Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Gaymar ‘s patent is directed to a patient temperature control system, including a blanket that can conductively warm or cool the patient. In 2008, Gaymar sued CSZ, asserting that CSZ’s Blanketrol device infringed claims of the patent. The PTO granted CSZ’s inter partes reexamination request and issued a first Office Action rejecting all claims of the patent as anticipated or obvious over prior art cited in CSZ’s request. The district court denied Gaymar’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granted CSZ’s motion to stay the case pending the conclusion of the reexamination. The PTO reaffirmed its rejection of all claims of the patent. Gaymar filed an express abandonment of all claims in 2010, and the PTO concluded the reexamination, cancelling all of the claims. The district court lifted the stay. CSZ unsuccessfully sought attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, alleging that Gaymar’s litigation position was frivolous and that Gaymar had engaged in litigation misconduct. Following the Supreme Court’s 2014, decision, Octane Fitness, CSZ unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration. The Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of a lack of objective baselessness, but reversed the exceptional case finding insofar as it was based on CSZ’s purported misconduct. View "Gaymar Indus., Inc. v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Prods., Inc." on Justia Law

Fluorescent lamp fixtures typically regulate electric current by an electronic ballast, which maintains current levels high enough to start the lamp but prevents current from reaching destructive levels. When a lamp is removed from its holders or when a filament is broken, current provided by the ballast ceases to flow and dissipates back into the ballast, which can destroy the ballast and create an electric shock hazard. LB’s 529 patent discloses an electronic ballast able to shield itself from destructive levels of current. LB sued ULT, asserting infringement. ULT argued that the term “voltage source means” is governed by 35 U.S.C. 112 and that the claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 12 as indefinite because the specification fails to disclose what structure corresponded to the “voltage source means” limitation. The district court concluded that the term “voltage source means” had sufficient structure. A jury awarded LB $3 million in damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that claim construction is an issue of law that it reviews de novo. The Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of its holding in Teva Pharmaceuticals (2015), that while the ultimate question of claim construction is a legal question, there may be underlying “subsidiary” factual findings related to the extrinsic record that are reviewed for clear error. On remand, the Federal Circuit affirmed. Because the district court’s factual findings demonstrate that the claims convey sufficient structure, it was correct to conclude that the term “voltage source means” is not governed by section 112. View "Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics, NA" on Justia Law

INTTRA owns patents relating to online methods for coordinating containerized shipping. GT sought a declaratory judgment that INTTRA’s shipping methods patents were invalid. While the case was pending, GT petitioned the PTO to review the patents as covered-business-method patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted review, but granted INTTRA leave to file a motion to dismiss on the ground that section 325(a)(1) barred the reviews because of the civil action. GT argued that INTTRA had waived that objection by not presenting it within the 14 days allowed by the rule giving a right to seek reconsideration. The Board granted INTTRA’s motion and “terminated” proceedings, without addressing patentability, reasoning that section 325(a)(1) is a statutory limit on Board “jurisdiction.” The Federal Circuit dismissed and denied mandamus relief. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 35 U.S.C. 325 declares that “review may not be instituted . . . if, before the date on which the petition for such a review is filed, the petitioner … filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent.” GT identified nothing that precludes the Board from reconsidering an initial institution decision or invoking the 325(a)(1) bar on its own, or inviting the patentee to file a motion after more than 14 days. View "GTNX, Inc.. v. INTTRA, Inc." on Justia Law

The 109 patent, entitled “Gelatinous Elastomer Compositions and Articles,” is directed to composite articles of a thermoplastic gel and a substrate, such as foam or fabric, used as a protective liner between an amputated limb and a prosthetic limb. According to the patent, prosthetic liners that incorporate the claimed composite articles are comfortable and skin-friendly, and more durable than previous liners. Alps licensed several AEI patents, including the 109 patent. Shortly thereafter, Alps, without naming AEI as a co-plaintiff, filed a patent infringement suit against OWW. Alps declined to join as co-plaintiff. OWW moved to dismiss for lack of standing. Alps and AEI executed an amended license agreement 16 months after Alps commenced the action, listing the effective date of the original agreement. The court denied the motion, finding that the terms of the original agreement was sufficed to provide Alps with standing and that, under the nunc pro tunc amended agreement, Alps “clearly possesses the substantial rights to proceed without [AEI].” A jury found the patent valid and infringed. The Federal Circuit reversed the denial of OWW’s motion to dismiss and vacated the judgment. Alps possessed neither legal title nor all substantial rights at the outset of the litigation, and was required to join AEI, as a co-plaintiff. View "Alps South, LLC v. Ohio Willow Wood Co." on Justia Law

Beginning in 1983, interferences were declared between Fiers and Sugano generally relating to claims to DNA sequences that encode the precursor and/or mature forms of human fibroblast interferon proteins, which promote viral resistance in human tissue, and in the case of the most recent interference, to claims for the proteins themselves. All of Fiers’ applications claimed priority to a United Kingdom Patent Application filed in April 1980, while Sugano’s applications and patents claimed priority to a Japanese Patent Application, filed in March 1980. In the first and second interferences, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences awarded priority to Sugano. In 2013, in response to a third interference the Board declared that Fiers was estopped from proceeding, given that Fiers lost the prior interferences and the subject matter was the same as in the prior interferences. The district court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 125 Stat. 284, eliminated district court jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 146 with respect to interferences commenced after September 15, 2012. The district court transferred the case to the Federal Circuit, which concluded that the district court correctly decided that it lacked jurisdiction and that the Board’s decision was not erroneous. View "Biogen Ma, Inc. v. Japanese Found. for Cancer Research" on Justia Law

Oplus filed a patent infringement suit in Illinois that was transferred to California. Oplus moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the case back and consolidate it with other cases. The Panel denied the motion. Ultimately, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. Defendant sought attorneys’ and expert witness fees under 35 U.S.C. 285 and 28 U.S.C. 1927. The court made numerous findings regarding misconduct, found the case exceptional under section 285, and held that Oplus and its counsel were vexatious litigants. The court nonetheless denied the request, stating that “[a]though Oplus’s behavior has been inappropriate, unprofessional, and vexatious, an award of attorney fees must take the particular misconduct into account,” the “case has been fraught with delays and avoidance tactics to some degree on both sides,” and “[t]here is little reason to believe that significantly more attorney fees or expert fees have been incurred than would have been in the absence of Oplus’s vexatious behavior.” Concerning section 1927, the court stated that “there is no evidence suggesting that Oplus’s behavior stemmed from bad faith or a sufficient intent to harass,” although there was “ample evidence of Oplus’s litigation misconduct.” The Federal Circuit vacated, finding the denial an abuse of discretion. View "Oplus Techs., Ltd. v. Vizio, Inc." on Justia Law

AMS sued Crane for infringement of four patents. In 2011, Crane requested an inter partes reexamination of each patent under 35 U.S.C. 311–318. Finding that Crane raised substantial new questions of patentability, the PTO initiated four inter partes reexaminations. While they were underway, AMS and Crane settled their suit. The court issued a consent judgment stating that “[t]he parties stipulate that [the patents] are valid,” that “[a]ll claims . . . are dismissed with prejudice,” and that “[t]his judgment is final.” AMS argued that the reexaminations must stop because, under 35 U.S.C. 317(b), the judgment was a “final decision . . . entered against a party in a civil action . . . that the party has not sustained its burden of proving the invalidity of any patent claim in suit.” The PTO denied AMS’s petition. The district court reasoned that the consent judgment, though final, was not a decision that Crane failed to prove invalidity of the patents, but only that the parties stipulated to validity. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the PTO’s refusal to terminate pending reexaminations is not subject to judicial review because it is not a “final agency action” under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 704. View "Automated Merch. Sys., Inc. v. Lee" on Justia Law

IV alleged infringement of five patents. A year later, JPMC moved to stay the case pending the result of four covered business method reviews (CBMR) JPMC planned to file with respect to the patents. JPMC filed CBMR petitions for two patents, but never filed the other two promised petitions. Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board acted on the petitions, the district court denied JPMC’s motion to stay, applying the four-factor test from the America Invents Act, 125 Stat. 284, 329–31. The court stated that, because there are multiple patents and claims in suit, it would be inappropriate to stay the entire litigation while waiting to see if the PTAB would initiate review of only two; that the litigation would likely be resolved more quickly than any extended CBM review; that it was largely speculative to argue that the PTAB’s resolutions of the CBMR petitions would reduce the court’s workload; and that any reduction was offset by IV’s right to a speedy trial. The Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory appeal from a decision on a motion to stay until the PTAB institutes a CBMR proceeding. View "Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co." on Justia Law

Exela petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office to “reconsider and withdraw” its revival of the national stage application and to cancel the 218 patent, assigned to SCR Pharmatop. The PTO declined to consider Exela’s petition, stating that no law or regulation authorizes non-party challenge to a PTO ruling to accept a tardy filing. Exela then brought suit under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that the PTO’s action was ultra vires and that Exela’s petition should have been considered and favorably decided. The district court, on reconsideration and in view of new Fourth Circuit precedent, dismissed Exela’s complaint for failing to meet the statute of limitations for claims filed against the United States, including APA claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal, on the ground that PTO revival rulings are not subject to third party collateral challenge, thereby precluding review regardless of whether Exela’s claims were time-barred. View "Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC v. Lee" on Justia Law

TWM filed a patent infringement suit against AT&T. A jury awarded damages. The district court entered judgment consistent with the verdict and denied all of AT&T’s post-trial motions. AT&T failed to file timely notice of appeal. The Federal Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion or clearly err in refusing to extend or reopen the appeal period. With respect to F.R. App. P. 4(a)(5), the court found that the AT&T had failed to show good cause or excusable neglect for its failure to read the underlying orders and check the docket for more than a month after the court issued the final orders. Refusing to reopen the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6), where a party actually received a final judgment, but failed to monitor the electronic docket for a compliant entry of the judgment, the court stated: “In this era of electronic filing … we find no abuse of discretion in a district court’s decision to impose an obligation to monitor an electronic docket for entry of an order which a party and its counsel already have in their possession and know that the clerk at least attempted to enter.” View "Two-Way Media, LLC v. AT&T, Inc." on Justia Law