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

A patent owner brought two infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against a semiconductor company, alleging that certain integrated circuit products infringed three patents related to electronic circuitry and power-saving features. The accused products included specific chips that allegedly implemented a particular feature. After the lawsuits were filed, the defendant challenged the cases on grounds including improper service, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim. During the litigation, the plaintiff produced a licensing agreement with a third party, and subsequently entered into another agreement covering the accused products. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed both cases without prejudice.Following the dismissals, the defendant moved for attorneys’ fees, costs, and sanctions, arguing that the lawsuits were baseless. The district court denied the defendant’s motions for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, costs under Rule 54(d)(1), and sanctions under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, but converted the voluntary dismissals to dismissals with prejudice as a sanction. The court also denied the defendant’s discovery requests related to confidentiality and access to certain materials.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in denying fees under § 285 and costs under Rule 54(d)(1), because the defendant became a prevailing party when the dismissals were converted to dismissals with prejudice. The Federal Circuit vacated those portions of the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of Rule 11 sanctions and fees under § 1927, finding no abuse of discretion. It also affirmed the denial of the remaining discovery request, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the protective order. The judgment was thus vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. View "FUTURE LINK SYSTEMS, LLC v. REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION " on Justia Law

A company developed and patented a process for desulfurizing heavy marine fuel oil (HMFO) to comply with international sulfur content standards. The patented process involves taking a high-sulfur HMFO that meets certain physical property requirements and then hydroprocessing it to reduce its sulfur content. The company marketed its technology to various refineries, including the defendants, but no licensing agreement was reached. The defendants later modified their refineries to produce low-sulfur HMFO, prompting the plaintiff to sue for patent infringement, specifically alleging that the defendants’ processes at one refinery infringed two claims of the relevant patent.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the parties disputed the proper construction of certain claim terms and the appropriate method and location for testing the fuel’s compliance with the required standards. During discovery, the defendants argued that it was too dangerous to obtain certain test samples, and the court accepted their position, allowing the plaintiff to use an estimation formula instead. On the eve of trial, however, the defendants introduced a new noninfringement theory, arguing that only actual test data—not estimates—could prove compliance. The district court allowed this argument, and the jury returned a general verdict of noninfringement. The district court later found the defendants’ argument improper and prejudicial but deemed the error harmless and denied the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court abused its discretion in finding the error harmless because the jury’s general verdict made it impossible to determine whether the improper argument affected the outcome. The appellate court reversed the denial of a new trial and remanded for further proceedings, also affirming the district court’s construction of the disputed claim term. View "MAGEMA TECHNOLOGY LLC v. PHILLIPS 66 " on Justia Law

Global Health Solutions LLC and Marc Selner each filed patent applications in August 2017 for a method of preparing a wound treatment ointment containing nanodroplets of an aqueous biocide suspended in petrolatum jelly without emulsifiers. Selner filed his application four days before GHS, making him the first-filer under the America Invents Act (AIA) “first-inventor-to-file” system. GHS alleged that its founder, Bradley Burnam, conceived the invention and communicated it to Selner, who then derived the invention and filed first. Both parties agreed that their applications claimed the same invention, and the dispute centered on who conceived the invention and when.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) instituted a derivation proceeding. After reviewing evidence, including contemporaneous emails, the Board found that Burnam communicated the invention to Selner by 4:04 p.m. on February 14, 2014, but also found that Selner had independently conceived the invention earlier that same day, by 12:55 p.m. The Board determined that Selner did not derive the invention from Burnam and ruled in favor of Selner. GHS appealed, arguing that the Board erred in its evidentiary rulings, burden of proof allocation, and failure to require reduction to practice for conception, and also requested that Burnam be named a co-inventor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. The court held that the Board’s focus on “first-to-invent” was harmless error, as Selner’s independent conception was dispositive under the AIA. The court found no reversible error in the Board’s evidentiary rulings, burden allocation, or treatment of reduction to practice. The court also held that GHS failed to properly preserve its request for correction of inventorship. The Board’s judgment for Selner was affirmed. View "GLOBAL HEALTH SOLUTIONS LLC v. SELNER " on Justia Law

Erik Brunetti applied to register the word “FUCK” as a trademark for various goods and services, including sunglasses, jewelry, bags, and retail store services. After initial refusals based on the mark being “immoral or scandalous”—a ground later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Iancu v. Brunetti—the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) reexamined the applications. The PTO’s examining attorney refused registration, finding that the term was a widely used, commonplace word that failed to function as a trademark because consumers would not perceive it as identifying the source of the goods or services.The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed the refusals, concluding that the mark did not serve as a source indicator. The Board reasoned that “FUCK” is an “all-purpose word” with many recognized meanings and is commonly used on similar goods by various sources, so it would not be seen by consumers as distinguishing Brunetti’s products from others. The Board also rejected Brunetti’s constitutional arguments and his reliance on other registered marks, stating that each application must be considered on its own merits.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision under the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court rejected most of Brunetti’s arguments but found that the Board failed to articulate a clear and rational standard for when an “all-purpose word” like “FUCK” can or cannot function as a trademark, especially given the existence of similar registered marks. The Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the Board must provide a satisfactory explanation and coherent guidance for its actions. View "In Re BRUNETTI " on Justia Law

