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

The 853 patent relates to universal remotes, specifically to a universal control engine that facilitates communication between a controlling device (i.e., a remote) and intended target appliances (e.g., a TV, a DVD player, a sound system, etc.). Although the specification of the patent acknowledges that universal remotes were known at the time of the invention, it states that the proliferation of new communication methods raises the potential for “confusion, misoperation, or other problems,” particularly because the preferred communication method for transmitting commands “may vary by both appliance and by the function to be performed.”. The 853 patent’s purported invention is the ability to reliably use different communication methods that enable a single remote control to provide commands to a variety of target appliances, according to the optimal method of communication for each target appliance and command.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that the patent’s claims had not been proven unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board thoroughly considered the evidence of record and found that the skilled artisan would not have understood the prior patent’s listing of remote command codes to correspond to the claim limitation at issue. The Board’s finding in this close factual dispute is supported by substantial evidence. View "Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc." on Justia Law

AlterWAN sued Amazon for infringement of two patents concerning improvements to implementing wide area networks (WANs) over the Internet. The patents share a common specification that describes two core problems with WANs: latency (delay) due to uncontrolled “hops” from one node to another while the data packet is en route to its destination and the lack of security for data transmitted over the Internet. The patents purport to address those problems with a “private tunnel” that provides “preplanned high bandwidth, low hop-count routing paths between pairs of customer sites.” The parties disputed claim construction of the terms “non-blocking bandwidth” and “cooperating service provider.”The district court agreed with Amazon’s constructions: “bandwidth that will always be available and will always be sufficient,” even if the Internet is down, and changed its construction of “cooperating service provider” to be a “service provider that agrees to provide non-blocking bandwidth.” The Federal Circuit vacated a stipulated judgment of non-infringement that provided that Amazon does not infringe under the court’s constructions of the two terms. Under the circumstances of this case, the stipulation does not provide sufficient detail to the resolution of the claim construction issues presented on appeal. View "AlterWAN, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Apple and four other companies, have repeatedly been sued for patent infringement and thereafter petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to institute inter partes reviews (IPRs), under 35 U.S.C. 311–319, with unpatentability challenges to patent claims that were asserted against them in court. They sued the PTO under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701– 706, challenging instructions issued to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board concerning how to exercise, under delegation by the Director, the Director’s discretion whether to institute a requested IPR. Plaintiffs assert that the instructions are likely to produce too many denials.The district court dismissed the APA action, finding that the Director’s instructions were made unreviewable by 35 U.S.C. 314(d): “The determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under [section 314] shall be final and nonappealable.” The Federal Circuit affirmed the unreviewability dismissal of plaintiffs’ challenges to the instructions as being contrary to the statute and arbitrary and capricious. No constitutional challenges are presented. The court reversed the unreviewability dismissal of the challenge to the instructions as having been improperly issued because they had to be, but were not, promulgated through notice-and-comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553. Apple had standing to present that challenge. View "Apple Inc. v. Vidal" on Justia Law

PACT’s 908 patent relates to multiprocessor systems and how processors in those systems access data. Multiprocessor systems typically store data in several places: a main memory, where all of a system’s data is stored, and various cache memories, where smaller pieces of that same data are stored. Cache memories are closer to the processors, allowing the processors quicker access to the data available in a given cache. A system can use multiple cache levels, where a primary cache is closer to the processer but can store less data than a further-away secondary cache. The use of multiple cache memories can pose problems for cache coherency.In seeking inter partes review (IPR), Intel asserted that the prior art taught a multiprocessor system that used the separated cache and interconnect system as described in the patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined that Intel had failed to establish obviousness in light of prior art. The Federal Circuit reversed. The Board’s finding that prior art did not teach the segment-to-segment limitation and its rejection of Intel’s “known-technique” rationale for a motivation to combine lacked substantial evidence. View "Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG" on Justia Law

Gilead filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition challenging claims of the University of Minnesota’s 830 patent, directed to phosphoramidate prodrugs of nucleoside derivatives that prevent viruses from reproducing or cancerous tumors from growing. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board found certain claims unpatentable as anticipated by the asserted prior art.The Federal Circuit affirmed. There is no “ipsis verbis” written description disclosure sufficient to support the patent’s claims, 35 U.S.C. 112. The court referred to “a compendium of common organic chemical functional groups, yielding a laundry list disclosure of different moieties for every possible side chain or functional group. Indeed, the listings of possibilities are so long, and so interwoven, that it is quite unclear how many compounds actually fall within the described genera and subgenera.” The court found no violations of the Administrative Procedures Act and rejected the University argument that sovereign immunity barred IPR proceedings against it. View "Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Sciences, Inc." on Justia Law

