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

A corporation owns a patent concerning systems and methods for providing access to shipment information using sensors, which can be attached to items for tracking and reporting data to a central location. The patent allows for customization and control over notifications about shipments, including limiting access to sensor information based on certain rules. Some claims of the patent specify restricting access by delaying when information is reported.Litigation began when the corporation sued another company for infringing this patent in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. While the litigation was pending, a third party, who was not a defendant in the district court case, filed petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging some claims of the patent as obvious. The patent owner argued that the PTAB should not consider the petitions because the third party failed to identify all real parties in interest, specifically the company being sued, as required by statute. The PTAB disagreed, instituted review, and later denied a motion to terminate the proceedings for failure to name all real parties in interest. The PTAB issued a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it lacked authority to review the PTAB’s refusal to determine whether all real parties in interest were named and its denial of the motion to terminate the proceedings, because such issues are barred from judicial review by statute. However, the appellate court found that the PTAB had erred in concluding that the patent owner had not contested one ground of obviousness and vacated the PTAB’s findings of obviousness for certain claims, remanding those issues for further proceedings. View "FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED " on Justia Law

Constellation Designs, LLC sued several branches of LG Electronics, alleging willful infringement of nine claims across four patents related to digital communication systems using non-uniform constellations optimized for greater capacity at a lower signal-to-noise ratio. The accused products were LG televisions compatible with the ATSC 3.0 broadcast standard, which includes specific protocols for signal transmission. The patents at issue fall into two groups: claims reciting a process for optimizing constellations for capacity using parallel decode (PD) capacity, and claims reciting specific non-uniform constellations.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted summary judgment that all asserted claims were patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Following a jury trial, the jury found all asserted claims not invalid, found infringement, and awarded damages to Constellation, finding willful infringement. Post-trial motions by LG for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of non-infringement and no damages, and to exclude Constellation’s damages expert, were denied. The district court entered final judgment in favor of Constellation, including an ongoing royalty.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the summary judgment of eligibility for the claims that recite optimization for PD capacity, finding them ineligible as they are directed to the abstract idea of “optimizing” a constellation for capacity without sufficient limiting detail. The court affirmed summary judgment of eligibility for the claims reciting specific non-uniform constellations, finding these claims recite concrete technological improvements rather than abstract ideas. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s denial of JMOL of non-infringement and no damages, as well as its denial of LG’s motion to exclude the damages expert. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings. View "CONSTELLATION DESIGNS, LLC v. LG ELECTRONICS INC. " on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs, including a medical device company and its founder, developed and sold a cosmetic penile implant. In 2018, a urologist who later became one of the defendants attended a training session hosted by the plaintiffs, where he signed a non-disclosure agreement and was introduced to certain ideas for improving the implant as well as a list of required surgical instruments. Plaintiffs claimed that these ideas and the instrument list were trade secrets. Soon after, the defendants began developing a competing implant, filed patent applications based on allegedly misappropriated information, and advertised using plaintiffs’ trademark.The United States District Court for the Central District of California heard the case, which included claims for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract under the nondisclosure agreement, trademark counterfeiting, and incorrect inventorship of two patents. The jury found for the plaintiffs on all major claims, including that the asserted trade secrets were protectable and misappropriated, and that there had been a breach of contract. The court awarded substantial damages, including a reasonable royalty, exemplary damages, and a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from using the trade secrets. The court also found for plaintiffs on their counterfeiting claim and invalidated the two patents for failure to name an alleged true inventor.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held there was not legally sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the asserted information qualified as trade secrets under California law, as the core concepts were either generally known or not subject to reasonable secrecy efforts. The court reversed the denial of judgment as a matter of law on the trade secret and breach-of-contract claims, vacated the damages and injunction based on them, and reversed the invalidation of the patents. However, the court affirmed the verdict and damages for trademark counterfeiting. The result was an affirmance in part, reversal in part, and vacatur in part. View "INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICES, INC. v. CORNELL " on Justia Law

