Justia International Law Opinion Summaries

Lexmark holds patents on the components of toner cartridges that it manufactures and sells. Lexmark allows consumers to buy a cartridge at full price, with no restrictions, or to buy a cartridge at a discount through Lexmark’s “Return Program,” by signing a contract agreeing to use the cartridge only once and to refrain from transferring the cartridge to anyone but Lexmark. Remanufacturers acquire empty Lexmark cartridges—including Return Program cartridges—from purchasers in the U.S. and overseas, refill them, and resell them in the U.S. Lexmark sued remanufacturers with respect to Return Program cartridges that Lexmark had sold within the U.S. and cartridges that Lexmark had sold abroad and that remanufacturers imported into the country. The Federal Circuit ruled for Lexmark with respect to both. The Supreme Court reversed. Lexmark exhausted its patent rights (35 U.S.C. 271(a)) in all of the cartridges. A patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to impose. If a patentee negotiates a contract restricting the purchaser’s right to use or resell an item, it may be able to enforce that restriction as a matter of contract law, but may not do so through a patent infringement lawsuit. The exhaustion doctrine is not a presumption about the authority that comes along with a sale; it is a limit on the scope of the patentee’s rights. The Patent Act just ensures that the patentee receives one reward—of whatever it considers satisfactory compensation—for every item that passes outside the scope of its patent monopoly. View "Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc." on Justia Law

AT&T’s patent is directed to a method of compressing and transmitting transform coefficients in a manner that does not rely on scanning the coefficients in any particular order; all of the coefficients in a block are transmitted at once. Days before the America Invents Act inter partes review procedures went into effect, LG requested inter partes reexamination of the patent, alleging anticipation. Before the PTO decided whether to initiate reexamination, LG asked the PTO to suspend its rule prohibiting a requester from filing documents between requesting inter partes reexamination and the PTO’s initial office action on the merits so that it could file a second request, requesting denial of its initial request. LG did not withdraw, nor did it withdraw its reexamination request. The PTO granted LG’s initial request and declined to suspend the rules. The examiner found new grounds of rejection. While discussions between AT&T and the examiner were ongoing, LG withdrew. The examiner suspended the prohibition against interviews during inter partes reexamination proceedings. Before any amendment, the examiner issued an Action Closing Prosecution that explained a different basis for finding the patent anticipated. The Board and the Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board did not exceed its statutory authority when instituting the reexamination and substantial evidence supported the finding of anticipation. View "In re: AT&T Intellectual Property II" on Justia Law

Halo, a Hong Kong company that designs and sells high-end modern furniture, owns two U.S. design patents, 13 U.S. copyrights, and one U.S. common law trademark, all relating to its furniture designs. Halo’s common law trademark, ODEON, is used in association with at least four of its designs. Halo sells its furniture in the U.S., including through its own retail stores. Comptoir, a Canadian corporation, also designs and markets high-end furniture that is manufactured in China, Vietnam, and India. Comptoir’s furniture is imported and sold to U.S. consumers directly at furniture shows and through distributors, including in Illinois. Halo sued, alleging infringement and violation of Illinois consumer fraud and deceptive business practices statutes. The district court dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds, finding that the balance of interests favored Canada and that Canada, where the defendants reside, was an adequate forum. The Federal Circuit reversed. The policies underlying U.S. copyright, patent, and trademark laws would be defeated if a domestic forum to adjudicate the rights they convey was denied without a sufficient showing of the adequacy of the alternative foreign jurisdiction; the Federal Court of Canada would not provide any “potential avenue for redress for the subject matter” of Halo’s dispute. View "Halo Creative & Design, Ltd. v. Comptoir des Indes Inc." on Justia Law

