Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Two advocacy organizations submitted a petition to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) seeking a rule that would limit the PTO’s discretion to institute inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings under the America Invents Act. Their proposed rule would have prevented institution of such proceedings in certain circumstances when the patent owner objected and met specific criteria, such as being the original applicant and having small entity status. The PTO denied the petition, stating that the issues overlapped with topics already under consideration in a separate request for public comment and that the suggestions would be considered in any future rulemaking.After the denial, the organizations filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the PTO’s denial violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the America Invents Act. They argued that the PTO failed to act within a reasonable time, did not provide adequate reasons for denial, and was required to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking. The PTO moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing. The district court granted the motion, finding that the organizations lacked both organizational and associational standing because they failed to show that any member faced a concrete, non-speculative injury as a result of the PTO’s denial.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that the organizations lacked associational standing because they did not demonstrate that any member suffered an actual or imminent injury traceable to the PTO’s denial of the petition. The court found the alleged injury too speculative, relying on a chain of uncertain future events involving third-party actions. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing. View "US INVENTOR, INC. v. PTO " on Justia Law

Rex Medical, L.P. and Intuitive Surgical, Inc. are competitors in the medical device industry, specifically in the market for surgical stapling products. Rex accused Intuitive of infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,439,650, which covers a system for stapling tissue during surgery. The accused products included several models of Intuitive’s SureForm staplers. Rex initially asserted two patents, but after Intuitive challenged one in an inter partes review, Rex withdrew it, leaving only the ’650 patent at issue. The dispute centered on claim 6 of the ’650 patent, which describes a stapling apparatus with specific structural features.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware presided over the case. Before trial, the court excluded Rex’s damages expert from testifying about a prior license agreement, finding the expert failed to apportion the value of the asserted patent from other patents in the agreement. At trial, neither party’s damages expert testified, and Rex relied on lay testimony regarding damages. The jury found Intuitive infringed claim 6 and that the claim was not invalid, awarding Rex $10 million in damages. After post-trial motions, the district court entered judgment for Rex on infringement and validity but reduced the damages award to $1, finding insufficient evidence to support the jury’s damages calculation and denying Rex’s request for a new trial on damages.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Federal Circuit held that the exclusion of Rex’s damages expert was proper because the expert did not adequately apportion the value of the asserted patent. The court also affirmed the reduction of damages to $1, finding the record lacked sufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably determine damages for the ’650 patent alone. The Federal Circuit further affirmed the district court’s findings on infringement and validity, rejecting Intuitive’s arguments regarding claim construction and written description. View "REX MEDICAL, L.P. v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. " on Justia Law

The dispute centers on allegations of intellectual property infringement involving shower curtains designed with embedded rings, eliminating the need for traditional hooks. The plaintiffs, a group of related companies, own several patents covering these “hookless” shower curtains, as well as registered and unregistered trademark and trade dress rights. The defendants, two companies that manufactured and sold similar shower curtains, were accused of infringing these patents, trademarks, and trade dress. The accused products featured rings with a flat upper edge and a slit, allowing the curtain to be attached to a rod without hooks.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the defendants’ motion to transfer venue was denied as untimely. The district court granted summary judgment of patent infringement in favor of the plaintiffs, based on its claim constructions, and precluded the defendants’ unclean hands defense for being raised too late. After a bench trial, the court found that the defendants infringed the asserted patents, the HOOKLESS® and EZ ON trademarks, and the claimed trade dress, and that some infringement was willful. The court awarded lost profits, reasonable royalties, attorneys’ fees, and costs.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of the venue transfer and the exclusion of the unclean hands defense. However, it reversed the findings of infringement for the ’248 and ’609 patents as to one defendant, vacated the ’088 patent infringement finding as to that defendant, and affirmed the patent infringement findings as to the other. The court also vacated the trade dress infringement and willfulness findings, reversed the EZ ON trademark infringement finding, and vacated the HOOKLESS® trademark infringement finding. The award of attorneys’ fees was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings. The court clarified the standards for claim construction, trade dress functionality, and standing to assert trademark rights. View "Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co." on Justia Law

