Intellectual Property and Tech Law Reports

Bilski v. Kappos

Petitioners’ patent application seeks protection for a claimed invention that explains how commodities buyers and sellers in the energy market can protect, or hedge, against the risk of price changes. The key claims are claim 1, which describes a series of steps instructing how to hedge risk, and claim 4, which places the claim 1 concept into a simple mathematical formula. The remaining claims explain how claims 1 and 4 can be applied to allow energy suppliers and consumers to minimize the risks resulting from fluctuations in market demand. The patent examiner rejected the application on the grounds that the invention is not implemented on a specific apparatus, merely manipulates an abstract idea, and solves a purely mathematical problem. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences agreed and affirmed. The Federal Circuit, in turn, affirmed. The en banc court rejected its prior test for determining whether a claimed invention was a patentable “process” under Patent Act, 35 U. S. C. §101—i.e., whether the invention produced a “useful, concrete, and tangible result,” see, e.g., State Street Bank & Trust Co v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F. 3d 1368, 1373—holding instead that a claimed process is patent eligible if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. Concluding that this “machine-or-transformation test”is the sole test for determining patent eligibility of a “process” under §101, the court applied the test and held that the application was not patent eligible.

Held: The judgment is affirmed.

Download Bilski v. Kappos

Mee Indus. v. Dow Chem. Co.

This case comprises the respective appeal and cross-appeal of Mee Industries (“Mee”) and Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) in a malicious prosecution suit brought by Mee against Dow. Mee brought this suit in response to a patent infringement suit filed in the Middle District of Florida by Dow against Mee and Florida Power Corporation, a Mee customer. That case was ultimately resolved in Mee’s favor. In the instant case, a jury verdict was entered in Mee’s favor for the previously stipulated amount of its attorneys’ fees in the patent infringement case. On appeal, Mee argues that the district court erred by granting Dow’s Rule 50(a) motion on the issue of punitive damages and excluding evidence of Mee’s damages relating to loss of goodwill under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). In its cross-appeal, Dow argues that the district court erred by denying Dow’s Rule 50(b) motions on the issues of lack of probable cause and its advice-of-counsel defense. This case presents two close questions, but after carefully considering the parties’ briefs, thoroughly investigating the record, and having heard oral arguments, we affirm.

Download Mee Indus. v. Dow Chem. Co.

Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elec. of Am., Inc.

Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. (Britannica) is the as-signee of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,051,018 (the ’018 patent) and 7,082,437 (the ’437 patent). The ’018 and ’437 patents relate to a multimedia database search system for retriev-ing textual and graphical information. Britannica sued Alpine Electronics of America, Inc., Alpine Electronics, Inc., DENSO Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Magellan Navigation, Inc., American Honda Motor Company, Inc., TomTom, Inc., and Garmin International, Inc. (collectively, Defendants), alleging infringement of the ’018 and ’437 patents. The Defendants moved for summary judgment that the patents in suit are invalid as anticipated by Britannica’s published foreign application. The district court granted their motion for summary judgment, declared the ’018 and ’437 patents invalid as anticipated, and dismissed the cases. See Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elecs. of Am., Inc., 643 F. Supp. 2d 874 (S.D. Tex. 2009). Britannica appeals. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Download Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elec. of Am., Inc.

Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc.

This is a patent infringement case involving technol-ogy for automated duplication of compact discs. Wordtech Systems, Inc. (“Wordtech”) sued Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc. (“INSC”) and its employees Nasser Khatemi and Hamid Assadian (collectively “Defendants”) in the District Court for the Eastern District of California for infringement of U.S. Patents No. 6,141,298 (“’298 patent”), No. 6,532,198 (“’198 patent”), and No. 6,822,932 (“’932 patent”). A jury found INSC, Khatemi, and As-sadian each liable for direct infringement, contributory infringement, and inducement of infringement, and awarded damages. Khatemi and Assadian appeal the liability verdicts against them as individuals; all three defendants appeal damages and the district court’s denial of their motion for leave to amend their answer to allege invalidity defenses. Because the jury instructions lacked legal tests necessary to determine Khatemi and As-sadian’s individual liability, and because the damages verdict conflicts with the clear weight of the evidence, we reverse the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion for new trial and remand. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendants’ motion for leave to amend, we affirm that ruling.

Download Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc.

Krispy Kreme in Court Fight Over Secret Recipe

Published June 18, 2010| NewsCore

Famed doughnut company Krispy Kreme is suing the operators of its last remaining New York City store over a claim that they cooked up their own recipe when they ran out of "key proprietary Krispy Kreme ingredients," the New York Post reported Friday.

"Only a very limited number of Krispy Kreme employees have access to the recipe," which is kept in a safe at the company's headquarters in Winston-Salem, N.C., the Manhattan federal suit claims.

Full story.

Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fastener Corp.

Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. (“AMC”) brought an action against Rome Fastener Corp., Rome Fastener Sales Corp., Romag Fasteners Inc., and Rings Wire, Inc. (collec-tively “Romag”) for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,572,773 (the “’773 patent”). After AMC finished pre-senting its case in chief, the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York (the “district court”) granted Ro-mag’s Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”). The district court subsequently assessed attorney’s fees and costs against AMC under 35 U.S.C. § 285 based on (1) the ’773 patent applicants’ inequitable “PTO”) and (2) AMC’s litigation misconduct. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the court also held AMC’s attorneys jointly and severally liable for a portion of Romag’s attor-ney’s fees, including the law firm Abelman, Frayne & Schwab (“Abelman”) and David Jaroslawicz—the sole member of Jaroslawicz & Jaros, LLC. AMC, Abelman, and Mr. Jaroslawicz all appealed the judgment to this court. But Abelman subsequently settled with Romag, and this court dismissed Abelman’s appeal. Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fastener Corp., 331 F. App’x 732, 733 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We affirm the district court’s holding that the ’773 patent is unenforceable based on inequitable conduct and its award of 35 U.S.C. § 285 attorney’s fees and costs against AMC, but we reverse its 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanction against Mr. Jaroslawicz.

Download Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fastener Corp.

Pequignot v. Solo Cup

Matthew A. Pequignot appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granting summary judgment of no liability for false marking. Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., 646 F. Supp. 2d 790, 795–800 (E.D. Va. 2009) (“SJ Op.”). Pequignot also appeals from the court’s determination of what consti-tutes an “offense” for the purpose of assessing the statu-tory fine. Id. at 801–804. Because Pequignot cannot show that Solo Cup Company (“Solo”) had the requisite intent to falsely mark its products, we affirm the court’s judgment of no liability. We therefore vacate the court’s determination of the meaning of the word “offense” as moot.

Download Pequignot v. Solo Cup

TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.

This patent infringement action returns to us for a second time after having been previously appealed and remanded on claim construction and infringement ques-tions in TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“TriMed I”). In the present appeal, TriMed, Incorporated (“TriMed”) challenges a decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,931,839 (“the ’839 patent”) in favor of Stryker Corporation (“Stryker”). Because the district court improperly resolved genuine issues of material fact in favor of Stryker and because reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice, we reverse and remand with an instruction to reassign this matter to a different judge.

Download Trimed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.

Benay v. Warner Bros.

Plaintiffs are two brothers, Aaron and Matthew Benay, who wrote and copyrighted a screenplay, The Last Samurai (“the Screenplay”). The Benays contend that the creators of the film The Last Samurai (“the Film”) copied from the Screenplay without permission. They sued Warner Brothers Entertainment, Inc., Radar Pictures, Inc., Bedford Falls Productions, Inc., Edward Zwick, Marshall Herskovitz, and John Logan (collectively “Defendants”), who wrote, produced, marketed, and/or distributed the Film. Inter alia, the Benays alleged copyright infringement under federal law and breach of contract under California law.

The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on the copyright and breach of contract claims. We affirm on the copyright claim. We reverse and remand on the breach of contract claim.

Download Benay v. Warner Bros.

Lahiri v. Universal Music & Video Dist. Corp.

Anthony Kornarens is an attorney specializing in copyright law. Kornarens was severely sanctioned by the district court for his five-year bad faith pursuit of a frivolous copyright infringement claim. In its 21-page order, the district court awarded defendants $247,397.28 in attorneys’ fees and $10,808.76 in costs, under 28 U.S.C. § 19271 and the court’s inherent sanctioning power. Kornarens appeals, contending the sanctions were unwarranted and excessive. We disagree and affirm.

Download Lahiri v. Universal Music & Video Dist. Corp.