The dispute arose when two pharmaceutical companies, one holding patents on methods of using humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies to treat headaches, accused a competitor of infringing these patents through the marketing of a competing medication. The relevant technology involves antibodies that inhibit the CGRP protein, which is linked to headache by promoting blood vessel dilation. The patents in question claim methods of treating headaches by administering humanized versions of these antibodies. The patent specifications referenced prior art disclosing murine (mouse) antibodies of this type, described methods for their humanization, and included one specific humanized antibody used in the patent holder’s product.Earlier, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts presided over a jury trial. The jury found that the competitor had willfully infringed the asserted patent claims and rejected arguments that the patents were invalid for lack of written description or enablement. Despite the jury’s verdict, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law for the competitor, ruling that the claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing both the written description and enablement requirements. The district court reasoned that the patents did not adequately describe or enable the full scope of the claimed genus of humanized antibodies.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s invalidity judgment. The appellate court held that, in the context of these method claims, the specification and background knowledge in the field were sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that the written description and enablement requirements were met. The court emphasized that the invention concerned the use of a well-known genus of antibodies for a specific purpose, and the specification indicated that all members of the genus would function as claimed. The holding reinstated the jury’s verdict, reversing the district court’s judgment of invalidity, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY " on Justia Law

VLSI Technology LLC brought a lawsuit against Intel Corporation, alleging infringement of multiple patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,566,836. The patent concerns methods and apparatuses for selecting processor cores in multicore systems to execute tasks based on performance parameters, such as processing speed. VLSI asserted several claims from the patent, including both method and apparatus claims, and introduced expert damages theories to support its case.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California addressed several pretrial issues. It struck certain damages theories from VLSI’s expert Dr. Sullivan, concluding that VLSI had not adequately disclosed these theories in its damages contentions as required under local patent rules. The district court also granted Intel summary judgment of noninfringement on two grounds: first, that the alleged infringing acts occurred outside the United States (extraterritoriality), and second, by rejecting VLSI’s doctrine of equivalents (DOE) theory. The district court’s construction of claim terms, particularly importing an “upon identifying” limitation into an apparatus claim, was central to its resolution of the DOE issue.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s orders. The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment of noninfringement on extraterritoriality grounds, finding that a pretrial stipulation between the parties established a U.S. nexus for infringement, and that the district court erred in its analysis of the apparatus claims’ capability to perform the patented functions. The Federal Circuit also reversed the summary judgment for noninfringement under the DOE theory for certain apparatus claims, holding that the district court improperly construed the claims based on prosecution disclaimer. However, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision to strike Dr. Sullivan’s NPV and VPU damages theories, finding no abuse of discretion. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC v. INTEL CORPORATION " on Justia Law

The dispute concerns patented methods and apparatuses for upgrading software in engine controllers by connecting an external device that can replace and restore software without losing the original version. The patent, with a priority date of March 30, 2001, was asserted by the patent owner against a competitor. The accused infringer responded by alleging that a non-party, Hypertech, had sold a device called the Power Programmer III (PP3) well before the patent’s critical date. The PP3 was alleged to have all features described in the asserted patent claims, based on contemporaneous sales records and analysis of its source code.The United States District Court for the District of Utah reviewed the case. The district court granted summary judgment of invalidity under pre-America Invents Act (AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), finding that the PP3 was on sale more than one year before the patent’s critical date and that it embodied every claim limitation of the asserted patent. In reaching this decision, the district court admitted deposition testimony from Hypertech’s CEO regarding sales records and the device’s code, holding that, at summary judgment, corporate representatives may testify beyond their personal knowledge. The court also found that the source code itself was not hearsay and, even if it were, could be admitted as a business record.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the evidence at summary judgment. The court further clarified that the on-sale bar under pre-AIA § 102(b) does not require a sale to publicly disclose the inner workings of the device; it is sufficient that the sale of a device embodying the patented invention occurred before the critical date. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidation of all asserted patent claims. View "DEFINITIVE HOLDINGS v. POWERTEQ " on Justia Law

A company owned a patent involving technology that allows mobile device applications to be downloaded and installed in the background, without requiring users to visit an application store. Another company, which had previously developed and marketed a product with similar features, initiated a post-grant review proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, challenging the validity of the patent's original claims. During the proceeding, the patent owner sought to amend the claims by proposing substitute claims, which included additional limitations. The challenger argued that the substitute claims were also unpatentable.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted the patent owner’s revised motion to amend, finding that the challenger had not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the substitute claims were unpatentable or patent ineligible. The Board also determined that the original claims were unpatentable based on a prior decision invalidating claims of a related parent patent. The challenger appealed the Board’s decision regarding the substitute claims to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered whether the challenger had Article III standing to appeal. The court found that the challenger failed to demonstrate an injury in fact because it did not provide evidence showing concrete plans to engage in activities that would potentially infringe the substitute claims, nor did it sufficiently link its previous product features to the limitations in the new claims. As a result, the court held that the challenger lacked standing and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court awarded costs to the patent owner. View "IRONSOURCE LTD. v. DIGITAL TURBINE, INC. " on Justia Law

