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

Proveris owns the 400 patent, for a mechanism to evaluate aerosol spray plumes. The apparatus evaluates delivery of drugs by inhalers or nasal sprays, by triggering a spray and collecting data on the plume with an illumination device and an imaging device. Innova made and sold the Optical Spray Analyzer (OSA). Proveris sued, alleging that OSA infringed the 400 patent. Innova conceded infringement of certain claims (including claim 3), but disputed infringement of others. The district court ruled in favor of Proveris on invalidity. A jury found that Innova did not infringe the disputed claims and that no damages had been proven. Based on the conceded infringement, the district court enjoined Innova from making or selling OSA. Innova modified OSA and began selling the new Aerosol Drug Spray Analyzer (ADSA). Proveris filed a contempt motion. Innova argued that OSA allowed a user to identify what range of images he wanted to analyze before activating the spray, while ADSA requires the user to first activate the spray and later determine what he wants to analyze. The district court ruled that, because Innova could have raised claim construction issues in the underlying infringement action, the court would not construe claim 3; Innova could not raise new invalidity arguments in contempt proceedings. The court entered a contempt order against Innova, found that the violation had been willful, and ordered disgorgement of profits. The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that the court erred in failing to construe the disputed claim language. View "Proveris Scientific Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc." on Justia Law

Giannelli filed the 261 application, entitled “Rowing Machine,” in 2003, disclosing an exercise machine on which a user can perform a rowing motion against a selected resistance, to strengthen the back muscles. The examiner rejected claims as obvious (35 U.S.C. 103(a)) in light of another patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed. The Federal Circuit reversed, stating that physical capability alone does not render obvious that which is contraindicated. It is not obvious to modify a machine with handles designed to be pushed to one with handles adapted to be pulled. View "In re: Giannelli" on Justia Law

ESR’s 236 patent, as amended, claims a computer security device and method for preventing unauthorized individuals from obtaining access to a local computer network. Its specification describes an “intelligent network security device” (INSD), capable of balancing the desire for network security against the need for network accessibility. The INSD protects a local network by: monitoring the data packets flowing into and out of the network in order to detect suspicious patterns of communications; assigning weighted values to any threatening activity it detects; and blocking communications based on their assigned weight using a firewall. A third party requested reexamination of the original patent and the PTO considered prior art. The examiner rejected certain claims as obvious. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Federal Circuit affirmed. View "In re: Enhanced Sec. Research LLC" on Justia Law

The central processing unit (CPU) enables a computing device to execute instructions contained in software. For software to run on CPU, it must be compiled or translated from high-level programming language, written in a human-readable syntax (source code), into machine-readable form (machine code), which is processor-specific. Particular compilers can only translate programs into machine code for particular processors. Java is programming language that allows developers to write programs that can run on different processors without being recompiled for each system by using a single compiler that translates Java programs into “bytecodes” instead of processor-specific machine code. Java bytecodes do not run directly on the CPU, but on a Java Virtual Machine (JVM) that translates them into processor-specific machine code. Programs written in Java can run on any platform and any operating system. Computing devices also vary in how they store data in memory. Machine code or “instruction sets” may be “stack-based” or “register-based.” Although most modern processors use a register-based approach, Java bytecodes are stack-based. A device using a register-based processor can run Java programs using a JVM that translates into register-based instructions, but it takes longer. Nazomi has two patents that address the issue, describing a hardware-based JVM capable of processing stack-based instructions, that also can run legacy (register-based) applications without using the JVM. Defendants are manufacturers that incorporate processors into their products. Nazomi sued, alleging patent infringement. The district court granted defendants summary judgment, construing the asserted claims to require a hardware and software combination capable of processing both register-based and stack-based instructions; without the enabling certain software, the hardware at issue cannot process stack-based instructions. Defendants’ apparatuses do not include that software. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Nazomi Commc'ns, Inc. v. Nokia Corp." on Justia Law

Pacific Coast applied for a design patent, claiming an “ornamental design of a marine windshield with a frame, a tapered corner post with vent holes and without said vent holes, and with a hatch and without said hatch.” Accompanying figures depicted embodiments with different vent hole configurations and showed designs that included and excluded a hatch on the front of the windshield. The examiner determined that the multiple embodiments represented five “patentably distinct groups of designs” and issued a restriction requirement, identifying five distinct groups of designs as windshields. The applicant was required to elect a single group for the pending application, but was entitled to file additional applications for each remaining group and elected “Group I,” depicting four vent holes and a hatch. The amended application issued as the 070 patent in 2007, claiming “[t]he ornamental design for a marine windshield, as shown and described.” Pacific Coast sued Malibu Boats, alleging infringement. The district court granted Malibu Boats summary judgment, finding that prosecution history estoppel barred the infringement claim. The Federal Circuit reversed, agreeing that the principles of prosecution history estoppel apply to design patents, but finding that the accused infringing design was not within the scope of the subject matter surrendered during prosecution.View "Pacific Coast Marine v. Malibu Boats, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Prisons issued a Request for Proposals for the “design-build” construction of a federal correctional institution. The project involved a “cut-to-fill” site, meaning that the ground had to be leveled by excavating materials from one area of the site and using those materials to fill lower areas. Based on information in the solicitation documents and prior experience, BH believed the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Sciences would approve a permit for a one-step-cut-to-fill construction plan and calculated its bid price, $238,175,000, accordingly. The contract provided liquidated damages of $8,000 for each day completion was overdue. The NHDES rejected the application. BH advised the government of the implications of NHDES restrictions, but did not refuse to proceed or request that the government intervene with the NHDES. According to BH, the restrictions were contrary to generally accepted industry practice. Upon completion of cut-to-fill operations, BH submitted a Request for Equitable Adjustment, seeking $7,724,885 for excess costs. The Contracting Officer and the Claims Court rejected the request, finding that the Permits and Responsibilities clause placed the burden of obtaining and complying with state and local permits on BH “without additional expense to the Government;” that BH had not alleged violation of the implied duty of good faith; and that, because the government did not control the NHDES, there was no basis for imposing liability for constructive change. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Bell/Heery v. United States" on Justia Law

Salem, under contract, coordinated Marine Corps Community Services (MCCS) shipments around the country. Estes, a federal motor carrier, handled some shipments under its common carrier tariff, without a written contract. The Salem-MCCS contract provided that Salem would pay carriers directly and invoice MCCS. Salem agreed not to represent itself as a representative of MCCS. All bills of lading indicated that “third party freight charges” were to be billed to “Marine Corps Exchange C/O Salem Logistics.” Delivery receipts specified that charges should be billed to the “Marine Corps Exchange” and were signed by a representative of the MCCS or MCX delivery location. MCCS paid Salem for some of the shipments; Salem never paid Estes. After becoming aware that Salem was not paying carriers, MCCS began paying carriers directly, for shipments for which it had not yet paid Salem. Estes sued Salem and the government, seeking to recover $147,645.33. The Claims Court dismissed, finding that there was no privity of contract between Estes and the government and rejecting a claim under 49 U.S.C. 13706, which governs the liability of consignees for shipping charges incurred by a common carrier. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded, concluding that the bills of lading were sufficient to establish privity. View "Estes Express Lines v. United States" on Justia Law

The products at issue in this appeal are formulations of Athena’s RevitaLash, all of which contain a prostaglandin derivative as an active ingredient. The FDA has not taken enforcement action against, or otherwise regulated, the products. Allergan sells a product called Latisse, which also contains a prostaglandin derivative. Latisse is an FDA-approved prescription drug used for the treatment of a condition that affects eyelash growth. Allergan sued Athena for patent infringement and a violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California Business and Professions Code 17200 by violating California’s Health and Safety Code 1115501 by “marketing, selling, and distributing [its] hair and/or eyelash growth products without [a new drug] application approved by the FDA or California State Department of Health Services.” The district court rejected Athena’s claim that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempts Allergan’s UCL claim and granted Allergan an injunction on its claim that the products at issue qualify as new drugs that lack the requisite approval. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded. The FDCA did not preempt Allergan’s UCL claim and there is no genuine dispute that the products are drugs under California law, but the injunction was overbroad. View "Allergan, Inc. v. Athena Cosmetics, Inc." on Justia Law

Institut Pasteur owns three U.S. patents, which claim methods and tools for the site-directed insertion of genes into eukaryotic chromosomes. Precision requested inter partes reexamination of each. A Patent and Trademark Office examiner rejected a number of Pasteur’s claims for obviousness, under 35 U.S.C. 103.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the rejections, concluding that the claimed inventions were obvious extensions of two prior-art references disclosing similar methods of targeting non-chromosomal DNA in prokaryotic cells. With respect to one patent, the Federal Circuit dismissed Pasteur’s appeal as moot, because Pasteur presented only substantively amended claims and amended claims cannot be entered after the patent has expired. With respect to another patent, the court reversed the Board’s conclusion as unsupported by substantial evidence and containing an erroneous obviousness analysis, including improper discounting of Pasteur’s objective indicia of non-obviousness. The court vacated the Board’s decision on the third patent and remanded for consideration of what motivation, if any, a skilled artisan at the relevant time would have had to pursue the claimed invention. View "Institut Pasteur & Universite v. Focarino" on Justia Law

In 1997, the U.S. Department of Commerce determined, under 19 U.S.C. 1673b, that freshwater crawfish tail meat from China was being sold in the U.S. at less than fair value and directed Customs to suspend final computation of duties on such entries and to require a deposit or bond to cover estimated duties. In 2000-2001, New Phoenix made entries of the product. The exporters were subject to “new shipper” review to determine whether they were entitled to antidumping-duty rates distinct from the default rate. Each of five bonds issued by Great American to cover anticipated duties was for $1,219,458 and was signed by Davis and accepted by the government, although the power-of-attorney filed with Customs indicated a limit of $1 million on his authority. Great American later revoked his authority. In 2003, Commerce published final results, finding that the exporter was not entitled to a different rate and sought payment from New Phoenix and Great American. The amount owed is greater than the amounts of the bonds. The trial court granted the government summary judgment, without pre- and post-judgment interest, finding that the government did not timely address those issues. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the bonds were not enforceable beyond Davis’s stated authority and the denial of pre-judgment interest View "United States v. Great Am. Ins. Co" on Justia Law