Phil-Insul Corp. v. Airlite Plastics

Phil-Insul Corp. d/b/a IntegraSpec (“IntegraSpec”) filed suit against Airlite Plastics Co. and Formtech, LLC (collectively, “Airlite”) alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,428,933 (“the ’933 Patent”), which relates to insulating concrete forms (“ICFs”) that are used in the construction of buildings. Airlite moved for summary judgment of noninfringement, arguing that IntegraSpec’s claims are precluded by our decision in a prior action. In that case, IntegraSpec asserted claims from the same patent against different defendants with similar products. There, after construing the claims, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement, and subsequently granted the parties’ stipulated request for a Rule 54(b) certification for immediate appeal. IntegraSpec timely appealed, challenging only the district court’s claim construction. We summarily affirmed the district court’s final judgment without an opinion. PhilInsul Corp. v. Reward Wall Sys., Inc., 580 F. App’x 907 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

In this case, Airlite argued that IntegraSpec’s infringement claims are the same as the infringement claims it asserted and lost in Reward Wall and that Airlite’s accused products have the same design as the products found noninfringing in that prior litigation. The district court agreed, and granted Airlite’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. Phil-Insul Corp. v. Airlite Plastics, Co., No. 8:12-cv-151, 2016 WL 5107131 (D. Neb. Mar. 2, 2016) (“Decision on Appeal”). Because we agree that IntegraSpec’s claims are barred by collateral estoppel, we affirm.

Download Phil-Insul Corp. v. Airlite Plastics


Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

A jury found that Samsung infringed Rembrandt’s asserted patents, which the jury also found not invalid over prior art cited by Samsung. The jury awarded Rembrandt $15.7 million in damages. After trial, Samsung moved for judgment as a matter of law on obviousness and damages, which the district court denied. Samsung appeals the district court’s denial of JMOL, as well as the district court’s claim construction order and an order denying Samsung’s motion to limit Rembrandt’s damages for alleged failure to mark patented articles.

Because we agree with the district court’s challenged claim construction and its denial of Samsung’s JMOL motions, we affirm those decisions. We disagree, however, with the district court’s denial of Samsung’s motion based on the marking statute, and we vacate that decision and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Download Rembrandt Wireless Technologies LP v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.


Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc.

This appeal arises from a patent infringement action brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l., is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,143 (“the ’143 patent”). Claim 17 of the patent, the only claim at issue in this appeal, recites a mobile station, such as a mobile telephone, that is connected to a cellular system or network. The claim is directed to means for sending packet data from the mobile station to the network using a selected channel.

Following trial, the jury found that the defendant, Apple Inc., did not infringe any of the asserted claims. The district court denied Core Wireless’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, and Core Wireless took this appeal. We affirm.

Download Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.


Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Limited

This is an appeal from the Final Written Decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) in two consolidated inter partes review (IPR) proceedings of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,283 (the ’283 patent), owned by Novartis AG and Mistubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp. (collectively, Novartis). The Board instituted IPRs on all claims of the ’283 patent based on petitions filed by Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, Apotex, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively, Petitioners). After reviewing the claims, receiving extensive briefing, and hearing oral argument, the Board found all original claims of the ’283 patent and Novartis’ proposed substitute claims unpatentable as obvious. See Torrent Pharm. Ltd. v. Novartis AG, Nos. IPR2014-00784, IPR2015-00518, 2015 WL 5719630 (PTAB Sept. 24, 2015) (Final Written Decision). Novartis raises a series of challenges to the Board’s analysis of the evidence and ultimate determination of unpatentability. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

Download Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited


The Medicines Co. v. Mylan, Inc.

The Medicines Company (“Medicines”) is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,582,727 (“the ’727 patent”) and 7,598,343 (“the ’343 patent”). In response to an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) submitted by Mylan, Inc. (“Mylan”), Medicines filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Mylan’s ANDA infringed claims 1–3, 7–10, and 17 of the ’727 patent, and claims 1–3 and 7–11 of the ’343 patent. Mylan counterclaimed seeking a declaration that the asserted claims were invalid.

The district court held on summary judgment that the asserted claims of the ’343 patent were not infringed because Mylan did not satisfy the “efficient mixing” limitation of those claims. After conducting a bench trial, the court held that the asserted claims of the ’727 patent were infringed because those claims did not include an “efficient mixing” limitation.

We hold that both the ’727 and ’343 patents include a “batches” limitation that requires batch consistency, which, according to the patents in suit, is achieved through efficient mixing. Efficient mixing is therefore required by the asserted claims of both patents. We further construe efficient mixing as defined by Example 5 of the patents’ specification. We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment of infringement with respect to the ’727 patent, and affirm its summary judgment of noninfringement with respect to the ’343 patent. We do not address the validity of the patents in suit.

Download The Medicines Co. v. Mylan Inc.


Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc.

The instant appeals concern inter partes reviews of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,316,023 (“the ’023 patent”) and 6,335,031 (“the ’031 patent”) (together, “the Patents-inSuit”). In two separate final written decisions, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) found that various claims of the Patents-in-Suit (“the Asserted Claims”)1 would have been obvious over the prior art. See Noven Pharm., Inc. v. Novartis AG (Noven I), No. IPR2014-00549, 2015 WL 5782080, at *23 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 28, 2015) (finding the disputed claims of the ’023 patent unpatentable as obvious); Noven Pharm., Inc. v. Novartis AG (Noven II), No. IPR2014-00550, 2015 WL 5782081, at *23 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 28, 2015) (finding the disputed claims of the ’031 patent unpatentable as obvious). The PTAB maintained its findings when asked to reconsider them. See Noven Pharm., Inc. v. Novartis AG (Noven III), No. IPR2014- 00549, 2015 WL 9599194, at *8 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2015) (denying request to reconsider Noven I); Noven Pharm., Inc. v. Novartis AG (Noven IV), No. IPR2014-00550, 2015 WL 9599195, at *8 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2015) (denying request to reconsider Noven II). Appellants Novartis AG and LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme AG (together, “Novartis”) contest numerous aspects of the Final Written Decisions, including the PTAB’s conclusion that prior judicial opinions did not control its inquiry and the PTAB’s factual findings in support of its obviousness conclusion. We affirm.

Download Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc.

 


University of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

Defendants-Appellants (“Max Planck”) appeal a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which found that this case was not “exceptional” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and thus denied Max Planck’s motion for attorney fees. The district court did not abuse its discretion. We therefore affirm.

Download University of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft


TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc.

TVIIM, LLC (“TVIIM”) sued McAfee, Inc. (“McAfee”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,889,168 (“’168 patent”). A jury determined that McAfee did not infringe the ’168 patent and that the ’168 patent was invalid. After the jury verdict, TVIIM filed motions for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) and for a new trial. The district court denied both motions, and TVIIM filed this appeal challenging the jury verdict and the district court’s denial of its post-verdict motions. We affirm because substantial evidence supports the jury’s findings of non-infringement and invalidity under a uniform construction of the relevant claim terms, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.

Download TVIIM LLC v. McAfee Inc.


Bayer Cropscience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC

Bayer appeals the district court’s award of attorney fees to Dow under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The district court awarded attorney fees to Dow upon finding that the case stood out from others and was thus exceptional. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the case exceptional and awarding fees, we affirm.

Download Bayer Cropscience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC