Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Cellspin sued Fitbit, Moov, Nike, Fossil, Garmin, Canon, GoPro, Panasonic, and JKI (defendants) for infringing various claims of four patents that share the same specification and generally relate to connecting a data capture device, e.g., a digital camera, to a mobile device so that a user can automatically publish content from the data capture device to a website.. The district court dismissed, finding the patents ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. 101, and awarded attorney fees to defendants under 35 U.S.C. 285. The Federal Circuit vacated, concluding that the district court misapplied precedent. The asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea--the idea of capturing and transmitting data from one device to another--but the district court erred with respect to the “second step” inventive concept inquiry, by ignoring allegations that, when properly accepted as true, preclude the grant of a motion to dismiss. Cellspin made specific, plausible factual allegations about why aspects of its claimed inventions were not conventional, e.g., its two-step, two-device structure requiring a connection before data is transmitted. View "Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc." on Justia Law

Elbit’s 073 patent, entitled “Reverse Link for a Satellite Communication Network,” claims a system for transmitting information from user terminals to a central hub using satellite communication—a “reverse link.” Add “a forward link,” i.e., satellite communication from the hub to user terminals, and the result is “a complete two-way communication system via satellite.” To transmit data to the hub, user terminals employ a “transmitter means,” which has two communication means, one for “transmitting short bursty data,” and a second for “continuous transmission of data.” Elbit sued Hughes for infringement. The jury found system claims 2–4 of the patent infringed and not invalid, and awarded damages. The district court found that the case was exceptional and that Elbit is entitled to attorney’s fees, but the court has not quantified the fees. The Federal Circuit affirmed as to infringement and damages but concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the unquantified attorney’s fees decision. Substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings. Elbit and its expert did what case law requires in explaining the relevance of a prior settlement to this case. Hughes, which introduced no expert damages testimony, did not demonstrate either “faulty assumptions” or “a lack of reliable economic testimony” that would warrant disturbing the jury’s award. View "Elbit Systems Land & C4I Ltd v. Hughes Network Systems, LLC" on Justia Law

UCB’s 434 patent, entitled “Transdermal therapeutic system which contains a d2 agonist and which is provided for treating Parkinsonism, and a method for the production thereof,” claims a polymorph of rotigotine. UCB’s 414 patent is entitled “Polymorphic form of rotigotine and process for production.” UCB has been selling the FDA-approved product, Neupro, since 2007. The district court concluded that Actavis’s generic products infringed the patent under the doctrine of equivalents and upheld the 434 patent's validity over obviousness and anticipation challenges. The court invalidated the 414 patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as known and used by others in the U.S. before the date of invention. The Federal Circuit affirmed. There is not enough evidence to conclude that UCB surrendered polyisobutylene as a possible equivalent; UCB’s claiming of acrylates and silicates does not bar treating polyisobutylenes as an equivalent for infringement purposes and vitiation does not bar application of the doctrine of equivalents here. Actavis offers no examples of prior art that would be ensnared by the addition of polyisobutylene to the claim, in contrast to the claim as is. The court upheld fact findings as to polyisobutylene’s characteristics as compared to silicates and acrylates and as to what a skilled artisan would have known about the interchangeability of polyisobutylene-based adhesives and silicone-based adhesives and the conclusion that the accused products infringe the claims under the doctrine of equivalents. View "UCB, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories Inc." on Justia Law

Brunetti sought federal registration of the trademark FUCT. The Patent and Trademark Office denied his application under a Lanham Act provision that prohibits registration of trademarks that consist of or comprise "immoral[ ] or scandalous matter,” 15 U.S.C. 1052(a).The Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit in holding that the provision violates the First Amendment. The Court noted that it previously invalidated the Act’s ban on registering marks that “disparage” any “person[ ], living or dead.” The “immoral or scandalous” bar similarly discriminates on the basis of viewpoint. Expressive material is “immoral” when it is “inconsistent with rectitude, purity, or good morals”; “wicked”; or “vicious”; the Act permits registration of marks that champion society’s sense of rectitude and morality, but not marks that denigrate those concepts. Material is “scandalous” when it “giv[es] offense to the conscience or moral feelings”; “excite[s] reprobation”; or “call[s] out condemnation”; the Act allows registration of marks when their messages accord with, but not when their messages defy, society’s sense of decency or propriety. The statute, on its face, distinguishes between ideas aligned with conventional moral standards and those hostile to them.The Court rejected an argument that the statute is susceptible of a limiting construction. The “immoral or scandalous” bar does not draw the line at lewd, sexually explicit, or profane marks. Nor does it refer only to marks whose “mode of expression,” independent of viewpoint, is particularly offensive. To cut the statute off where the government urges would not interpret the statute Congress enacted, but fashion a new one. View "Iancu v. Brunetti" on Justia Law

Heraeus, a German company, develops and produces bone cement, using copolymers. Biomet also sells bone cement and uses the same copolymers, which it buys from Esschem, a Pennsylvania company. Heraeus holds trade secrets related to the bone cement, including specifications for the copolymers. The trade secrets changed hands during joint ventures before allegedly falling into Esschem’s possession. Heraeus analyzed samples of Biomet’s bone cement in 2005 and discovered that it was virtually identical to Heraeus’ bone cement and that Esschem was manufacturing Biomet's copolymers. Heraeus sued Biomet in Germany in 2008, and brought discovery suits in the U.S. against Esschem and Biomet. By March 2011, Esschem produced e-mail chains between employees of Biomet and Esschem concerning the copolymers. During proceedings against Biomet, that information was corroborated. Heraeus contends it was not until then (December 2011), that it had sufficient information to believe that Esschem had actively participated in the misappropriation of its trade secrets. Less than three years later, Heraeus sued Esschem under the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act (PUTSA) which gives a plaintiff three years from when “the misappropriation was discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered” to bring suit. The district court ruled that the limitations period had run because Heraeus was aware of the facts supporting its claims by January 2009. The Third Circuit reversed in part, holding that Pennsylvania applies the rule of separate accrual to continuing trade secret misappropriations, Heraeus may sue for misappropriations that occurred within the three-year period before filing. The court agreed that alleged misappropriations more than three years before Heraeus filed suit are time-barred. View "Heraeus Medical GMBH v. Esschem Inc" on Justia Law

