Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Sound View alleged that Hulu infringed claim 16 of its patent, titled “Method for Streaming Multimedia Information over Public Networks” by its use of (third party) edge servers, which sit between a central Hulu content server and the video-playing devices of customers. The district court construed the patent’s “downloading/retrieving limitation” not to cover a process in which downloading occurs from one buffer in a helper server and the (concurrent) retrieving places what is retrieved in another buffer in that server. The court construed the limitation to require that the same buffer in the helper server host both the portion sent to the client and a remaining portion retrieved concurrently from the content server or other helper server. Hulu argued that, in the edge servers of its content delivery networks, no single buffer hosts both the video portion downloaded to the client and the retrieved additional portion. Sound View argued that there remained a factual dispute about whether “caches” in the edge servers met the concurrency limitation as construed.The district court held that a “cache” could not be the “buffer” that its construction of the downloading/retrieving limitation required. The Federal Circuit vacated the summary judgment of non-infringement, affirming the construction of the downloading/retrieving limitation but rejecting the determination that “buffer” cannot cover “a cache.” View "Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC" on Justia Law

Sunless sells tanning booths and spray tan solution under the “Mystic Tan” mark. Sunless claims that applying Mystic Tan solution in a Mystic Tan booth results in a “Mystic Tan Experience.” Palm Beach owns and franchises tanning salons. It owns several Mystic Tan-branded booths, and previously bought Mystic Tan-branded tanning solution to use in them; the booths were designed to accept only Mystic Tan solution. Palm Beach jury-rigged the booths so that they will operate with its own distinctly branded spray tan solution, unapproved by Sunless.Sunless sought a preliminary injunction under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114, 1125, arguing that the jury-rigging is likely to confuse consumers into believing they are getting a genuine “Mystic Tan Experience” when they are not. The district court denied the motion, finding that Sunless had failed to show, at this stage of the litigation, that Palm Beach’s salon customers would be confused. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Palm Beach never conceded that it sells a “Mystic Tan Experience” as an indivisible whole. Palm Beach argued there are two products: booths and solutions, each displaying its own distinct mark. Palm Beach continues to use the Mystic Tan-branded booths (which it owns outright), but neither uses nor claims to use Mystic Tan solutions. View "Sunless, Inc. v. Palm Beach Tan, Inc." on Justia Law

Gasoline producers blend butane into gasoline before selling it because butane makes gasoline more volatile, helping vehicles start more readily in colder temperatures, and butane is cheaper than gasoline. Sunoco’s patented technology seeks to maximize butane content while complying with EPA regulations concerning volatility, which vary depending on season and location. Sunoco’s patents “describe a system and method for blending butane with the gasoline at a point close to the end of the distribution process: immediately before being distributed to the tanker trucks that take gasoline to consumer gas stations.” Producers can “blend the maximum allowable butane into each batch based on where the truck is going and what month it is.” Sunoco successfully sued Venture, alleging infringement.The Federal Circuit reversed a holding that the experimental-use doctrine insulated a subset of asserted patent claims from the on-sale bar, vacated the infringement judgment as to those claims, and remanded for the district court to analyze the second prong of the on-sale bar. The court also vacated the infringement judgment with respect to patent claims that it affirmed are invalid in a separate appeal. The court adopted the district court’s claim constructions and affirmed its infringement judgment regarding two patent claims; vacated a treble-damages award; and affirmed the denial of lost-profits damages and $2 million reasonable royalty. View "Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc." on Justia Law

Intuitive’s 447 patent relates to robotic surgery systems and describes an improvement over Intuitive’s earlier robotic surgery systems, which allow surgeons to remotely manipulate surgical tools using a controller. The invention embodied by the patent attempts to address difficulties in swapping tools via a robotic system with a servo-pulley mechanism, which allows clinicians to more quickly swap out surgical instruments and thereby reduce surgery time, improve safety, and increase the reliability of the system. Following inter partes review of all five claims of the patent, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined that Auris failed to demonstrate that the claims were unpatentable as obvious. Although the Board agreed with Auris that its combination of two references disclosed every limitation of the challenged claims, the Board concluded that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine those references. The Federal Circuit vacated. The Board impermissibly rested its motivation-to-combine finding on evidence of general skepticism about the field of invention. The Board recited Auris’s evidence that combining prior art would reduce the number of assistants but also Intuitive’s evidence that such a combination would come at the expense of precision required for surgery. View "Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc." on Justia Law

After Bacardi began an advertising campaign in November 2013 using the phrase “Bacardi Untameable” to promote its rum products, Lodestar filed suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of Bacardi, and held that Plaintiff failed to meet the elements of a trademark infringement action. Plaintiff alleged “reverse confusion”, which occurs when a person who knows of a well-known junior user comes into contact with a lesser-known senior user, and the similarity of the marks causes the individual to believe that the senior user is affiliated or the same as the junior user.   The court found that Plaintiff’s Untamed Revolutionary Rum product should be excluded from the likelihood-of-confusion analysis because it did not reflect a bona fide use of the mark. In applying the Sleekcraft factors, the court found that Plaintiff failed to carry its burden to show a likelihood of confusion. Further, while the district court erred in certain aspects in its consideration, the errors did not alter the ultimate conclusion. View "LODESTAR ANSTALT V. BACARDI & COMPANY LTD." on Justia Law

