Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Divx’s 720 and 515 patents relate to a method for adaptive bitrate streaming of content on a playback device, such as a mobile phone or personal computer. “Adaptive bit rate streaming involves detecting the present streaming conditions (e.g., the playback device’s network bandwidth and video decoding capacity) in real-time and adjusting the quality of the streamed media accordingly.” On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that Netflix did not meet its burden of proving challenged claims in the patents unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103.Netflix’s appeal argued that the Board failed to address several arguments purportedly raised in Netflix’s petitions. The Federal Circuit found no error in how the Board understood Netflix’s petition arguments and affirmed. It is the petitioner’s burden to make clear when alternative arguments are being presented and to sufficiently expound on each one. The Board should not have to work as hard as Netflix wants to identify all arguments fairly presented in a petition. View "Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC" on Justia Law

Cytonome/ST’s 439 patent, titled “Hydrodynamic Focusing Apparatus and Methods,” describes and claims a microfluidic device for use in processing particles of interest contained in a sample fluid. ABS petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) for an inter partes review, 35 U.S.C. 311–19, of the patentability of five claims of the patent. The PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined that ABS had not shown any of the challenged claims to be unpatentable.The Federal Circuit reversed in part and vacated in part. The Board erred in its claim construction of a limitation common to all challenged claims: “a fluid focusing region configured to focus the sample stream.” The “sample stream” is not limited to a singular-only sample stream. Under the correct claim construction, at least two claims are invalid as anticipated. View "ABS Global, Inc. v. Cytonome/ST, LLC" on Justia Law

Great Concepts applied to register “DANTANNA’S” as a mark for a “steak and seafood restaurant.” Its 764 Registration issued in 2005. Chutter’s predecessor-in-interest, Dan Tana, subsequently petitioned the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel the Registration, based on an alleged likelihood of confusion with Tana’s common law “DAN TANA” mark for restaurant services. The cancellation proceeding was suspended during a trademark infringement civil suit. In 2009, the district court granted Great Concepts summary judgment; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. In December 2010, the Board dismissed Tana’s cancellation proceeding. Meanwhile, in March 2010, Great Concepts’ then-attorney, Taylor, filed with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) a combined declaration of use and declaration of incontestability, under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1058, 1065, declaring “there is no proceeding involving said rights pending and not disposed of either in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts.” At the time, both the PTO cancellation proceeding and the Eleventh Circuit appeal were pending.In 2015, Chutter successfully petitioned the PTO for cancellation of Great Concepts’ “DANTANNA’S” mark based on Taylor’s 2010 false affidavit. The Federal Circuit reversed. The statute limits the Board’s authority to cancel registration of a mark to circumstances in which the “registration was obtained fraudulently,” but does not authorize cancellation of a registration when the incontestability status of that mark is “obtained fraudulently.” View "Great Concepts, LLC v. Chutter, Inc." on Justia Law

Cyntecsued Chilisin, alleging infringement of certain claims of patents directed to molded chokes and a method of manufacturing molded chokes. A choke is a type of inductor used to eliminate undesirable signals in a circuit. Chokes are found in most modern electronics that use batteries or a power supply. Before closing arguments, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims were not invalid as obvious. The jury then found that Chilisin infringed the asserted claims and awarded the full amount of damages requested by Cyntec.The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of infringement as supported by substantial evidence, given the court’s construction of the “by means of” limitation and its jury instruction regarding that limitation. The court reversed the judgment of nonobviousness; given the evidence, a reasonable jury could have found the asserted claims obvious in view of prior art. The court vacated the award of lost profits; the expert’s importation calculations, were unreliable and speculative and his lost profits calculation stemmed from those calculations. View "Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp." on Justia Law

Corephonics’s Challenged Patents relate to dual-aperture camera systems and disclose techniques for using the images from both lenses when zooming while capturing video. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board found claims of the Challenged Patents unpatentable as obvious (35 U.S.C. 103) in inter partes reviews initiated by Apple.The Federal Circuit vacated, finding no procedural error in the Board’s handling of whether two prior references are analogous art. The Board’s handling of the analogous art issue neither markedly departed from the evidence and theories presented by the petition or institution decision nor unfairly surprised” Corephotonics. The Board’s determination that one of the references is analogous art is supported by substantial evidence; the reference is in the same field of endeavor as the Challenged Patents . The court remanded for the Board to explain why the other reference is (or is not) analogous art and how this finding affects its overall conclusion as to obviousness. The Board must decide whether it should consider Apple’s contention that, regardless of whether the reference is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors, it is in the same field of endeavor as the Challenged Patents. View "Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple, Inc." on Justia Law