Jazz holds an approved New Drug Application (NDA) for the narcolepsy drug Xyrem®, with the active ingredient, GHB, which exerts a heavily sedating effect and is prone to misuse; it is known as a date rape drug. The FDA conditioned approval of Jazz’s NDA upon the development of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS). The 963 patent relates to Jazz’s distribution system, which controls access to the drug through a central pharmacy and computer database, tracking prescriptions, patients, and prescribers. Jazz listed the 963 patent in the Orange Book as covering a method of using Xyrem. The patent’s claims expired in 2022. In 2020, Avadel submitted an NDA for the GHB-based drug FT218. Unlike Xyrem, FT218 is dosed once nightly. FT218’s REMS describe multiple pharmacies and databases for ensuring proper drug handling. Although Avadel had filed an NDA, not an Abbreviated NDA, the FDA required Avadel to file a certification that to the best of its knowledge, the 963 patent’s single-pharmacy system was invalid, unenforceable, or would not be infringed by its product.Jazz sued Avadel for infringement. Avadel sued the FDA for requiring certification; the suit was dismissed because 21 U.S.C. 355(c)(3)(D)(ii)(I) provided Avadel with a separate adequate remedy. Avadel responded to Jazz’s infringement assertions, seeking de-listing of the 963 patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court order that Jazz request de-listing. The 963 patent claims a system and does not claim an approved method of use. View "Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, Inc" on Justia Law

Lite-Netics sells string lights held by magnets to a surface such as a roof edge, as the assignee of two patents entitled “Magnetic Light Fixture.” Lite-Netics competes with HBL in the market for holiday string lights. Lite-Netics brought a patent-infringement action against HBL and also sent notices, one before filing suit and one after, to its customers (stores that sell the lights), some of which were also HBL customers, informing them of allegedly infringing competitors and stating Lite-Netics’s intent to enforce its patent rights. Lite-Netics did not name such competitors in the first notice. In the second notice, it identified HBL as an allegedly infringing competitor.After the second notice, HBL filed counterclaims, including for state-law torts. The district court issued a preliminary injunction, barring Lite-Netics from suggesting that HBL is a patent infringer, that HBL copied Lite-Netics’s lights, or that HBL customers might be sued. The Federal Circuit vacated. The district court abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction because the applicable speech-protective legal standards were not met. Federal patent law preempts state-law tort liability for a patentholder’s good faith conduct in communications asserting infringement and warning about potential litigation. HBL’s state-law claims can survive federal preemption only to the extent that they are based on a showing of bad faith in asserting infringement. Lite-Netics’s positions have not been shown, at this stage of the litigation, to be objectively baseless. View "Lite-Netics, LLC v. Nu Tsai Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

Hawk’s patent, titled “high-quality, reduced data rate streaming video product and monitoring system,” relates to a method of viewing multiple simultaneously displayed and stored video images on a remote viewing device of a video surveillance system. Hawk sued Castle for patent infringement based on Castle’s use of security surveillance video operations in its grocery stores. Castle argued that the asserted claims were directed to ineligible subject matter and invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101.The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. The patent claims were directed to the abstract idea of storing and displaying video and failed to provide an inventive step that transformed that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The claims do not disclose performing any “special data conversion” or otherwise describe how the alleged goal of “conserving bandwidth while preserving data” is achieved. Nor do the claims (or specification) explain “what th[e] [claimed] parameters are or how they should be manipulated.” The claims, “read in light of the specification, do not show a technological improvement in video storage and display because the limitations can be implemented using generic computer elements.” The “specification and claims do not explain or show how the monitoring and storage is improved, except by using already existing computer and camera technology.” View "Hawk Technology Systems, LLC sued Appellee Castle Retail, LLC" on Justia Law

The application for the 208 patent was filed in 2012 and claims a priority date of November 7, 2011. It is directed to surgical devices for an “endometrial ablation,” which stops or reduces abnormal uterine bleeding. The procedure generally involves inserting a device having an energy-delivery surface into a patient’s uterus, expanding the surface, energizing the surface to “ablate” or destroy the endometrial lining of the patient’s uterus, and removing the surface.Minerva sued Hologic for infringement. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment that the asserted claims are anticipated under the public use bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The Federal Circuit affirmed. The patented technology was “in public use” because, before the critical date, for several days, Minerva disclosed 15 devices having the technology at the industry’s “Super Bowl,” Minerva showcased them at a booth, in meetings with interested parties, and in a technical presentation. Minerva did not disclose the devices under any confidentiality obligations, despite the commercial nature of the event. At the time of that public use, the technology was “ready for patenting.” Minerva had created working prototypes and technical documents describing the claimed technology. There are no genuine factual disputes. View "Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc." on Justia Law

SSI alleged that DZEM infringes two of SSI’s patents that are generally directed to sensors for determining the characteristics of fluid in a container, such as a fuel tank. SSI’s commercial embodiments of the asserted patents and DZEM’s accused products are systems that determine the quality and volume of diesel exhaust fluid that is used in emission-reduction systems for diesel truck engines. DZEM asserted counterclaims for invalidity of the asserted patents and for tortious interference with prospective business relations.The district court granted DZEM summary judgment on the infringement claims and dismissed DZEM’s invalidity counterclaims, granting SSI summary judgment on the tortious interference counterclaim. The Federal Circuit vacated in part, reversing the district court’s construction of the term “filter” as used in the 038 patent. The term is properly construed to mean “a device containing openings through which liquid is passed that blocks and separates out matter, such as air bubbles.” On remand, SSI will not be precluded from arguing that DZEM’s accused sensors infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. The court affirmed summary judgment with respect to the 153 patent and DZEM’s counterclaim for tortious interference. View "SSI Technologies, LLC, v. Dongguan Zhengyang Electronic Mechanical LTD" on Justia Law