Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Cloudbreak’s patent discloses compositions and methods for treating pterygium, an eye condition in which a tumor-like growth extends from the nasal or temporal side of the eye to the cornea, by administering multikinase inhibitors to the eye to inhibit specific growth factors that contribute to tumor growth and hyperemia (i.e., eye redness). The patent discloses that nintedanib in particular “may be one of the most powerful multikinase inhibitors for reducing corneal neovascularization.”In inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that the petitioner, Allgenesis, failed to prove two claims of the patent are unpatentable. The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal. Allgenesis failed to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing to appeal. Allgenesis identified no concrete plans to develop and bring to market a nintedanib treatment for pterygium and has not shown its activities will create a substantial risk of infringement or will likely cause Cloudbreak to assert a claim of infringement. The court rejected an argument that Allgenesis suffered an injury in fact based on the Board’s priority determination that will have a preclusive effect on the scope of its pending patent application. Allgenesis has not established that the Board’s decision will have preclusive effect. View "Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Cloudbreak Therapeutics, LLC" on Justia Law

Epoprostenol, a naturally occurring substance, useful for treating cardiovascular diseases, was discovered in the early 1980s and was first brought to market under the brand name Flolan® in 1995. Epoprostenol is unstable in water, it was prepared as a freeze-dried, or lyophilized, powder for use in the Flolan composition. Actelion owns two patents directed to improved epoprostenol formulations that can be reconstituted with commercially available IV fluids and do not require refrigeration after reconstitution until use.” The inventor “unexpectedly found that epoprostenol solution in the presence of an alkalinizing agent, and high pH (>11) is very stable compared to Flolan.” Mylan sought approval to manufacture and sell a generic epoprostenol sodium for injection by filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA, containing a certification that the Actelion patents’ claims were invalid or would not be infringed by the ANDA product.The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s claim construction order with respect to the term “a pH of 13 or higher” and its judgment of infringement. The issue involves understanding what the significant digits are for “a pH of 13.” The district court must address extrinsic evidence explaining how a person of ordinary skill in the art would view the significant digits for a pH value. View "Actelion Pharmaceuticals LTD v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.," on Justia Law

In 2011, PersonalWeb sued Amazon in Texas, alleging that Amazon’s S3 technology infringed PersonalWeb’s “True Name” patents. After the court construed the claim terms, PersonalWeb stipulated to dismissal. In 2018, PersonalWeb asserted the same patents against 85 Amazon customers for their use of Amazon S3. Amazon intervened and filed a declaratory judgment action. The customer cases and Amazon’s declaratory judgment action were consolidated. PersonalWeb represented that if it lost its “Twitch” customer case, it could not prevail in the other customer cases. The court stayed the other cases; the Twitch case and Amazon’s declaratory judgment action proceeded. PersonalWeb counterclaimed against Amazon, alleging that Amazon S3 infringed its True Name patents and accused another Amazon product, CloudFront, of infringement.The Federal Circuit affirmed partial summary judgment of non-infringement of the S3 product, based on claim preclusion and summary judgment of non-infringement as to CloudFront because, under the earlier claim construction, PersonalWeb admittedly could not prove infringement. The district court granted Amazon and Twitch attorneys’ fees and costs, 35 U.S.C. 285, determining that the case was exceptional because PersonalWeb’s claims related to Amazon S3 were objectively baseless in light of the Texas Action; PersonalWeb frequently changed positions; PersonalWeb unnecessarily prolonged litigation after claim construction foreclosed its infringement theories; PersonalWeb’s positions regarding the customer cases were unreasonable; and PersonalWeb submitted declarations that it should have known were not accurate. The Federal Circuit affirmed an award of $5,401,625.06, including $5,187,203.99 in attorneys’ fees. View "In re PersonalWeb Techs., LLC" on Justia Law

