Justia U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. developed Ampyra®, a drug for multiple sclerosis, and had a licensing agreement with Alkermes PLC, which owned a patent for Ampyra’s active ingredient. The patent expired in July 2018, but Acorda continued to make royalty payments to Alkermes until July 2020, when it began making payments under protest. Acorda initiated arbitration in July 2020, seeking a declaration that the royalty provisions were unenforceable post-patent expiration and a refund of royalties paid since July 2018.The arbitration tribunal agreed that the royalty provisions were unenforceable but ruled that Acorda could only recoup payments made under formal protest. Acorda then petitioned the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to confirm the tribunal’s rulings except for the denial of recoupment of unprotested payments. The district court rejected Acorda’s arguments, which were based on the tribunal’s alleged “manifest disregard” of federal patent law and a non-patent-law principle, and confirmed the award in full.Acorda appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, seeking to reverse the district court’s denial of the 2018–2020 recoupment. The Federal Circuit concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because Acorda’s petition did not necessarily raise a federal patent law issue. The court determined that the petition’s request for confirmation did not require a determination of federal patent law, and the request for modification presented alternative grounds, one of which did not involve patent law. Consequently, the Federal Circuit transferred the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. View "Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Alkermes PLC" on Justia Law

Sunkist Growers, Inc. ("Sunkist") opposed Intrastate Distributors, Inc.'s ("IDI") applications to register the mark KIST in standard characters and a stylized form for soft drinks, arguing a likelihood of confusion with its registered SUNKIST marks. Sunkist has offered SUNKIST branded beverages for at least ninety years and owns multiple SUNKIST trademark registrations. IDI, a bottling company, purchased the KIST brand in 2009 and has used it for various soda products.The United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") dismissed Sunkist's opposition, finding no likelihood of confusion between IDI's KIST marks and Sunkist's SUNKIST marks. The Board analyzed the DuPont factors and found that while the similarity of goods, trade channels, conditions of sale, and strength of Sunkist's mark favored a likelihood of confusion, the similarity of the marks and actual confusion factors did not. The Board concluded that the different commercial impressions of the marks (KIST referencing a kiss and SUNKIST referencing the sun) and the lack of reported instances of confusion outweighed the other factors.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board's decision. The court found that the Board's conclusion regarding the different commercial impressions of the marks was not supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that the KIST mark did not consistently include a lips image and that the SUNKIST mark was often used without a sun design. The court concluded that the similarity of the marks favored a likelihood of confusion and that the Board's finding of no likelihood of confusion was incorrect. The court reversed the Board's decision, holding that IDI's KIST marks are likely to cause confusion with Sunkist's registered SUNKIST marks. View "Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Intrastate Distributors, Inc." on Justia Law

IGT owns an expired U.S. Patent No. 7,168,089, which addresses secure communication in gaming environments. In 2003, Zynga's predecessor copied claims from IGT's application into its own, leading to an interference declared by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in 2010. Zynga moved for judgment that IGT's claims were unpatentable for obviousness, but the Board dismissed this motion as moot, terminating the interference because Zynga's claims lacked written description support.In 2021, Zynga petitioned for an inter partes review (IPR) of certain claims of IGT's patent, alleging obviousness based on new prior-art references. IGT argued that interference estoppel barred Zynga's challenge. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted the IPR, rejecting the estoppel argument, and the Director of the PTO affirmed this decision. The PTAB ultimately found all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the PTAB's decision not to apply interference estoppel was unreviewable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), as it was closely tied to the decision to institute the IPR. The court also found no "shenanigans" or legal errors in the PTAB's decision. On the merits, the court affirmed the PTAB's findings that the prior art taught the claimed elements, including the "software authorization agent" and the required messages for authorizing gaming software transfers. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the PTAB's findings and affirmed the decision. View "IGT v. Zynga, Inc." on Justia Law

