Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs in this case—Sherman Nealy and Music Specialist, Inc.—filed this copyright action seeking, among other things, damages for infringement they allege occurred more than three years before they filed this lawsuit. The defendants—Warner Chappell Music, Inc. and Artist Publishing Group, LLC—contend that Plaintiffs cannot recover damages for anything that happened more than three years before they filed suit.  The district court certified the following question for interlocutory appellate review: whether damages in this copyright action are limited to a three-year lookback period as calculated from the date of the filing of the complaint.   The Eleventh Circuit answered that question in the negative. The court wrote that given that the plain text of the Copyright Act does not support the existence of a separate damages bar for an otherwise timely copyright claim, the court held that a copyright plaintiff with a timely claim under the discovery rule may recover retrospective relief for infringement that occurred more than three years prior to the filing of the lawsuit. View "Sherman Nealy, et al. v. Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Jazz holds an approved New Drug Application (NDA) for the narcolepsy drug Xyrem®, with the active ingredient, GHB, which exerts a heavily sedating effect and is prone to misuse; it is known as a date rape drug. The FDA conditioned approval of Jazz’s NDA upon the development of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS). The 963 patent relates to Jazz’s distribution system, which controls access to the drug through a central pharmacy and computer database, tracking prescriptions, patients, and prescribers. Jazz listed the 963 patent in the Orange Book as covering a method of using Xyrem. The patent’s claims expired in 2022. In 2020, Avadel submitted an NDA for the GHB-based drug FT218. Unlike Xyrem, FT218 is dosed once nightly. FT218’s REMS describe multiple pharmacies and databases for ensuring proper drug handling. Although Avadel had filed an NDA, not an Abbreviated NDA, the FDA required Avadel to file a certification that to the best of its knowledge, the 963 patent’s single-pharmacy system was invalid, unenforceable, or would not be infringed by its product.Jazz sued Avadel for infringement. Avadel sued the FDA for requiring certification; the suit was dismissed because 21 U.S.C. 355(c)(3)(D)(ii)(I) provided Avadel with a separate adequate remedy. Avadel responded to Jazz’s infringement assertions, seeking de-listing of the 963 patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court order that Jazz request de-listing. The 963 patent claims a system and does not claim an approved method of use. View "Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, Inc" on Justia Law

Hawk’s patent, titled “high-quality, reduced data rate streaming video product and monitoring system,” relates to a method of viewing multiple simultaneously displayed and stored video images on a remote viewing device of a video surveillance system. Hawk sued Castle for patent infringement based on Castle’s use of security surveillance video operations in its grocery stores. Castle argued that the asserted claims were directed to ineligible subject matter and invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101.The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. The patent claims were directed to the abstract idea of storing and displaying video and failed to provide an inventive step that transformed that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The claims do not disclose performing any “special data conversion” or otherwise describe how the alleged goal of “conserving bandwidth while preserving data” is achieved. Nor do the claims (or specification) explain “what th[e] [claimed] parameters are or how they should be manipulated.” The claims, “read in light of the specification, do not show a technological improvement in video storage and display because the limitations can be implemented using generic computer elements.” The “specification and claims do not explain or show how the monitoring and storage is improved, except by using already existing computer and camera technology.” View "Hawk Technology Systems, LLC sued Appellee Castle Retail, LLC" on Justia Law

Lite-Netics sells string lights held by magnets to a surface such as a roof edge, as the assignee of two patents entitled “Magnetic Light Fixture.” Lite-Netics competes with HBL in the market for holiday string lights. Lite-Netics brought a patent-infringement action against HBL and also sent notices, one before filing suit and one after, to its customers (stores that sell the lights), some of which were also HBL customers, informing them of allegedly infringing competitors and stating Lite-Netics’s intent to enforce its patent rights. Lite-Netics did not name such competitors in the first notice. In the second notice, it identified HBL as an allegedly infringing competitor.After the second notice, HBL filed counterclaims, including for state-law torts. The district court issued a preliminary injunction, barring Lite-Netics from suggesting that HBL is a patent infringer, that HBL copied Lite-Netics’s lights, or that HBL customers might be sued. The Federal Circuit vacated. The district court abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction because the applicable speech-protective legal standards were not met. Federal patent law preempts state-law tort liability for a patentholder’s good faith conduct in communications asserting infringement and warning about potential litigation. HBL’s state-law claims can survive federal preemption only to the extent that they are based on a showing of bad faith in asserting infringement. Lite-Netics’s positions have not been shown, at this stage of the litigation, to be objectively baseless. View "Lite-Netics, LLC v. Nu Tsai Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung E.V. (“Fraunhofer”) initiated a patent infringements lawsuit against Sirius XM Radio Inc. (“Sirius XM”) in district court. After filing suit, Fraunhofer subpoenaed Sirius XM’s former Chief Marketing Officer, Appellant, for a deposition. When Appellant failed to appear for her deposition, the parties filed motions to address the situation. The district court denied Appellant’s motion to quash the subpoena, ordered her to sit for her deposition, found her in contempt for defying the subpoena, and expressed an intent to award sanctions. Appellant sat for her deposition, and then, before any judgment had been issued on sanctions, she appealed the orders against her. Before the DC Circuit, Appellant argued that the district court abused its discretion in compelling her deposition, finding her in contempt, and expressing an intent to award sanctions.   The DC Circuit dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court reasoned that Appellant’s challenge to the district court’s order compelling her deposition is moot because her deposition testimony has been given. Appellant’s challenges to the district court’s contempt finding and intent to award sanctions raise matters relating to a discovery proceeding ancillary to a patent suit which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. View "Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Angewand v. Sirius XM Radio Inc." on Justia Law