The case concerns two patents related to methods for preparing DNA samples for sequencing, owned by Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Labcorp Genetics, Inc., and The General Hospital Corporation. The patents describe techniques for enriching specific regions of DNA to make sequencing more efficient, using various types of primers and adaptors. The dispute centers on whether certain DNA preparation kits sold by Qiagen and its affiliates infringe these patents, specifically regarding the design and function of the primers used in Qiagen’s kits.After the plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of both patents, the case proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found that Qiagen willfully infringed the asserted claims of both patents—under the doctrine of equivalents for one patent and literally for the other—and awarded the plaintiffs approximately $4.7 million in damages. The district court denied Qiagen’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on non-infringement, invalidity, and damages, and also denied Qiagen’s alternative request for a new trial.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of JMOL de novo. The Federal Circuit held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings of infringement for either patent. The court determined that the district court erred in allowing the jury to interpret the claim term “identical” as “identical to a portion,” and found that the evidence did not support infringement under the doctrine of equivalents or literal infringement as required by the patent claims and their constructions. As a result, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of JMOL of non-infringement for both patents, and remanded with instructions to grant JMOL of non-infringement. View "LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS v. QIAGEN SCIENCES, LLC " on Justia Law

The dispute centers on a patent for a system that automates the adjustment of selectorized dumbbells using an electric motor. The patent describes a dumbbell with stacks of weight plates on each side, a handle, and a movable selector that, when positioned, couples different numbers of plates to the handle. The innovation lies in using an electric motor, operatively connected to the selector, to move it into the desired position based on user input, thereby automating the weight selection process and addressing safety and convenience issues present in prior manual systems.The United States District Court for the District of Utah reviewed the case after the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the asserted patent claims were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court applied the Supreme Court’s two-step framework for patent eligibility and determined that all but one claim (claim 19) were directed to an abstract idea and implemented using generic components, thus failing the eligibility test. The court granted the motion to dismiss as to claims 1–18 and 20, but denied it for claim 19, finding that the parties had not sufficiently addressed its eligibility.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Federal Circuit held that the relevant claims were not directed to an abstract idea but instead to a specific mechanical improvement in selectorized dumbbells. The court found that the claims recited a sufficiently specific structure and method, including the use of an electric motor to automate weight selection, and thus did not preempt all forms of automated weight adjustment. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of claims 1–18 and 20 and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "POWERBLOCK HOLDINGS, INC. v. IFIT, INC. " on Justia Law

The dispute centers on allegations by Mondis Technology Ltd. and related entities that LG Electronics Inc. and its U.S. subsidiary infringed claims 14 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,475,180. The patent describes a display unit, such as a computer monitor, that stores identification numbers in memory to control access by external devices. The key issue was whether the patent’s written description supported a claim limitation requiring an “identification number for identifying at least a type of said display unit,” as opposed to identifying a specific unit.After Mondis filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and stayed for patent reexamination. When some claims survived, litigation resumed on claims 14 and 15. A jury found the claims not invalid and infringed, awarding damages to Mondis. The district court denied LG’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on invalidity, relying on the presumption of validity and the jury’s ability to weigh expert testimony. The court vacated the initial damages award and ordered a retrial, after which a reduced damages award was entered. Both parties appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of JMOL. The appellate court held that no reasonable jury could find the patent’s written description adequately supported the claim limitation requiring identification of a type of display unit. The court found that the patent only disclosed identification of specific units, not types, and that neither expert testimony nor the prosecution history provided substantial evidence to the contrary. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment, held claims 14 and 15 invalid for lack of written description, and ordered judgment for LG. All other issues were deemed moot. View "Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc." on Justia Law

FMC Corporation owns U.S. Patent Nos. 9,107,416 and 9,596,857, which relate to insecticidal and miticidal compositions. FMC sued Sharda USA, LLC for patent infringement, alleging that Sharda's product, WINNER, infringed on these patents. The patents claim compositions comprising bifenthrin and a cyano-pyrethroid, with specific weight ratios. FMC sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Sharda from importing, marketing, selling, or distributing WINNER.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania initially denied FMC's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. However, the court issued a claim construction of the term "composition," limiting it to stable compositions based on disclosures in the provisional application and a related patent. FMC renewed its motion, and the district court granted a temporary restraining order, which converted into a preliminary injunction. The court rejected Sharda's invalidity defenses, including anticipation and obviousness, based on the construed definition of "composition."The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court erred in its construction of "composition" by limiting it to stable compositions, as the asserted patents did not include the stability disclosures present in the provisional application and related patent. The Federal Circuit held that "composition" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Consequently, the court found that the district court's anticipation and obviousness analyses were flawed due to the erroneous claim construction.The Federal Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to reconsider Sharda's invalidity defenses under the correct claim construction. The court emphasized that Sharda only needed to raise a substantial question of invalidity to defeat the preliminary injunction. View "FMC CORPORATION v. SHARDA USA, LLC " on Justia Law

Super Lighting sued CH Lighting for infringing three patents related to LED tube lamps. CH Lighting conceded infringement of two patents before trial. The district court excluded CH Lighting's evidence on the validity of these two patents and granted Super Lighting's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that the patents were not invalid. A jury found the third patent infringed and not invalid, awarding damages for all three patents. CH Lighting appealed.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially reviewed the case. The court excluded evidence from CH Lighting regarding the validity of the two patents and granted JMOL in favor of Super Lighting. The jury found the third patent infringed and awarded damages. CH Lighting's motions for JMOL on invalidity and for a new trial were denied, and the court doubled the damages award.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court erred in granting JMOL on the validity of the two patents because it improperly excluded CH Lighting's evidence. The court held that a new trial was required to determine the validity of these patents. The court also found that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdicts of infringement and no invalidity for the third patent. Additionally, the court instructed the district court to reassess the reliability of Super Lighting's damages expert's testimony under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Consequently, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "JIAXING SUPER LIGHTING ELECTRIC APPLIANCE, CO. v. CH LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. " on Justia Law

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