A company that provides credit card services under the registered mark ASPIRE opposed the registration of two marks—ASPIRE BANK word and design marks—by a Tennessee retail bank, Apex Bank. Apex Bank, which does not offer credit cards but provides various banking services, filed intent-to-use applications for the ASPIRE BANK marks for “banking and financing services.” CC Serve, the credit card company, argued that Apex’s proposed marks were confusingly similar to its own ASPIRE mark, which has been used in connection with credit card services since 1996.The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) reviewed the opposition and sustained it under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, finding that there was a likelihood of consumer confusion between the marks. The Board analyzed several factors from the E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. case, including the similarity of the services and the marks themselves, and concluded that the services were highly similar and that confusion was likely. Apex Bank appealed the TTAB’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s finding that the parties’ services are highly similar, upholding the Board’s analysis of the second DuPont factor. However, the appellate court found that the Board erred in its analysis of the sixth DuPont factor by narrowly considering only marks used for credit card services, rather than similar marks used for broader banking and financing services. The court also vacated the Board’s analysis of the first DuPont factor, as reconsideration of the sixth factor could affect the assessment of the marks’ commercial impression. The case was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "Apex Bank v. CC Serve Corp." on Justia Law

Finesse Wireless LLC owns two patents related to methods for mitigating interference in radios caused by intermodulation products (IMPs), which can arise when radio signals interact with passive obstacles. Finesse alleged that AT&T Mobility LLC, by using a particular feature in Nokia radios, infringed specific claims of both patents. Nokia intervened in the case. The dispute centered on whether the accused radios performed the patented methods for reducing IMP interference, specifically whether they sampled the required signals and performed certain signal multiplications as described in the patent claims.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas presided over a jury trial in which the jury found all asserted claims of both patents valid and infringed, awarding Finesse a lump-sum damages amount for the remaining life of the patents. After the verdict, AT&T and Nokia moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement and for a new trial on damages, but the district court denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of JMOL de novo, applying Fifth Circuit law. The Federal Circuit found that Finesse’s evidence, particularly its expert’s testimony, was insufficient and self-contradictory regarding whether the accused radios sampled both the “signals of interest” and “interference generating signals” as required by the first patent. For the second patent, the court determined that no reasonable jury could have found the accused radios performed the seven specific signal multiplications required by the claims. As a result, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of JMOL of noninfringement for both patents and vacated the damages award. Costs were awarded to the defendants-appellants. View "FINESSE WIRELESS LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on a patent owned by a pharmaceutical company, which describes methods for reducing the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease by administering specific doses of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The patent claims include both general methods of administering these drugs and a particular claim involving a “first product” that combines both drugs in a single dosage form. The patent is based on results from a clinical trial known as COMPASS, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of this drug combination.Three generic drug manufacturers challenged the patent’s validity by filing petitions for inter partes review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), arguing that the claims were anticipated or obvious in light of prior art references, including published articles describing similar drug regimens and ongoing clinical trials. The PTAB joined the proceedings and ultimately held that claims 1–2 were unpatentable as anticipated and claims 1–8 were unpatentable as obvious, relying on the prior art and its interpretation of the patent’s claim language.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the PTAB’s decision. The court affirmed the PTAB’s finding that claims 1–4 were unpatentable, holding that the phrase “clinically proven effective” in the claims, even if considered limiting, did not create a patentable distinction because it was functionally unrelated to the method itself. However, the court found that the PTAB had incorrectly construed the “first product” limitation in claims 5–8, which should require a single dosage form containing both drugs. The court vacated the PTAB’s unpatentability finding for claims 5–8 and remanded for further proceedings under the correct claim construction. The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case, with no costs awarded. View "BAYER PHARMA AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. " on Justia Law

Several physicians who were employed by an anesthesia practice left their positions and became employees of a hospital with which their former practice had a service contract. The physicians had previously sold their ownership interests in the practice to another entity, and their employment contracts contained restrictive covenants, including non-compete and non-solicitation provisions. After the hospital indicated it might not renew its contract with the practice, the physicians and hospital administrators began discussing future employment arrangements, retaining legal counsel and entering into a common interest agreement. The hospital ultimately sent notice of nonrenewal, and the physicians resigned and signed employment contracts with the hospital. The anesthesia practice and its parent company sued the physicians and the hospital, alleging breach of contract, tortious interference, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy. The hospital also sued the practice, seeking to bar enforcement of the restrictive covenants.The Hillsborough County Superior Court (Northern District) issued several orders during discovery, compelling the hospital and physician defendants to disclose certain communications they claimed were protected by attorney-client privilege and the common interest doctrine, and ordering their counsel to sit for depositions. The court found that the crime-fraud exception to privilege applied to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and tortious interference, and limited the application of the common interest doctrine to communications after litigation was pending. It also ordered disclosure of some privileged communications under a theory of necessity.On interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege does not apply to claims of breach of fiduciary duty or tortious interference with contractual relations. The court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the common interest doctrine did not apply until litigation was pending, but vacated the orders permitting depositions of counsel and requiring disclosure of privileged communications under a necessity theory, remanding those issues for further proceedings. The disposition was affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Atl. Anesthesia, P.A. v. Lehrer" on Justia Law

