Previous month:
August 2015
Next month:
October 2015

Apple, Inc.. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.

Apple Inc. appeals from an order of the district court denying Apple’s request for a permanent injunction against Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”). We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

Download Apple, Inc.. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Astornet Techs., Inc. v. BAE Sys., Inc.

Astornet Technologies, Inc. alleges that it is sole exclusive licensee and owner of all rights in United States Patent No. 7,639,844, issued in December 2009 to Michael Haddad as the inventor and entitled “Airport vehicular gate entry access system.” In what ended up as three separate actions, Astornet asserted the patent against three corporations—NCR Government Systems, LLC; MorphoTrust USA, LLC; and BAE Systems, Inc. Astornet alleged that (a) NCR, MorphoTrust, and a subsidiary of BAE Systems, Inc. had contracts with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), an agency of the United States government, to supply TSA certain boarding-pass scanning systems, (b) TSA’s use of the equipment infringed and would infringe the patent, and (c) NCR and MorphoTrust were bidding for another contract to supply modified equipment whose use by TSA would also infringe.

The district court dismissed the actions, relying on several grounds, among them that Astornet’s exclusive remedy for the alleged infringement was a suit against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. While rejecting the district court’s rationale for dismissal on other grounds, we agree that § 1498 bars these actions. We therefore affirm the dismissal.

Download Astornet Techs., Inc. v. BAE Sys., Inc.

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Magnetar Techs. v. Intamin, Ltd.

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on claims of (1) malicious prosecution of a patent infringement action and (2) monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The panel held that under California law, the defendant did not maliciously prosecute the plaintiff for infringement of a magnetic braking system patent because a reasonable attorney could have concluded that the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102 did not apply to invalidate the patent.

Affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant, along with its European affiliate corporations, used the invalid patent to monopolize the market for magnetic braking systems, the panel held that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal antitrust injury stemming from the defendant’s actions.

On cross-appeal, the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 against the plaintiff for bringing a frivolous antitrust action.

Download Magnetar Techs. v. Intamin, Ltd.

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

R+L Carriers, Inc.. v. Qualcomm

R+L Carriers, Inc. (“R+L”) brought suit against, inter alia, Qualcomm, Inc. (“Qualcomm”), asserting infringement of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,401,078 (“the ’078 patent”). While the case was pending, R+L filed for ex parte reexamination of the ’078 patent. Although the patent survived, R+L added language to all of the claims at issue. Because the district court determined that the new claims were not substantially identical to the initial claims of the ’078 patent, and because there was no dispute that Qualcomm ceased its allegedly infringing activity before the reexamination certificate issued, R+L stipulated to final judgment, dismissing its infringement claim against Qualcomm. R+L appeals the district court’s determination that the amendments made during reexamination resulted in a substantive change in claim scope. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm, albeit on slightly different grounds than those relied upon by the district court.

Download R+L Carriers, Inc.. v. Qualcomm

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Lenz v. Universal Music Group

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in an action under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act alleging that the defendants violated 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) by misrepresenting in a takedown notification that the plaintiff’s home video constituted an infringing use of a portion of a Prince composition.

The panel held that the DCMA requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, and that failure to do so raises a triable issue as to whether the copyright holder formed a subjective good faith belief that the use was not authorized by law. Regarding good faith belief, the panel held that the plaintiff could proceed under an actual knowledge theory. The panel held that the willful blindness doctrine may be used to determine whether a copyright holder knowingly materially misrepresented that it held a good faith belief that the offending activity was not a fair use. The plaintiff here, however, could not proceed to trial under a willful blindness theory because she did not show that the defendants subjectively believed there was a high probability that the video constituted fair use. The panel also held that a plaintiff may seek recovery of nominal damages for an injury incurred as a result of a § 512(f) misrepresentation.

Download Lenz v. Universal Music Group

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Media Rights Techs, Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.

Media Rights Technologies, Inc. (“Media Rights”) appeals the district court’s decision to grant judgment on the pleadings that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,316,033 (the “’033 Patent”) are invalid for indefiniteness. Because the trial court correctly determined that the term “compliance mechanism,” which is a limitation in every single claim, is a means-plus-function term that lacks sufficient structure, we affirm.

Download Media Rights Techs, Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Ivera Med. Corp. v. Hospira, Inc.

Ivera Medical Corp. (“Ivera”) sued Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”) in the Southern District of California alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,780,794 (the ’794 patent), 7,985,302 (the ’302 patent), and 8,206,514 (the ’514 patent). The district court granted summary judgment of invalidity, finding the asserted patent claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Ivera appeals. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand.

Download Ivera Med. Corp. v. Hospira, Inc.

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc.

Dynamic Drinkware, LLC (“Dynamic”) appeals from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review not to reject claims 1 and 12 of National Graphics, Inc.’s (“National Graphics”) U.S. Patent 6,635,196 (the “’196 patent”) as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (2006).1 See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., No. 2013-00131, 2014 WL 4628897 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2014) (“Board Decision”). Because Dynamic failed to carry its burden of proving unpatentability, we affirm.

Download Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc.

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp.,Ltd.

Carnegie Mellon University (“CMU”) sued Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. and Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively “Marvell”) for infringing two patents related to hard-disk drives. A jury found for CMU on infringement and validity, and it awarded roughly $1.17 billion as a reasonable royalty for the infringing acts, using a rate of 50 cents for each of certain semiconductor chips sold by Marvell for use in hard-disk drives. The district court then used that rate to extend the award to the date of judgment, awarded a 23-percent enhancement of the pastdamages award based on Marvell’s willfulness (found by the jury and the district court), and entered a judgment of roughly $1.54 billion for past infringement and a continuing royalty at 50 cents per Marvell-sold chip.

Marvell appeals. We affirm the judgment of infringement and validity. As to the monetary relief: We affirm the rejection of Marvell’s laches defense to pre-suit damages. We reverse the grant of enhanced damages under the governing willfulness standard, which does not require that Marvell have had a reasonable defense in mind when it committed its past infringement. We reject Marvell’s challenge to the royalty (past and continuing) with one exception.

That exception involves an issue of extraterritoriality—whether the royalty, in covering all Marvell sales of certain chips made and delivered abroad, improperly reaches beyond United States borders. We conclude that the royalty properly embraces those Marvell-sold chips that, though made and delivered abroad, were imported into the United States, and we affirm the judgment to the extent of $278,406,045.50 in past royalties (50 cents for each of the 556,812,091 chips the jury could properly find were imported), plus an amount to be calculated on remand that brings that figure forward to the time of judgment, and the ongoing royalty order to the extent it reaches imported Marvell-sold chips. But as to the Marvell chips made and delivered abroad but never imported into the United States, we conclude that a partial new trial is needed to determine the location, or perhaps locations, of the “sale” of those chips. To the extent, and only to the extent, that the United States is such a location of sale, chips not made in or imported into the United States may be included in the past-royalty award and ongoing-royalty order.

Download Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp.,Ltd.

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

Sandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”), Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Lupin”), and Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. (“Hi-Tech”) (collectively, “the Appellants”)1 appeal from the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, following a bench trial, which held that the claims of U.S. Patents 7,851,504 (the “ ’504 patent”), 8,278,353 (the “ ’353 patent”), 8,299,118 (the “ ’118 patent”), 8,309,605 (the “ ’605 patent”), and 8,338,479 (the “ ’479 patent”), asserted by Allergan, Inc. (“Allergan”), were not shown to be invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and that the claims of the ’353 and ’118 patents were not shown to be invalid for lack of an adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.2 Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 6:11-cv-00441, ECF No. 303, slip op. at 77, 79 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2014) (“Opinion”). Additionally, Lupin challenges the district court’s determination that the claims of Allergan’s patents were not shown to be invalid for lack of enablement under § 112, ¶ 1. Id. at 80–81. Hi-Tech also challenges the district court’s finding that it infringed the claims of the ’504, ’605, and ’479 patents literally and under the doctrine of equivalents. Id. at 64–66. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in all respects.

Download Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.