Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Two-Way’s patents, entitled “Multicasting Method and Apparatus,” generally relate to a system for streaming audio/visual data over a communications system like the internet. The patents explain that internet systems typically operate on a point-to-point, unicast, basis. In unicast systems, a message is converted into a series of addressed packets which are routed from a source node to a destination node. Unicast systems cannot broadcast a message from a source node to all the other recipients in a network, as this type of operation could easily overload the network. IP Multicasting provides a way to transmit one packet of information to multiple recipients; packets destined for several recipients are encapsulated in a unicast packet and forwarded from a source to a point in a network where the packets are replicated and forwarded on to all desired recipients. The patents explain that this technology had previously been used to provide internet-based audio/visual conferencing servicing and radio-like broadcasts and describe the invention as an improved scalable architecture for delivering real-time information. The Federal Circuit affirmed a holding that certain claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims are directed to abstract ideas and contain no additional elements that transform them into an application of the abstract ideas. View "Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2003, the FDA granted Bayer approval to market vardenafil hydrochloride trihydrate to treat erectile dysfunction (ED) under the name Levitra. Vardenafil belongs to a class of ED drugs called phosphodiesterase inhibitors. When the FDA approved Levitra, two other phosphodiesterase inhibitors were already on the market: Pfizer launched Viagra in 1998, and Eli Lilly launched Cialis in 2003. Each is formulated as immediate-release tablets that are swallowed whole. Bayer’s 950 patent issued in 2013, claiming priority to 2005; it is directed to a formulation of vardenafil as “an uncoated tablet which disintegrates rapidly in the mouth,” vardenafil ODT, which Bayer markets as Staxyn. Watson filed an FDA Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking approval to market a generic version of Staxyn. Bayer alleged infringement. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s holding Watson failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that two claims would have been obvious, 35 U.S.C. 103. The district court clearly erred in finding a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to use the claim elements to formulate an ED drug as a fast-dissolving tablet; the claims would have been obvious. View "Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Laboratories, Inc." on Justia Law

Mastermine’s patents disclose methods and systems “that allow[] a user to easily mine and report data maintained by a customer relationship management (CRM) application” and describe a process by which an electronic worksheet is automatically created. Within this electronic worksheet, a multi-dimensional analysis table, known as a pivot table, “allows the user to quickly and easily summarize[] or view large amounts of CRM data.” The patents further describe that a user is able to “analyze the captured CRM data and ‘mine’ the data for important insights” upon generation of the pivot table. In Mastermine’s infringement suit against Microsoft, the district court construed the term “pivot table” to mean “an interactive set of data displayed in rows and columns that can be rotated and filtered to summarize or view the data in different ways” and entered a stipulated judgment of noninfringement and invalidity for indefiniteness. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded as to indefiniteness. The claims do not improperly claim both an apparatus and a method of using the apparatus. The court found the district court’s claim construction supported by the intrinsic evidence. View "Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp." on Justia Law

Merck owns the 150 patent, which is directed to a process for preparing a stable formulation of ertapenem, an antibiotic compound, and claims a manufacturing process for a final formulation of the antibiotic that purportedly minimizes both dimerization and hydrolysis degradation pathways. Hospira notified Merck that it had filed an abbreviated new drug application, seeking FDA approval to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, or sale of generic versions of Merck’s Invanz® product, the principal component of which is the carbon dioxide adduct of ertapenem. Merck sued Hospira for infringement of two patents—the 150 patent and the 323 patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed a holding that certain claims of the 150 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103, for obviousness. It was reasonable for the district court to deduce from the evidence that the order and detail of the steps, if not already known, would have been discovered by routine experimentation while implementing known principles. View "Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hospira, Inc." on Justia Law

SSI sued the Chicago Transit Authority, alleging infringement of patents covering inventions designed to implement open-payment fare systems in mass transit networks. “An open-payment fare system allows riders to conveniently and quickly access mass transit by using existing bankcards,” such as debit and credit cards, thereby “eliminat[ing] the need for, and added operational cost of, dedicated fare-cards,” paper tickets, and tokens. The district court found the claims patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, as directed to an abstract idea and otherwise lacking an inventive concept. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that the asserted claims recite the abstract idea of collecting financial data using generic computer components. View "Smart Systems Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority" on Justia Law