Zipit, a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in South Carolina, and with all of its employees in South Carolina, is the assignee of the patents-in-suit, which are generally directed to wireless instant messaging devices that use Wi-Fi. In 2013, Zipit contacted Apple in California. For three years, the parties exchanged correspondence and met in person at Apple’s Cupertino headquarters. Zipit filed a patent infringement action against Apple in Georgia but later dismissed the case without prejudice.Apple sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement in the Northern District of California. The district court dismissed, holding that it lacked specific personal jurisdiction over Zipit (general jurisdiction was not asserted). The court concluded that Apple had established the requisite minimum contacts but that “the exercise of personal jurisdiction . . . would be unconstitutional when ‘[a]ll of the contacts were for the purpose of warning against infringement or negotiating license agreements, and [the defendant] lacked a binding obligation in the forum.’” The Federal Circuit reversed, Zipit is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of California for purposes of Apple’s declaratory judgment action. Zipit has not presented a compelling case that the relevant factors in the aggregate would render the exercise of jurisdiction unreasonable. View "Apple, Inc. v. Zipit Wireless, Inc." on Justia Law

Congestive heart failure can be treated by resynchronization therapy, using electrical pacing leads to help keep the two sides of the heart contracting with regularity and in sync. According to Niazi's 268 patent, physicians previously accomplished resynchronization by inserting a catheter into the coronary sinus and its branch veins to place pacing leads on the hearts of patients; it can be “difficult to pass a lead” into the coronary sinus and its branch veins using a catheter. The 268 patent describes a double catheter, comprising an outer and inner catheter, for cannulating the coronary sinus “without significant manipulation.” Niazi sued for patent infringement, accusing combinations of St. Jude’s products of directly infringing the 268 patent and accusing St. Jude of inducing infringement.The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s determination that all but one of the asserted patent claims are invalid as indefinite; when read in light of the intrinsic evidence, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope of the claims with reasonable certainty. Niazi failed to prove direct infringement—a necessary element of Niazi’s inducement claim. The court affirmed the entry of monetary sanctions and the exclusion of portions of Niazi’s technical expert and damages expert reports because Niazi failed to disclose predicate facts during discovery. The court upheld the exclusion of portions of Niazi’s damages expert report as unreliable. View "Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc." on Justia Law

BioVeris, a Roche entity, owns the patents, which concern immunoassays that exploit electrochemiluminescence (ECL). Meso maintains that a prior owner, IGEN, granted it exclusive rights to the patent claims it now asserts against Roche (which sells instruments and reagent packs for performing ECL immunoassays). Meso sued Roche in the Delaware Court of Chancery in 2010, alleging that Roche breached its 2003 license with IGEN by violating a field restriction. The chancery court determined that Meso was not a party to the 2003 license agreement, such that only BioVeris (IGEN’s successor-in-interest) could enforce the field restriction.In 2017, Roche sought a federal court declaratory judgment that it does not infringe Meso’s rights arising from a 1995 joint venture license agreement. Meso counterclaimed for patent infringement. A jury found that Meso holds an exclusive license to the asserted patent claims, that Roche directly infringed one claim and induced infringement of three claims in other patents, and that Roche’s infringement was willful. It awarded Meso $137,250,000 in damages. The court granted Roche judgment as a matter of law on willfulness, denied Meso’s motions to enhance damages, and rendered a noninfringement judgment with respect to three additional patents on the ground that Meso waived compulsory infringement counterclaims. The Federal Circuit affirmed on direct infringement, reversed on induced infringement, vacated the damages award, remanded for a new trial on damages, and vacated the judgment of noninfringement with respect to three additional patents. View "Roche Diagnostics Corp. v. Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC" on Justia Law

Bluetooth SIG, Inc. (“SIG”) is a non-profit organization that owns the commonly-recognized “Bluetooth” marks. Before a product manufacturer is permitted to use any Bluetooth marks, they must join SIG, execute a licensing agreement, submit declarations of compliance, and pay certain fees.FCA US, LLC (“FCA”) makes cars containing Bluetooth head units manufactured by third-party suppliers that have been qualified by the SIG. SIG brought trademark claims against FCA under the Lanham Act.The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s order that found the first sale doctrine did not apply. The first sale doctrine provides that a producer’s rights to control the distribution of a trademarked product do not extend beyond the first sale of the product. The panel held that the first sale doctrine also applies when a mark is used to refer to a component part incorporated into a new end product, provided the seller discloses how the trademarked product was incorporated into the new end product. View "BLUETOOTH SIG INC. V. FCA US LLC" on Justia Law

Littelfuse alleged that Mersen infringed its patent, which is directed to a “fuse end cap for providing an electrical connection between a fuse and an electrical conductor.” After the district court construed the patent claims, the parties stipulated to a judgment of non-infringement.The Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and the district court’s constructions of “fastening stem” and “a fastening stem that extends from the mounting cuff and into the second cavity of the terminal that receives the conductor.” On remand, the district court should adjust the construction of those claim terms so as to allow for the independent claims to cover both single-piece and multi-piece embodiments, but the court’s constructions should continue to give meaning to the terms “fastening” and “stem” in the context of the invention and the ordinary meaning of those terms. View "Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp." on Justia Law