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

Avery and 3M are competitors in the market for retroreflective sheeting technology, used in applications including road signs. In 2001, Avery sued 3M concerning patents not currently at issue; during the course of settlement discussions, 3M became aware that Avery was prosecuting reissue of the Heenan patents. Avery indicated that certain 3M sheeting products might infringe the patents and that licenses were available. 3M rejected the suggestion and asked for more information. Avery responded that it had performed an analysis of 3M’s product and would send claim charts, but never did so. The patents emerged from reissue 2009. n 2010 Avery filed another unrelated patent infringement claim and 3M filed with respect to the Heenan patents. 3M conceded that conversations prior to 2009 were covered by a confidentiality agreement that precluded their use as a basis to support a declaratory judgment action, then cancelled its declaratory judgments claims and refiled those claims separately (the current action). The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit vacated, noting that the court would have jurisdiction under facts alleged by 3M and that the court did not resolve those factual issues. View "3M Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp." on Justia Law

The patent describes an infusion system used to meter and deliver fluids from multiple sources into a patient's body. Different fluids may be discharged at different rates using a central control device. Ergo sued CareFusion for infringement of several of the patent's claims; the parties stipulated that several terms were means-plus-function terms, including the terms "programmable control means" and "control means." The parties agreed that the analysis for both terms is the same and that the function for the terms is "controlling the adjusting means." The district court held that the "control means" terms are indefinite for failure to disclose corresponding structure. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc." on Justia Law

Bridgestone registered the mark POTENZA for tires in 1984, stating use in commerce since 1981. Bridgestone registered the mark TURANZA for tires in 2004, stating use in commerce since 1991. Federal filed an intent-to-use application to register the mark MILANZA for tires in 2004. Bridgestone opposed registration, arguing likelihood of confusion. The Board gave little weight to survey evidence of consumer confusion as to the source of tires bearing the MILANZA mark, and held that the "dissimilarity of the marks simply outweighs the other relevant factors." The Federal Circuit reversed, noting the identity of the goods, the lengthy prior use of POTENZA and TURANZA, market strength of the POTENZA and TURANZA marks, and the similarities of words, sounds, and connotation with MILANZA. Sufficient similarity has been shown as would be likely to cause consumer confusion, deception, or mistake.View "Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC v. Federal Corp." on Justia Law

The patents are directed to regulating access to content that is delivered through a computer network. Digital-Vending sued three businesses involved in online education, alleging infringement. The district court issued a claim construction order. Two defendants entered into settlements. The third, University of Phoenix, sought summary judgment of non-infringement. Digital-Vending filed a motion for reconsideration of construction of the term "registered user." The district court granted for summary judgment of non-infringement and entered judgment in favor of Phoenix. The Federal Circuit vacated in part, finding that the determination was based on erroneous construction, and affirmed in part. View "Digital-Vending Servs. Int'l, LLC v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc." on Justia Law

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed an examining attorney's refusal to register the trademark XCEED, in standard character form, for agricultural seed, citing the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(d). A previously-registered word and design mark for agricultural seeds consisted of the characters X-Seed in stylized form. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding substantial evidence that the XCEED mark would likely cause confusion with the X-Seed mark. View "In re Viterra" on Justia Law

MySpace, FOX, and Craigslist sought declaratory judgment that certain patents owned by GraphOn were invalid and not infringed by plaintiffs. The patents related to the ability to create, modify, and store database records over a computer network. The District Court granted plaintiffs summary judgment. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The district court's claim construction of "database" was reasonable and supported by the context; its overall conclusion that the claims were anticipated or obvious was appropriate. The case was properly decided under sections 102 and 103 of the Patent Act and not under section 101. View "MySpace, Inc. v. Graphon Corp." on Justia Law

The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences declared an interference between the claims of a patent belonging to Pioneer and those of a pending application owned by Monsanto. The claims concern transgenic corn. After the Board concluded that Monsanto was not time-barred under 35 U.S.C. 135(b)(1) and that its claims were entitled to seniority, Pioneer stipulated to judgment against it and the Board canceled Pioneer's claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc. v. Monsanto Tech., LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant's patent discloses an investment tool designed to enable property owners to buy and sell properties without incurring tax liability by enabling like-kind exchanges under 26 U.S.C. 1031. The claims require aggregation of multiple properties into a portfolio; interests in the portfolio are divided into "deed shares" and sold to investors similar to the sale of stock. Each deedshare can be encumbered by its own mortgage. The patent allows for a master tenant to perform administrative tasks such as paying insurance, property taxes, and rents. The district court invalidated each of 41 claims in the patent for failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C.101, reasoning that the claims were not tied to a particular machine or apparatus and that none of the claims transform any article to a different state or thing. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the claims attempt to capture unpatentable abstract subject matter. View "Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease, LLC" on Justia Law

Triumph publishes books and software to prepare teachers and students for standardized tests. In 2004, Triumph filed use-based applications for the COACH word mark, a stylized COACH mark, and a COACH mark and design. CSI sells handbags, luggage, clothing, watches, eye glasses, and wallets and has used the COACH mark since at least 1961. CSI owns 16 incontestable registrations for the COACH mark: all but one issued before Triumph's application. CSI filed Notice of Opposition on grounds of likelihood of confusion (15 U.S.C. 1052(d)) and dilution (15 U.S.C. 1125(c)). The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissed. The Federal Circuit affirmed findings that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks and that CSI failed to prove likelihood of dilution. Because of evidentiary errors, the court vacated and remanded a finding that, although Triumph's marks are merely descriptive, they have acquired secondary meaning, and were entitled to registration. View "Coach Serv., Inc. v. Triumph Learning, LLC" on Justia Law

The 690 patent is directed to a process for clarifying low alkalinity water using a blend of a high molecular weight quaternized polymer and an aluminum polymer. Claim 1 refers to a process for clarification of water of "raw alkalinity less than or equal to 50 ppm by chemical treatment." A jury found that the 690 patent was valid and indirectly infringed. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, holding that the verdict that the 690 patent was not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 was not supported by substantial evidence.The court affirmed that defendant did not misappropriate the trade secret described in claim 1. View "ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc." on Justia Law