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

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

AstraZeneca’s asserted patents are listed in the FDA’s “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations” (Orange Book), as covering AstraZeneca’s Symbicort® pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI). The Symbicort® pMDI is approved for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). AstraZeneca has marketed a dry powder inhaler version of Symbicort® (Symbicort® Turbuhaler) since the early 1990s. Both the Symbicort® pMDI and the Symbicort® Turbuhaler administer two active ingredients to the lungs—formoterol, a bronchodilator that opens the airway, and budesonide, a steroid that reduces inflammation in the lungs. Mylar's predecessor submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to the FDA, seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of Symbicort® pMDI.AstraZeneca sued Mylan for infringement. After claim construction, Mylan stipulated to infringement. The district court entered judgment accordingly, then held a bench trial and determined that Mylan failed to prove that the asserted claims are invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of infringement, disagreeing with the district court’s claim construction of “0.001%,” the claimed amount of the excipient PVP, on which the stipulated judgment of infringement was based. The court affirmed the determination of nonobviousness, finding no clear error in the district court’s finding that the prior art taught away from the claimed invention. View "AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc." on Justia Law

In the 1980s, researchers suggested using mifepristone to treat Cushing’s syndrome, a disease caused by excessive cortisol levels. More than 20 years later, Corcept initiated the first major clinical trial of mifepristone and obtained FDA approval for Korlym, a mifepristone tablet, with postmarketing requirements (21 U.S.C. 355(o)(3)), including a drug-drug interaction clinical trial involving co-administration of ketoconazole. The FDA approved the prescribing information for Korlym on its label, which warned against using mifepristone “with strong CYP3A inhibitors” and limited the “mifepristone dose to 300 mg per day when used with strong CYP3A inhibitors.” Corcept conducted the drug-drug interaction study, then obtained the 214 patent relating to methods of treating Cushing’s syndrome by co-administering mifepristone and a strong CYP3A inhibitor.Corcept asserted the 214 patent against Teva, Teva sought post-grant review, arguing that certain claims would have been obvious in light of Korlym’s label and the FDA memo describing the required drug interaction study (Lee). The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection of the obviousness claims. The Board did not err by requiring Teva to show a reasonable expectation of success for a specific mifepristone dosage. The general working conditions disclosed in Lee did not encompass the claimed invention. A skilled artisan would not have expected monotherapy and coadministration dosages to behave similarly. View "Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc." on Justia Law

Arbutus's patent, directed to “stable nucleic acid-lipid particles (SNALP) comprising a nucleic acid (such as one or more interfering RNA), methods of making the SNALP, and methods of delivering and/or administering the SNALP,” describes the invention as “novel, serum-stable lipid particles comprising one or more active agents or therapeutic agents, methods of making the lipid particles, and methods of delivering and/or administering the lipid particles (e.g., for the treatment of a disease or disorder)”; “[t]he present invention is based, in part, upon the surprising discovery that lipid particles comprising … provide advantages when used for the in vitro or in vivo delivery of an active agent, such as a therapeutic nucleic acid (e.g., an interfering RNA)”; the particles are “stable in circulation, e.g., resistant to degradation by nucleases in serum and are substantially non-toxic” to humans.On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that the claims of the patent are not unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed, first holding that that Moderna could pursue its appeal based on the risk of an infringement suit. Substantial evidence—including prior art and expert testimony—supports a finding that optimizing the four interdependent lipid components in prior art nucleic acid-lipid particles would not have been routine, and Moderna’s proposed adjustments to the lipid components are hindsight driven. View "ModernaTx, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corp." on Justia Law