Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Pie Development, L.L.C. was formed to develop an application to streamline the process of purchasing workers compensation insurance. The company alleged that Dax Craig, a consultant, stole the idea and shared it with John Swigart. Craig and Swigart then used the idea to create Pie Insurance Holdings, Inc. and other affiliated entities, generating significant profits. Pie Development sued Craig, Swigart, Pie Insurance Holdings, and Pie Insurance Services, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets under the Mississippi Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA) and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), among other claims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the complaint for failing to provide sufficient detail on each claim, but allowed Pie Development to amend its complaint within thirty days. Pie Development chose not to amend and instead appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, noting that Pie Development did not sufficiently plead that it took reasonable measures to protect its business plan's secrecy.While the appeal was pending, Pie Development filed a new lawsuit against additional defendants, including Pie Carrier Holdings, Gallatin Point Capital, Sirius Point Ltd., and Pie Casualty Insurance Company, and later added the original defendants. The district court dismissed the new claims, citing res judicata, as the claims were identical to those in the first lawsuit. Pie Development appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that res judicata applied because the prior action was concluded by a final judgment on the merits when Pie Development chose to appeal rather than amend its complaint. The court also found that Pie Development failed to state a claim against Gallatin and Sirius, as the complaint did not plausibly allege that they knew or should have known about the misappropriation of trade secrets. View "Pie Development v. Pie Carr Holdings" on Justia Law

Aquarian Foundation, Inc., a non-profit religious organization, alleged that Bruce Lowndes infringed on its copyrights by uploading spiritual teachings of its late founder, Keith Milton Rhinehart, to various websites. Lowndes claimed he had a license from Rhinehart, granted in 1985, to use the materials. Rhinehart passed away in 1999, bequeathing his estate, including the copyrights, to Aquarian.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted partial summary judgment, confirming that Rhinehart's copyrights were properly transferred to Aquarian via his will. After a bench trial, the court ruled against Aquarian on its claims of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and false designation of origin. The court found that Rhinehart created the works as his own, not as works for hire, and that he had validly licensed them to Lowndes. The court also determined that Lowndes did not breach the licensing agreement and that Aquarian could not terminate the license under 17 U.S.C. § 203(a). The court denied attorneys’ fees to both parties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s findings that Rhinehart’s works were not created as works for hire, that he validly licensed the works to Lowndes, and that Lowndes did not breach the licensing agreement. The court also affirmed the decision not to award Lowndes attorneys’ fees under the Lanham Act. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s determination regarding the termination of the license, holding that Aquarian’s termination letter in May 2021 was effective. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address any infringement that may have occurred after the license termination, as well as the denial of injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act. View "AQUARIAN FOUNDATION, INC. V. LOWNDES" on Justia Law

Gesture Technology Partners, LLC owns U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949, which is directed to image capture technology using a portable device with an electro-optical sensor and a digital camera. Apple Inc. filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition challenging the patent's claims as obvious over prior art references Numazaki and Nonaka. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the "Board") found claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-17 unpatentable but upheld claims 4, 11, and 18. Gesture cross-appealed the unpatentability findings, and Apple appealed the findings regarding claims 4, 11, and 18.The Board concluded that claims 1-3 and 5-7 were obvious based on the combination of Numazaki and Nonaka, which disclosed a device that captures images in response to detected gestures. However, the Board found that claim 4, which required the electro-optical sensor to be "fixed" in relation to the digital camera, was not obvious because Numazaki did not disclose this limitation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the Board's determination that claims 1-3 and 5-7 were unpatentable. The court found that the Board had substantial evidence to support its conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of Numazaki and Nonaka to render these claims obvious.However, the court reversed the Board's determination regarding claim 4. The court found that the Board had improperly ignored Apple’s expert testimony, which demonstrated that fixing the electro-optical sensor and digital camera in relation to each other was desirable and obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The court concluded that the record showed that the fixed relationship was necessary to maintain overlapping fields of view, which was essential for the device's functionality.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's findings for claims 1-3 and 5-7 and reversed the finding for claim 4, holding it unpatentable. View "APPLE INC. v. GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC " on Justia Law

