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

Shinyaku and Sarepta executed an Agreement concerning “a potential business relationship relating to therapies for the treatment of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.” During the Agreement’s term the parties would “not directly or indirectly assert or file any legal or equitable .. claim or otherwise initiate any … form of legal or administrative proceeding against the other Party . . . in any jurisdiction … concerning intellectual property in the field of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy,” including “patent infringement litigations, declaratory judgment actions, patent validity challenges” before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) or Japanese Patent Office, and reexamination proceedings before the PTO. A forum selection, governing intellectual property disputes between the parties after the term’s expiration named the District of Delaware. The term ended in June 2021; the two-year forum selection clause took effect. That same day, Sarepta filed seven Patent Trial and Appeal Board petitions for inter partes review (IPR). Shinyaku filed suit in the District of Delaware asserting breach of contract (alleging that the IPR petitions violated the forum selection clause), declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity concerning Sarepta’s patents, and infringement of Shinyaku’s patents.The Federal Circuit directed that the district court enter an injunction, requiring Sarepta to withdraw the petitions. The plain language of the forum selection clause resolved the dispute. View "Nippon Shinyaku Co., Ltd. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc." on Justia Law

Caltech’s patents disclose circuits that generate and receive irregular repeat and accumulate (IRA) codes, a type of error correction code designed to improve the speed and reliability of data transmissions. Wireless data transmissions are ordinarily susceptible to corruption arising from noise or other forms of interference. IRA codes help to identify and correct corruption after it occurs.The Federal Circuit affirmed, in part, a judgment finding infringement. The district court did not err in its construction of the claim limitation “repeat” and substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict of infringement of the asserted claims of the patents. The court upheld summary judgment findings of no invalidity based on inter partes review estoppel, a determination of no inequitable conduct, and the district court’s decision with respect to its jury instructions on extraterritoriality. The court remanded in part. Claim 13 of the 781 patent is patent-eligible but the court vacated the verdict of infringement because of the district court’s failure to instruct the jury on the construction of the claim term “variable number of subsets.” Caltech’s two-tier damages theory cannot be supported on the record, requiring a new trial on damages. View "California Institute v. Broadcom Ltd." on Justia Law

Laser-based systems for measuring distances, useful for many purposes, are best known for helping autonomous cars sense their surroundings. Velodyne markets products incorporating such systems. Quanergy, which also markets products employing laser systems, challenged the validity of multiple claims in Velodyne’s patent in two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that multiple claims are not unpatentable as obvious.The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the construction of the term “lidar” to mean pulsed time-of-flight lidar; “lidar” is an acronym for “Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging.” Like radar, lidar determines distance based on the time-of-flight of the transmitted wave. The Board gave substantial weight to Velodyne’s objective evidence of unresolved long-felt need, industry praise, and commercial success. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s presumption of a nexus and its thorough analysis of each objective indicia. View "Quanergy Systems, Inc v. Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc." on Justia Law

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

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