Colibri Heart Valve LLC owns U.S. Patent No. 8,900,294, which claims a method for implanting an artificial heart valve that allows for partial deployment and recapture if positioning is incorrect. Colibri sued Medtronic CoreValve, LLC, alleging that Medtronic induced surgeons to infringe this patent by using Medtronic’s products. The patent initially included two independent claims for partial deployment by pushing and retracting, but the claim for retracting was canceled during prosecution.In the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Medtronic argued that their product used partial deployment by retracting, not pushing, and that Colibri’s claim of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was barred by prosecution history estoppel. The jury found in favor of Colibri, awarding over $106 million in damages. Medtronic’s motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on the grounds of prosecution history estoppel were denied by the district court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that prosecution history estoppel barred Colibri’s claim under the doctrine of equivalents. The court determined that Colibri’s cancellation of the claim for partial deployment by retracting during prosecution, coupled with the close relationship between the canceled and retained claims, precluded Colibri from asserting that Medtronic’s method was equivalent to the claimed method. Consequently, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of JMOL of noninfringement, rendering the remaining issues on appeal moot. View "Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve, LLC" on Justia Law

Top Brand and Cozy Comfort are competitors in the market for oversized hooded sweatshirts. Cozy Comfort owns a design patent (D788 patent) and two trademarks for "THE COMFY" related to blanket throws. Top Brand sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the design patent, while Cozy Comfort counterclaimed for infringement of both the design patent and trademarks. The jury found in favor of Cozy Comfort, determining that Top Brand had infringed both the design patent and the trademarks, and awarded Cozy Comfort $15.4 million for patent infringement and $3.08 million for trademark infringement.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied Top Brand's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and entered judgment based on the jury's verdict. Top Brand then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.The Federal Circuit held that the principles of prosecution history disclaimer apply to design patents. The court found that Top Brand was entitled to JMOL of noninfringement of the design patent because the accused design fell within the scope of the subject matter surrendered during prosecution. The court also concluded that substantial evidence did not support the jury’s verdict of trademark infringement. Consequently, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of JMOL and found in favor of Top Brand on both the design patent and trademark infringement claims. View "Top Brand LLC v. Cozy Comfort Co." on Justia Law

Shockwave Medical, Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 8,956,371, which is directed to a method for treating atherosclerosis using intravascular lithotripsy (IVL). Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (CSI) filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition challenging all 17 claims of the '371 patent as obvious over various prior art combinations. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) found claims 1-4 and 6-17 unpatentable as obvious but upheld the patentability of claim 5.The Board's decision was appealed by Shockwave regarding claims 1-4 and 6-17, and cross-appealed by CSI regarding claim 5. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. Shockwave argued that the Board improperly relied on applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) and erred in its claim construction and factual findings. CSI argued that the Board failed to consider the combined teachings of the prior art in its analysis of claim 5.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's determination that claims 1-4 and 6-17 were unpatentable as obvious. The court found that the Board properly used AAPA as evidence of general background knowledge and that the Board's claim construction and factual findings were supported by substantial evidence. The court also found that Shockwave's secondary considerations evidence did not outweigh the evidence of obviousness.Regarding CSI's cross-appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board's determination that claim 5 was not shown to be unpatentable. The court found that the Board failed to consider the combined teachings of the prior art and that the placement of electrodes as claimed in claim 5 would have been a routine design choice for an ordinarily skilled artisan.In conclusion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision on claims 1-4 and 6-17 and reversed the decision on claim 5, finding it unpatentable as obvious. View "Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV (collectively, Janssen) sued Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva) in 2018, alleging infringement of Janssen’s U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906, which describes dosing regimens for long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications. Teva admitted to infringement but contested the patent’s validity, arguing that all claims were invalid for obviousness and some for indefiniteness.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey held a bench trial and ruled that Teva had not proven the claims invalid. Teva appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s rejection of the indefiniteness challenge but vacated the obviousness ruling, remanding for further proceedings. On remand, the district court again found that Teva had not proven the claims invalid for obviousness, leading to Teva’s current appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Teva did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine or modify the prior art to achieve the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The court also rejected Teva’s argument for a presumption of obviousness based on overlapping ranges, finding that the specific combination of dosages and timing in the claimed regimen was not sufficiently addressed by the prior art. The court upheld the district court’s findings on the lack of motivation to combine references and the lack of reasonable expectation of success, as well as the non-obviousness of the claims related to renal impairment and particle size. View "JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. " on Justia Law

