Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

This case arose out of competition in the market for software used to manage and analyze large and complex datasets. SAS filed suit against WPL, alleging that WPL breached a license agreement for SAS software and violated copyrights on that software. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment finding WPL liable for beach of the license agreement, holding that the contractual terms at issue were unambiguous and that SAS has shown that WPL violated those terms. The court vacated the portion of the district court's ruling on the copyright claim and remanded with instructions to dismiss it as moot. View "SAS Institute, Inc. v. World Programming Ltd." 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

Tawas, Michigan hosts an annual festival called “Perchville.” Its Chamber of Commerce obtained federal trademark registration for the term “Perchville,” in 2003. Trading Post allegedly was selling merchandise depicting the term “Perchville.” The Chamber filed suit against Agnello, a Trading Post employee, and obtained an ex parte injunctive order prohibiting sales of t-shirts with the mark, which stated: “this order shall be binding upon the parties to this action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys and on those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order by personal service [or] otherwise.” Agnello appeared at a hearing without an attorney, indicated that he had spoken to Trading Post's partial owner about the lawsuit, but repeatedly stated that he was confused. Agnello consented to a permanent injunction. The judge stated that the order would be binding on anyone acting in concert with Agnello. Trading Post filed suit, challenging the Chamber’s trademark of “Perchville.” The district court found the challenge barred by res judicata because a final determination on the merits occurred in the state court. The Sixth Circuit reversed. There may be circumstances when an employee’s interests are so aligned with his employer as to be in privity for purposes of res judicata, that was not true here. Agnello was an hourly employee given a few days’ notice of an injunction. View "AuSable River Trading Post, LLC v. Dovetail Solutions, 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

Aqua’s patent concerns automated swimming pool cleaners that use “an angled jet drive propulsion system” to move in a controlled pattern. Using motor-driven wheels that enable the cleaner to move in a controlled pattern requires a drive motor and integrated circuitry. Cleaners that use suction or water jets do not require a drive motor but often move in erratic patterns. Zodiac sought inter partes review, citing prior art. Aqua moved to substitute new claims to require that the jet creates a downward vector force rear of the front wheels and the wheels control the cleaner's directional movement. Aqua argued that the combination of prior art did not render the substitute claims obvious because it does not suggest the vector limitation. The Patent Board denied Aqua’s motion to amend. The Federal Circuit initially affirmed, but on en banc review, vacated, holding that 35 U.S.C. 316(e) requires the petitioner to prove all propositions of unpatentability, including for amended claims. The court alternatively reasoned that, absent required deference, the most reasonable reading of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act places the burden of persuasion with respect to the patentability of amended claims on the petitioner. The Board must consider the entire record when assessing the patentability of amended claims without placing the burden of persuasion on the patent owner. View "Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal" on Justia Law