Campbell Company (“Campbell”) appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Central District of California entering judgment in favor of Polara Engineering Inc. (“Polara”) on its claim for infringement of claims 1–4 (“the asserted claims”) of U.S. Patent 7,145,476 (“the ’476 patent”) and its decision, following a jury trial, denying Campbell’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law of invalidity and no willfulness, and granting Polara’s motion to enhance the damages award. See Polara Eng’g, Inc. v. Campbell Co., 237 F. Supp. 3d 956 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (“Post-trial Motions Opinion”); Judgment, Polara Eng’g, Inc. v. Campbell Co., No. SACV-13-00007 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017), ECF No. 499 (J.A. 83–84). For the following reasons, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
Apple Inc. and Google LLC appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to grant ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.’s motion to amend in a covered business method review of U.S. Patent 7,774,280. Because the Board applied the wrong legal standard to determine whether the ’280 patent qualified as a covered business method, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion to remand is granted. The Board is directed to promptly issue a final written decision as to all grounds raised in Adidas’s petitions.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Lannett Holdings Inc. and Lannett Co. Inc. (together, “Lannett”) appeal from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware concluding, after a bench trial, that claims 4, 11, 12, and 14 of U.S. Patent 6,760,237 (“the ’237 patent”) and claims 6 and 14– 16 of U.S. Patent 7,220,767 (“the ’767 patent”) were not shown to be invalid, see Impax Labs., Inc. v. Lannett Holdings Inc., 246 F. Supp. 3d 1024 (D. Del. 2017) (“Opinion”), entering judgment in favor of Impax Laboratories Inc. (“Impax”), AstraZeneca AB, and AstraZeneca UK Limited (together, “AstraZeneca”), and entering an injunction against Lannett pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4), see Impax Labs. Inc. v. Lannett Holdings Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00984-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 17, 2017), ECF No. 174; J.A. 1–4. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Sirona Dental Systems GmbH appeals the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) holding claims 1–8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,319,006 unpatentable as obvious over the combination of German Patent No. 195 10 294 (“Bannuscher”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,842,858 (“Truppe”), and denying Sirona’s contingent motion to amend the claims. Institut Straumann AG and Dental Wings Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners”) cross-appeal the Board’s decision holding patentable claims 9–10 of the ’006 patent. For the following reasons, we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand-in-part.
Appellant FastShip, LLC (“FastShip”) sued the United States (“the Government”) in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, seeking damages for patent infringement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498 (2012). According to FastShip, the U.S. Department of the Navy’s (“Navy”) Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ships (“LCS”), specifically the LCS-1 and LCS-3, infringe claims 1 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 5,080,032 (“the ’032 patent”) and claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,231,946 (“the ’946 patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Claims”) (together, the “Patents-in-Suit”).
Following the Court of Federal Claims’ opinion construing various terms of the Patents-in-Suit, see FastShip, LLC v. United States (FastShip I), 114 Fed. Cl. 499 (2013), the Government filed a motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”), arguing that the LCS3 was not “manufactured” by or for the Government within the meaning of § 1498 before the Patents-in-Suit expired, J.A. 164. The Court of Federal Claims granted the Government’s Motion. See FastShip, LLC v. United States (FastShip II), 122 Fed. Cl. 71, 86 (2015). The Court of Federal Claims then convened a bench trial and issued a post-trial opinion, holding that LCS-1 infringed the Asserted Claims and awarding FastShip $6,449,585.82 in damages plus interest. See FastShip, LLC v. United States (FastShip III), 131 Fed. Cl. 592, 627 (2017); J.A. 82 (Judgment).
FastShip appeals the Court of Federal Claims’ grant of the Government’s Motion in FastShip II and damages calculation in FastShip III. The Government crossappeals, alleging that, in FastShip III, the Court of Federal Claims improperly modified a claim construction from FastShip I, thereby resulting in a determination that LCS-1 infringed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). We affirm, with modification to the damages award.
Appellee Stone Basket Innovations, LLC (“Stone”) sued Appellant Cook Medical LLC (“Cook”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (“District Court”), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,551,327 (“the ’327 patent”). Following a dismissal with prejudice, see Stone Basket Innovations, LLC v. Cook Med. LLC (Stone Basket I), No. 1:16-cv-00858-LJM-TAB (S.D. Ind. Jan. 11, 2017) (J.A. 1157), Cook filed, inter alia, a motion for attorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 (2012) (“the § 285 Motion”). The District Court issued an order denying the § 285 Motion. Stone Basket Innovations, LLC v. Cook Med. LLC (Stone Basket II), No. 1:16-cv-00858-LJM-TAB, 2017 WL 2655612, at *1 (S.D. Ind. June 20, 2017). Cook appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2012). We affirm.
This is a consolidated appeal from two related decisions of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeals Board (Board) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The Board concluded that the petitioner, Medtronic, Inc., had not proven that the challenged patent claims are unpatentable. We affirm-in-part and vacate-in-part. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that the challenged claims would not have been obvious over two references: 1) U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/0245928 (the ’928 Application); and (2) a book chapter which appears in Masters Techniques in Orthopaedic Surgery: The Spine (2d ed.) (MTOS). However, we vacate the Board’s conclusion that certain other references, i.e., a video entitled “Thoracic Pedicle Screws for Idiopathic Scoliosis” and slides entitled “Free Hand Thoracic Screw Placement and Clinical Use in Scoliosis and Kyphosis Surgery” (Video and Slides), were not prior art because the Board did not fully consider all the factors for determining whether the Video and Slides were publicly accessible. We thus remand for further proceedings.
PGS Geophysical AS owns U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981, which describes and claims methods and systems for performing “marine seismic surveying” to determine the structure of earth formations below the seabed. WesternGeco, L.L.C., a competitor of PGS’s, filed three petitions requesting inter partes reviews (IPRs) of claims 1– 38 of the ’981 patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), acting as the PTO Director’s delegate, instituted three IPRs, but it specified for review only some of the claims WesternGeco challenged and only some of the grounds for WesternGeco’s challenges, not all claims or all grounds. In its final written decisions in the IPRs, the Board ruled partly for PGS and partly for WesternGeco on the reviewed claims and grounds. Both PGS and WesternGeco appealed, but WesternGeco then settled with PGS and withdrew, leaving only PGS’s appeals as to certain claims of the ’981 patent that the Board ruled unpatentable for obviousness. The Director intervened to defend the Board’s decisions. 35 U.S.C. § 143. We affirm. We first conclude that, although SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), now makes clear that the Board erred in limiting the scope of the IPRs it instituted and hence the scope of its final written decisions, we have jurisdiction to address the merits of the Board’s final written decisions and that we need not, and will not, sua sponte revive the “non-instituted” claims and grounds. We then conclude that the Board committed no error justifying disturbance of its obviousness decisions on their merits.
Zeroclick, LLC sued Apple Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting claims 2 and 52 of U.S. Patent No. 7,818,691 and claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,549,443. The district court found the asserted claims invalid for indefiniteness, reasoning that the claims recited means-plus-function terms for which the specifications do not disclose sufficient structure. Because the district court failed to undertake the relevant inquiry and make related factual findings to support its conclusion that the asserted claims recited means-plus-function terms, we vacate and remand.