dollar sign and legal gavel

Adjustacam v Newegg

Posted by admin In Intellectual property litigation, Patent Case Summary 0 comment

ADJUSTACAM, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee v. NEWEGG, INC., NEWEGG.COM, INC., ROSEWILL, INC., Defendants-Appellants

2016-1882 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 6:10-cv-00329-JRG, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap. Decided: July 5, 2017

The Federal Circuit reversed the denial of attorney’s fees by the Eastern District of Texas. AdjustaCam sued Newegg and dozens of other defendants for patent infringement. Just before summary judgment briefing, AdjustaCam voluntarily dismissed its infringement claims against Newegg with prejudice, Newegg’s right to seek fees after dismissal. The district court denied Newegg’s request for attorneys’ fees. On appeal, the Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court in light of intervening Supreme Court precedent, Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014). The district court, this time with a different judge presiding, again denied Newegg’s motion for attorneys’ fees. (more…)

Continue Reading
trademark word cloud

Sheila Lyons v AVMA

Posted by admin In Intellectual property litigation, Trademark Appeal, Trademark law 0 comment

SHEILA LYONS, DVM,  Appellant v. THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SPORTS MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION,  Appellee

2016-2055 Decided: June 8, 2017

This is an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s cancellation of Appellant Lyon’s registration of the service mark THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SPORTS MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION (“the mark”) on the Supplemental Register on the ground that she does not own the mark.  The Court affirmed the cancellation.

Lyons is an equine veterinarian, who was part of a committee seeking accreditation by Appellee (“AVMA”) of a veterinary specialist organization (“VSO”) for treating athletic animals.  Lyons was later dismissed from the committee. Following Appellant’s departure, both she and AVMA claimed ownership of the mark. (more…)

Continue Reading
A writing pen pointing to the word Sue with two options, yes or no

ArcelorMittal v AK Steel

Posted by admin In Intellectual property litigation 0 comment

ARCELORMITTAL, ARCELORMITTAL ATLANTIQUE ET LORRAINE, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. AK STEEL CORPORATION, SEVERSTAL DEARBORN, INC., WHEELING-NISSHIN INC., Defendants-Appellees

Case No. 2016-1357 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware Decided: May 16, 2017

This dispute between the parties made its third appearance before the Federal Circuit. The Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment of noninfringement and the finding of invalidity of claims 24 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. RE44,153 (“RE’153 patent”) for being improperly broadened on reissue. The majority opinion noted that the “case has a convoluted history,” involving multiple lawsuits and appeals. That case history is not repeated in this summary.

ArcelorMittal raised the following arguments on this appeal:

1) that it never asserted claims 24 and 25 against defendants in the “050 lawsuit”; and

2) that the dispute with defendants was moot because it tendered a covenant not to sue. (more…)

Continue Reading
wooden dice spelling obvious

Novartis AG v Noven Pharmaceuticals

Posted by admin In Patent Case Summary, Patent Law 0 comment

Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc.

No. 2016-1678, -1679 Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2017 Opinion by Circuit Judge Wallach with Chief Judge Prost and Circuit Judge Stoll

Editors note: The instant appeals concern inter partes reviews of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,316,023 (“the ’023 patent”) and 6,335,031 (“the ’031 patent”) (together, “the Patents-in-Suit”).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) finding that various claims of Novartis’s patents “would have been obvious over the prior art.” The PTAB reached different conclusions than the Federal Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, which both found the claims to be nonobvious in prior opinions. (more…)

Continue Reading
Mentor v Synopsys partial patent drawings

Mentor v Synopsys

Posted by admin In Intellectual property litigation, Patent Case Summary, Patent Law 0 comment

MENTOR GRAPHICS v. EVE-USA, INC., SYNOPSYS EMULATION AND VERIFICATION S.A.S, SYNOPSYS, INC.

