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

Wi-LAN’s patents result from advances proposed for the WiMAX wireless network standard. In a typical wireless network, a base station connects directly to the user devices that it serves. The patents to add intermediary nodes between the base station and the user devices. Communications from the base station to a user device pass from the base station through an intermediary node to the user device; communications from a user device to the base station take the reverse path. This network architecture allowed for efficiency gains, primarily because the base station could offload some of its more resource-intensive tasks to the intermediary nodes. Wi-LAN claimed infringement by Apple’s iPhone operating on a 4G network. Based on several claim constructions, the district court granted Apple summary judgment of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the court’s construction of the term “specified connection” and the term “UL connections.” View "WI-LAN USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law

Murata and Daifuku manufacture and maintain automated material handling systems that use robotic vehicles suspended in semiconductor cleanrooms to move and manipulate semiconductor components. Murata sued Daifuku, alleging infringement. Daifuku petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeals Board for inter partes review of three patents and moved to stay the litigation pending the outcome, citing the traditional three-factor test, considering: stage of the proceedings; potential for the stay to simplify; and undue prejudice to the non-moving party or a clear tactical advantage for the moving party. Murata asked that the court consider a fourth factor: potential for a stay to reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and the court. The court, relying on four factors, stayed the case, but granted leave for Murata to amend its complaint to add two Additional Patents. Murata amended, moved to lift the stay with regard to the Additional Patents, and sought a preliminary injunction. Again applying the four factors, the court declined to lift the stay, then stated that “[b]ecause the court has now declined to lift the stay, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied without prejudice to renew at a later date, if appropriate.” The Federal Circuit upheld refusal to lift the stay, but found that the “cursory denial” did not satisfy FRCP 52(a)(2), which requires that a court state findings and conclusions supporting denial of a preliminary injunction. View "Murata Mach. USA, Inc. v. Daifuku Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

GPNE’s patents relate to a paging system, using devices capable of both receiving messages and sending messages through a central control station, which can also receive a message from a telephone (e.g., a callback number, as in one-way pager operations) and send it to a recipient device. The specification discloses that “the invention provides a two-way paging system which operates independently from a telephone system for wireless data communication between users.” GPNE asserted infringement of claims referring to the network's devices as “nodes” and requiring that the “node” be “in a data network, the data network including a plurality of nodes,” have “at least one processor,” have “a memory providing code to the processor,” and have an “interface” that transmits and receives communication signals in a particular manner. The claims are otherwise silent as to what a “node” is. Apart from the Abstract, the specification does not refer to “node,” but refers to devices as “pagers” or “paging units.” The specification discloses that each “paging unit” includes a transmitter, a receiver, a beeper, a vibrator, an LCD display, a keyboard, and a “pager computer” which performs the processing for the device's operation. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the claims are not infringed, upholding construction of “node” as “pager with two-way data communications capability that transmits wireless data communications on a paging system that operates independently from a telephone network.” View "GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc." on Justia Law

Electric Power’s patents describe and claim systems and methods for performing real-time performance monitoring of an electric power grid by collecting data from multiple data sources, analyzing the data, and displaying the results. Electric Power sued Alston, alleging infringement of various claims of the three patents. The district court granted Alstom summary judgment that the subject matter of the claims failed the tests for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit affirmed. “Though lengthy and numerous, the claims do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology.” The claims, defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under section 101. View "Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A." on Justia Law

AGIS, a technology company, software developer, and military contractor, owns the patents at issue, which relate to methods, devices, and systems for establishing a communication network for users of mobile devices, such as cellular phones. The patents, for example, allow multiple cellular phone users to monitor others’ locations and statuses via visual display of such information on a map. Life360 is the creator of a smartphone software application, designed to allow families to stay better connected. AGIS filed an infringement suit. Life360 asserted that the claim terms “symbol generator” and “CPU software” in the asserted claims invoked means-plus-function claiming allowed under 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6, but failed to disclose adequate structure and, therefore, were indefinite under paragraph 2. After construing various claims, the district court found that the terms “symbol generator” and “CPU software” in the asserted claims invoked paragraph 6, and were indefinite under paragraph 2. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The patents do not disclose an operative algorithm for the claim elements reciting “symbol generator.” The function of generating symbols must be performed by some component of the patents, but the patents do not describe that component. View "Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc." on Justia Law

