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

Wi-LAN’s 145 patent is directed to allocating bandwidth in a wireless communication system. The 757 patent, while unrelated to the 145 patent, is directed to a similar subject matter and purports to improve signal quality and offer greater error protection in data transmission using a modulation scheme. The district court found that Apple infringed claims in the patents and that those claims had not been proven invalid and awarded Wi-LAN $85.23 million in damages.The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, upholding the district court’s claim construction of subscriber unit as a “module that receives [uplink] bandwidth from a base station, and allocates the bandwidth across its user connections.” Substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that the accused iPhones contain a subscriber unit as sold. Reversing in part, the court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying Apple’s motion for a new trial on damages. View "Apple, Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc." on Justia Law

PlasmaCAM sued CNCElectronics for infringing the 441 patent, for which Plasmacam has an exclusive license. In 2019, the parties notified the district court that they had settled the case. When the parties met to draft a formal agreement, however, it became evident that they interpreted the settlement differently, and further negotiations resulted. The parties eventually advised the district court that they had reached a complete agreement. The district court granted the motion to enforce Plasmacam’s version of that agreement and ordered CNC to execute it. The Federal Circuit reversed after holding that the district court order to execute the settlement agreement constituted either an appealable injunction or a final judgment. The court concluded that CNC’s version of the agreement accurately reflects the parties’ understanding. View "PlasmaCAM, Inc. v. CNCElectronics, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2019, Myco began marketing “the AB Max,” a device for treating blepharitis, at a New Orleans trade show. Blepharitis is a chronic inflammatory disease of the eyelids. A month later, BlephEx filed an application that would become the 087 patent, issued in October 2019, and entitled “Instrument for Treating an Ocular Disorder.” BlephEx sued Myco, alleging that the AB Max infringed the 087 patent.The district court enjoined Myco and those acting on its behalf from selling, distributing, or offering to sell or distribute the AB Max. The court found that Myco had not presented a substantial question of anticipation based on prior art. Myco’s obviousness argument was “unsupported with any expert evidence demonstrating that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach a swab” to a hand-held device and Myco failed “to explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have addressed the safety concerns of attaching a swab that is soaked in an abrasive.” The Federal Circuit affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction, clearly err in its underlying factual findings, or abuse its discretion in setting the scope of the preliminary injunction. View "BlephEx, LLC v. Myco Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

Vox is the domain registry operator for the ".SUCKS" generic top-level domain (gTLD) for Internet websites. Vox’s 941 trademark application sought registration of the standard character mark .SUCKS in Class 42 (computer and scientific services) for “[d]omain registry operator services related to the gTLD in the mark” and in Class 45 (personal and legal services) for “[d]omain name registration services featuring the gTLD in the mark” plus “registration of domain names for identification of users on a global computer network featuring the gTLD in the mark.” Vox’s 215 application sought to register the stylized form of .SUCKS, which appears as a retro, pixelated font that resembles letters on early LED screens in Class 42. The examining attorney refused both applications finding that, when used in connection with the identified services, “each fails to function as a mark” and “submitted evidence [for the 215 application] does not establish that the mark functions as a source identifier.”The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to the 215 application. The standard character mark .SUCKS “will not be perceived as a source identifier” and instead “will be perceived merely as one of many gTLDs that are used in domain names.” Stylized lettering or design element in the mark did not create a separate commercial impression and “is not sufficiently distinctive to ‘carry’ the overall mark into registrability.” View "In Re Vox Populi Registry Ltd." on Justia Law

Qualcomm’s patent is directed to integrated circuit devices with power detection circuits for systems with multiple supply voltages. Apple filed two petitions for inter partes review (IPR), challenging different sets of claims in the patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board found several claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Board relied on a ground raised by Apple that relied in part on applicant-admitted prior art (AAPA)—statements in the challenged patent acknowledging that most of the limitations of the patent’s claims were already known—and a prior art patent. Qualcomm argued that 35 U.S.C. 311(b) limits an IPR petitioner to challenge claims as unpatentable “only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.”The Federal Circuit vacated. The Board erred in concluding that AAPA constitutes “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” under section 311(b). On remand, the Board must determine whether Apple’s petition nonetheless raises its section 103 challenge “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” AAPA is not categorically excluded from IPR; in this case, the AAPA was not contained in a document that is a prior art patent or prior art printed publication. View "Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law

