Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Segway filed a complaint (19 U.S.C. 337) with the International Trade Commission based on infringement of six patents and two trademarks--stylized and non-stylized SEGWAY marks, which cover “motorized, self-propelled, wheeled personal mobility devices, namely, wheelchairs, scooters, utility carts, and chariots.” The complaint alleged that Swagway’s self-balancing hoverboard products, marketed under the names SWAGWAY and SWAGTRON infringed Segway’s marks. Swagway proposed a consent order stipulating that Swagway would not sell or import “SWAGWAY-branded personal transporter products ... all components thereof, packaging and manuals.” Segway opposed the proposal as addressing only a subset of the claims and products at issue. After a hearing, the ALJ found that the accused products did not infringe certain patents and that use of the SWAGWAY designation, but not the SWAGTRON designation, infringed the trademarks. The Commission determined not to review the ALJ’s denial of Swagway’s consent order motion. The Federal Circuit upheld that determination and the trademark infringement determination based on the evidence supporting factors other than likelihood of confusion, including the degree of similarity between the two marks in appearance, the pronunciation of the words, and the strength of the SEGWAY marks. View "Swagway, LLC v. International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

Amgen created and commercialized two related biologic products, filgrastim (Neupogen®) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®), indicated for treating neutropenia, a deficiency of white blood cells. Neutropenia often results from exposure to certain chemotherapeutic regimens or radiation therapy during cancer treatment. In 2014, Sandoz submitted to the FDA an abbreviated Biologics License Application (aBLA) to market a biosimilar filgrastim product. While Sandoz’s aBLA referenced Neupogen®, Sandoz elected not to provide Amgen with its aBLA or manufacturing information. Amgen sought a declaratory judgment that Sandoz’s proposed biosimilar would infringe its patent, Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(C); 42 U.S.C. 262(l)(9)(C) Sandoz received FDA approval for its filgrastim biosimilar, Zarxio®. After Sandoz launched Zarxio®, Amgen amended its complaint to plead infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(C)(ii), (g). In 2015, Sandoz submitted an aBLA to market a biosimilar pegfilgrastim product referencing Neulasta®. Amgen filed a complaint, alleging infringement of that patent. Sandoz has not yet received approval for its proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar. The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement, upholding the district court’s construction of “disease treating-effective amount of at least one chemotherapeutic agent” as limited to “[a]n amount sufficient to treat a disease for which at least one chemotherapeutic agent is prescribed.” View "Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc." on Justia Law

The 779 Patent, entitled “Process for Preparing Morphinan-6-One Products with Low Levels of α,β-Unsaturated Ketone Compounds,” generally relates to compounds known as “morphinan alkaloids,” such as “oxymorphone,” which have “great medical importance” and “are used extensively for pain relief.” Endo, which licenses the patent, sued, alleging that two Abbreviated New Drug Applications filed by Actavis infringed claims in the patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed an infringement finding, concluding that Actavis failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the asserted claims were invalid as obvious or anticipated. The district court correctly construed 14-hydroxymorphinone as 14-hydroxymorphinone hydrochloride. The claims were not obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a); a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the prior art. View "Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis, LLC" on Justia Law

ThermoLife, the exclusive licensee of four Stanford University patents, claiming methods and compositions involving the amino acids arginine and lysine, to be ingested to enhance vascular function and physical performance, filed an infringement suit against several defendants. Stanford was a co-plaintiff. A bench trial was held and the district court found all asserted claims invalid and later granted defendants’ motions for attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, which authorizes an award to a prevailing party in “exceptional” cases. The court found the cases exceptional, not based on an assessment of the validity position taken by plaintiffs or how they litigated but on its conclusion that plaintiffs were unjustified in alleging infringement in the first place, having failed to do an adequate pre-filing investigation. The Federal Circuit affirmed. These are unusual cases in that the basis for the fee award had nothing to do with the only issues litigated to reach the merits judgment: Infringement had not been adjudicated and even discovery on infringement had been postponed so that validity could be litigated first. Nevertheless, there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination of exceptionality based on plaintiffs’ inadequate pre-suit investigation of infringement. View "ThermoLife International, LLC v. GNC Corp." on Justia Law

