Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Illinois Tool Works, maker of Rain-X, filed suit against Rust-Oleum over a commercial for its competing product, RainBrella. Illinois Tool Works alleged that the commercial made three false claims. After a jury ruled in favor of Illinois Tool Works, it awarded the company over $1.3 million. The district court then reduced the corrective-advertising award.The Fifth Circuit held that Illinois Tool Works failed to present sufficient evidence showing that Rust-Oleum's profits were attributable to the Lanham Act violation. Therefore, the court vacated the disgorgement-of-profits award, holding that there was no causal connection between Rust-Oleum's false advertising and its profits. The court never explicitly condoned a prospective corrective-advertising award, but saw no principled reason to prohibit them categorically. In this case, because Illinois Tool Works offered no evidence to support the corrective-advertising award, the court held that a jury could not have reasonably awarded any amount to Illinois Tool Works. Finally, the court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the district court's injunction against Rust-Oleum for making the 100-car-washes claim.Therefore, the district court erred in denying Rust-Oleum's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court vacated the damages award and reversed the district court's judgment enjoining Rust-Oleum from making its 100-car-washes claim. The court affirmed the district court's judgment enjoining Rust-Oleum from making the other advertising claims. View "Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Rust-Oleum Corp." on Justia Law

This case arose when Amgen submitted a price increase notice to CCHCS and other registered purchasers. Reuters News made a request under the California Public Records Act, seeking the price increase notices. Amgen then filed a petition for writ of mandamus blocking disclosure. Amgen also moved for a preliminary injunction, which the trial court granted. While this appeal was pending, the trial court sustained CCHCS's demurrer to the mandamus cause of action with leave to amend, and then Amgen chose to dismiss the action instead.The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was not barred by the mootness doctrine where the issues raised are capable of repetition because there will be future price increase notices. Furthermore, the issues are likely to evade review because a pharmaceutical manufacturer has little reason to continue to prosecute a mandamus action after obtaining a preliminary injunction for the 60-day period before a price increase becomes public.On the merits, the court held that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that Amgen had sufficiently shown that its price increase notice pursuant to Senate Bill No. 17 was a trade secret despite its disclosure to the registered purchasers. In this case, Amgen failed to explain how its purported trade secret maintained its confidentiality and concomitant value to Amgen when it was disclosed to over 170 purchasers who had the incentive to use the information to their benefit and Amgen's detriment, and were not subject to any restrictions on using or further disseminating the information. Likewise, the court held that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the balance of harms favored Amgen. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's order granting a preliminary injunction in favor of Amgen. View "Amgen Inc. v. Health Care Services" on Justia Law

Nevro sued, alleging infringement of 18 claims across seven patents that are directed to high-frequency spinal cord stimulation therapy for inhibiting pain. Conventional spinal cord stimulation systems deliver electrical pulses to the spinal cord to generate sensations, such as tingling or paresthesia, that mask or otherwise alter the patient’s pain. The claimed invention purportedly improves conventional spinal cord stimulation therapy by using waveforms with high-frequency elements or components, which are intended to reduce or eliminate side effects. The district court issued a joint claim construction and summary judgment order, holding certain claims invalid as indefinite. As to the remaining six claims, found not indefinite, the court granted summary judgment of noninfringement.The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded. The district court erred in holding invalid as indefinite the “paresthesia-free” system and device terms and in holding indefinite the claims reciting the term “configured to.” The Federal Circuit construed “configured to” to mean “programmed to” and construed “means for generating” as a means-plus-function term, having a function of “generating” and a structure of “a signal/pulse generator configured to generate” the claimed signals. The district court erred in its claim construction but correctly determined that the term “therapy signal” does not render the claims indefinite; a “therapy signal” is “a spinal cord stimulation or modulation signal to treat pain.” View "Nevro Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp." on Justia Law

In an earlier appeal from inter partes review, the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision denying Nike’s motion to amend and remanded for the Board to address errors underlying its conclusion that Nike’s proposed substitute claims 47–50 were unpatentable for obviousness. On remand, the Board denied Nike’s request to enter substitute claims 47–50 of its patent on the ground that those claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103. Nike asserts that the Board violated the notice provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act by finding that a limitation of substitute claim 49 was well-known in the art based on a prior art reference that, while in the record, was never cited by Adidas for disclosing that limitation. Nike also challenged the Board’s finding that Nike’s evidence of long-felt but unmet need was insufficient to establish the nonobviousness of substitute claims 47–50. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part. Substantial evidence supports the finding that Nike failed to establish a long-felt need for substitute claims 47–50. The court vacated in part. No notice was provided for the Board’s theory of unpatentability for substitute claim 49. View "Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG" on Justia Law

Valeant’s patent claims stable methylnaltrexone pharmaceutical preparations; methylnaltrexone, a quaternary amine opioid antagonist derivative, can be useful for reducing the side effects of opioids but is unstable in aqueous solution. The inventors discovered that when the pH of a methylnaltrexone solution is adjusted, the percentage of total degradants drops significantly. The patent is listed in the Orange Book for Relistor®, an injectable drug used to treat constipation as a side effect of taking opioid medication. Mylan filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of Relistor®. Mylan conceded that its ANDA product would infringe claim 8 of the patent.The district court entered the parties’ stipulation to the construction of claim 8’s stability limitation: the phrase “the preparation is stable to storage for 24 months at about room temperature” means “the methylnaltrexone degradation products in the preparation do not exceed 2.0% of the total methylnaltrexone present in the preparation and the preparation is suitable for pharmaceutical use when stored for 24 months at room temperature” and granted summary judgment that claim 8 would not have been obvious. The court rejected Mylan’s expert testimony and cited references and Mylan’s theory that the claimed pH range would have been obvious to try.The Federal Circuit reversed. Mylar raised at least a prima facie case of obviousness. The district court’s obvious-to-try analysis is inconsistent with precedent. View "Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc." on Justia Law