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. holds a Biologics License Application (BLA) for EYLEA®, a therapeutic product containing aflibercept, a VEGF antagonist used to treat angiogenic eye diseases. Regeneron also owns U.S. Patent No. 11,084,865, which covers VEGF-trap formulations suitable for intravitreal injection. Several companies, including Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (SB), filed abbreviated Biologics License Applications (aBLAs) seeking approval to market EYLEA® biosimilars. Regeneron sued these companies, including SB, for patent infringement in the Northern District of West Virginia.The district court consolidated the cases and granted Regeneron’s motion for a preliminary injunction against SB, enjoining it from marketing its biosimilar product in the U.S. without a license from Regeneron. The court found it had personal jurisdiction over SB based on SB’s aBLA filing and its distribution agreement with Biogen, which indicated plans for nationwide marketing, including West Virginia. The court also found that Regeneron was likely to succeed on the merits, as SB had not raised a substantial question of invalidity of the ’865 patent for obviousness-type double patenting or lack of written description.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that the district court had personal jurisdiction over SB, as SB’s actions indicated plans to market its biosimilar nationwide. The court also upheld the district court’s findings that SB had not raised a substantial question of invalidity for the ’865 patent. The court found that the patent’s specific stability and glycosylation requirements were patentably distinct from the reference patent and adequately supported by the specification. The court also agreed that Regeneron had established a causal nexus between SB’s infringement and the irreparable harm it would suffer without an injunction. View "REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. " on Justia Law

Kevin Lavery, an ophthalmologist, invented a vision screening device and patented it. He entered into an agreement with Pursuant Health, a company developing vision screening kiosks, to transfer his patent in exchange for royalties on the sales of these kiosks. Lavery's patent expired in May 2021, and Pursuant Health ceased paying royalties. Lavery sued Pursuant Health, seeking a declaration that the royalty payments should continue indefinitely, damages for breach of the Contribution Agreement, and damages for unjust enrichment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of Pursuant Health, ruling that the expiration of Lavery's patent rendered the royalty agreement unenforceable. Lavery appealed the decision, challenging the grant of summary judgment on his breach of contract claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the royalty provision in the Contribution Agreement was unenforceable after the expiration of Lavery's patent. The court found that the agreement did not specify any non-patent contributions that would justify continuing the royalty payments beyond the patent's expiration. The court also noted that the royalty was based on the sales of kiosks that incorporated Lavery's patent, and thus, the royalty provision improperly extended beyond the patent's 20-year term. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Pursuant Health. View "Lavery v. Pursuant Health, Inc." on Justia Law

Steuben Foods, Inc. (Steuben) filed a complaint in 2010 in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, alleging that Shibuya Hoppmann Corp. infringed claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,209,591, 6,536,188, and 6,702,985. Shibuya Kogyo Co., Ltd. was added as a defendant in 2012, and a similar complaint was filed against HP Hood LLC. The cases were consolidated and later transferred to the District of Delaware in 2019. The district court issued a claim construction order in 2020 and denied cross-motions for summary judgment in 2021. A five-day jury trial resulted in a verdict that the asserted patents were valid and infringed, awarding Steuben $38,322,283.78 in damages.The district court granted Shibuya’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement for all asserted patents, found the invalidity arguments waived, and conditionally granted a new trial. Steuben appealed the JMOL and the conditional grant of a new trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the JMOL of noninfringement for the ’591 and ’188 patents, finding substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict of infringement. The court affirmed the JMOL of noninfringement for the ’985 patent, holding that the continuous addition of sterilant could not be equivalent to the claim’s requirement of intermittent addition. The court also reversed the conditional grant of a new trial on noninfringement and vacated the conditional grant of a new trial on invalidity and damages, remanding for further proceedings.The main holdings were: reversing the JMOL of noninfringement for the ’591 and ’188 patents, affirming the JMOL of noninfringement for the ’985 patent, reversing the conditional grant of a new trial on noninfringement, and vacating the conditional grant of a new trial on invalidity and damages. View "STEUBEN FOODS, INC. v. SHIBUYA HOPPMANN CORPORATION " on Justia Law

