AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Trust

The Mathilda and Terrance Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust (Kennedy) owns U.S. Patent Nos. 7,846,442 (the ’442 patent) and 6,270,766 (the ’766 patent). Both patents are directed towards methods of treating rheumatoid arthritis by co-administering two drugs. AbbVie, Inc. and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. (collectively, AbbVie) are licensees of the ’766 patent but not the ’442 patent. In 2011, AbbVie sued Kennedy in the Southern District of New York for a declaratory judgment that the ’442 patent was invalid under the doctrine of obviousness- type double patenting because the ’442 patent was not patentably distinct from the ’766 patent. We agree with AbbVie that the ’442 patent would have been obvious in light of the ’766 patent. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s finding of invalidity.

Download AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Trust


Apotex Inc. v. UCB, Inc.

Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively, “Apotex”) appeal the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida finding that: (1) Apotex’s U.S. Patent No. 6,767,556 (“the ’556 patent”) is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct; (2) Apotex is judicially estopped from alleging infringement of the ’556 patent by the accused products; (3) the asserted claims are indefinite; (4) Apotex disclaimed coverage of the accused products from the scope of the ’556 patent’s claims; and (5) Apotex is barred by laches from recovering pre-suit damages. Apotex, Inc. v. UCB, Inc., 970 F. Supp. 2d 1297 (S.D. Fla. 2013). Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding inequitable conduct, we affirm the district court’s judgment on that basis.

Download Apotex Inc. v. UCB, Inc.


Align Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

The International Trade Commission’s regulations authorize the Commission to review a decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ) when that decision is designated as an “initial determination.” Other ALJ decisions, such as an “order,” are not reviewable. Here, the ALJ denied a motion via an order. This case requires us to consider whether the Commission’s review of that order was procedurally sound. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that it was not.

Download Align Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n


Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.

Arlington Industries, Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 6,335,488, which claims a method for connecting electrical cables to a junction box using electrical fittings. Both Arlington and Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. manufacture and sell electrical connectors. After Arlington sued Bridgeport in 2004, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which Bridgeport agreed to be enjoined from making and selling certain products and their “colorable imitations.” Bridgeport then redesigned its electrical connectors, and Arlington sought a contempt order holding that these redesigned connectors violated the original agreement. The district court entered an order finding Bridgeport in contempt of the original injunction, but at the time of appeal, had not yet determined any sanctions for Bridgeport’s contempt. Bridgeport appeals the contempt order. Because the contempt order is not a final judgment or otherwise appealable, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Download Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.


Medisim Ltd. v. Bestmed, LLC

Plaintiff-Appellant Medisim Ltd. (“Medisim”) appeals the grant of judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) by the United States District Court for the District of New York that U.S. Patent No. 7,597,668 (“’668 patent”) is anticipated by Medisim’s own prior art FHT-1 thermometer. See Medisim Ltd. v. BestMed LLC, 959 F. Supp. 2d 396, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). It also appeals the district court’s grant of JMOL in BestMed, LLC’s (“BestMed”) favor on Medisim’s unjust enrichment claim. Id. at 426. Because BestMed failed to preserve its right to JMOL on anticipation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, we vacate the district court’s grant of JMOL on that claim. However, we affirm the district court’s grant of JMOL on Medisim’s unjust enrichment claim and its conditional grant of a new trial on anticipation. We remand this case for further proceedings.

 


Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.

In this appeal, we address the subject matter eligibility of claims in U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415 (“the ’415 patent”) directed to a device profile and a method for creating a device profile within a digital image processing system. The district court concluded that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the rea-sons set forth below, we affirm.

Download Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.


Troy v. Samson Mfg. Corp.

Stephen P. Troy, Jr. appeals from the district court’s judgment in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 146 and challenges the court’s conclusion that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) properly cancelled the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,216,451 (’451 patent) in an interference proceeding with Samson Manufacturing Corp. (Samson). Because the district court erred in refusing to consider evidence pertinent to the determination of priority, we vacate and remand.

Download Troy v. Samson Mfg. Corp.


H-W Tech., L.C. v. Overstock.com, Inc.

H-W Technology, L.C., (“H-W”) appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Overstock.com, Inc., (“Overstock”). Specifically, H-W challenges the district court’s holding that claims 9 and 17 of H-W’s U.S. Patent No. 7,525,955 (“’955 patent”) are invalid. We conclude that the district court correctly held claim 17 invalid but erred to the extent it held corrected claim 9 invalid. Because this lawsuit involves only uncorrected claim 9, however, the judgment in favor of Overstock is affirmed as modified.

Download H-W Tech., L.C. v. Overstock.com, Inc.


Apple Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

Apple appeals from the final decision of the International Trade Commission (ITC) that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607 (’607 patent) are invalid and that Motorola does not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828 (’828 patent). Apple challenges the ITC’s claim construction and its determinations of obviousness, anticipation, and noninfringement. For the following reasons, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and vacate-in-part the ITC’s decision and remand for further proceedings. Download Apple Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n