This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions in patent cases, along with two related nonprecedential orders. In one of these cases, Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., a panel of the court withdrew and replaced its prior opinions addressing patent eligibility. In addition to these patent cases, the court also issued nonprecedential opinions in two veterans cases and a nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10x Genomics Inc. (Precedential)
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. and the University of Chicago (collectively, “Bio-Rad”), accused 10X Genomics Inc. (“10X”) of infringing three patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,889,083 (“’083 patent”); 8,304,193 (“’193 patent”); and 8,329,407 (“’407 patent”). The United States District Court for the District of Delaware held a jury trial in November 2018. The jury found all three patents valid and willfully infringed. It also awarded damages in the amount of $23,930,716. Post-trial, the district court denied 10X’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), rejecting 10X’s arguments that (1) the accused products do not infringe; (2) 10X’s infringement was not willful; (3) the asserted claims are invalid; and (4) Bio-Rad had failed to present a legally sufficient damages case. Bio-Rad Labs. Inc. v. 10X Genomics, Inc., 396 F. Supp. 3d 369 (D. Del. 2019). The district court also granted Bio-Rad’s motion for a permanent injunction. Bio-Rad Labs. Inc. v. 10X Genomics, Inc., No. 15-cv-152-RGA, 2019 WL 3322322, at *1 (D. Del. July 24, 2019). This appeal followed. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand. Specifically, we affirm the judgment of infringement of the ’083 patent and the entirety of the jury’s damages award. We reverse, however, the district court’s construction of the asserted claims of the ’407 and ’193 patents and vacate the judgment of infringement of those patents. We remand for a new trial on the issue of whether 10X’s accused products infringe the ’407 and ’193 patents under the proper claim construction. We also vacate the district court’s injunction, but only with respect to 10X’s Linked-Reads and CNV product lines.
FastShip, LLC v. United States (Precedential)
The United States appeals an order of the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) granting a request by FastShip, LLC (“FastShip”) for attorney’s fees and expenses. Because the Claims Court erred in considering the government’s pre-litigation conduct and in one respect erred in its analysis of the government’s litigation conduct, we vacate and remand.
Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Appellees Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. and Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc. filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition for panel rehearing is granted to the extent that the previous precedential opinion and judgment issued March 17, 2020, are withdrawn and replaced with the modified precedential opinion and judgment accompanying this order.
Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Appellees Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc., and Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by appellants Illumina, Inc. and Sequenom, Inc. The petition for rehearing and response were first referred to the panel that heard the appeal, which granted the petition in part as indicated in the accompanying order. Thereafter, the petition was referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active service.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1) The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
2) The mandate of the court will issue on September 9, 2020.
Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. (Precedential)
Illumina, Inc. and Sequenom, Inc. (collectively, “Illumina”) appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that claims 1– 2, 4–5, and 9–10 of U.S. Patent 9,580,751 (the “’751 patent”) and claims 1–2 and 10–14 of U.S. Patent 9,738,931 (the “’931 patent”) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an ineligible natural phenomenon. Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 356 F. Supp. 3d 925 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (“Decision”). Because we conclude that the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter, we reverse.
REYNA, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
The claims, written description, and legal precedent converge to a conclusion that the ’751 and ’931 patents cover patent ineligible subject matter. The asserted claims are directed to a natural phenomenon, the patents’ sole claimed advance is the discovery of that natural phenomenon, and the application of the natural phenomenon utilizes routine steps and conventional procedures that are well known in the art.
The patents in this appeal proclaim a surprising discovery that has advanced the medical arts in an area of great need. Without doubt, scientists are entitled to great credit and recognition for such a discovery. But, under U.S. patent law, they are not entitled to a patent.
Hinton v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Pro se appellant Melvin C. Hinton appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) denying certain claims for disability compensation and declining to review the disability rating for his psychiatric disorder. Hinton v. Wilkie, No. 18-4477, 2019 WL 4584260 (Vet. App. Sept. 23, 2019). The Veterans Court determined that Mr. Hinton never properly initiated an appeal of his disability rating because he had failed to submit the standardized form required by the applicable regulations. Because we have previously upheld the validity of those regulations, the Veterans Court did not err in declining to review Mr. Hinton’s disability rating. We affirm-in-part the Veterans Court’s decision and dismiss-in-part the appeal.
Blanton v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Daryl R. Blanton appeals the March 14, 2019 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) in Blanton v. Wilkie, No. 17-3138, 2019 WL 1177988 (Vet. App. Mar. 14, 2019). In that decision, the Veterans Court affirmed the May 24, 2017 decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that denied Mr. Blanton an effective date earlier than April 14, 1998, for a grant of service connection for a nervous condition. J.A. 115. The Board did so because it found no clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) in the February 6, 1997 rating decision that denied Mr. Blanton service connection for the condition. Id. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co. (Nonprecedential)
Royal Crown Company, Inc., and Dr. Pepper/Seven-Up, Inc. (collectively, “Royal Crown”), appeal from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, dismissing Royal Crown’s consolidated opposition to sixteen trademarks proposed for registration by Coca-Cola Company (“Coca-Cola”). See Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., Opposition Nos. 91178927 (Parent Case), 91180771, 91180772, 91183482, 91185755, 91186579, 91190658 (TTAB May 3, 2019) (“Board Decision”). Because Royal Crown received the only relief it requested when Coca-Cola disclaimed the term “ZERO” in the applications at issue, Royal Crown’s appeal is dismissed as moot.