Articles Posted in Patent Infringement

In a recent CAFC ruling on U.S. Patent No. 9,361,658, owned by Mantissa Corporation, the court addressed the issue of claim definiteness in the context of an infringement dispute with FirstPicture1-1-210x300 Financial Corporation and First Financial Bank, N.A. The case focused on interpreting terms like “transaction partner” and “OFF” within the patent claims. The district court, relying on expert testimony, found “transaction partner” indefinite, a decision challenged by Mantissa. However, the CAFC majority emphasized intrinsic evidence from the patent itself, highlighting the term’s absence in the original specification and rejecting Mantissa’s argument that a person of ordinary skill would understand it as a seller. The court declined to address the construction of “OFF” due to jurisdictional constraints. Judge Schall dissented, arguing for a broader interpretation of “transaction partner” based on the specification’s references to multiple parties involved in transactions.

Ultimately, the CAFC’s ruling highlights the importance of precision and clarity in patent claims. It emphasizes the intrinsic evidence as a primary source for claim interpretation and underscores the significance of ensuring that claim terms are adequately defined within the patent specification itself. This case serves as a reminder of the critical role that claim definiteness plays in the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

Opinion

In the modern era of technological advancements and the burgeoning landscape of online commerce, the interconnection of patent law with the dynamics of e-commerce platforms presents intricate challenges. A recent legal dispute between Wenzhou Xin Xin Sanitary Ware Co., Ltd. (“Sanitary Ware” or “Plaintiff”) and Delta Faucet Company (“DFC”) illuminates the complexities faced by international entities selling products on major online platforms like Amazon, particularly concerning allegations of patent infringement.

PatentPhoto-300x264According to the complaint, Sanitary Ware, a Chinese-based company operating as “HGN Sanitary Ware,” sells kitchen appliances and accessories, including glass rinsers, primarily through the Amazon Marketplace. Court documents also describe DFC, as an American plumbing fixture manufacturer under Masco Corporation, who is alleging patent infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 11,473,277 (“the ‘277 Patent”) against specific Xin Glass Rinsers listed by Sanitary Ware on Amazon.

DFC claims ‘277 Patent details a rinsing apparatus comprising components like a mounting base, fluid discharge member, valve member, and escutcheon. DFC says they initiated an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (“APEX”) proceeding against Sanitary Ware’s Xin Glass Rinser based on claim 1 of the ‘277 Patent, and Sanitary Ware chose not to participate in the APEX, leading Amazon to remove the listing of the disputed Xin Glass Rinser.

Picture1-300x279STMicroelectronics, a leading European chipmaker, has been held accountable for violating Purdue University’s patent related to transistor technology. This ruling, delivered by a jury in a West Texas court, resulted in a $32.5 million damages verdict. The jury supported Purdue’s argument that ST’s use of silicon carbide metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs) in electric-vehicle chargers and other devices breached the university’s patent rights specifically pertaining to transistors designed for “high-voltage power applications.” In response, an ST spokesperson announced the company’s plan to challenge the verdict by filing an appeal.

Michael Shore, an attorney representing Purdue, highlighted compelling evidence against ST, suggesting potential additional royalties exceeding $100 million before the patent’s expiration in 2026.

MOSFETs play a critical role in electronic devices by controlling and amplifying electricity flow. Purdue initiated the lawsuit against ST in 2021, alleging that the company’s MOSFETs infringed upon two of its transistor technology patents. However, one of Purdue’s patents was removed from the case by the university in West Lafayette, Indiana last year. ST contested the accusations, arguing that the remaining Purdue patent was invalid.

Plaintiff OrthoPediatrics Corp. (“OP”) filed a Complaint against fellow Warsaw, Indiana corporation, WishBone Medical, Inc. (“WishBone”).  They are alleging patent infringement concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,777,998, titled “Pediatric Long Bone Support or Fixation Plate.”

The complaint states that the Plaintiff (OP) has designed and patented an innovative orthopedic plate system explicitly made for pediatric patients. They claim that the patent in question addresses a longstanding issue in pediatric orthopedics—specifically adapting adult implants for use in children, which poses risks such as damaging the epiphyseal plate or stunting bone growth.

Picture-300x92The Plaintiff asserts that WishBone’s introduction of their “PRIMA™ Femoral Locking Plate System” infringes upon Patent 8,777,998 through alleged replication of at least three of its claimed features.  OP further asserts that in addition to manufacturing their own allegedly infringing product, WishBone also markets and sells the product.

Pic-300x113Hoagland, Indiana – A legal filing initiated by Davaus, LLC against S7 IP Holdings, LLC and Shawn Gengerke is a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment. According to the complaint, Davaus seeks legal affirmation that their product, the Kernel Keeper™, does not infringe, is not covered by, and renders invalid the United States Patent No. 9,961,830 claimed by S7, specifically related to S7’s product called the “Harvest Sweep.” S7 alleged that the Kernel Keeper™ infringed on their patent and demanded Davaus cease its production and sale. Davaus states that they responded by explaining how their product differs from the patented claims, but S7 rejected this explanation and reiterated the demand to stop production.

Davaus contends that their product does not infringe upon S7’s patent and requests the court to rule that their product does not violate the patent, and that the patent itself is invalid and unenforceable. This legal action aims to prevent legal repercussions against Davaus based on the patent claimed by S7.

The case has been assigned to Chief Judge Holly A. Brady and Magistrate Judge Susan L. Collins, in the U.S. District Court of Northern Indiana, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00398-HAB-SLC.