SF’s 329 patent is directed to an improved process for preparing high-molecular-weight polymers for use as super-absorbers in fields such as waste treatment and paper manufacturing. The district court entered summary judgment that certain claims were invalid as anticipated and that another was invalid as obvious. The court concluded that a process performed by a third party, Celanese’s “Sanwet® Process,” evidenced prior art knowledge and use of the patented invention under 35 U.S.C. 102(a), and constituted both a public-use bar and an on-sale bar to the patented invention under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).The Federal Circuit reversed. The district court misinterpreted section 102(a) and the public-use bar of section 102(b); under the proper legal standard, genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. The “known or used” prong of 102(a) means “knowledge or use which is accessible to the public.” Members of the public had access to the plant, where they could view the shape of the conical taper; no evidence suggests that any of these guests was a skilled artisan. The parties dispute whether the remaining elements of the Sanwet® Process were known, and to the extent they were not, whether they were concealed from the public on these tours, in newspaper articles, and in the commemoration video. View "BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Co." on Justia Law

Forney sells welding and machining products in packaging that displays its proposed mark. Forney applied for a trademark based on use in commerce under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051(a). Forney sought to register the mark without showing acquired distinctiveness, identifying its mark as a “color mark.” Forney stated: “[t]he mark consists of a solid black stripe at the top. Below the solid black stripe is the color yellow which fades into the color red. These colors are located on the packaging and or labels.” The examining attorney refused registration, finding the mark “not inherently distinctive” and stating that “[s]uch marks are registrable only ... with sufficient proof of acquired distinctiveness.” Forney revised the description: “The mark consists of the colors red into yellow with a black banner located near the top as applied to packaging for the goods. The dotted lines merely depict placement of the mark on the packing backer card.” The examining attorney again refused registration. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed, treating the proposed mark as a color mark consisting of multiple colors applied to product packaging.The Federal Circuit vacated. The Board erred in finding that a color mark can never be inherently distinctive in the trade dress context and that, even if a color mark could be inherently distinctive, it cannot be absent a well-defined peripheral shape or border. View "In Re: Forney Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

The 968 patent is directed to replacement light-emitting diode (LED) light fixtures and seeks to minimize the need for customization by creating “low profile downlighting for retrofit applications” that accommodates various housing shapes and sizes. TCP petitioned for inter partes review of several claims. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined that TCP did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 6, 14, and 15 were anticipated by the “Chou” patent or that claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 19–23 would have been obvious over Chou alone or in view of other prior art. The Board based its determinations exclusively on its finding that Chou does not disclose a single limitation (H/D limitation) in claims 1 and 20 of the 968 patent, the only independent claims at issue.The Federal Circuit vacated as to claims 2– 4, 6–8, 12, and 16. The Board’s determination that Chou does not disclose the H/D limitation in claim 1 of the 968 patent is not supported by substantial evidence. The Board’s conclusions regarding the H/D limitation resulted from an erroneous interpretation of the claim language and a misunderstanding of case law. The Board did not address any other arguments regarding the other limitations of claim 1 or of the rest of the challenged claims. View "Technical Consumer Products, Inc. v. Lighting Science Group Corp." on Justia Law

Flexco sued for trade dress infringement and unfair competition, alleging that CAI infringed its registered and common law trade dress by promoting and selling conveyor belt fasteners with a product design that is confusingly similar to the product design of Flexco’s fasteners. Flexco cited the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114 and 1125(a), and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/2. CAI sought cancellation of Flexco’s registered trademarks and a declaratory judgment of invalidity, unenforceability, and noninfringement.The district court granted CAI summary judgment, holding that Flexco’s trade dress was functional. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Flexco’s utility patent discloses the utilitarian benefits of the beveled center scallop and is strong evidence of the functionality of Flexco’s trade dress; that evidence is bolstered by Flexco’s own advertisements, internal communications, and statements to the Patent Office. Where functionality is established, there is no need to consider alternative design possibilities. View "Flexible Steel Lacing Co. v. Conveyor Accessories, Inc." on Justia Law

Safeway and its proprietor filed suit against DPB and its owner, alleging federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and deceptive trade practices under Minnesota state law. Safeway claimed that DPB infringed two unregistered description trademarks -- "Rent My Party Bus" and "952 Limo Bus." The district court permanently enjoined defendants from using the trademarks or related domain names, keywords, or hashtags in connection with the advertisement, marketing, or sale of transportation services. However, the district court denied plaintiffs' requests for disgorgement of profits and attorney's fees.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court's finding of no actual confusion and thus, no unjust enrichment, was not clearly erroneous; the district court did not erroneously place the burden of proof on Safeway to prove unjust enrichment; and Safeway bore the burden of proving DPB's sales. The court also held that the district court's findings, when taken in their totality, support its conclusion that Safeway is not entitled to a disgorgement of profits based on deterrence. In this case, the district court actually found that DPB held a good faith belief in its right to use the trademarks. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Safeway's request for disgorgement of profits, and did not abuse its discretion in denying Safeway's request for attorney's fees. View "Safeway Transit LLC v. Discount Party Bus, Inc." on Justia Law