Mayne’s 745 patent discloses and claims pharmaceutical compositions of azole antifungal drugs that are practically insoluble in aqueous media. The patent explains that insoluble drugs are difficult to formulate into dosage forms because of their low absorption and poor bioavailability and purports to provide a pharmaceutical composition addressing these shortcomings. On MSD’s petition, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board initiated inter partes review and found several claims unpatentable as anticipated or obvious, 35 U.S.C. 103 The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the Board’s decision to permit MSD’s amendment, finding no indication of intentional concealment, no bad faith on MSD’s part, no attempt to circumvent the estoppel rules, or any other material benefit to it in its delay in naming MCI as a real party in interest. The Board did not err in its constructions of either “pharmaceutical composition” or the “wherein” clauses; under the Board’s constructions, the claims are obvious or anticipated View "Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp." on Justia Law

Activision sought inter partes review of GAT’s 743 patent, entitled “Method and System for Providing Character Having Game Item Functions,” which relates to the field of customizing Internet game characters in online games by combining game items with layers of an avatar in the game and discloses a method and system for providing “game item[s]” to Internet game characters and generating a type of avatar the patent refers to as a “gamvatar” that is equipped with particular game items. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that the challenged claims were “obvious based on the combined teachings” of the prior art references. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board properly determined that the gamvatar of the 743 patent is a combination of the conventional avatar with the game item function, rather than a combination of a conventional gamvatar with a game item function, as suggested by GAT and construed the term “layers” to mean that “‘layers’ encompasses ‘graphics regions for displaying graphical objects’ and ‘constructs for holding graphics.’” Substantial evidence supported findings of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. View "Game and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Activision Blizzard Inc." on Justia Law

Hyosung and Diebold manufacture and sell ATMs. Diebold filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission claiming that Hyosung’s imported ATMs infringe its 616 and 631 patents and their importation violates 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B). The 616 patent claims an ATM rollout tray that allows for easier servicing of its internal components. The 631 patent relates to a particular method for reading magnetic ink character recognition data on checks (e.g., ink used for the account and routing numbers) that are inserted into an ATM regardless of their width or orientation. The ITC concluded that Hyosung’s accused products infringed both patents; that the asserted claims were not invalid; and that the domestic industry requirement was met for both patents; it entered a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders against Hyosung. Hyosung redesigned its products to avoid infringing the 616 patent and sought an administrative ruling by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Customs concluded that the newly redesigned products did not infringe and were therefore not covered by the ITC’s limited exclusion order. The Federal Circuit affirmed as to the 631 patent and concluded that the appeal was moot as to the 616 patent, which has expired, so the ITC’s orders as to that patent have no prospective effect. View "Hyosung TNS Inc. v. International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

Flow Valve’s patent, entitled “Workpiece Supporting Assembly,” is a reissue of the 213 patent. During reissue prosecution, Flow added claims 14-20 but made no changes to the written description or drawings of the original 213 patent. The Reissue patent relates to supporting assemblies--fixtures, for holding workpieces during machining. Forum sought a declaration of invalidity of the Reissue patent, arguing that the added reissue claims did not comply with the original patent requirement under 35 U.S.C. 251 and improperly broadened the original patent claims by omitting the arbor limitations. Flow argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the patent disclosed multiple inventions, consisting of embodiments with and without arbors and supported its argument with an expert declaration from an experienced machinist. The Federal Circuit summary judgment in favor of Forum. The original patent does not disclose the invention claimed in the reissue patent. The reissue claims, therefore, do not comply with the original patent requirement as a matter of law. The few references in the written description to machining, in general, do not refer to or disclose specific embodiments, and the boilerplate language that modifications can be made to the original disclosed invention does not even suggest an arbor-less embodiment of the disclosed invention. View "Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC" on Justia Law

University of Minnesota (UMN), an arm of the state of Minnesota, pursues patent protection for inventions resulting from its research and is the owner of the patents at issue. LSI designs and supplies semiconductors; it allegedly infringed UMN’s 601 patent, which claims particular types of “read channel” chips. Ericsson, a telecommunications company. Its customers’ use of Ericsson’s products was alleged to infringe four UMN patents that claim technology used for 4G LTE networks. UMN sued LSI and separately sued Ericsson’s customers. Ericsson intervened in the customer suits. After the commencement of the infringement suits, LSI and Ericsson separately petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for inter partes review, seeking a determination of unpatentability of the challenged claims on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board declined to dismiss the petitions, rejecting an argument that states enjoy sovereign immunity in IPR proceedings. The Federal Circuit affirmed. IPR represents the sovereign’s reconsideration of the initial patent grant, and the differences between state and tribal sovereign immunity do not warrant a different result than in circuit precedent concerning tribal sovereign immunity: State sovereign immunity does not apply to IPR proceedings. View "Regents of the University of Minnesota. v. LSI Corp." on Justia Law