Egenera, Inc. alleged that Cisco Systems, Inc. infringed its U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430, which describes a digitalized processing platform for deploying virtual systems through configuration commands. The patent aims to improve conventional server systems by allowing virtual management of processing resources without physical rewiring. Egenera claimed that Cisco's Unified Computing System (UCS) infringed claims 1, 3-5, and 7-8 of the patent. The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement for claims 1 and 5 and, following a jury trial, entered judgment of noninfringement for claims 3 and 7.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that Cisco's UCS did not infringe the asserted claims. The court granted summary judgment of noninfringement for claims 1 and 5, concluding that the UCS CPUs did not emulate Ethernet functionality as required by the claims. The jury found noninfringement for claims 3 and 7, and the district court denied Egenera's post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or a new trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The appellate court agreed that Egenera failed to present sufficient evidence to show that the UCS CPUs emulated Ethernet functionality, as required by claims 1 and 5. The court also found that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict of noninfringement for claims 3 and 7, particularly regarding the network topology limitation. Additionally, the appellate court upheld the district court's denial of Egenera's motion for a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion in the court's handling of jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and closing arguments. View "EGENERA, INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. " on Justia Law

Eye Therapies, LLC owns the '742 patent, which describes a method to reduce eye redness using a low-concentration dose of brimonidine. The independent claims of the patent specify that the method consists essentially of administering brimonidine at certain concentrations. During patent prosecution, the examiner initially rejected the claims for being anticipated by prior art, specifically U.S. Patent No. 6,242,442 (Dean), which disclosed the use of brimonidine in combination with another active ingredient, brinzolamide. The applicant amended the claims to replace "comprising" with "consisting essentially of" and argued that the claimed methods did not require any other active ingredients besides brimonidine. The examiner allowed the amended claims based on this representation.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted an inter partes review on petition by Slayback Pharma, LLC and concluded that all challenged claims were unpatentable. The Board interpreted the phrase "consisting essentially of" to allow the inclusion of additional active ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. Based on this construction, the Board found that the prior art taught or suggested each limitation of the challenged claims and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the Board's claim construction. The court held that the phrase "consisting essentially of" in the '742 patent should be interpreted to exclude the use of active ingredients other than brimonidine, based on the prosecution history. The court vacated the Board's obviousness finding and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the corrected claim construction. View "EYE THERAPIES, LLC v. SLAYBACK PHARMA LLC " on Justia Law

Annette R. Deal served in the U.S. Navy and Army and filed a claim for compensation for Cushing’s syndrome and a nervous condition in 1991, which was denied in 1992. She received treatment within the appeal period, resulting in a 1993 medical record being added to her file. The VA did not address whether this record met the requirements to be considered new and material evidence until 2021. Mrs. Deal did not appeal the 1992 decision. She filed another claim in 1995, which was partially granted, and a third claim in 2003, leading to a 2016 decision granting service connection for her psychiatric disorder with an effective date of August 1, 2003.The Board of Veterans’ Appeals granted an effective date of March 10, 1995, for her psychiatric disorder, ruling that new and material evidence was presented in 1997. However, it denied an effective date of October 1991, ruling that the 1993 record was not material. Mrs. Deal appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which affirmed the Board’s decision, finding a plausible basis for ruling that the 1993 record was not material.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. Mrs. Deal argued that the VA’s failure to address the 1993 record before the 2016 decision meant her 1991 claim remained open, entitling her to an earlier effective date. The court disagreed, stating that the VA’s delay does not automatically entitle a claimant to an earlier effective date unless the evidence is determined to be new and material. The court affirmed the Veterans Court’s decision, holding that the 1993 record was not material and the 1992 decision was final. View "Deal v. Collins" on Justia Law