Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs accused Sony and Sony entities of infringing claims of a patent relating to a tactile feedback system for computer video games. The district court construed disputed claim terms and the parties stipulated to a judgment of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, finding that the district court improperly limited the term "attached to said pad" to mean attachment only to an external surface and erred in its construction of the term "flexible." View "Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm't Am., LLC" on Justia Law

HTC sought a declaration that it did not infringe a valid and enforceable claim of the 830 patent, which covers a handover in a cellular telephone network to reduce the chance of interrupted service for a user in transit. IPCom counterclaimed, alleging infringement. The district court concluded that two claims in the 830 patent were invalid. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the district court misconstrued the claims, which cover only an apparatus, not an apparatus and method steps. The specification adequately discloses a processor and transceiver for use in performing the functions recited in the claims.View "HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG" on Justia Law

In 1989 Krippelz filed for a patent on a vehicle-mounted lamp, titled "Emergency Light" and describing a lamp attached to the side view mirror of an automobile and shining downward. He offered a license to Ford, which was not interested, but in 1997 began offering an option known as a "puddle light," a lamp, attached to the vehicle's side view mirror, that shone light generally downward. In 2008 the district court entered summary judgment finding infringement and awarded $56 million. The Federal Circuit reversed as to validity, vacated other rulings, and remanded for entry of a judgment of non-liability. The district court erred in finding the patent novel over prior art. View "Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendant for fraud and for misappropriation of trade secrets over plaintiff's invention of the "Pit Bull," a machine intended to make the process of cleaning drilling fluids more efficient. Defendant appealed from a jury verdict awarding plaintiff compensatory damages and punitive damages for fraud and compensatory damages for misappropriation of trade secrets. Because plaintiff did not prove that he was entitled to damages on his fraud claim, the court rendered a take-nothing judgment on plaintiff's fraud claim, and reversed the jury's award of punitive damages. Because the verdict for misappropriation of trade secrets was supported by sufficient evidence, the court affirmed the jury's verdict on plaintiff's claim for misappropriation of trade secrets. View "Bohnsack v. Varco, L.P." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. 256 with respect to a patent covering a synthesis protocol for chiral additives, which are used to improve the performance characteristics of LCDs, such as display color, contrast, and brightness. The district court and ordered the Patent and Trademark Office to issue a certificate of correction adding him as a named inventor and found the case to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285, awarding attorney fees to plaintiff. The Federal Circuit affirmed as to inventorship, but did not address the exceptional case determination and attorney fees award, concluding that those determinations were not final. The district court properly determined that plaintiff's contribution to the invention was greater than the exercise of ordinary skill. View "Falana v Kent State Univ." on Justia Law

Plaintiff owns patents, directed to a computer-aided method and system for processing credit applications from car dealers over electronic networks. The patents claim priority to and incorporate the 403 patent, filed in 1995. The district court entered judgment of noninfringement on certain claims; of invalidity for failure to claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 with respect to other claims; and of invalidity for indefiniteness on others. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. With respect to infringement, the district court improperly carved-out the Internet from its construction of "communications medium" and improperly construed "central processing means." Finding "central processing means" indefinite, the court invalidated three claims for failure to recite sufficient structure to perform claimed functions. Certain claims were invalid as being directed to an abstract idea preemptive of a fundamental concept or idea that would foreclose innovation in the area. View "Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber" on Justia Law

Petitioners are orchestra conductors, musicians, publishers, and others who formerly enjoyed free access to literary and artistic works section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), 17 U.S.C. 104A, 109(a), removed from the public domain. Petitioners maintained that Congress, in passing section 514, exceeded its authority under the Constitution's Copyright and Patent Clause and violated the First Amendment rights of anyone who previously had access to such works. The Tenth Circuit ruled that section 514 was narrowly tailored to fit the important government aim of protecting U.S. copyright holders' interests abroad. In accord with the judgment of the Tenth Circuit, the Court concluded that section 514 did not transgress constitutional limitations on Congress' authority. The Court held that neither the text of the Copyright and Patent Clause, historical practice, or the Court's precedent excluded application of copyright protection to works in the public domain. The Court also held that nothing in the historical record, subsequent congressional practice, or the Court's jurisprudence warranted exceptional First Amendment solicitude for copyrighted works that were once in the public domain. View "Golan v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged infringement of patents covering systems and devices for testing blood samples against a competitor in the diagnostic field. The patents at issue name defendant as the assignee. Plaintiff claimed ownership based on confidentiality and non-competition clauses in employment and consulting contracts between its predecessor and an employee, the inventor. The district court dismissed, finding that plaintiff lacked standing because the 1999 Consulting Agreement did not continue the 1984 Agreement’s Disclosure and Assignment Covenant. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the company lacked standing with respect to rights assigned long after the inventor resigned from the company. View "Abbott Point of Care, Inc. v. Epocal, Inc." on Justia Law

The patent claims methods for preparing multi-cryopreserved hepatocytes (a type of liver cell), used for evaluating drug candidates. The owner claimed infringement and obtained a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The district court acted within its discretion in finding likelihood of success on the merits, considering defenses of non-infringement, obviousness, written description, and inequitable conduct. The court considered and properly addressed the public's interest in obtaining an adequate supply of pooled multi-cryopreserved hepatocyte products. View "Celsis In Vitro, Inc. v. Cellzdirect, Inc." on Justia Law

The 2006 patent, entitled "Surgical Devices Having a Polymeric Material with a Therapeutic Agent and Methods for Making Same" and the 2007 patent, entitled "Surgical Devices Containing a Heat Bondable Material with a Therapeutic Agent" have identical specifications and are directed to a surgical implant in which a polymeric material is bonded by heat to an expandable implant, where the polymer includes a therapeutic agent such as an antibiotic. The owner of the patents sued. The district court made a finding of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding and construction of the term "bonded." The district court then declared the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 and awarded defendant attorney and expert witness fees totaling $4,683,653.03. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The district court opinion indicates its finding that plaintiff acted in bad faith in filing a baseless infringement action and continuing to pursue it despite no evidence of infringement and engaged in vexatious and unjustified litigation conduct that unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings and forced defendant to incur substantial expenses. View "MarcTec, LLC v. Johnson & Johnson" on Justia Law