Lai, an engineer, had access to Applied’s trade secrets and participated in highly confidential meetings. Mattson, Applied's direct competitor, recruited 17 Applied employees. Lai accepted a job with Mattson. Before his last day at Applied, Lai accessed proprietary information from Applied’s cloud-based storage system and sent e-mails attaching highly confidential Applied documents—many clearly marked as such—to his personal email accounts. He signed a separation certificate stating he had not retained any Applied information and confirmed this in two exit interviews. After starting his new job, Lai logged into his personal email accounts on his Mattson computer. Lai claims never disclosed any Applied information to Mattson. Mattson denies any knowledge of Lai’s actions.Applied sued Mattson and Lai, citing the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civ. Code 3426) and breach of Lai’s employment agreement. Lai then deleted the emails he had sent to one account, and, after communicating with Mattson’s lawyers, downloaded a confidential Applied document to his Mattson laptop, deleting it a moment later. Mattson put Lai on leave. cut off his access to his personal email accounts. and sequestered his iPhone and computers. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on a provision in the Applied-Lai employment contract. The court of appeal affirmed a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from accessing or using Applied’s confidential information and an order compelling arbitration as to Lai. Mattson, a non-party, is not entitled to arbitration. The litigation should be stayed pending arbitration. View "Mattson Technology, Inc. v. Applied Materials, Inc." on Justia Law

Choreographer Kyle Hanagami claimed that Epic Games, Inc., the creator of the videogame Fortnite, infringed the copyright of a choreographic work when the company created and sold a virtual animation, known as an “emote,” depicting portions of the registered choreography. The district court dismissed his action under the Copyright Act and remanded for further proceedings on claims of direct and contributory infringement of a choreographic work.   The Ninth Circuit reversed. The panel held that, under the “extrinsic test” for assessing substantial similarity, Hanagami plausibly alleged that his choreography and Epic’s emote shared substantial similarities. The panel held that, like other forms of copyrightable material such as music, choreography is composed of various elements that are unprotectable when viewed in isolation. What is protectable is the choreographer’s selection and arrangement of the work’s otherwise unprotectable elements. The panel held that “poses” are not the only relevant element, and a choreographic work also may include body position, body shape, body actions, transitions, use of space, timing, pauses, energy, canon, motif, contrast, and repetition. The panel concluded that Hanagami plausibly alleged that the creative choices he made in selecting and arranging elements of the choreography—the movement of the limbs, movement of the hands and fingers, head and shoulder movement, and tempo—were substantially similar to the choices Epic made in creating the emote. The panel held that the district court also erred in dismissing Hanagami’s claim on the ground that the allegedly copied choreography was “short” and a “small component” of Hanagami’s overall work. View "KYLE HANAGAMI V. EPIC GAMES, INC., ET AL" on Justia Law

The 549 and 175 patents disclose microcalorimeters, machines that measure the amount of energy absorbed or released during a chemical reaction between two compounds, specifically an isothermal titration calorimeter (ITC). Malvern’s 782 patent is unrelated to those patents. An examiner rejected various claims of the 782 patent (with an automated ITC) as anticipated by the 968 application, disclosing a prior art “manual ITC system.” The examiner understood the 968 application to disclose an automated ITC system but noted that because the 968 application and the 782 patent had a common assignee, the 968 application might not qualify as prior art under pre-America Invents Act, 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(1). The examiner then withdrew the rejection, finding that the 968 application did not count as prior art. After Malvern acquired the 549 and 175 patents, Malvern sought supplemental examination of the 175 patent under 35 U.S.C. 257.Malvern sued Waters for infringing the 549 and 175 patents. The district court construed the term “pipette guiding mechanism” as a “mechanism that manually guides the pipette assembly.” The Federal Circuit vacated. The claim language and the specification indicate that the term is used broadly in the 549 and 175 patents and refers to a mechanism that guides the pipette assembly either manually or automatically. Merely listing the 782 patent office actions in the IDS of the 175 patent supplemental examination was insufficient to inform the meaning of “pipette guiding mechanism” in unrelated patents. View "Malvern Panalytical Inc. v. TA Instruments-Waters LLC" on Justia Law

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