Binzel, which manufactures welding equipment, owns the German DE 934 patent, filed in 1997, and the U.S. 406 patent, issued in 2002, which claims priority to the German application, for a method of manufacturing a contact tip for metal inert gas welding. Lismont, a resident of Belgium asserts that, beginning in 1995, he developed the method disclosed in both patents for Binzel and, that by mid-1997, he had disclosed the details to Binzel. Lismont contends that, despite Binzel's representations that he was the first to conceive of this method, Binzel filed the DE 934 application naming its employee, Sattler, as the inventor. In 2000-2002 Lismont initiated suits in the German Federal Court and sought information about the countries in which Binzel was pursuing patents and about the manufacture and sales of contact tips that used the method at issue. The German courts ruled against Lismont, finding that he failed to prove that he had an inventorship interest. The German Supreme Court rejected his appeal in 2009. Lismont then filed actions in the German Constitutional Court and in the European Court of Human Rights. In 2012, Lismont initiated U.S. litigation seeking to correct inventorship of the 406 patent (35 U.S.C. 256(a)). After discovery concerning the issue of laches, the court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Federal Circuit affirmed: Lismont failed to rebut the presumption of laches. View "Lismont v. Alexander Binzel Corp." on Justia Law

The Tariff Act of 1930 gives the International Trade Commission authority to remedy only those unfair acts that involve the importation of “articles” as described in 19 U.S.C. 1337(a). The Commission instituted an investigation based on a complaint filed by Align, concerning violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337 by reason of infringement of various claims of seven different patents concerning orthodontic devices. The accused “articles” were the transmission of the “digital models, digital data and treatment plans, expressed as digital data sets, which are virtual three-dimensional models of the desired positions of the patients’ teeth at various stages of orthodontic treatment” from Pakistan to the United States. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the Commission lacked jurisdiction. The Commission’s decision to expand the scope of its jurisdiction to include electronic transmissions of digital data runs counter to the “unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” View "ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

Halo is a supplier of electronic components and owns three patents directed to surface mount electronic packages containing transformers for mounting on a printed circuit board inside electronic devices such as computers and internet routers. Halo alleged that Pulse infringed its patents. The district court entered summary judgment that Pulse did not sell or offer to sell certain accused products within the U.S. and, therefore, did not directly infringe, and that that Pulse’s infringement with respect to accused products that Pulse sold and delivered outside the U.S. was not willful. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Pulse did not sell or offer to sell within the U.S. those accused products that Pulse manufactured, shipped, and delivered outside the U.S., so there was no direct infringement by those products. The court upheld the constructions of the claim limitations “electronic surface mount package” and “contour element,” found the patents not invalid for obviousness, and affirmed the judgment of direct infringement with respect to products that Pulse delivered in the U.S. and the judgment of inducement with respect to products that Pulse delivered outside the U.S. but were ultimately imported by others. View "Halo Elec., Inc. v. Pulse Elec., Inc." on Justia Law

Nooren owns patent 044, entitled “Use of a Preparation for Insulation/Sealing and Coating Purposes and Method for Sealing Manhole Covers,” which discloses a composition for insulating and protecting substrates, such as manhole covers, underground tanks, pipes, and cable sleeves, from corrosion, water ingress, and mechanical stresses. The patent is licensed exclusively to Stopaq, a Dutch company that designs and manufactures coatings and sealants that exhibit both viscous and elastic properties (visco-elasticity) and are designed for corrosion protection and waterproofing. Kleiss, a Dutch company, manufactures similar products that prevent corrosion and protect against leaks, which are distributed in the U.S. by Amcorr. Kleiss and Amcorr sought a declaratory judgment in the Netherlands that their products did not infringe the 044 patent. Nooren filed suit in the U.S., alleging infringement. The parties agreed to focus on the phrase “a filler comprising a plurality of fractions each comprising different size particles, and wherein said different fractions have different particle size distributions” in the only independent claim in the patent. The court granted summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Amcorr. The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that the district court erred in at least on claim construction. View "Frans Nooren Afdichtingssystem v. Stopaq Amcorr Inc." on Justia Law

