This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. The court also issued one nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc. v. Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Precedential)
Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Tasuku Honjo, E.R. Squibb & Sons, L.L.C., and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (collectively, “Ono”) appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts after a bench trial ordering that Dr. Gordon Freeman and Dr. Clive Wood be added to U.S. Patents 7,595,048 (“the ’048 patent”), 8,168,179 (“the ’179 patent”), 8,728,474 (“the ’474 patent”), 9,067,999 (“the ’999 patent”), 9,073,994 (“the ’994 patent”), and 9,402,899 (“the ’899 patent”) as co-inventors. Dana-Farber Cancer Inst., Inc. v. Ono Pharm. Co., 379 F. Supp. 3d 53 (D. Mass. 2019) (“Decision”). Because we conclude that the district court did not err in its inventorship determination, we affirm.
Packet Intelligence LLC v. Netscout Systems, Inc. (Precedential)
NetScout Systems, Inc. and NetScout Systems Texas, LLC (“NetScout”) appeal from the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas after a jury verdict and bench trial that (1) NetScout willfully infringed claims 10 and 17 of U.S. Patent 6,665,725 (“the ’725 patent”), claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent 6,839,751 (“the ’751 patent”), and claims 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent 6,954,789 (“the ’789 patent”); (2) no asserted claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102(a), 102(f); (3) Packet Intelligence LLC (“Packet Intelligence”) is entitled to $3.5 million in damages for pre-suit infringement; (4) Packet Intelligence is entitled to post-suit damages of $2.25 million; (5) Packet Intelligence is entitled to $2.8 million in enhanced damages; and (6) Packet Intelligence is entitled to an ongoing royalty for future infringement of 1.55%. Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc., No. 2:16-cv-230-JRG, 2018 WL 4286193, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2018).
Because the district court erred in denying NetScout’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on pre-suit damages, we reverse the district court’s pre-suit damages award and vacate the court’s enhancement of that award. We affirm the district court’s judgment in all other respects.
Western Express Bancshares, LLC v. Green Dot Corp. (Nonprecedential)
Western Express Bancshares, LLC (“Western Express”) appeals the dismissal on the pleadings of its complaint alleging infringement of Western Express’s U.S. Patent No. 8,498,932 (“’932 patent”) by Green Dot Corporation (“Green Dot”). Western Express Bancshares, LLC v. Green Dot Corp., No. 19-cv-4465 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2019) (“District Court Op.”). Because the ’932 patent claims patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we affirm.
BookIT Oy v. Bank of America Corp. (Nonprecedential)
BookIT Oy (“BookIT”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, entering judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patents 8,589,194 (the “’194 patent”) and 9,177,268 (the “’268 patent”) pursuant to the parties’ stipulation following the court’s claim construction order. See BookIT Oy v. Bank of America Corp., No. 3-17-cv-02577-K (N.D. Tex. Jun. 3, 2019), ECF No. 196; BookIT Oy v. Bank of America Corp., No. 3-17-cv-02577-K (N.D. Tex. Oct. 15, 2018), ECF No. 115 (“Claim Construction Order”). Because we discern no error in the district court’s claim construction order and BookIT fails to show that the district court otherwise abused its discretion, we affirm.