Indianapolis, Indiana Delta-300x292– A lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Delta Faucet Company against Defendant Wenzhou Xin Xin Sanitary Ware Co., Ltd. involves an allegation of patent infringement over United States Patent No. 11,725,369.  Court documents state the patent at issue is for a “Vessel Rinsing Apparatus,” that was issued on August 15, 2023.

The Plaintiff claims the Defendant has been manufacturing, using, selling, and importing vessel rinsing apparatuses that are “functionally equivalent [to Delta’s products] and only differ in finish…,” thereby infringing upon Delta’s patent rights.  Delta further cites Wenzhou’s use of Amazon to sell the accused products and encourage others to infringe the patent, as well.

The lawsuit details Wenzhou’s alleged deliberate and willful infringement by continuing to sell the accused products even after notice of the patent in question. The Plaintiff is, therefore, seeking a court judgment in favor of Delta in the form of injunctions, damages, and legal fees.

Mulberry, Florida – Plaintiff ArrMaz Products Inc. has filed a lawsuit against Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc. of Goshen, Indiana, alleging patent infringement related to their asphalt paving technologies covered by U.S. Patents Nos. 7,802,941 and 8,465,843. These patents are associated with ArrMaz’s BondTekk® bonded-paving technology, adopted by multiple states and contractors for creating safer and more durable roads.

Logo-300x143The original complaint states that Rieth-Riley Construction is also involved in asphalt paving services and operates in several Midwestern states where asphalt-paving projects are awarded through competitive bidding. In February 2022, the claim states, the Plaintiff notified Rieth-Riley that ArrMaz’s patents covered specific projects awarded to Rieth-Riley by the state of Indiana and offered a license for their use. However, ArrMaz claims that Rieth-Riley expressed an intention to ignore the patents and not obtain the necessary licenses before moving forward with the project.

ArrMaz alleges that Rieth-Riley not only infringed on their patents but also engaged in willful infringement by using and selling the patented technology. Therefore, ArrMaz is seeking a court injunction to prevent Rieth-Riley from using or selling their patented products without the proper licenses. Additionally, they are seeking a monetary award to cover damages, including the costs and expenses of the lawsuit.

Richmond, Indiana – In a recent legal case between Plaintiff, Vandor Group, Inc., and Defendant, Batesville Casket Company, Vandor sought a preliminary injunction against Batesville for alleged patent infringement concerning casket rental inserts. Vandor claimed that Batesville’s actions caused irreparable harm, impacting their expansion plans and profitability.

Photo-300x122In its decision-making process, the Court applied Federal Circuit Law, which outlines four factors for determining whether a preliminary injunction is warranted: “(1) the movant’s reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the irreparable harm the movant will suffer if preliminary relief is not granted; (3) the balance of hardships tipping in its favor; and (4) the adverse impact on the public interest.”

The court primarily focused on irreparable harm and the likelihood of success, noting that irreparable harm is assumed when patent validity and infringement are established. However, the defendant can rebut this presumption by presenting evidence to the contrary. The judge ruled that Vandor’s claims of irreparable harm, based on lost expansion opportunities, potential economic losses, and the pending expiration of patents, were speculative and lacked substantial supporting evidence. Emphasizing that general assertions of economic harm without specific evidence are insufficient to prove irreparable harm, the court dismissed Vandor’s argument about the limited duration of their patents as a basis for irreparable harm, based on established legal precedent.

Columbus, Ohio – Plaintiff Coulter Ventures, LLC, d/b/a Rogue Fitness (“Rogue”) filed suit against Bells of Steel USA Inc., for alleged patent infringement of its fitness products in Bell’s sporting goods stores, including their Indianapolis, Indiana, Bells of Steel USA Showroom.

PatentPicture-300x211According to the complaint, Rogue Fitness owns several design and utility patents for fitness equipment, including Patent No. 11,173,337: “Weightlifting Assembly and Weight Rack Including Weightlifting Assembly”, Patent No. 10,226,661: “Weightlifting Rack Assembly and Wall Mount Bracket for a Weightlifting Rack Assembly,” Patent No. D992,063: “Wall Mounted Exercise Rack,” Patent No. D961,020: “Weight Plate,” and Patent No. RE49,513: “Barbell.”  Rogue states that all these patented products are listed on the company’s website for the public to view at any time.

In the suit, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has been purposely advertising, marketing, selling, manufacturing, and distributing products that are infringing on Rogue’s lawfully held patents. Rogue specifically identified 8 of the products Bells advertises as infringing upon the Plaintiff’s patents in their design and/or utility.  The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant relies on “making cheap copies of products and designs created by others and only later dealing with patent infringement.”

Lilly-Logo-300x200Massachusetts – Judge Allison Burroughs sided with Eli Lilly in a dispute with Teva Pharmaceuticals, overturning a $176.5 million jury verdict that had previously been awarded to Teva in a patent infringement suit regarding the two companies’ development of drugs with antibodies capable of treating headache disorders associated with calcitonin gene-related peptide (“CGRP”).

According to the original complaint, Teva’s drug (Ajovy) and Lilly’s drug (Emgality) were similar in the ways in which they work, and they were both approved by the FDA only 13 days apart in September 2018.  However, Court documents show that Lilly contended that the two antibodies used in the drugs were different and, therefore, no infringement existed.

After a thorough examination of the case, Judge Burroughs agreed that the two drugs were distinct and that Teva’s patents were too expansive.  Judge Burroughs stated in her ruling that, “Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, asserted claims are too broad.”  She subsequently overturned the original jury verdict awarded to Teva writing in her ruling that “The Court does not reach this decision nor overturn a jury verdict lightly.”

Contact Information