Finjan asserted the “Downloadable Patents” and the “ARB Patent,” among others in a patent infringement complaint as to SonicWall’s Gateways, Email Security products, and Capture Advanced Threat Protection, among other products. The Downloadable Patents relate to ways to protect network-connectable devices from undesirable downloadable operations.The district court agreed with SonicWall’s interpretation of the claims, concluding that the recited claim limitations “must be performed by the same computer.” Capture ATP and Gateways and Capture ATP and ES products involve separate, remote computers. The court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. Finjan unsuccessfully argued that there remained a factual dispute as to whether Capture ATP and its Gateway and Capture ATP and its ES products each work together to act as a unified computer system to form the steps as Finjan alleged. The district court excluded the apportionment opinions of Finjan’s technical expert and of Finjan’s damages expert based on that apportionment analysis.The Federal Circuit vacated in part. The district court based its judgment of invalidity on a collateral estoppel decision that has since been vacated. The court affirmed the summary judgment of noninfringement and the exclusion of Finjan’s expert analysis. View "Finjan LLC v. SonicWall, Inc." on Justia Law

Seven years ago, A.D. was hired to create a PVT (“pressure volume temperature”) simulation software program. Sah was hired by A.D. to develop a PVT software program in exchange for a stake in one of A.D.’s companies, IPSS. Eight months later, a product called InPVT hit the market. Plaintiff Calsep started looking into InPVT. In Calsep’s assessment, A.D. didn’t have the technical skills or resources to develop a PVT product. Calsep filed another motion to compel, alleging that A.D. still hadn’t adequately disclosed his source code control system. Although A.D. had “produced [a] purported source code system” in April and July, Calsep claimed that these productions were “undoubtedly incomplete” and “had been manipulated.” Believing the deletions to be intentional, Calsep filed a motion for sanctions. Afterward, A.D. filed a motion for reconsideration based on newly discovered forensic images that “vindicated” him. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, and the district court agreed, denying the motion for reconsideration of the sanctions order. A.D. appealed.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision on A.D.'s motion for reconsideration. The court explained that A.D. cannot offer any reason—other than mere forgetfulness—why he couldn’t acquire the images sooner. Further, A.D. hasn’t shown that he acted with diligence during the case to locate these images. Moreover, the court explained that although A.D. argues that the images change the game, Calsep’s expert insists that too much data is still missing from the source code control system, rendering a proper review impossible. The court noted that there was no reason to question the district court’s judgment crediting Calsep’s expert testimony. View "Calsep v. Dabral" on Justia Law

Schwendimann owns the challenged patents, which relate to transfer sheets and methods for transferring images onto dark-colored fabrics. Multi-layer image transfer sheets for transferring images onto fabrics were well known in the prior art but Schwendimann’s patents claimed a single-step solution whereby the white background was incorporated into the image transfer sheet, allowing the white background and dark image to be applied simultaneously onto the dark fabric.On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found all claims of three patents and multiple claims of the fourth patent unpatentable as obvious in view of prior art. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that a skilled artisan would be motivated to combine prior art. View "Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc." on Justia Law

Sisvel’s 561 patent relates to methods of channel coding when transmitting data in radio systems. Channel coding is a technique that adds redundant information to a data block, thereby creating a coded data block. To account for problems from noise and interference during data transmission, the redundant data allows a receiver to more accurately detect and correct errors in the transmitted data, but at the cost of requiring more bandwidth and network resource usage. The 561 patent uses techniques called “link adaptation” and “incremental redundancy,” which it asserts improves prior channel coding techniques.On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found four claims unpatentable but upheld five other claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed the findings of unpatentability. Prior art (Chen) does disclose a second puncturing pattern for transmission of selected code symbols and the Board provided a sufficiently detailed explanation to support its finding that Chen discloses the “combining” limitation. The Board acknowledged Sisvel’s argument that Chen includes a statement that “retransmitted packets are interleaved (not combined).” The court vacated in part, with respect to the claims that were upheld. View "Sisvel International, S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, ULC" on Justia Law

Defendants Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, LLP and its subsidiary, The Bank of New York Mellon (collectively, “BNYM”), retained Plaintiff as an independent contractor to work on an investment valuation project. Plaintiff developed the so-called Pauwels Model. At various times between 2014 and the end of his working relationship with BNYM in 2018, Plaintiff shared spreadsheets derived from the Pauwels Model with various employees and executives at BNYM. In 2016, BNYM retained Defendants Deloitte LLP, Deloitte Tax LLP, and Deloitte USA LLP (collectively, “Deloitte”) to take over the work that Plaintiff had been performing for BNYM. Plaintiff alleged that Deloitte used the spreadsheets to reverse engineer the Pauwels Model and was using the model to conduct the services it provided to BNYM. Plaintiff brought suit against BNYM and Deloitte, alleging, among other claims, that the Pauwels Model embodied a trade secret that they misappropriated.   The Second Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s judgment insofar as it dismissed Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim. The court affirmed the remainder of the judgment. The court explained that misappropriation is not an element of a claim for unjust enrichment under New York law. Therefore, a plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment does not necessarily rise or fall with a claim of trade secret misappropriation. The court explained that because Plaintiff’s theory of liability is distinct from those underpinning Plaintiff’s claim for trade secret misappropriation, his claim for unjust enrichment should not have been dismissed as duplicative of his claim for trade secret misappropriation. View "Pauwels v. Deloitte LLP" on Justia Law