Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of “Process Automation” Patent Infringement Suit

By Zach Schroeder and David G. Barker On March 15, 2022, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Texas’s dismissal of a patent infringement complaint because the asserted patent claims were directed to process automation and therefore not eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Repifi Vendor Logistics sued Intellicentrics for infringing its ‘268 patent “directed to a method of credentialing visitors to an access-controlled environment by an access administrator.”  The typical process of credentialing visitors involves a live receptionist collecting information, verifying information, and creating disposable visitor passes.  Repifi’s patent included claims for automating this process   Read More »

Posted in IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Federal Circuit Rejects Two-Tiered Royalty Patent Damages

By Daniel M. Staren and David G. Barker Last week, a Federal Circuit panel vacated a billion dollar jury verdict in favor of plaintiff-appellee California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) and remanded for a new trial on damages because of Caltech’s unsupported two-tiered reasonable royalty patent damages theory. Caltech sued Broadcom, Apple, and others in the Central District of California for patent infringement. Two of the asserted patents disclosed circuits that were designed to improve the speed and reliability of data transmissions (“Circuit Patents”). Caltech alleged infringement by Broadcom’s WiFi chips and Apple’s products incorporating them. The accused chips were developed   Read More »

Posted in IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation | Tagged , , ,

Share this Article:

Federal Circuit Rejects “Unanswered Questions” Indefiniteness Standard

By Emily Parker and David Barker Last week, a split Federal Circuit panel reversed a decision invalidating certain computer-aided-design patent claims because the district court used an incorrect indefiniteness standard. Nature Simulation Systems (“NSS”) sued Autodesk, Inc. for infringing two patents directed to computerized methods for building three-dimensional objects. Autodesk argued that certain claims in NSS’s patents were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112. During a claim construction hearing, the district court held the claims were indefinite – and therefore invalid – because there were various “unanswered questions” raised by the claims’ terms. The district court held that such “unanswered   Read More »

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , ,

Share this Article:

Federal Circuit Upholds a Silent Written Description

By David G. Barker In a precedential opinion this week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court judgment in favor of Novartis Pharmaceuticals, in an appeal brought by HEC Pharm challenging the written description in Novartis’s 9,187,405 patent. Novartis markets a 0.5 mg daily-dose drug to treat a form of multiple sclerosis, and the patent at issue claims a related treatment method. The claimed method does not require a “loading dose”—a higher initial dose than the daily doses. Before the patent was filed, a loading dose was known to “get therapeutic levels up quickly.” Novartis’s patent explicitly excludes “an immediately   Read More »

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged ,

Share this Article:

Federal Circuit Erases Juno’s $1 Billion Judgment by Invalidating Patent for Inadequate Written Description

By Anne Bolamperti and David G. Barker The Federal Circuit invalidated Juno Therapeutics, Inc.’s T cell therapy patent for cancer treatment and erased a billion dollar judgment in Juno’s favor. The court held that the jury verdict regarding the patent’s written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) was not supported by substantial evidence. Juno’s U.S. Patent No. 7,446,190 (the “’190 patent”) relates to a nucleic acid polymer encoding a three-part chimeric antigen receptor (“CAR”) for a T cell. The first two portions of the CAR allow T cells to both kill target cells and divide into more T cells. The third portion   Read More »

Posted in IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation | Tagged , , ,

Share this Article: