Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Amgen Inc., a biotechnology company, holds patents in the U.S. and South Korea for denosumab, a drug used in treating certain bone cancers. Amgen filed patent infringement suits against Celltrion Inc. (Celltrion Korea) in both countries. To support its case, Amgen sought discovery from Celltrion Korea’s subsidiary, Celltrion USA, located in New Jersey. Amgen filed an application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in the District of New Jersey to subpoena Celltrion USA for documents and testimony related to Celltrion Korea’s denosumab products.The Magistrate Judge granted Amgen’s § 1782 application, rejecting Celltrion USA’s argument that § 1782 cannot compel it to produce information held by its foreign parent company. The Judge also found the request not unduly burdensome and ordered the parties to meet and confer to agree on a confidentiality agreement. The District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s order, leading Celltrion USA to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case to determine if the order under § 1782 was final and thus appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Court concluded that the order was not final because the scope of permissible discovery had not been conclusively defined. The Court emphasized that without a definite scope of discovery, it could not properly review whether the District Court had abused its discretion. Consequently, the Third Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that an order granting discovery under § 1782 but leaving the scope of discovery unresolved is not a final order under § 1291. View "Amgen Inc v. Celltrion USA Inc" on Justia Law

Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation (Dolby) owns U.S. Patent No. 10,237,577, which is directed to a prediction method using an in-loop filter. Unified Patents, LLC (Unified) filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) challenging claims 1, 7, and 8 of the patent as anticipated and obvious. Unified certified it was the sole real party in interest (RPI). Dolby identified nine other entities it believed should also have been named as RPIs. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) declined to adjudicate whether these entities were RPIs and instituted the review with Unified as the sole RPI. The Board ultimately held that Unified failed to show any of the challenged claims were unpatentable.The Board's final written decision did not address the RPI dispute, explaining that there was no evidence any of the alleged RPIs were time-barred or estopped from bringing the IPR, or that Unified purposefully omitted any RPIs to gain an advantage. Dolby appealed the Board's decision, arguing that the Board's refusal to adjudicate the RPI dispute caused various harms, including potential breaches of license agreements, conflicts of interest, improper estoppel in future proceedings, and disincentivizing Unified from filing IPRs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Dolby failed to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing to appeal. The court found Dolby's claims of harm to be too speculative, noting that Dolby did not provide evidence of any actual or imminent injury. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of standing and did not reach the merits of Dolby's substantive challenges. View "Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation v. Unified Patents, LLC" on Justia Law

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed two lawsuits against Moderna, Inc., ModernaTX, Inc., and Moderna US, Inc. (collectively Moderna) in the District Court for the District of Delaware. Alnylam alleged that Moderna’s mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine SPIKEVAX® infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 11,246,933 and 11,382,979, which cover cationic lipids used for delivering nucleic acids. The dispute centered on the interpretation of the term “branched alkyl” in the patent claims, specifically whether it required a carbon atom bound to at least three other carbon atoms.The District Court for the District of Delaware concluded that Alnylam had acted as a lexicographer in defining “branched alkyl” in the patent specification. The court adopted Moderna’s proposed construction, which required that a “branched alkyl” must have a carbon atom bound to at least three other carbon atoms. Based on this construction, the parties stipulated that Moderna did not infringe the asserted patent claims, as Moderna’s product did not meet this requirement. The district court entered final judgment of noninfringement accordingly.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Federal Circuit agreed that the specification’s definition of “branched alkyl” was clear and unequivocal, requiring a carbon atom bound to at least three other carbon atoms. The court found no evidence in the claims, specification, or prosecution history that specified otherwise for the asserted claims. Consequently, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s claim construction and the resulting judgment of noninfringement. View "ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MODERNA, INC. " on Justia Law

