Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

When an artery is damaged or inflamed, the body releases the enzyme myeloperoxidase (MPO). Prior art taught that MPO could be detected in an atherosclerotic plaque or lesion that required a surgically invasive method; could be indirectly detected in blood; or could be detected in blood with results that were not predictive of cardiovascular disease. Cleveland Clinic purportedly discovered how to “see” MPO in blood and correlate that to the risk of cardiovascular disease. True Health, a diagnostic laboratory, purchased the assets of Diagnostics, which had contracted with Cleveland Clinic to perform MPO testing. Rather than continue that relationship, True Health performed its own MPO testing. Cleveland Clinic sued, asserting infringement of the patents. The district court found all the claims patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101; dismissed the contributory and induced infringement claims of the 260 patent; denied leave to amend; and held that it was proper to consider section 101 at the motion to dismiss stage.. The court found that the claims were directed to a law of nature, with no saving inventive concept. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Cleveland Clinic provided no proposed construction of any terms or proposed expert testimony that would change the analysis. The claims, whether considered limitation-by-limitation or as a whole, do not sufficiently transform the natural existence of MPO in a bodily sample and its correlation to cardiovascular risk into a patentable invention. View "Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics. LLC" on Justia Law

EmeraChem’s 758 patent claims methods for regenerating a devitalized catalyst/absorber that has absorbed and oxidized nitrates and nitrites after exposure to pollutants in the combustion gases of engines by passing a regeneration gas over the catalyst without removing the catalyst. The application was filed in 1994; the patent issued in 1997, naming Guth and Campbell as co-inventors. The 758 patent incorporates Campbell 558 in its entirety. The application for Campbell 558 was filed months before the 758 application; the patent issued in 1995, disclosing a catalyst/absorber used to absorb and oxidize pollutants from exhaust gas but requiring removal of the catalyst/absorber. Campbell, Danziger, Guth, and Padron are its named co-inventors. Volkswagen sought inter partes review of the 758 patent, alleging anticipation of various claims and that various claims would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over the combination of Campbell 558 and a prior reference. The Patent Board found that certain claims of the 758 patent would have been obvious over Campbell and another reference. The Federal Circuit affirmed as to several claims and vacated with respect to others. Campbell’s Declaration was insufficient to demonstrate that the cited portions of Campbell are not “by another.” The Board did not err in holding Campbell is section 102(e) prior art. The court remanded for clarification of whether the Board adopted a new rationale for unpatentability in its final written decision. View "EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc." on Justia Law

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, concerning FDA approval of a drug that is biosimilar to an already-licensed biological “reference product,” 42 U.S.C. 262(k), treats submission of a biosimilar application as an “artificial” patent infringement. An applicant must provide its biosimilar application and manufacturing information to the reference product’s sponsor. The parties collaborate to identify patents for immediate litigation. Second phase litigation is triggered when the applicant gives the sponsor notice at least 180 days before commercially marketing the biosimilar. Amgen claims patents on methods of manufacturing and using filgrastim. Sandoz sought FDA approval to market a biosimilar, Zarxio, and notified Amgen that it had submitted an application, that it intended to market Zarxio immediately upon receiving FDA approval, and that it did not intend to provide application and manufacturing information. Amgen sued for patent infringement and asserted that Sandoz engaged in “unlawful” conduct under California law by failure to provide its application and manufacturing information and by notification of commercial marketing before obtaining FDA licensure. The FDA licensed Zarxio. Sandoz provided Amgen another notice of commercial marketing. The Supreme Court unanimously held that section 262(l)(2)(A) is not enforceable by injunction under federal law, but the Federal Circuit should determine whether a state-law injunction is available. Submitting an application constitutes artificial infringement; failing to disclose the application and manufacturing information does not. Section 262(l)(9)(C) provides a remedy for failure to turn over the application and manufacturing information, authorizing the sponsor, but not the applicant, to bring an immediate declaratory-judgment action, thus vesting in the sponsor the control that the applicant would otherwise have exercised over the scope and timing of the patent litigation. An applicant may provide notice under section 262(l)(8)(A) before obtaining FDA licensure. View "Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc." on Justia Law

One-E-Way filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission, alleging infringement of its patents, which disclose a wireless digital audio system designed to let people use wireless headphones privately, without interference, even when multiple people are using wireless headphones in the same space. The specification explains that previous wireless digital audio systems did not provide “private listening without interference where multiple users occupying the same space are operating wireless transmission devices.” The Commission found the claim term “virtually free from interference” indefinite and invalidated the asserted claims of One-E-Way’s patents. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the term “virtually free from interference,” as properly interpreted in light of the specification and prosecution history, would inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. View "One-E-Way, Inc. v. International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

CAC’s patent includes both system and method claims directed to “provid[ing] financing for allowing a customer to purchase a product selected from an inventory of products maintained by a dealer.” In one embodiment, the products are vehicles for sale at a car dealership. The invention involves “maintaining a database of the dealer’s inventory,” gathering financing information from the customer, and “presenting a financing package to the dealer for each individual product in the dealer’s inventory.” Westlake petitioned for Covered Business Method (CBM) review, asserting that all claims were ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101. Three months after the Board instituted review of some claims, the Supreme Court vacated precedent on which the Board had relied. In view of the developments in section 101 jurisprudence, Westlake filed a second petition, challenging the remaining claims. In its decision to institute review, the Board rejected CAC’s argument that the existence of the first CBM proceeding estopped Westlake from challenging claims the remaining claims under 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1). The Board’s determination was based on the fact that the first proceeding had not yet resulted in a final written decision. The Federal Circuit agreed that estoppel did not apply and that the challenged claims were unpatentable. View "Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services" on Justia Law

In 1999, Lyons and Gillette discussed possibly forming a veterinary specialist organization (VSO) for treating athletic animals. For American Veterinary Medical Association accreditation, veterinarians must form an organizing committee and submit a letter of intent. Lyons, Gillette, and others formed a committee. By 2002, the committee began using the mark as the name of the intended VSO. Lyons participated in drafting the letter of intent, the accreditation petition, and bylaws and articles of incorporation. Lyons left the committee and sought registration of the mark for “veterinary education services namely conducting classes, seminars, clinical seminars, conferences, workshops and internships and externships in veterinary sports medicine and veterinary rehabilitation,” based on actual use, alleging first use in commerce in 1996. In 2006, the PTO registered the mark. In 2010, the VSO, “American College of Veterinary Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation” received provisional recognition; it petitioned to cancel Lyons’s registration on grounds of priority of use and likelihood of confusion, 15 U.S.C. 1052(d), misrepresentation of source, 15 U.S.C. 1064, and fraud. Meanwhile, the district court dismissed an infringement action by Lyons and ordered the PTO to reject Lyons’s application for Principal Register registration, but declined to cancel her Supplemental Register registration. The Board later concluded that Lyons was not the mark’s owner and that her underlying application was void. The Federal Circuit affirmed. In ownership disputes surrounding service marks as between a departing member and a remnant group, the factors are: the parties’ objective intentions or expectations; who the public associates with the mark; and to whom the public looks to stand behind the quality of goods or services offered under the mark. View "Lyons v. American College of Veterinary Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation" on Justia Law

The District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed, for lack of personal jurisdiction, New World’s declaratory judgment complaint against FGTL, a wholly owned subsidiary of the automaker Ford Motor Company. FGTL had previously filed an infringement suit against New World in the Eastern District of Michigan. The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment action. Both FGTL and the Ford Motor Company are incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Michigan. FGTL does no business in Texas and neither maintains an office nor has any employees in Texas. FGTL does not make or sell automobiles or automotive products; it owns, manages, and licenses intellectual property for Ford. FTGL’s pertinent contacts with Texas are limited to the cease and desist letters. While those letters may be sufficient to constitute minimum contacts with the forum, they are not sufficient to satisfy the fairness part of the test for specific personal jurisdiction. View "New World International, Inc. v. Ford Global Technologies, LLC" on Justia Law

Skky’s patent describes a method for delivering audio and/or visual files to a wireless device, stating that existing devices required music or video clips to be either factory-installed, or downloaded through a direct Internet interface. The patent allows users to “browse, download, and listen to or watch sound or image files without the need for hand wired plug-in devices or a computer connection to the Internet.” The patent states that “a software system may be integrated with the existing hardware chip of a conventional cellular phone without the need for additional hardware.” In other embodiments, a separate accessory unit attached to the wireless device provides this functionality. On inter partes review, the Patent Board concluded that challenged claims would have been obvious in view of publications entitled “MP3: The Definitive Guide” and “OFDM/FM Frame Synchronization for Mobile Radio Data Communication.” The Board determined that “wireless device means” was not a means-plus-function term. Even assuming that the term was in means-plus-function format, however, the Board rejected Skky’s argument that the term requires multiple processors, wherein one is a specialized processor. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the claim construction and the conclusion that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious. View "Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, S.A.R.L." on Justia Law

Design Basics claims rights to about 2700 home designs and sued Lexington for copyright infringement, contending that Lexington built homes that infringed four Design Basics’ designs. The district court granted Lexington summary judgment, finding no evidence that Lexington ever had access to Design Basics’ home plans. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that Design Basics has no evidence of access and stating that no reasonable jury could find that Lexington’s accused plans bear substantial similarities to any original material in Design Basics’ plans. The court noted that its owner acknowledged in his deposition that “potential copyright infringement cases influence[d his] decision to become an owner of Design Basics.” He testified that proceeds from litigation have become a principal revenue stream for Design Basics. “Design Basics’ business model of trawling the Internet for intellectual property treasures is not unique.” View "Design Basics, LLC v. Lexington Homes, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2009, RNB and GAF entered into an agreement under which GAF would promote RNB’s “Roof N Box” product, a three-dimensional roofing model, to building construction contractors affiliated with GAF. The agreement required the parties to submit disputes “arising under” the agreement to arbitration. GAF terminated the agreement after about a year. In 2016, RNB, together with its founder and president, Evans, brought suit against GAF based on GAF’s activities in marketing its own product that competes with the Roof N Box. The complaint alleged design patent infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition. GAF moved to dismiss or stay the action pending arbitration. The district court denied that motion. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that GAF’s assertion that the arbitration provision covers the claims stated in the complaint is “wholly groundless.” The complaint challenges actions whose wrongfulness is independent of the 2009 agreement’s existence. View "Evans v. Building Materials Corp." on Justia Law