Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

AHG employed the inventors of the patents, which issued in 1991 and 1992 and are titled “Process for Distribution of Pieces such as Rivets, and Apparatus for carrying out the Process.” The patents claim priority to a French application filed in 1988, and relate to the dispensing of objects such as rivets through a pressurized tube with grooves along its inner surface, to provide a rapid and smooth supply of properly positioned rivets for such uses as the assembly of metal parts of aircraft. The invention “permits dispensing a very great number of pieces without risk of jamming in the tube and with a precise guiding permitting maintaining the alignment of the axes of the pieces.” AHG sued Brötje, asserting patent infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The district court ruled that the claims are invalid for failure to disclose the best mode of carrying out the invention, as required by 35 U.S.C. 112, but rejected Broetje’s argument that AHG abandoned the 339 patent by failing to pay the issue fee. The Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of invalidity, affirmed that the patent was not abandoned, and remanded for determination of remaining issues. View "Ateliers de la Haute-Garonne v. Broetje Auto. USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Alexsam owns the 608 patent, which discloses a system for activating and using “multifunction card[s].” These cards include prepaid phone cards, used to pay for long-distance telephone calls, and electronic gift certificate cards. Such cards are typically distributed to retailers and displayed in stores in an inactive state, in order to deter theft, and are activated and assigned a cash value at the check-out counter. The claims at issue are drawn to a system for activating multifunction cards using a point-of-sale terminal, such as a cash register or a freestanding credit card reader. The district court held that certain of IDT’s systems infringed claims in the 608 patent and that these claims were not invalid, but that certain other systems were licensed under the claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of no invalidity, reversed the jury’s finding of infringement with regard to IDT’s Walgreens and EWI systems, and affirmed the judgment of infringement with regard to IDT’s miscellaneous systems based on the district court’s discovery sanction. The court affirmed the judgment of noninfringement with regard to IDT’s SafeNet systems based on the license defense. View "Alexsam, Inc. v. IDT Corp." on Justia Law

Wellogix sued Accenture and others, alleging that they misappropriated its trade secrets regarding software that allowed oil companies to plan, procure, and pay for complex services online. The jury returned a verdict for Wellogix, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. Accenture appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Accenture's motion for a judgment as a matter of law where reasonable jurors could find that Accenture misappropriated Wellogix's trade secrets and that there was sufficient evidence to support the compensatory damages award; by denying Accenture's motion for a new trial where the district court allowed Wellogix's software expert's testimony and allowed Wellogix to introduce into evidence patent-related documents; and by refusing to set aside the punitive damages award where there was sufficient evidence and testimony to support the jury's "malice" finding and the award was not grossly excessive. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, L.L.P." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed separate copyright infringement suits against defendants for posting articles from the Las Vegas Review-Journal online without authorization. In consolidated appeals, the court agreed with the district court that plaintiff lacked standing in both cases because agreements assigning plaintiff the bare right to sue for infringement did not transfer any associated exclusive rights under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq. Because plaintiff lacked standing, the court also concluded that the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the fair use claim. Therefore, the court affirmed the motions to dismiss in both cases, but vacated the portion of the district court order in Hoehn granting summary judgment on fair use. View "Righthaven LLC v. Hoehn" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction for conspiracy to steal trade secrets and perjury. The Government contended that defendant, who worked on research and development, conspired to steal Dow Chemical's trade secrets regarding a type of chlorinated polyethylene (CPE) and sell that information to Chinese companies for his own profit. The principal issue on appeal concerned the propriety of the court's ruling excluding the testimony of defendant's engineering expert. Because of the witness's training and experience as a chemical engineer and his broad experience in chemical plants, the court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in excluding his opinion testimony related to the manufacturing of CPE. However, given the overwhelming evidence that defendant and his co-conspirators stole trade secrets and that defendant believed he was stealing trade secrets, the court concluded that the exclusion of the witness's testimony did not affect the verdict. Further, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's perjury conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Liu" on Justia Law