Moke America LLC and Moke International Limited, along with Moke USA, LLC, are competing for the U.S. trademark rights to the "MOKE" mark, used for their low-speed, open-air vehicles. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that "MOKE" is a generic term for these vehicles, meaning it cannot be a trademark owned by either party. This finding was based on the history of the Moke vehicles, which were originally produced by the British Motor Corporation (BMC) and later by other manufacturers, and the term "Moke" becoming synonymous with a style of vehicle.The district court's decision followed a bench trial where Moke America failed to prove its priority of use. The court then considered whether the MOKE mark was distinctive or generic. Both parties argued that the mark was inherently distinctive, but the court found it to be generic based on the evidence presented, including the parties' marketing efforts and the testimony of a Moke America witness.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court correctly placed the burden on the parties to prove that "MOKE" is not a generic term. However, the Fourth Circuit found that the evidence was insufficient to either affirm or outright reverse the district court's finding of genericness. The court noted that more evidence is needed to determine whether "MOKE" is a generic term or an inherently distinctive mark that was abandoned by its original owner, BMC.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to gather additional evidence on the distinctiveness or genericness of the "MOKE" mark. The parties will continue to bear the burden of proving that the mark is not generic. The court suggested that appointing a disinterested expert witness might be helpful in resolving the issue. View "Moke America LLC v. Moke International Limited" on Justia Law

Tangle, Inc. holds copyright registrations for seven kinetic and manipulable sculptures made from 17 or 18 identical, connected, 90-degree curved tubular segments that can be twisted or turned 360 degrees. Aritzia, Inc. owns and operates retail stores and used similar sculptures in their store windows. Tangle alleged that Aritzia's sculptures infringed on their copyrighted works and also claimed trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Tangle's initial copyright infringement claim for failure to state a claim but allowed Tangle to amend its complaint. Tangle filed an amended complaint, which was again dismissed. Tangle then filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding a trade dress infringement claim. The district court dismissed both claims, giving Tangle leave to amend. Tangle chose not to amend further and instead appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of Tangle’s copyright claim, holding that Tangle adequately alleged valid copyrights in its kinetic and manipulable sculptures. The court found that the sculptures were sufficiently "fixed" in a tangible medium for copyright purposes, despite their ability to move into various poses. The court also held that Tangle plausibly alleged that Aritzia's sculptures were substantially similar to Tangle's protected works under the "extrinsic test."However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Tangle’s trade dress infringement claim. The court agreed that Tangle failed to provide a complete recitation of the concrete elements of its alleged trade dress, which is necessary to give adequate notice of the asserted trade dress.The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Ninth Circuit's opinion. View "TANGLE, INC. V. ARITZIA, INC." on Justia Law

Charles James, a home designer, claimed that real estate agents infringed his copyrights by including floorplans of his homes in resale listings. James designed a home with a triangular atrium and stairs, built six homes using the design, and registered copyrights for the designs. In 2010, agent Susan Horak listed one of these homes for resale, creating a floorplan by hand for the listing. In 2017, agent Jackie Bulgin listed another of James's homes, using a similar floorplan. James discovered these listings in 2017 and alleged that the floorplans could be used to build homes, potentially infringing his copyrights.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment to the real estate agents, concluding that their use of the floorplans was fair use. The court also initially ruled in favor of the agents under § 120(a) of the Copyright Act, but this decision was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which remanded the case for further consideration of the fair use defense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the agents. The court held that the agents' use of the floorplans was fair use, considering the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect on the market for the original work. The court found that the agents' use was transformative, had an informational purpose, and did not harm the market for James's designs. The court also rejected Designworks's request for further discovery on the fair use issue, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. The court affirmed the district court's judgments. View "Designworks Homes, Inc. v. Columbia House of Brokers Realty, Inc." on Justia Law

Lynk Labs, Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 10,687,400, which relates to light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and LED drivers, specifically alternating current (AC) driven LEDs and LED circuits. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) challenging claims 7-20 of the '400 patent for obviousness. Lynk Labs disclaimed claims 14 and 18-20, leaving claims 7-13 and 15-17 in dispute. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) determined that claims 7-13 and 17 were unpatentable for obviousness based on prior art, including U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0206970 (Martin), which was filed before the '400 patent's priority date but published after.The Board found that Martin could serve as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1), which allows a published patent application to be deemed prior art as of its filing date. The Board also determined that claims 15 and 16 were unpatentable based on other grounds not involving Martin. Lynk Labs appealed, arguing that Martin could not be prior art because it was published after the '400 patent's priority date and that the Board erred in its claim constructions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision. The court held that under § 102(e)(1), a published patent application can be deemed prior art as of its filing date, thus Martin was properly considered prior art. The court also upheld the Board's claim constructions, concluding that the term "a plurality of LEDs connected in series" includes both individual LEDs and groups of LEDs connected in series, and that "matches" in the context of the forward voltage limitation includes both equivalence and a rectified input AC voltage output that is less than the forward voltage of the LEDs. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's findings and affirmed the unpatentability of claims 7-13 and 17. View "LYNK LABS, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. " on Justia Law