Chikezie Ottah (herein “Ottah”) appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.1 The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement to several defendant automobile companies with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,152,840 (“the ’840 Patent”), and dismissed the complaint with prejudice as to several other automobile companies. We have reviewed, and now affirm, the district court’s rulings.
Appellant Knowles Electronics, LLC (“Knowles”) appeals the inter partes reexamination decision on appeal of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) affirming an examiner’s rejection of claims 1−4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,781,231 (“the ’231 patent”) for anticipation and proposed claims 23−27 for lack of an adequate written description. Cirrus Logic, Inc. v. Knowles Elecs. LLC (Cirrus I), No. 2015-004342, 2015 WL 5272691, at *2−3 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 8, 2015); see Cirrus Logic, Inc. v. Knowles Elecs. LLC (Cirrus II), No. 2015-004342, 2016 WL 1378707, at *1−2 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2016) (denying request for rehearing).
Knowles appeals. We have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) (2012). We affirm.
Nalco Company (“Nalco”) appeals from the district court’s decision dismissing its Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”) with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The 4AC alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,808,692 (“the ’692 patent”) by Appellees Chem-Mod, LLC, Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., Gallagher Clean Energy, LLC, AJG Coal, Inc., and various Refined Coal LLCs (collectively, “Defendants”). Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC (Nalco 4AC Order), No. 14- cv-2510, 2016 WL 1594966 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 20, 2016), reconsideration denied, Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC (Nalco 4AC Reconsideration Order), No. 14-cv-2510, 2016 WL 4798950 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 14, 2016). We conclude that the district court erred in dismissing Nalco’s direct infringement claims and, thus, reverse the district court’s order as to those claims. We also reverse the district court’s dismissal of Nalco’s doctrine of equivalents, indirect, and willful infringement claims. We remand for further proceedings in this matter.
The Petitioners Google LLC, Motorola Mobility LLC, and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. requested inter partes review of Claims 1-79 (all the claims) of U.S. Patent No. 6,323,853 (“the ’853 patent”) owned by Arendi S.A.R.L. (“Arendi”).1 The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) instituted review on the ground of obviousness, and after trial the PTAB held all of the claims unpatentable.2 On Arendi’s appeal, we affirm the PTAB’s decision, based on the PTAB’s alternative claim construction.
Aatrix Software, Inc. (“Aatrix”) appeals the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), in which the district court held claims 1, 2, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,171,615 (“’615 patent”) and claims 1, 13, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,984,393 (“’393 patent”) invalid as directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Aatrix also appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. We vacate the district court’s grant of the motion to dismiss, reverse its denial of Aatrix’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, and remand for further proceedings.
Download In re HodgesAppellant Kenneth Andrew Hodges appeals from examination of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/906,222 (“’222 application”), in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirmed the examiner’s rejection of all claims as anticipated and/or obvious. See Ex Parte Kenneth Andrew Hodges, No. 2014-009710, 2016 WL 6441834 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2016). For the following reasons, we reverse the Board’s anticipation determinations, vacate its obviousness determinations, and remand for further proceedings.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (“Merck”) owns U.S. Patent No. 6,127,353, which claims mometasone furoate monohydrate, the active ingredient in Merck’s Nasonex® nasal product. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Amneal”) submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to market a generic mometasone furoate nasal spray. Merck filed an infringement suit in the District of Delaware alleging that Amneal’s proposed ANDA product would infringe the ’353 patent if approved by the FDA.
Following a bench trial, the district court found that Merck failed to prove by preponderant evidence that Amneal’s ANDA product will infringe the ’353 patent. On appeal, Merck argues that the district court abused its discretion by not compelling Amneal to produce additional samples of its ANDA product for testing before trial. Merck also argues that the district court’s noninfringement finding must be reversed because it was not based on Amneal’s final commercial product. Merck also challenges the district court’s fact-finding that a Raman spectroscopy three-peak analysis was required to confirm the infringing form of mometasone furoate in Amneal’s product.
For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Merck’s request for additional samples and a new trial. Further, we hold that the district court did not err in finding that Merck failed to demonstrate that Amneal’s ANDA product, which formed the basis for the district court’s noninfringement finding, was not representative of Amneal’s final commercial product. Finally, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that three Raman peaks were required to prove infringement. Accordingly, we affirm.
Polaris Industries, Inc. (“Polaris”) owns U.S. Patent No. 8,596,405 (“the ’405 patent”), which is directed to allterrain vehicles (“ATVs”) having at least two seats arranged side-by-side. Polaris’s competitor, Arctic Cat, Inc. (“Arctic Cat”), filed two petitions for inter partes review, challenging the patentability of all thirty-eight claims of the ’405 patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on different combinations of prior art references. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) found, in two inter partes review proceedings, that the claims are unpatentable over one combination of references, but not the other. See Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Polaris Indus., Inc., No. IPR2014- 01427, 2016 WL 498434 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2016) (1427 Decision); Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Polaris Indus., Inc., No. IPR2014-01428, 2016 WL 498539 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2016) (1428 Decision). The parties cross-appealed.
For the reasons below, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings in the 1427 Decision. We affirm the Board’s determination that the challenged claims were not proven unpatentable in the 1428 Decision.
The only asserted claim in the underlying case is a Walker Process monopolization claim based on alleged fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Both parties assert that the Federal Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over this case. We disagree. We therefore transfer the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has appellate jurisdiction over cases from the District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Nordt Development Co., LLC appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision affirming an examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/241,865. Ex Parte Nordt, No. 2015–001233, 2016 WL 6560183 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2016). For the reasons below, we disagree with the Board’s claim construction of “injection molded” as a process limitation with no patentable weight, vacate the Board’s finding of anticipation, and remand for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion.