Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Adnexus, Inc. owns a patent for a system and method of online advertising that aims to deliver targeted advertisements to users without overwhelming them with irrelevant content. Adnexus alleged that Meta Platforms, Inc.'s Lead Ads product infringed at least one claim of this patent. Specifically, Adnexus argued that Lead Ads retrieves a user profile containing delivery method preferences and other information, which matches the patent’s claim requirement. Adnexus attached detailed claim charts and a preliminary infringement analysis to its amended complaint to show how Lead Ads purportedly meets each element of the asserted claim.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Meta moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that Adnexus failed to plausibly allege that Lead Ads met the claim limitation requiring retrieval of a user profile containing delivery method preferences. The district court agreed with Meta, finding that “contact information” was distinct from “delivery method preferences” and that Adnexus’s allegations were insufficient. The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, as Adnexus had already amended its pleading once. The court also dismissed indirect and willful infringement claims, and found Adnexus estopped from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the district court erred in implicitly construing the claim term “delivery method preferences” against Adnexus, the non-moving party, without providing Adnexus an opportunity to address claim construction. The Federal Circuit found that Adnexus’s amended complaint, when taken as true and viewed in the light most favorable to Adnexus, plausibly alleged infringement of the relevant claim limitation. The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "ADNEXUS INC. v. META PLATFORMS, INC. " on Justia Law

The dispute centers on a patent for a type of cancer treatment called an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), which combines an antibody, a cytotoxic drug, and a linker protein. The patent at issue claimed a particular kind of linker, a tetrapeptide consisting only of glycine and phenylalanine amino acids. Seagen, the patent holder, sued Daichii Sankyo and AstraZeneca, alleging that their ADC product, Enhertu, infringed claims of this patent. Notably, Enhertu contains the specific tetrapeptide sequence described in the patent. The patent’s priority was claimed from a 2004 application, though the sequence in question had not been expressly disclosed in that earlier filing.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas presided over a jury trial. The jury found the asserted patent claims valid, not invalid for lack of written description or enablement, and determined that the defendants had willfully infringed. Damages exceeding $41 million were awarded to Seagen. The district court denied the defendants’ post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), upholding the jury’s verdict and entering final judgment for Seagen.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court held that the district court erred in denying JMOL because the original 2004 application did not provide adequate written description support for the claimed subgenus of Gly/Phe-only tetrapeptides. The Federal Circuit found that the patent specification failed to demonstrate that the inventors possessed the claimed invention as of the 2004 filing date, and that the patent was not enabled because a skilled artisan would need to engage in undue experimentation to make and use the full scope of the claimed ADCs. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment, found the patent invalid, and vacated the jury’s findings of infringement and damages. View "SEAGEN INC. v. DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY, LTD. " on Justia Law

The case involves Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, which owns U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431 related to methods and apparatus for rapid TV camera and computer-based sensing of objects and human input, usable in devices such as handhelds, cars, and video games. After Samsung Electronics requested an ex parte reexamination of the patent, the United States Patent and Trademark Office initiated proceedings. Concurrently, two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings were filed against the same patent by Unified Patents LLC and other entities, resulting in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating most claims of the patent.After the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued final written decisions in both IPRs, Gesture Technology Partners petitioned the Patent Office to terminate the ex parte reexamination, arguing that Samsung, as a party to the IPR, was estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) from maintaining further proceedings on grounds that could have been raised in the IPRs. The Patent Office denied the petition, holding that the estoppel provision did not apply to ongoing ex parte reexaminations. Subsequently, the Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 13 as anticipated by a prior patent, Liebermann. Gesture appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexamination proceedings, as the requester does not “maintain” the proceeding—the Patent Office does. The court also affirmed the Board’s finding that the Liebermann patent anticipates claims 11 and 13. Furthermore, it rejected the argument that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the patent had expired, citing continued rights to past damages. The court affirmed the Board’s decision as to claims 11 and 13 and dismissed the appeal as to the previously invalidated claims. View "In Re GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC " on Justia Law

Akamai Technologies, Inc. filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement regarding two patents owned by AMHC, Inc. and its subsidiary, MediaPointe, Inc. These patents describe systems and methods for efficiently routing streamed media content over the Internet using an “intelligent distribution network.” After Akamai initiated litigation, MediaPointe counterclaimed for infringement, and Akamai further sought a declaratory judgment of invalidity.During claim construction, the district court issued an order finding that certain claims containing the terms “optimal” and “best” were invalid for indefiniteness. For the remaining asserted claims, the district court granted Akamai summary judgment of noninfringement. The court excluded key portions of MediaPointe’s expert testimony as untimely, and also found that, even considering that testimony, MediaPointe’s evidence did not create a genuine dispute regarding infringement. Specifically, the court determined that the accused Akamai system did not meet the required limitation of “receiving an initial request for media content” as understood in the context of the patents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed both the invalidity and noninfringement judgments. The court held that the “optimal” and “best” claim terms were indefinite because the intrinsic record failed to provide objective boundaries for determining what is “optimal” or “best.” The court also concluded that, even with the excluded expert testimony included, MediaPointe had not presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. MEDIAPOINTE, INC. " on Justia Law

EscapeX IP, LLC brought a patent infringement suit against Google LLC, alleging that Google’s YouTube Music product infringed its ’113 patent. After Google responded, pointing out factual deficiencies in EscapeX’s claims and highlighting that the accused features either did not exist or predated the patent, EscapeX amended its complaint to target a different Google product. Google repeatedly notified EscapeX that its claims were baseless and requested dismissal, but EscapeX did not respond. The case was transferred from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. Meanwhile, a separate court found all claims of the ’113 patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which EscapeX did not appeal.Upon transfer, EscapeX attempted to file a joint stipulation of dismissal without Google’s consent, misstating that both parties would bear their own fees. Google demanded withdrawal, and a corrected stipulation was later filed. Google moved for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, arguing EscapeX’s claims were frivolous and that EscapeX had unreasonably prolonged litigation. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California found Google to be the prevailing party, determined EscapeX’s case was exceptional due to its lack of adequate pre-suit investigation and frivolous claims, and awarded Google attorneys’ fees and costs. EscapeX then moved to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), presenting new declarations as “new evidence,” but the district court denied the motion, finding the evidence was not newly discovered.Google sought additional attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for costs incurred opposing EscapeX’s Rule 59(e) motion. The district court found EscapeX’s motion frivolous and sanctioned EscapeX and its attorneys jointly and severally. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed all of the district court’s orders. The main holdings were that the case was exceptional under § 285, supporting an award of attorneys’ fees, and that sanctions under § 1927 for frivolous litigation conduct were appropriate. View "ESCAPEX IP, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC " on Justia Law

After separating from his wife Monique in 2016, Brett, a sculptor, was ordered in a dissolution proceeding to pay spousal and child support. Brett accumulated approximately $2 million in unpaid support obligations and, according to his own testimony, held no assets apart from a copyright in certain works associated with Michael Jackson. Monique moved to have a receiver appointed and to compel Brett to assign the copyright to the receiver for purposes of monetization to satisfy the outstanding support debt.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Monique’s request, appointing a receiver and ordering Brett to assign his copyright to that receiver. Brett did not dispute his debt or the fact that his copyright was his only asset but argued that existing law did not authorize courts to compel the assignment of a copyright, contending that such authority existed only for patents. He timely appealed from this order.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that, under Code of Civil Procedure section 695.010, subdivision (a), all property of a judgment debtor, including copyrights, is subject to enforcement of a money judgment unless a specific exception applies. The court found no exception for copyrights. It further reasoned that although no published California case had previously addressed forced assignment of copyrights, statutes and past cases regarding other intellectual property, such as patents, supported the trial court’s authority. The court also found persuasive support in analogous federal and out-of-state decisions. Consequently, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order compelling Brett to assign his copyright to the receiver and denied Monique’s request for appellate sanctions. Respondent was awarded costs on appeal. View "In re Marriage of Strong" on Justia Law

Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), an American technology services provider, licensed two insurance software platforms, Vantage and CyberLife, to Transamerica, an insurance company. Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), a technology consulting firm, was later engaged by Transamerica as a third-party consultant to maintain CSC’s platforms. CSC and Transamerica signed a Third-Party Addendum allowing TCS access to CSC’s software “solely for the benefit” of Transamerica. During this period, TCS sought to develop its own insurance platform, BaNCS, and won a $2.6 billion contract to transition Transamerica’s business to BaNCS. Evidence arose that TCS used CSC’s confidential information, including source code and technical manuals, for its BaNCS development, prompting CSC to allege trade secret misappropriation when a CSC employee discovered TCS sharing proprietary materials internally.CSC sued TCS in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). After an eight-day trial with an advisory jury, the jury found in favor of CSC, recommending substantial damages. The district court found TCS liable, awarding CSC $56 million in compensatory damages (based on unjust enrichment), $112 million in exemplary damages, and imposing a permanent injunction barring TCS’s use of CSC’s trade secrets and BaNCS versions developed with misappropriated material.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s findings that TCS’s use was unauthorized under the relevant contracts and that TCS had the requisite mens rea, including willful and malicious misappropriation. The Fifth Circuit also affirmed the damages awards and the exemplary damages ratio. However, the court vacated the injunction in part, remanding for the district court to revise it: the injunction’s prohibition on TCS’s future use of BaNCS material developed post-misappropriation was found duplicative of the damages, and the definition of parties bound by the injunction was ordered to be clarified in line with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2). View "Computer Sciences v. Tata Consultancy" on Justia Law

A corporation, formed as a captive insurance company in North Carolina, was owned by three shareholders who also served as its directors. The majority shareholder, who was not involved in daily operations, alleged that the two minority shareholders, who managed the company, and a Chief Technology Officer (CTO) hired to develop proprietary software, conspired to create a competing insurance entity. The proprietary software in question was designed to analyze medical records and price insurance contracts more effectively, and was claimed to be confidential and of significant economic value. All employees, including the CTO and the minority shareholders, were required to sign employment contracts containing confidentiality and invention provisions, which specified that inventions and confidential information developed during employment would be the exclusive property of the company.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleging, among other claims, that the defendants misappropriated trade secrets in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings. The district court granted the motion as to the DTSA claim, finding that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged that they took reasonable measures to protect the secrecy of the proprietary software. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the DTSA claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged ownership of a trade secret, reasonable measures to protect its secrecy through confidentiality agreements, and misappropriation by the defendants. The court concluded that, at the pleading stage, the existence of confidentiality and invention provisions was sufficient to allege reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the DTSA claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "Samuel Sherbrooke Corporate, Ltd v. Mayer" on Justia Law

Duke University and Allergan Sales, LLC own a patent relating to methods for treating hair loss using certain prostaglandin F (PGF) analogs. The patent describes a method of growing hair by topically applying a composition containing a PGF analog with specific structural features. Allergan markets Latisse®, a product containing bimatoprost, a PGF analog, for eyelash hair growth. Sandoz manufactures a generic version of Latisse®. Allergan sued Sandoz for patent infringement, specifically asserting claim 30 of the patent, which covers a subgenus of PGF analogs with defined chemical characteristics.In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Sandoz stipulated to infringement but challenged the validity of claim 30, arguing it lacked adequate written description, was obvious, and not enabled. After a jury trial, the jury found in favor of Allergan on all grounds, concluding Sandoz had not proven invalidity and awarding damages. Sandoz moved for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, both of which the district court denied. Sandoz then appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law de novo, applying Tenth Circuit standards. The Federal Circuit held that no reasonable jury could have found that claim 30 was adequately described in the patent specification. The court found that the specification broadly described billions of compounds, while claim 30 covered a much narrower subgenus, and the patent failed to provide sufficient guidance (“blaze marks”) to direct a skilled artisan to the claimed compounds. The court concluded that the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) was not met and reversed the district court’s judgment, holding claim 30 invalid for lack of adequate written description. View "DUKE UNIVERSITY v. SANDOZ INC. " on Justia Law

This case concerns a dispute between two companies over alleged infringement of two patents related to illuminated school bus signs. The plaintiff, Smartrend Manufacturing Group (SMG), Inc., claimed that Opti-Luxx Inc. infringed both a design patent (D930) and a utility patent (’491) with its single-piece illuminated school bus sign, which features a rigid plastic housing, an LED light board, and a yellow lens with black lettering. The design patent describes certain features as “transparent,” while the utility patent claims a sign with a “frame” that is separate from the sign panel.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan held a jury trial, where the jury found that Opti-Luxx infringed both patents. The district court denied Opti-Luxx’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and issued a permanent injunction against Opti-Luxx. The court construed the term “transparency” in the design patent to mean both “transparent” and “translucent,” and determined that the “frame” in the utility patent must be a separate and distinct component. The trial on the utility patent proceeded under the doctrine of equivalents, as the accused product did not literally have a separate frame.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that Opti-Luxx had forfeited its objection to the plaintiff’s expert testimony regarding the design patent. However, the appellate court held that the district court erred in construing “transparency” to include “translucent,” and ordered a new trial on infringement of the design patent. Regarding the utility patent, the appellate court concluded that no reasonable jury could have found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, as the accused product did not perform the required functions of a separate frame. The Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of infringement for the utility patent, vacated the judgment and injunction for the design patent, and remanded for further proceedings. View "SMARTREND MANUFACTURING GROUP (SMG), INC. v. OPTI-LUXX INC. " on Justia Law