This morning the Federal circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases, one precedential opinion in a vaccine case, and three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC (Precedential)
Appellant ShoppersChoice.com, LLC (“ShoppersChoice”) appeals the denial of attorney fees by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (“District Court”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, following a judgment invalidating independent claim 11 of Appellee Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC’s (“ECT”) U.S. Patent No. 9,373,261 (“the ’261 patent”) as patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. J.A. 1626–28 (Attorney Fee Order); see J.A. 1629 (Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Attorney Fees); see also J.A. 1–17 (Motion to Dismiss Judgment), 18–34 (Judgment on the Pleadings). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). We vacate and remand.
Sharpe v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (Precedential)
Heidi Sharpe, on behalf of her minor daughter, L.M., appeals from a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims upholding the Special Master’s dismissal of L.M.’s petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the Special Master’s denial of Petitioner’s on-table claim and vacate and remand the Special Master’s denial of Petitioner’s off-table claim for further proceedings.
Immunex Corporation v. Sandoz Inc. (Precedential)
Patent owner Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. (“Roche”), its exclusive licensee Immunex Corp., and exclusive sublicensee Amgen Manufacturing, Ltd., initiated this patent infringement suit pursuant to the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”). Sandoz, Inc., Sandoz International GmbH, and Sandoz GmbH filed abbreviated Biologics License Application (“aBLA”) No. 761042. This action followed shortly thereafter. In the aBLA, Sandoz sought approval to market Erelzi, a biosimilar version of Immunex’s biologic drug, Enbrel®.
Enbrel® is covered by the patents-in-suit: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,063,182 (“’182 patent”) and 8,163,522 (“’522 patent”). Prior to trial, Sandoz stipulated to infringement of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit. After a twoweek bench trial, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey entered final judgment for Immunex and Roche, holding that Sandoz had failed to prove that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit were invalid.
Sandoz appeals from the district court’s judgment. On appeal Sandoz argues, as it did before the district court, that the patents-in-suit are invalid for (1) obviousness-type double patenting; (2) failure to meet the written description requirement; and (3) obviousness. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Data Scape Ltd. v. Western Digital Corp. (Nonprecedential)
Data Scape Ltd. owns U.S. Patent Nos. 8,386,581 (the ’581 patent), 7,720,929 (the ’929 patent), 7,617,537 (the ’537 patent), and 9,715,893 (the ’893 patent) (collectively, the Asserted Patents), which describe and claim methods, systems, and apparatuses for transferring music from one device onto another device. ’929 patent col. 2 ll. 43–47; ’893 patent col. 1 ll. 41–44. The ’581, ’929, and ’537 patents all share a common specification and priority date and are collectively referred to as the Morohashi Patents. Data Scape Ltd. v. Western Digital Corp., No. 8:18-cv-02285-DOC-KES, 2019 WL 4145245, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2019) (ECF 41) (Motion to Dismiss). The ’893 patent is part of a separate, but similar patent family directed to the same subject matter. Id.
Data Scape sued Western Digital Corporation and Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (collectively, Western Digital) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that Western Digital infringed the Asserted Patents. The district court held the claims of the Asserted Patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Motion to Dismiss at *8. Data Scape filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and allow Data Scape to file an amended complaint, which the district court denied. Data Scape Ltd. v. Western Digital Corp., No. 8:18-cv-02285- DOC-KES, 2019 WL 6391616, at *10 (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2019) (ECF 53) (Motion to Alter). Data Scape appeals. We affirm.
Braemar Manufacturing, LLC v. ScottCare Corp. (Nonprecedential)
Braemar Manufacturing, LLC and CardioNet, LLC (collectively “CardioNet”) appeal from two decisions of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania holding that the asserted claims of U.S. Patents 7,941,207 (“the ’207 patent), 7,212,850 (“the ’850 patent”), 7,907,996 (“the ’996 patent”), and 7,587,237 (“the ’237 patent”) are ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. CardioNet, LLC v. ScottCare Corp., 388 F. Supp. 3d 442 (E.D. Pa. 2019); CardioNet, LLC v. ScottCare Corp., 325 F. Supp. 3d 607 (E.D. Pa. 2018).
In light of our recent decisions in CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 20-1018 (Fed. Cir. July 1, 2020), and CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020), we affirm as to the ’850 and ’996 patents, vacate the district court’s judgment of ineligibility of the asserted claims of the ’207 patent, and remand for further proceedings on the ’207 patent. Because we conclude that the asserted claims of the ’237 patent recite patentineligible subject matter, we affirm the district court’s decision with respect to that patent.
CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
CardioNet, LLC and Braemar Manufacturing, LLC (collectively “CardioNet”) appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts holding that the asserted claims of U.S. Patents 7,212,850 (“’850 patent”) and 7,907,996 (“’996 patent”) are ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-11803-IT, 2018 WL 1542051 (D. Mass. Mar. 29, 2018); see also CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-11803-IT, 2018 WL 1788650, at *7 (D. Mass. May 4, 2017). Because the district court did not err, we affirm.