Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

The 1995 agreement, arising from a research collaboration that resulted in the antibody adalimumab, the active ingredient in the drug Humira, is governed by British law. The agreement licensed AbbVie to practice the 516 patent but AbbVie does not presently practice it. The agreement required AbbVie to pay royalties on certain sales “until the last to expire of [certain] Patents or the expiry of fifteen years from the date of First Commercial Sale of a Product by [AbbVie’s predecessor] . . . (whichever is later).” The last of those patents to expire is the 516 patent, with an expiration date in June 2018. The first commercial sale occurred in January 2003. AbbVie’s obligation to pay royalties either ceased in January 2018 (based on the first commercial sale) or will cease in June 2018 (based on the patent’s expiration date). AbbVie sought a declaratory judgment that the patent is invalid, arguing that a declaration of invalidity would constitute expiration under the contract, but did not seek the contract’s interpretation. The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal the complaint. AbbVie does not practice the patent and is not at risk of an infringement suit. Even if AbbVie had standing, interpretation of the agreement would implicate the rights of the British government, which jointly owns the patent through one of its research councils. Deciding the invalidity question would not resolve the parties’ ultimate dispute and would raise concerns about foreign law and sovereign immunity. View "AbbVie Inc. v. MedImmune Limited" on Justia Law

The 1995 agreement, arising from a research collaboration that resulted in the antibody adalimumab, the active ingredient in the drug Humira, is governed by British law. The agreement licensed AbbVie to practice the 516 patent but AbbVie does not presently practice it. The agreement required AbbVie to pay royalties on certain sales “until the last to expire of [certain] Patents or the expiry of fifteen years from the date of First Commercial Sale of a Product by [AbbVie’s predecessor] . . . (whichever is later).” The last of those patents to expire is the 516 patent, with an expiration date in June 2018. The first commercial sale occurred in January 2003. AbbVie’s obligation to pay royalties either ceased in January 2018 (based on the first commercial sale) or will cease in June 2018 (based on the patent’s expiration date). AbbVie sought a declaratory judgment that the patent is invalid, arguing that a declaration of invalidity would constitute expiration under the contract, but did not seek the contract’s interpretation. The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal the complaint. AbbVie does not practice the patent and is not at risk of an infringement suit. Even if AbbVie had standing, interpretation of the agreement would implicate the rights of the British government, which jointly owns the patent through one of its research councils. Deciding the invalidity question would not resolve the parties’ ultimate dispute and would raise concerns about foreign law and sovereign immunity. View "AbbVie Inc. v. MedImmune Limited" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendant in an action under the Copyright Act, alleging that defendant infringed on plaintiff's pen and ink depiction of two dolphins crossing underwater. The panel applied the objective extrinsic test for substantial similarity and held that the depiction of two dolphins crossing underwater in this case is an idea that is found first in nature and is not a protectable element. The panel explained that when as here, the only areas of commonality are elements first found in nature, expressing ideas that nature has already expressed for all, a court need not permit the case to go to a trier of fact. View "Folkens v. Wyland Worldwide, LLC" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendant in an action under the Copyright Act, alleging that defendant infringed on plaintiff's pen and ink depiction of two dolphins crossing underwater. The panel applied the objective extrinsic test for substantial similarity and held that the depiction of two dolphins crossing underwater in this case is an idea that is found first in nature and is not a protectable element. The panel explained that when as here, the only areas of commonality are elements first found in nature, expressing ideas that nature has already expressed for all, a court need not permit the case to go to a trier of fact. View "Folkens v. Wyland Worldwide, LLC" on Justia Law

BMG filed suit against Cox, alleging copyright infringement, seeking to hold Cox contributorily liable for infringement of BMG's copyrights by subscribers to Cox's Internet service. On appeal, Cox argued that the district court erred in denying it the safe harbor defense and incorrectly instructed the jury. The Fifth Circuit held that Cox was not entitled to the safe harbor defense under section 512(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. 512(a), because it failed to implement its policy in any consistent or meaningful way. The court held that the district court did erred in charging the jury as to the intent necessary to prove contributory infringement. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "BMG Rights Management v. Cox Communications" on Justia Law

Paice’s related 634 and 097 patents, both titled “Hybrid Vehicles,” are directed to a torque-based algorithm for selecting operating modes in a hybrid vehicle having an internal combustion engine and one or more battery-powered electric motors. In six inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held certain challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s obviousness determinations as they relate to the 634 patent’s “electrical” claims and remanded for the Board to determine whether those claims find written description support in the priority applications and the references incorporated therein. The court affirmed the Board’s obviousness determinations as to all other claims. View "Paice, LLC v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment for Whole Foods in a trademark infringement action. The panel held that the district court impermissibly resolved disputed questions of material fact in favor of the moving party regarding Whole Foods' affirmative defenses of laches and acquiescence. Therefore, the panel vacated the district court's reasonableness finding and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court should reevaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party—i.e., as if ERF delayed filing suit because it was trying to settle its claims against Whole Foods. If the district court determined on remand that ERF delayed unreasonably in filing suit and this delay prejudiced Whole Foods, it must consider the extent and reasonableness of Whole Foods' reliance on ERF's affirmative representations before it reaches a finding on acquiescence. View "Eat Right Foods Ltd. v. Whole Foods Market, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment for Whole Foods in a trademark infringement action. The panel held that the district court impermissibly resolved disputed questions of material fact in favor of the moving party regarding Whole Foods' affirmative defenses of laches and acquiescence. Therefore, the panel vacated the district court's reasonableness finding and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court should reevaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party—i.e., as if ERF delayed filing suit because it was trying to settle its claims against Whole Foods. If the district court determined on remand that ERF delayed unreasonably in filing suit and this delay prejudiced Whole Foods, it must consider the extent and reasonableness of Whole Foods' reliance on ERF's affirmative representations before it reaches a finding on acquiescence. View "Eat Right Foods Ltd. v. Whole Foods Market, Inc." on Justia Law

The 476 and 020 patents disclose improved display interfaces, particularly for electronic devices with small screens like mobile telephones to allow a user to more quickly access desired data stored in, and functions of applications included in, the electronic devices, by use of an application summary window displaying “a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data which itself can be reached directly from the main menu listing some or all applications.” The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court in rejecting arguments that certain claims were directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101; that prior art anticipated the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. 102; and that the claims are not infringed. The asserted claims are directed to an improved user interface for computing devices, not to the abstract idea of an index. The claim language, specification, and prosecution history all support the district court’s construction of “un-launched state” as “not displayed.” Substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict of infringement based on the “reached directly from the [main] menu” claim limitation. View "Core Wireless Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc." on Justia Law

Crespe’s 585 patent “relates to a broadband television signal receiver for receiving multi-standard analog television signals, digital television signals and data channels.” A television receiver takes incoming television broadcast signals and processes them into a viewable medium for eventual display. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in an inter partes review (IPR), upheld the patentability of claims 1-4, 6-9, and 16-21, based on an analysis of independent claims 1 and 17. However, in the separate 728 IPR, claims 1 and 17 were held to be unpatentable. The 728 decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit during the pendency of the 585 appeal. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded because the Board did not address arguments concerning patentability of the dependent claims separately from the now-unpatentable independent claims. View "Maxlinear, Inc. v. CF Crespe LLC" on Justia Law