Fortress Iron, LP developed a pre-assembled vertical cable railing system for outdoor spaces, collaborating with two Chinese companies for its manufacture and quality control. Fortress's owner originated the idea, and an employee prepared initial sketches. Employees of the quality control company, HuaPing Huang and Alfonso Lin, contributed critical refinements to the design. After incorporating these suggestions, Fortress filed for and obtained two patents, listing only its owner and employee as inventors, omitting Lin and Huang. Huang later left his company and could not be located.Fortress sued Digger Specialties, Inc. for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. During litigation, it emerged that Lin and Huang were coinventors. Fortress successfully added Lin to the patents under 35 U.S.C. § 256(a), but was unable to add Huang due to his unavailability. Fortress then moved for partial summary judgment to correct inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), while Digger Specialties moved for summary judgment asserting patent invalidity due to incorrect inventorship. The district court denied Fortress’s motion to correct inventorship, holding that notice and an opportunity for hearing must be given to all parties concerned—including Huang—before correction could be ordered. The court granted summary judgment to Digger Specialties, holding the patents invalid for omission of an inventor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Federal Circuit held that an omitted coinventor is a “party concerned” under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b) and must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before inventorship can be corrected. As Fortress could not satisfy this statutory requirement, correction was unavailable and the patents were invalid. The Federal Circuit thus affirmed the grant of summary judgment of invalidity. View "FORTRESS IRON, LP v. DIGGER SPECIALTIES, INC. " on Justia Law

Two pharmaceutical companies developing treatments for achondroplasia, a genetic disorder, became involved in litigation after one company (Ascendis) filed a New Drug Application (NDA) for its product. The other company (BioMarin), holding a relevant patent, filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging patent infringement by Ascendis’s product. Shortly afterward, Ascendis filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking a judgment of non-infringement and arguing that its activities were protected under the statutory “safe harbor” for regulatory approval.More than thirty days after filing its district court complaint, Ascendis moved for an expedited hearing. BioMarin responded by seeking to dismiss or stay the district court action pending the ITC’s investigation. Ascendis voluntarily dismissed its complaint without prejudice and promptly refiled a nearly identical complaint, this time moving for a mandatory stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a)(2), which requires a district court to stay its proceedings if requested within thirty days of the action’s filing or of being named as a respondent in the ITC. BioMarin opposed, contending Ascendis’s request was untimely, and sought a discretionary stay instead.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted BioMarin’s motion for a discretionary stay and denied Ascendis’s motion for a mandatory stay as moot. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that § 1659(a)(2) does not permit a litigant to restart the thirty-day period for a mandatory stay by voluntarily dismissing and refiling a substantially identical action. The court reasoned that the statutory deadline applies to the original action and that allowing refiling would circumvent the statute’s purpose. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "ASCENDIS PHARMA A/S v. BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL INC. " on Justia Law

Apple Inc. launched the Apple Watch Series 6, featuring technology to estimate the wearer’s blood oxygenation level. Masimo Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories, Inc. alleged that Apple’s importation and sale of the device infringed on several Masimo patents related to wearable blood oxygen measurement technology. Masimo filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission, asserting that Apple’s actions violated § 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which prohibits importation of infringing articles if a related domestic industry exists. The patents at issue, called the Poeze Patents, cover user-worn devices utilizing optical emitters and photodetectors for physiological measurements.Following an investigation, an administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing and concluded that Masimo had established a domestic industry, Apple’s devices infringed some asserted claims, and several claims were not proven invalid. The ALJ found Masimo was not barred from enforcement by prosecution history laches. The ALJ’s decision led to a limited exclusion order barring importation of infringing Apple Watches. Both Apple and Masimo sought review by the Commission. The Commission affirmed the finding of infringement and the existence of a domestic industry, as to certain claims, and maintained the exclusion order.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Commission’s determinations under the Administrative Procedure Act, affirming its findings as reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The Federal Circuit held that Masimo satisfied both the technical and economic prongs of the domestic industry requirement, that the Apple Watch infringed valid claims of the asserted patents, and that Apple failed to prove invalidity or prosecution laches. The Commission’s judgment and the exclusion order were affirmed. View "APPLE INC. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION" on Justia Law