The application for the 208 patent was filed in 2012 and claims a priority date of November 7, 2011. It is directed to surgical devices for an “endometrial ablation,” which stops or reduces abnormal uterine bleeding. The procedure generally involves inserting a device having an energy-delivery surface into a patient’s uterus, expanding the surface, energizing the surface to “ablate” or destroy the endometrial lining of the patient’s uterus, and removing the surface.Minerva sued Hologic for infringement. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment that the asserted claims are anticipated under the public use bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The Federal Circuit affirmed. The patented technology was “in public use” because, before the critical date, for several days, Minerva disclosed 15 devices having the technology at the industry’s “Super Bowl,” Minerva showcased them at a booth, in meetings with interested parties, and in a technical presentation. Minerva did not disclose the devices under any confidentiality obligations, despite the commercial nature of the event. At the time of that public use, the technology was “ready for patenting.” Minerva had created working prototypes and technical documents describing the claimed technology. There are no genuine factual disputes. View "Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc." on Justia Law

Dmarcian, Inc. (dInc) and dmarcian Europe BV (dBV)—and a broken business relationship. The original dmarcian, dInc, is a Delaware corporation with headquarters in North Carolina. Its corporate homonym, dBV, is a Dutch entity based in the Netherlands. The two companies negotiated an agreement authorizing dBV to sell dInc’s software in Europe and Africa. The license was done on a handshake, and the parties now dispute its terms. Among other allegations, dInc accuses dBV of directly competing for customers, which prompted dInc to bring claims of copyright and trademark infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, and tortious interference. The district court exercised personal jurisdiction over dBV and declined to dismiss for forum non conveniens. The district court also issued a preliminary injunction limiting dBV’s use of dInc’s intellectual property. The district court later held dBV in contempt for violating the injunction, and dBV appealed.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed except as to one aspect of the contempt order, which the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings as to the proper amount of sanctions. The court explained that the district court did not err in exercising personal jurisdiction, in declining to dismiss for forum non conveniens, and in issuing a preliminary injunction. Further, the court held that the district court was also justified in issuing a contempt sanction; but the court  requires a more thorough examination of the sanction amount. While the preliminary injunction may not be the final word on the merits, its entry was also not an abuse of discretion considering the weighty interests and detailed findings discussed at length above. View "Dmarcian, Inc. v. Dmarcian Europe BV" on Justia Law

SSI alleged that DZEM infringes two of SSI’s patents that are generally directed to sensors for determining the characteristics of fluid in a container, such as a fuel tank. SSI’s commercial embodiments of the asserted patents and DZEM’s accused products are systems that determine the quality and volume of diesel exhaust fluid that is used in emission-reduction systems for diesel truck engines. DZEM asserted counterclaims for invalidity of the asserted patents and for tortious interference with prospective business relations.The district court granted DZEM summary judgment on the infringement claims and dismissed DZEM’s invalidity counterclaims, granting SSI summary judgment on the tortious interference counterclaim. The Federal Circuit vacated in part, reversing the district court’s construction of the term “filter” as used in the 038 patent. The term is properly construed to mean “a device containing openings through which liquid is passed that blocks and separates out matter, such as air bubbles.” On remand, SSI will not be precluded from arguing that DZEM’s accused sensors infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. The court affirmed summary judgment with respect to the 153 patent and DZEM’s counterclaim for tortious interference. View "SSI Technologies, LLC, v. Dongguan Zhengyang Electronic Mechanical LTD" on Justia Law

ChromaDex’s 807 patent is directed to dietary supplements containing isolated nicotinamide riboside (NR), a form of vitamin B3 naturally present—in non-isolated form—in cow’s milk and other products. Animal cells convert ingested NR into the coenzyme nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, or NAD+. NAD+ deficiencies can cause diseases in both animals and humans. ChromaDex sued Elysium, a former ChromaDex customer, for patent infringement.The district court construed several claim terms, finding “isolated [NR]” to mean “[NR] that is separated or substantially free from at least some other components associated with the source of [NR].” The district court granted Elysium summary judgment, finding that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The asserted claims concern a product of nature and are not patent eligible. They do not have characteristics markedly different from milk; both “increase[] NAD+ biosynthesis upon oral administration.” Recognizing the utility of NR is nothing more than recognizing a natural phenomenon, which is not inventive. The act of isolating the NR by itself, “no matter how difficult or brilliant it may have been” does not turn an otherwise patent-ineligible product of nature into a patentable invention. View "ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc." on Justia Law

The Everly Brothers (Phil and Don) are known for many musical hits, including Cathy’s Clown, recorded, released, and copyrighted in 1960. The copyrights listed both brothers as authors; both were credited as co-authors and received royalties. In 1980, Phil signed notarized documents titled “Release and Assignment,” related to Cathy’s Clown and other works: “Phil Everly desires to release, and transfer, to the said Don Everly all of his rights, interests and claim in and to [‘Cathy’s Clown’], including rights to royalties and his claim as co-composer. In 2017, Don sued Phil’s estate for a declaratory judgment that Don was the sole author of Cathy’s Clown. There was contradictory evidence of Phil’s factual authorship, particularly a 1984 television interview.The district court found that Don repudiated Phil’s authorship of Cathy’s Clown, which triggered a three-year window for Phil to make an authorship claim under the Copyright Act. Phil did not do so. The district court rejected Phil’s estate’s argument that the three-year limitations period should not apply to the defense that Phil is a co-author. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Don’s estate may rely on the statute of limitations. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Phil failed to exercise his rights after Don repudiated his authorship. View "Garza v. Everly" on Justia Law