPI before it could reach the small intestine. To address those complications, Dr. Plachetka invented a drug (Vimovo®.) that coordinated the release of an acid inhibitor and an NSAID in a single tablet with a core of an NSAID, an enteric coating around the NSAID that prevents its release before the pH increases to a certain desired level, and an acid inhibitor like PPI around the outside of the enteric coating that actively works to increase the pH to the desired level. Plachetka’s invention contemplates using some uncoated PPI for immediate release. Manufacturers, wanting to market a generic version of Vimovo®, submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications to the FDA. They stipulated to infringement, except with respect to one ANDA product and alleged that the Vimovo® patents were invalid as obvious over prior art, 35 U.S.C. 103 and for lack of enablement and adequate written description, 35 U.S.C. 112. The Federal Circuit reversed a holding that the Vimovo® patents were valid. The specification provides nothing more than a claim that uncoated PPI might work, even though persons of ordinary skill in the art would not have thought so, and does not satisfy the written description requirement. View "Nuvo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Inc." on Justia Law

BTG’s 438 Patent, entitled “Methods and Compositions for Treating Cancer,” discloses the administration of a therapeutically effective amount of a CYP17 inhibitor, such as abiraterone acetate, in combination with at least one additional therapeutic agent such as an anti-cancer agent or a steroid. The patent defines an “anti-cancer agent” as “any therapeutic agent that directly or indirectly kills cancer cells or directly or indirectly prohibits[,] stops[,] or reduces the proliferation of cancer cells.” BTG sued Amneal, asserting that its Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) for the generic version of BTG’s abiraterone product ZYTIGA® infringed the patent. On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that the patent’s claims would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103. The district court affirmed, accepting the Board’s claim construction and the same combination of prior art. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board correctly concluded that the claims cover a therapy in which abiraterone has an anticancer effect, while prednisone either has its own anti-cancer effect or has a palliative/side-effect reduction effect, and that the “prior art provides a reasonable expectation that prednisone could be used as a therapeutic agent in the treatment of prostate cancer.” View "BTG International Ltd. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC" on Justia Law

Bradium’s patents, entitled “Optimized Image Delivery over Limited Bandwidth Communication Channels,” are broadly directed to retrieving large-scale images over network communication channels in low bandwidth conditions and to displaying such images on client devices with limited processing power. The preferred embodiment of the invention includes an image server and a client device connected to each other over a network. In two inter partes review proceedings, Patent Trial and Appeal Board found the claims of both patents unpatentable as obvious in light of prior references, 35 U.S.C. 103. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the Board’s construction of “limited bandwidth communications channel” in both proceedings to mean “a communications channel whose bandwidth is limited.” Substantial evidence supports the Board’s obviousness determinations. View "Bradium Technologies LLC v. Iancu" on Justia Law

The Novartis 131 patent claims methods of using the compound everolimus to treat advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Advanced RCC is a cancer of the kidneys that has spread to other parts of the body. Everolimus is the active ingredient in Novartis’s Afinitor product. West-Ward’s predecessor filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking to manufacture and sell generic versions of Afinitor. Novartis filed an infringement suit in response. The district court ruled that West-Ward failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that claims 1–3 of the 131 patent are invalid as obvious in light of prior art, 35 U.S.C. 103(a). The Federal Circuit affirmed. While the district court erred in its analysis of whether there was a motivation to combine, a person of ordinary skill would not have reasonably expected success in using everolimus to treat advanced RCC as of February 2001. View "Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International, Ltd." on Justia Law

Presidio's 639 patent describes and claims single-layer ceramic capacitors with certain features. Competitor AVX, which manufactures and sells various electronic components, including capacitors, petitioned for an inter partes review (IPR), under 35 U.S.C. 311−319, of all 21 claims of the 639 patent, asserting obviousness (35 U.S.C. 103). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted a review (35 U.S.C. 314), held claims 13–16 and 18 unpatentable, but held that AVX failed to establish unpatentability of all other claims. Presidio did not appeal the as to the unpatentable claims. AVX appealed as to the upheld claims. Presidio responded to AVX on the merits and argued that AVX lacked Article III standing. The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal, rejecting AVX’s estoppel and “competitor standing” theories and concluding that AVX lacks standing. A person does not need Article III standing to file an IPR petition and obtain a Board decision, because Article III requirements do not apply to administrative agencies, but AVX has no present or nonspeculative interest in engaging in conduct arguably covered by the patent claims at issue. AVX has not shown that it is engaging in or has nonspeculative plans to engage in, conduct arguably covered by the upheld claims of the patent. View "AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc." on Justia Law