B&B, manufacturer and seller of a product called "Sealtight," filed suit against Hargis, manufacturer of a product called "Sealtite," claiming trademark infringement and unfair competition. Hargis counterclaimed for false advertising and false designation of origin. The jury returned a verdict which rejected B&B's claims but found in favor of Hargis on its counterclaims. On appeal, B&B argued that the district court should have given preclusive effect to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's (TTAB) findings concerning the likelihood of confusion of the two companies' trademarks. B&B also appealed the award of attorney fees and costs. The court concluded that the district court properly refused to apply collateral estoppel to the TTAB's decision; rejected B&B's argument that the TTAB's factual findings from a trademark registration case were entitled to deference by the district court; and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the TTAB's decision from the evidence presented to the jury. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of B&B's motion for judgment as a matter of law or alternative motion for a new trial based on its claim of issue preclusion; affirmed the district court's evidentiary decisions; and remanded the award of attorney fees with directions to amend the award by deducting Hargis's attorney fees for the prior appeal. View "B & B Hardware v. Hargis Industries, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of the counts in its amended complaint directed against the Vatican State. Plaintiff alleged fraud, negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion, in connection with a licensing program involving artwork and artifacts in the Vatican Library collection. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims on the grounds of improper venue based on the forum selection clauses contained in the Sublicense Agreements. Plaintiff is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Long Beach, New York. The Vatican State is the territory over which the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church exercised sovereignty. The court held that the Vatican State could invoke the forum selection clauses in the sublicense agreements because the licensee and the Vatican State were "closely related" parties and it was foreseeable that the Vatican would enforce the forum selection clauses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Magi XXI, Inc. v. Stato della Citta del Vaticano" on Justia Law

The 753 patent is directed to a heart rate monitor that purports to improve upon the prior art by effectively eliminating noise signals during the process of detecting a user’s heart rate. According to the patent, prior art monitors did not eliminate signals given off by skeletal muscles (EMG signals), which are brought about when users move their arms or squeeze the monitor with their fingers. Biosig, the assignee of the 753 patent, brought a patent infringement action against Nautilus. After claim construction of the disputed term ”space relationship,” the district court declared the patent invalid. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded, finding the claims at issue not invalid for indefiniteness. View "Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendant and the Gagosian Gallery, alleging that defendant's series of paintings and collages infringed on plaintiff's registered copyrights in certain photographs from a book of classical portraits and landscape photographs that plaintiff took while living among Rastafarians in Jamaica. The district court concluded that, in order for defendant to use a fair use defense, defendant's work must comment on plaintiff, on plaintiff's photographs, or on aspects of popular culture closely associated with plaintiff or the photographs. The court concluded that the district court applied the incorrect standard to determine whether defendant's artworks made fair use of plaintiff's copyrighted photographs; that all but five of defendant's works did make fair use of the photographs; and with regard to the remaining five artworks at issue, the court remanded to the district court to consider whether defendant was entitled to a fair use defense. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Cariou v. Prince" on Justia Law

Biolitec, Inc. (BI), a U.S.-based subsidiary of Biolitec AG (BAG), sold medical equipment to Plaintiff AngioDynamics, Inc. (ADI) and agreed to indemnify ADI or any patent infringement claims. Patent infringement claims were subsequently brought against ADI, and ADI settled the claims. In a separate lawsuit, ADI obtained a $23 million judgment against BI under the indemnification clause. Attempting to secure payment on that judgment, ADI sued BAG, BI, and other related entities (collectively, Defendants) on claims including corporate veil-piercing and violation of the Massachusetts Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act MUFTA), alleging that BAG looted more than $18 million from BI to move BI's assets beyond reach. The district court granted ADI a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from carrying out the proposed downstream merger of BAG with its Austrian subsidiary and from transferring any ownership interest the held in any other defendant. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) as a matter of law, preliminary injunctive relief was not barred in this case; and (2) the district court did not err in finding that ADI had demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm. View "AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG" on Justia Law