LADS Network Solutions, Inc. sued Agilis Systems, LLC and its subsidiaries for copyright infringement of LADS’s courier management software, GPStrac. LADS licensed GPStrac to Agilis from 2004 to 2009 and sought copyright protection in 2014. LADS’s application claimed the first publication date was May 1, 2000, but the Copyright Office found a 2004 copyright notice within the source code. LADS resubmitted the correct code, and the Copyright Office approved the copyright. LADS alleged Agilis continued using GPStrac after the license expired.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment to Agilis, invalidating LADS’s copyright under 17 U.S.C. § 411(b). The court found that LADS had knowledge of inaccuracies in the application due to references to APIs that did not exist on the claimed publication date. The district court rejected LADS’s argument that § 411(b)(1) requires intent to defraud the Copyright Office.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether LADS had actual knowledge of the inaccuracies in the application. The court noted that the API references alone did not necessarily provide actual knowledge of the code’s creation date. Agilis failed to show that LADS knew the API’s creation date from any source. The court held that this factual dispute precluded summary judgment and reversed the district court’s decision, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "LADS Network Solutions, Inc. v. Agilis Systems, LLC" on Justia Law

Ogen and Dorit Perry, along with their limited partnership Dahlex LP, sought a writ of mandate to compel Milestone Financial LLC and its managers to produce corporate records under the California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act. The trial court partially granted the petition, ordering the disclosure of some records but redacting member names and addresses, deeming the member list a protected trade secret. The court also declined to order the production of audited records.Milestone appealed, arguing the Perrys lacked standing, the records request did not meet statutory standards, and the redaction order should have included more documents. The Perrys cross-appealed, contending the member list is not a trade secret and the court erred in not ordering audited records. They also appealed the trial court's order on attorney fees and costs, arguing the awarded amount did not reflect the findings in the writ order and was an abuse of discretion.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, found substantial evidence supporting the trial court's decision that the Perrys' request was reasonably related to their interests. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the member list is a trade secret but directed the trial court to amend its order to require Milestone to provide financial statements accompanied by the appropriate report or certificate. The appellate court also reversed the attorney fee award and remanded for reconsideration, requiring the trial court to provide a more detailed explanation for the reduced fee award. The judgment was otherwise affirmed, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs on appeal. View "Perry v. Stuart" on Justia Law

Carroll Shelby Licensing, Inc. and Carroll Hall Shelby Trust filed a lawsuit against Denice Halicki and her associated entities, alleging that Halicki's copyright claims over the "Eleanor" Ford Mustangs were invalid. Halicki counterclaimed, asserting that Shelby's "GT-500CR" Mustangs infringed her copyright in Eleanor, a collection of Mustangs featured in four films. The dispute also involved claims of breach of a prior settlement agreement between the parties.The United States District Court for the Central District of California held that Eleanor was not entitled to character copyright protection and dismissed Halicki’s breach of contract claim based on the settlement agreement. The court also denied Shelby’s request for a declaration that the GT-500CR did not infringe any of Halicki’s rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that Eleanor was not entitled to character copyright protection. The Ninth Circuit applied the Towle test and concluded that Eleanor did not have conceptual qualities, consistent traits, or distinctive elements necessary for character copyright protection. The court also affirmed the district court’s judgment that Shelby did not violate the settlement agreement, which prohibited Shelby from copying only Eleanor’s distinctive hood and inset lights.However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of declaratory relief and remanded the case for the purpose of issuing the appropriate declaration. The appellate court held that a declaration would clarify and settle the legal relations between Shelby and Halicki and provide Shelby relief from the uncertainty that led to the proceedings. View "CARROLL SHELBY LICENSING, INC. V. HALICKI" on Justia Law