TT’s patent “relates to displaying market information on a screen.” According to the specification, “traders are often interested in analyzing other pieces of highly relevant information that are not normally provided in an electronic exchange’s data feed nor displayed by a trading screen.” Traders may “make quick mental calculations, use charting software, or look to other sources to provide additional insight beyond what is normally provided.” The specification discloses “generating values that are derivatives of price and then displaying these values along an axis on a screen,” particularly profit and loss. Petitioners sought review under the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents (CBM review), 125 Stat. 284, 329–31. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, that the patent meets the criteria for CBM review and the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Merely providing a trader with new or different information in an existing trading screen is not a technical solution to a technical problem. The purported advance is a process of gathering and analyzing information of specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. View "Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. IBG LLC" on Justia Law

Eli Lilly’s patent relates to administering folic acid and a methylmalonic acid (MMA) lowering agent, such as vitamin B12, before administering pemetrexed disodium, a chemotherapy agent, in order to reduce the toxic effects of pemetrexed, an antifolate. In inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board rejected arguments that certain claims were unpatentable as obvious, 36 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the prior art did not provide a motivation for a skilled artisan to administer an MMA lowering agent, such as vitamin B12, in addition to folic acid. View "Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly & Co." on Justia Law

VersaTop and Georgia Expo are competitors in the “drape and rod” industry. Both produce and sell systems of modular rod and pole structures, for assembly to form sectional spaces such as trade show booths and other drape-separated structures, as well as temporary barricades. VersaTop’s system for coupling structural components is the subject of the 027 patent and is called the “‘ball and crown’ coupler.” VersaTop alleged that since 2011 it has sold these systems with the trademarks PIPE & DRAPE 2.0™ and 2.0™ and that Georgia Expo distributed advertising and brochures that contained these VersaTop trademarks as well as pictures of the VersaTop coupler. The district court held that Georgia Expo did not infringe VersaTop’s patent, copyright, or trademark rights. Only the trademark issue was appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed. The district court incorrectly applied the definition of “use in commerce” and concluded that Georgia Expo’s use of the marks was not in commerce so that there was no infringement. Under the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1127, a trademark owner is entitled to summary judgment on a claim of likelihood of confusion where the marks were identical, the goods were related, and the marketing channels overlapped. View "VersaTop Support Systems, LLC v. Georgia Expo, Inc." on Justia Law

TT’s patents relate to a graphical user interface for electronic trading. The 056 and 999 patents, which share a specification, disclose “a user interface for an electronic trading system that allows a remote trader to view trends in the orders for an item, and provides the trading information in an easy to see and interpret graphical format.” The 374 patent, which is from a different patent family, discloses “a display and trading method to ensure fast and accurate execution of trades by displaying market depth on a vertical or horizontal plane, which fluctuates logically up or down, left or right across the plane as the market prices fluctuate.” IBG sought review under the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents (CBM review), Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 125 Stat. 284, 329–31. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, that the patents meet the criteria to be eligible for CBM review and the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims are directed to a covered business method, so CBM review was appropriate. Th claims are directed to a financial trading method used by a computer; there is no technological invention in this software method for trading. View "Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. IBG LLC" on Justia Law

DuPont’s 926 patent, entitled “Composite Flame Barrier Laminate for a Thermal and Acoustic Insulation Blanket,” issued in December 2013 and claims composite laminates that are incorporated into thermal-acoustic blankets installed on the interior of the fuselage in aircraft to shield passengers from flames and reduce noise. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s construction of the term “100% by weight” to mean “[t]here is no carrier material such as resin, adhesive, cloth, or paper in addition to the inorganic platelets. The court also upheld findings that the patent was not invalid and that Unifrax’s flame barrier product infringed the patent. Substantial evidence supported a finding that the patent was not anticipated by prior art. View "E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Unifrax I LLC" on Justia Law

On inter partes review of ATI’s “Unified Shader Patents,” LGE cited multiple prior references. A “shader” as used in this field is a computer-implemented system that specifies how a computer-graphics three-dimensional image is generated and presented on a two-dimensional screen. ATI argued that the invention in each of the three patents preceded the primary reference dates for that patent. In conformity with 37 C.F.R. 1.131, ATI presented evidence of conception, reduction to practice, and diligence for each patent. the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held all but one of the challenged claims unpatentable as anticipated or obvious, The Board held that ATI had not established actual reduction to practice and had not established diligence to constructive reduction to practice, for all three patents. The Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that the Board erred in its application of the law of diligence and that on the correct law, diligence was shown, thereby antedating the relevant references. The undisputed rulings established conception and constructive reduction to practice. View "ATI Technologies ULC v. Iancu" on Justia Law