2015-1470, 2015-1554, 2015-1556  Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon  Decided: March 16, 2017

This lengthy opinion addresses: whether substantial evidence existed to support a jury’s infringement verdict; assignor estoppel; indefiniteness; eligible subject matter; preclusion of evidence of willful infringement and enhanced damages; written description; and claim preclusion. (more…)

Continue Reading
graphic representation of magnesium stearate compound

Shire v Watson Pharmaceuticals

Posted by admin In Intellectual property litigation, Patent Case Summary, Patent Law 0 comment

SHIRE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, SHIRE PHARMACEUTICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., COSMO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, GIULIANI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, NKA NOGRA PHARMA LIMITED,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., NKA ACTAVIS, INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. – FLORIDA, NKA ACTAVIS LABORATORIES FL, INC., WATSON PHARMA, INC., NKA ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants-Appellants

2016-1785  February 10, 2017

Plaintiffs Shire sued Defendants Watson for infringing claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,773,720. The Federal Circuit analyzed the Markush group requirements in claim 1(b). The Court strictly construed the claims as being “closed” due to the presence of the Markush group, reversing the district court with instructions to enter judgment of non-infringement.

The ’720 patent is directed to a controlled-release oral pharmaceutical composition of mesalamine. That composition includes the mesalamine active ingredient; an inner lipophilic matrix; an outer hydrophilic matrix; and other optional excipients. The inner lipophilic matrix and the outer hydrophilic matrix are expressed in the claim as Markush group.

This case has been to the Federal Circuit twice before: in 2014 (746 F.3d 1326), and 2015 (787 F.3d at 1366, remanded by 135 S. Ct. 1174 (2015)). Referencing the 2015 decision, the Court “explained that the matrix compositions are ‘limited by the Markush groups’ added during prosecution ‘to overcome the examiner’s rejection of the claims as obvious.’” (more…)

Continue Reading
patent art for US Patent 7328845

Sonix Technology v Publications International

Posted by admin In Patent Case Summary 0 comment

Sonix Technology Co., Ltd. v. Publications International

No. 2016-1449 Fed. Cir. Jan. 5, 2017 Opinion by Circuit Judge Lourie with Circuit Judges O’Malley and Taranto.

Sonix appealed from the district court’s grant of summary judgment holding certain claims of its patent invalid. The district court concluded that the term “visually negligible” rendered the asserted claims indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) reversed. The Sonix patent purports to improve on conventional methods of encoding information on the surface of an object by rendering a graphical indicator (e.g., a matrix of small dots) “visually negligible.” An optical device reads the graphical indicator and outputs additional information. (more…)

Continue Reading
graphic of Phytate compound

US Water Services v Novozymes

Posted by admin In Patent Case Summary, Patent Law 0 comment

U.S. Water Services, Inc. v. Novozymes A/S

No. 2015-1950, -1967 Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2016 Opinion by Circuit Judge Wallach with Circuit Judges Hughes and Stoll.

The district court granted Novozymes’s Motion for Summary Judgment in part, finding certain patent claims invalid as inherently anticipated by various prior art references. However, the district court denied Novozymes’s Motion as to inequitable conduct by U.S. Water. The parties filed cross-appeals. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) reversed the grant of summary judgment on anticipation and affirmed the denial of summary judgment on inequitable conduct.

The technology at issue relates to the production of ethyl alcohol (i.e., ethanol) from a milled grain. The Patent Family in issue generally claims methods of reducing fouling of processing machinery through the use of phytase. (more…)

Continue Reading
businessman selecting patent on clear touch screen

Unwired Planet v Google 2016

Posted by admin In Patent Case Summary 0 comment

Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc

No. 2015-1812 Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2016 Opinion by Circuit Judge Reyna with Circuit Judges Plager and Hughes.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Court) found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board relied on an incorrect definition of a covered business method (“CBM”) patent. The Court strictly applied the statutory language in vacating the Board’s decision and remanding the case to the Board. Google petitioned for CBM review of Unwired Planet’s U.S. Patent No. 7,203,752 (the “’752 patent”). As a threshold matter, the Board considered whether the ’752 patent is a CBM patent. (more…)

Continue Reading
legal gavel with pharmaceuticals

MIT v Shire Pharmaceuticals 2016

Posted by admin In Patent Case Summary 0 comment

MIT v. Shire Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

No. 2015-1881 Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2016 Opinion by Circuit Stoll with Circuit Judges O’Malley and Chen.

The issues on appeal are:

1) the district court’s claim construction of “vascularized organ tissue” and “cells derived from a vascularized tissue” in view of the prosecution history; and

2) the district court’s determination that the term “three-dimensional” is not indefinite under 35 USC §112, and its construction of the term “three Page 13 dimensional scaffold.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (Federal Circuit) opinion by Judge Stoll affirming the district court is fact intensive.

MIT brought suit against Shire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Shire Regenerative Medicine, Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,770,193 and 5,759,830

(more…)

Continue Reading