NSS’s patents are entitled “Method for Immediate Boolean Operations Using Geometric Facets” and relate to methods of packaging computer-aided data for three-dimensional objects. NSS brought suit for infringement against Autodesk. The district court held a claim construction (Markman) hearing and ruled the claims invalid on the ground of claim indefiniteness, 35 U.S.C. 112(b).The Federal Circuit reversed. The district court erred on the legal standard for claim indefiniteness, and on the correct standard, the claims are not indefinite. Claim language, "standing alone” is not the correct standard of law, and is contrary to uniform precedent. Patent claims are viewed and understood in light of the specification, the prosecution history, and other relevant evidence, as “would have allowed a skilled artisan to know the scope of the claimed invention with reasonable certainty.” The district court did not apply that standard protocol for analyzing claim definiteness, and did not construe the claims but instead held that questions raised by Autodesk must be answered and that the answers must be in the claims. View "Nature Simulation Systems, Inc. v. Autodesk, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2017, Kyocera filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission, alleging Koki was violating 19 U.S.C. 1337 by importing gas spring nailer products that infringe or were made using methods that infringe, certain claims in five patents. Those patents generally relate to linear fastener driving tools, like portable tools that drive staples, nails, or other linearly driven fasteners. The Commission held that Koki induced infringement.The Federal Circuit vacated. The ALJ erred in admitting certain expert testimony. The court upheld claim construction with respect to “driven position” and “main storage chamber” but rejected the construction of “lifter member.” The “safety contact element” and “fastener driving mechanism” should have been construed as separate components. View "Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc.v. International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

Evolusion owns the 845 patent, titled “Method and Device for Converting Firearm with Detachable Magazine to a Firearm with Fixed Magazine.” Evolusion sued Juggernaut, alleging infringement of several claims. The district court granted Juggernaut summary judgment of non-infringement, reasoning that the term “magazine catch bar” in the asserted claims excluded a factory-installed magazine catch bar. The court held that claim construction concededly precludes literal infringement because Juggernaut’s products use the factory-installed magazine catch bar. The court also determined that Juggernaut did not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the term “magazine catch bar” in the asserted claims includes a factory-installed magazine catch bar.Evolusion also sued Juggernaut for infringement, based on Juggernaut’s manufacture and sale of its “Hellfighter Mod Kits,” which convert a firearm with a detachable magazine into a firearm with a fixed magazine. The court determined that no construction was needed of the term “upper tension bar,” that “magazine catch bar” excluded a factory-installed (OEM) magazine catch bar, and that under that construction, Juggernaut cannot infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. The Federal Circuit again reversed, construing the term “magazine catch bar” “according to its ordinary meaning,” which includes a factory-installed magazine catch bar. View "Evolusion Concepts, Inc. v. Hoc Events, Inc." on Justia Law

Novartis markets a 0.5 mg daily dose of fingolimod hydrochloride under the brand name Gilenya. The medication is used to treat relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, a debilitating immune-mediated demyelinating disease in which the immune system attacks the myelin coating the nerves in the central nervous system. Most MS patients initially present as RRMS patients, but many eventually develop a secondary progressive form of MS, causing them to experience growing disability. There is currently no cure for MS. The disease is managed by reducing or preventing relapses and thereby slowing disability.HEC filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking approval to market a generic version of Gilenya. Novartis sued, alleging that HEC’s ANDA infringes all claims of the 405 patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed a holding that the patent is not invalid and that HEC’s ANDA infringes. The 405 claims do not fail the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). The district court did not clearly err in finding that a skilled artisan would read the 405 patent’s disclosure to describe the “absent an immediately preceding loading dose” negative limitation. View "Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc." on Justia Law

Qualcomm’s patent, titled “Direct Scatter Loading of Executable Software Image from a Primary Processor to One or More Secondary Processor in a Multi-Processor System,” addresses a system with multiple processors, each of which must execute its own “boot code” to play its operational role in the system. Such code must be stored in non-volatile memory (e.g., flash memory or read-only memory) and the boot code generally must be transferred to its corresponding processor’s volatile memory in order to be executed by that processor. The patent describes systems, methods, and apparatuses for efficiently retrieving an executable software image from the first processor’s non-volatile memory and loading it for use by the second processor.In inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that Intel had proved several claims unpatentable but not others. The Federal Circuit vacated in part, first holding that Intel adequately demonstrated Article III standing. The Board failed to tie its construction of the phrase “hardware buffer” to the actual invention described in the specification; the court remanded as to 10 claims for new construction. The court also vacated as to two claims that are in means-plus-function format. The Board failed to determine for itself whether there is sufficient corresponding structure in the specification to support those claims and whether it can resolve the patentability challenges despite the (potential) indefiniteness of those claims. View "Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc." on Justia Law