A former congressman created personalized videos for paying customers through the Cameo platform. A late-night television host, using fictitious names, requested and purchased several of these videos. The host then broadcast some of the videos on his show as part of a recurring segment that mocked the congressman by highlighting his willingness to say unusual things for money. The congressman claimed that this use of his videos infringed his copyrights and also violated state law through breach of contract and fraudulent inducement.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the case and dismissed the complaint. The court found that the copyright claims were barred by the fair use doctrine, reasoning that the television host’s use was transformative and did not harm the market for the original videos. The court also held that the state law claims were either preempted by the Copyright Act or failed to state a claim under applicable state law. Specifically, the court determined that the congressman was not a party to the relevant contract, failed to allege the essential terms of any implied contract, and did not plead any actual out-of-pocket loss for the fraudulent inducement claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The appellate court agreed that the copyright claims were barred by the fair use doctrine, emphasizing the transformative nature of the use and the lack of market harm. The court also concluded that the state law claims failed to state a claim for relief, either because the congressman was not a party to the contract, did not allege an implied contract, or failed to allege actual damages. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed in full. View "Santos v. Kimmel" on Justia Law

A technology company developed and copyrighted a facial motion capture software system used in film production. The company’s assets, including the software, were transferred among several affiliated entities, leading to a disputed sale to a visual effects contractor. The contractor, after acquiring the assets under contested circumstances, used the software in the production of a major motion picture for a film studio. The studio’s contract with the contractor gave it broad rights to supervise the contractor’s work, including the right to terminate the contract for copyright infringement. During production, representatives of the studio were present at all relevant sessions where the software was used, and evidence was presented that copyright notices appeared during these sessions.After the film’s release, the technology company sued the studio in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging vicarious and contributory copyright infringement. The district court granted summary judgment to the studio on the contributory infringement claim, finding insufficient evidence of the studio’s knowledge of infringement, but allowed the vicarious liability claim to proceed to trial. At trial, the jury found the studio vicariously liable, awarded actual damages, and returned an advisory verdict on profits. The district court later granted judgment as a matter of law for the studio, concluding there was insufficient evidence that the studio had the practical ability to supervise or control the contractor’s infringing conduct. The court also struck the plaintiff’s jury demand on the issue of disgorgement of profits, holding there was no statutory right to a jury trial for that remedy, and excluded certain expert testimony and evidence of an indemnification agreement.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law, holding that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find the studio had the practical ability to supervise or control the contractor’s infringing conduct. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings striking the jury demand on disgorgement of profits, excluding the damages expert’s testimony, and excluding the indemnification agreement. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "REARDEN, LLC V. WALT DISNEY PICTURES" on Justia Law

A patent owner brought two infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against a semiconductor company, alleging that certain integrated circuit products infringed three patents related to electronic circuitry and power-saving features. The accused products included specific chips that allegedly implemented a particular feature. After the lawsuits were filed, the defendant challenged the cases on grounds including improper service, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim. During the litigation, the plaintiff produced a licensing agreement with a third party, and subsequently entered into another agreement covering the accused products. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed both cases without prejudice.Following the dismissals, the defendant moved for attorneys’ fees, costs, and sanctions, arguing that the lawsuits were baseless. The district court denied the defendant’s motions for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, costs under Rule 54(d)(1), and sanctions under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, but converted the voluntary dismissals to dismissals with prejudice as a sanction. The court also denied the defendant’s discovery requests related to confidentiality and access to certain materials.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in denying fees under § 285 and costs under Rule 54(d)(1), because the defendant became a prevailing party when the dismissals were converted to dismissals with prejudice. The Federal Circuit vacated those portions of the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of Rule 11 sanctions and fees under § 1927, finding no abuse of discretion. It also affirmed the denial of the remaining discovery request, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the protective order. The judgment was thus vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. View "FUTURE LINK SYSTEMS, LLC v. REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION " on Justia Law