The International Trades Commission instituted a section 337 investigation based on Cisco’s complaint alleging that Arista’s imports of certain network devices, related software, and components thereof infringed six of its patents. An ALJ issued a final initial determination finding a violation with respect to three patents, but no violation based on two other patents, 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)(i). The sixth patent had previously been terminated from the investigation. On review, the Commission upheld those findings and entered a limited exclusion order against imports by Arista of “certain network devices, related software and components thereof.” The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Commission sufficiently articulated its findings and employed claim construction requiring “router configuration data” to be “stored in said database.” View "Arista Net 2 Works, Inc. v. International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

Secured Mail’s “Intelligent Mail Barcode” patents, “QR Code” patents, and “Personalized URL” patents involve methods whereby a sender affixes an identifier on the outer surface of a mail object (e.g. envelope or package) before the mail object is sent. Computers and networks are used to communicate the information about the mail object’s contents and its sender after the mail object is delivered. The Intelligent Mail Barcode patents recite a method for verifying the authenticity of the mail object by means of a barcode affixed to the outside of the mail object. The QR Code and Personalized URL patents require that a reception device (e.g., a personal computer) be used to scan the encoded data and display the resulting data on the reception device’s display screen. The district court dismissed Secured’s infringement claims against Universal on grounds that the patents’ claims are directed to subject matter ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The claims of the asserted patents are directed to an abstract idea and contain no additional elements that transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. View "Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc." on Justia Law

Fast Felt’s patent describes and claims methods for printing nail tabs or reinforcement strips on roofing or building cover material. Fast Felt sued Owens Corning for infringement. Owens Corning then filed a petition with the Patent and Trademark Office seeking an inter partes review (IPR) of five claims under 35 U.S.C. 311–19. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that Owens Corning had failed to show obviousness of any of the challenged claims. The Federal Circuit reversed, stating that, once the key claim term, “roofing or building cover material,” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation, the record conclusively establishes obviousness. The Board effectively treated that term as limited to material that either has been or would be coated or saturated with asphalt or asphalt mix; such a construction is legally incorrect under the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard applicable in the IPR. View "Owens Corning v. Fast Felt Corp." on Justia Law

Rohm’s patents are directed to processes for preparing emulsion polymers with improved opacity for use in coatings such as paints, inks, and other products benefitting from opacity. Opacity results from absorbing and scattering light, a property produced by voids (hollows) within the polymer particles. Hollow emulsion polymers were previously known. The Rohm patents state that their method of manufacture produces products of improved opacity and low density, based on the “discover[y] that by providing an aqueous emulsion of a multi-stage emulsion polymer, monomer and swelling agent under conditions wherein there is no substantial polymerization of the monomer, we can enhance the extent of swelling of the multistage emulsion polymer.” The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in sustaining the patentability of claims challenged on inter partes review. The court rejected arguments that the Board adopted an overly narrow interpretation of the term “swelling agent,” improperly added a “swelling step” into the claims, and erred in finding that the prior art references do not disclose a “swelling agent.” View "Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm and Haas Co." on Justia Law

Amgen’s patents relate to antibodies that help reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC), or “bad cholesterol.” Typically, high LDL-C is treated using small molecules (statins), which sometimes have adverse side effects or cannot reduce a patient’s LDL-C to a healthy level, requiring an alternative treatment, such as a PCSK9 inhibitor. PCSK9 is a naturally occurring protein that binds to and causes the destruction of liver cell receptors (LDL-Rs) that are responsible for extracting LDLC from the bloodstream. Amgen began studying PCSK9 in 2005 and developed the drug Repatha™ with the active ingredient “evolocumab,” a monoclonal antibody that targets PCSK9 to prevent it from destroying LDL-R proteins.The FDA approved Repatha in 2015. In 2007, Appellants started exploring antibodies targeting PCSK9, resulting in the development of Praluent. Praluent's active ingredient is a monoclonal antibody that targets PCSK9 to prevent it from binding to and destroying LDL-R proteins. The LDL-R proteins then extract LDL-C, lowering overall LDL-C levels. In 2011, Appellants obtained a patent that claimed Praluent by its amino acid sequence. The FDA approved Praluent in 2015. Amgen sued Appellants. Appellants stipulated to infringement. The district court enjoined the sale of Praluent. The Federal Circuit reversed in part. The district court erred by excluding Appellants’ evidence regarding post-priority-date evidence of enablement and improperly instructed the jury on written description. View "Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi" on Justia Law