Solvay’s 817 patent claims an improvement to a method of making a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC-245fa), which does not deplete the ozone layer as legislatively mandated to replace ozone-depleting alternatives. HFC-245fa is especially useful in preparing polymeric materials used for insulation in refrigeration and heat systems. The patent has a 1995 priority date. In 1994, Honeywell and RSCAC entered into a contract, under which RSCAC engineers, in Russia, studied commercial production of HFC-245fa. RSCAC sent Honeywell a report documenting a continuous process capable of producing high yields of HFC-245fa. Honeywell used the report to run the same process in the U.S., before the 817 patent’s priority date. Solvay sued Honeywell, alleging infringement. Honeywell argued that the Russian inventors made the invention in this country by sending instructions to Honeywell personnel who reduced the invention to practice in the U.S. The district court held that the RSCAC engineers should be treated as inventors who made the invention in the U.S. under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(2), that RSCAC disclosed claim1 in a 1994 Russian patent application such that they did not abandon, suppress, or conceal it. The Federal Circuit affirmed judgment for Honeywell. It is not required that the inventor be the one to reduce the invention to practice if reduction to practice was done on his behalf in the U.S., so Honeywell’s invention qualified as prior art.View "Solvay, S.A. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

EnOcean owns a patent application that claims a self-powered switch, which can be used to turn on and off lights, appliances, and other devices without a battery or connection to an electrical outlet. The named inventors originally filed a patent application disclosing the switch in Germany in 2000; in 2001 they filed a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) international application with a similar disclosure. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences declared an interference in 2010 between EnOcean and Face, the real party of interest in a U.S. Patent that also claims a self-powered switch. The Board found the Face claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on prior art. Face did not appeal. The Board then applied a presumption that EnOcean’s claims were unpatentable for the same reasons. EnOcean’s argument for rebutting the presumption required determination that EnOcean’s claims could benefit from the filing dates of its German and PCT applications, eliminating a reference from prior art. The Board accorded no benefit of priority to the claims and found all of EnOcean’s claims unpatentable under section 103. The Federal Circuit vacated in part, finding that the Board erred in treating certain EnOcean claims as means-plus-function claims and in finding that certain EnOcean claim limitations lack support in its priority German and PCT applications.View "EnOcean GmbH v. Face Int'l Corp." on Justia Law

In 1985, Behringwerke filed a U.S. patent application directed to the use of DNA sequences (enhancers) identified in human cytomegalovirus. An enhancer, when introduced into a cell that produces a drug, can enable the cell to produce the drug at a much higher rate. In 1992, Behringwerke and Genentech entered into a licensing agreement related to enhancers that matured into the patents-in-suit; for fixed annual payments, Genentech could practice the patents for research purposes. Genentech was to pay a royalty on sales of commercially marketable goods incorporating a “Licensed Product.” The Agreement, governed by German law, required that disputes be settled by arbitration. Behringwerke sold its pharmaceutical business to Sanofi, but the Agreement and patent rights stayed with Hoechst; both are German entities. In 2008, Sanofi sued Genentech for infringement based on sales of the allegedly infringing drugs Rituxan and Avastin, which Genentech had not identified as licensed products. Hoechst demanded arbitration before a European arbitrator. The district court found no infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Arbitration continued. On remand, Genentech sought to enjoin Sanofi from continuing the foreign arbitration. The district court denied the motion, finding that Hoechst is a party to the arbitration, but not a party to the litigation and that an injunction would frustrate policies favoring enforcement of forum selection clauses, and would not be in the interest of international comity. The arbitrator determined that German substantive law, not U.S. patent law, would be used, that a drug could be a licensed article even though it did not contain the patented enhancers, if those enhancers were used in its manufacture, and that Genentech was liable for damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed that Genentech was not entitled to an injunction.View "Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, GMBH v. Genentech, Inc." on Justia Law