Illumina’s 794 patent, covering DNA assay optimization techniques, issued in 2011. In 2010-2011, Ariosa provided Illumina, as a prospective investor, with information on its efforts to develop a noninvasive prenatal diagnostic test. Seven months after the 794 patent issued, Illumina agreed to supply consumables, hardware, and software to Ariosa for three years, providing Ariosa with a non-exclusive license to Illumina’s “Core IP Rights in Goods,” specifically excluding “Secondary IP Rights … that pertain to the Goods (and use thereof) only with regard to particular field(s) or application(s), and are not common to the Goods in all applications and fields.” The agreement’s arbitration clause excluded “disputes relating to issues of scope, infringement, validity and/or enforceability of any Intellectual Property Rights.” Illumina never indicated that Ariosa needed to license the 794 patent . Ariosa launched the Harmony Prenatal Test, using materials supplied by Illumina. Verinata and Stanford sued, alleging that the Test infringed other patents. Illumina later acquired Verinata and accused Ariosa of breaching the supply agreement by failing to license Secondary Rights. Ariosa filed counterclaims, asserting invalidity and non-infringement; breach of contract; and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court concluded that the counterclaims were not subject to compulsory arbitration. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The counterclaims depend on the scope determination of licensed intellectual property rights, which is expressly exempt from arbitration. View "Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc." on Justia Law

Magnum’s 413 patent is directed to the use of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to extract natural gas and oil from natural shale formations. During fracking, a “wellbore” is drilled; a fluid mixture is injected down the wellbore into the shale at high pressure to release the gas or oil. Downhole plugs, put in place by a setting tool, divide the wellbore into separate sections. The 413 patent describes a mechanism for releasing the setting tool from the downhole plug by use of an insert having a “lower shear or shearable mechanism.” On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found all challenged claims of the 413 patent obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Federal Circuit reversed. The Board erred in shifting the burden of proof on obviousness from the petitioner to the patent owner and failed to articulate a sufficient rationale for why a skilled artisan would have sought to combine the asserted prior art to achieve the claimed invention. The Board’s factual findings regarding the alleged motivation to combine lacked substantial evidence. View "In re: Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd." on Justia Law

Unwired brought an infringement suit against Apple on several patents. The inventions at issue relate to: extending speech recognition capabilities to mobile devices with limited resources by relying on network-based resources; providing new or updated features and services to a mobile phone through a process called provisioning; improved technology for identifying the location of a wireless station, such as a cell phone or pager; and secure data transmissions over wireless networks. The district court construed 10 claim terms and granted summary judgment of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit vacated as to three patents and affirmed as to another. The court noted that indirect infringement requires knowledge of the underlying direct infringement—not merely the knowledge of the existence of the patent. View "Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law

Polar, a Finnish company based in Finland, owns U.S. patents directed to a method and apparatus for measuring heart rates during physical exercise. Polar sued, alleging infringement directly and indirectly, through the manufacture, use, sale, and importation of Suunto products. Suunto is a Finnish company with a principal place of business and manufacturing facilities in Finland. Suunto and ASWO (a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Utah) are owned by the same parent company. ASWO distributes Suunto’s products in the U.S. Suunto ships the accused products to addresses specified by ASWO. ASWO pays for shipping; title passes to ASWO at Suunto’s shipping dock in Finland. At least 94 accused products have been shipped from Finland to Delaware retailers using that standard ordering process. At least three Delaware retail stores sell the products. Suunto also owns, but ASWO maintains, a website, where customers can locate Delaware Suunto retailers or order Suunto products. At least eight online sales have been made in Delaware. The Federal Circuit vacated dismissal of Suunto for lack of personal jurisdiction. Suunto’s activities demonstrated its intent to serve the Delaware market specifically; the accused products have been sold in Delaware. Suunto had purposeful minimum contacts, so that Delaware’s “assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair” and proper under the Delaware long-arm​ statute. View "Polar Electro Oy v. Suunto Oy" on Justia Law

Westerbeke and Kohler manufacture and sell marine generators (gen-sets). The exhaust from prior art gen-sets was vented out of the boat, but the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health found that carbon monoxide levels in the swim areas of some boats were at or above levels that are immediately dangerous to life and health. The Westerbeke patents, which claim priority to 2003, are directed to marine engine systems that reduce carbon monoxide, using chemical catalysts, which work better at higher temperatures. Regulations for marine gen-sets require that exposed engine and exhaust system surface temperatures be kept low. Typical marine engines use seawater to cool exhaust gases and keep surface temperatures low. At a 2004 boat show, Westerbeke introduced its low–carbon monoxide gen-set (Safe-CO), incorporating the technology of the patents, and explained the technology to Kohler representatives. A year later, Kohler launched its own low–carbon monoxide gen-sets. In an ensuing suit, a jury found that Kohler had infringed and had failed to prove that any claims were invalid for obviousness or for lack of written description, calculated damages of $9,641,206, and found that Kohler’s infringement was willful. The court denied a permanent injunction, reduced the damages to $3,775,418, granted enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. 284, found the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285, and awarded attorney fees. The Federal Circuit affirmed, but remanded for reconsideration of a permanent injunction. View "WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co." on Justia Law