Sigray, Inc. filed a petition with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) requesting inter partes review of all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,400,704, owned by Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc. The patent claims X-ray imaging systems incorporating projection magnification. The PTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted the petition, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims was unpatentable. However, in its final written decision, the PTAB declined to hold any of the asserted claims unpatentable. Sigray appealed the PTAB's decision regarding the unpatentability of claims 1-6 based on the prior art reference Jorgensen.The PTAB found that Sigray had not shown that Jorgensen inherently disclosed projection magnification within the claimed range. The PTAB concluded that there was a dispute about whether Jorgensen taught a diverging X-ray beam and found that Sigray failed to demonstrate that Jorgensen's X-ray beam diverged enough to result in projection magnification between 1 and 10 times.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the PTAB's decision. The court found that the PTAB had implicitly construed the claim limitation "between 1 and 10" to exclude small amounts of magnification, which was an error. The court held that the plain meaning of "between 1 and 10" includes even tiny, undetectable magnification. The court concluded that Jorgensen inherently contained projection magnification, as the evidence showed that Jorgensen's X-ray beams were not completely parallel and must result in some magnification. Therefore, the court reversed the PTAB's decision regarding claims 1, 3, and 4, finding them anticipated by Jorgensen. The court vacated the PTAB's decision regarding claims 2, 5, and 6 and remanded for further proceedings to determine if these claims would have been obvious in light of the opinion. View "SIGRAY, INC. v. CARL ZEISS X-RAY MICROSCOPY, INC. " on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jana Romanova, a professional photographer, filed a lawsuit against Defendant Amilus Inc. for willful copyright infringement. Romanova alleged that Amilus published her photograph on its website without authorization. Despite being served, Amilus did not respond or appear in court. Romanova moved for a default judgment, but the district court ordered Amilus to show cause why the motion should not be granted. After receiving no response from Amilus, the court then ordered Romanova to show cause why the use of her photograph did not constitute fair use. The district court ultimately dismissed Romanova’s complaint with prejudice, concluding that Amilus’s use of the photograph was fair use.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Romanova’s claim, finding that the fair use defense was clearly established on the face of the complaint. The court reasoned that Amilus’s publication of the photograph communicated a different message than the original, which justified the fair use defense. Romanova appealed the decision, arguing that the court erred in its substantive finding of fair use and in raising the defense sua sponte for a non-appearing defendant.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court found that the district court misunderstood the fair use doctrine, particularly the requirement for a transformative purpose and justification for copying. The appellate court held that Amilus’s use of the photograph did not communicate a different message and lacked any valid justification for copying. Consequently, the appellate court remanded the case with instructions to enter a default judgment in favor of Romanova. View "Romanova v. Amilus Inc." on Justia Law

Rebecca Curtin filed an opposition to United Trademark Holdings’ (UTH) registration of the mark RAPUNZEL for dolls and toy figures, claiming the mark was generic, descriptive, and failed to function as a trademark. Curtin, a doll collector and mother, argued that the registration would harm consumers by reducing competition and increasing prices for Rapunzel merchandise. She also claimed it would chill the creation of new Rapunzel-themed dolls and toys.The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) dismissed Curtin’s opposition, concluding she was not statutorily entitled to oppose the registration under 15 U.S.C. § 1063. The TTAB applied the Lexmark framework, which requires a plaintiff to fall within the zone of interests protected by the statute and to show a reasonable belief in damage proximately caused by the registration. The TTAB found that Curtin, as a consumer, did not have a commercial interest protected by the Lanham Act and that her alleged injuries were too remote and speculative.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the TTAB’s decision, agreeing that the Lexmark framework was correctly applied. The court held that the interests protected by the Lanham Act in this context are commercial, and Curtin, as a consumer, did not fall within the zone of interests. Additionally, the court found that Curtin’s alleged injuries were derivative of harms to commercial actors and too remote to establish proximate causation. Thus, Curtin was not entitled to oppose the registration of the RAPUNZEL mark. View "CURTIN v. UNITED TRADEMARK HOLDINGS, INC. " on Justia Law

Vetements Group AG filed applications to register two marks, "VETEMENTS" in standard characters and in stylized form, for clothing items and online retail store services featuring clothing. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Examining Attorney refused the applications, asserting that the marks were generic or merely descriptive without acquired distinctiveness, and thus barred from registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) affirmed the Examining Attorney's refusal, applying the foreign equivalents doctrine. The Board found that "VETEMENTS," which translates to "clothing" in English, was generic for the identified goods and services. The Board also determined that the marks were highly descriptive and that Vetements Group AG failed to establish acquired distinctiveness among U.S. consumers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the Board's decision. The court agreed that the foreign equivalents doctrine was correctly applied, noting that an appreciable number of Americans are capable of translating "VETEMENTS" from French to English. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusion that the marks were generic, as they directly referred to the genus of goods and services in question. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision to refuse registration of the marks. View "In Re VETEMENTS GROUP AG " on Justia Law