Justia U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A Canadian company, J.D. Irving (JDI), challenged the U.S. Department of Commerce's assignment of an antidumping duty cash deposit rate of 11.59% on its softwood lumber products from Canada. This rate was determined in the final results of the second administrative review (AR 2) of an antidumping duty order. JDI argued that its cash deposit rate should remain at 1.57%, the rate assigned in the first administrative review (AR 1). JDI filed a complaint with the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), asserting that the CIT had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), the court's residual jurisdiction.The CIT dismissed JDI's case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that jurisdiction under § 1581(i) was not appropriate because jurisdiction could have been available under § 1581(c). The CIT noted that JDI's action was essentially a challenge to the final results of AR 2, which is reviewable under § 1581(c). Additionally, the CIT found that JDI had not demonstrated that the remedy provided by administrative review and binational panel review under the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) would be manifestly inadequate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT's dismissal. The court held that the true nature of JDI's suit was a challenge to the AR 2 final results, making § 1581(c) the proper jurisdiction. The court also determined that JDI had not met its burden to show that the alternative remedies of administrative review and binational panel review would be manifestly inadequate. The court emphasized that binational panels have the authority to review and remand final antidumping determinations, and Commerce must take action consistent with the panel's decision. Therefore, the CIT's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under § 1581(i) was affirmed. View "J.D. IRVING, LTD. v. US " on Justia Law

AlexSam, Inc. filed a complaint against Aetna, Inc. alleging that Aetna marketed Mastercard-branded and VISA-branded products that infringed two claims of AlexSam’s U.S. Patent No. 6,000,608. The patent, which expired in 2017, covers a multifunction card system using a central processing hub to perform specialized card functions through an existing banking network. AlexSam claimed that Aetna’s products infringed the patent by using this system.The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed AlexSam’s complaint, finding that Aetna’s Mastercard products were licensed under a 2005 agreement between AlexSam and Mastercard, and that AlexSam failed to state a plausible claim of direct infringement for the VISA products. The court concluded that the license covered all transactions involving Mastercard products and that AlexSam’s allegations against Aetna’s VISA products were implausible because they did not show that Aetna itself performed the infringing acts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its interpretation of the license agreement and in dismissing the claims against the VISA products. The appellate court held that the license agreement only covered transactions involving activation or adding value to an account, not all transactions involving Mastercard products. Therefore, some of the alleged infringing activities could fall outside the scope of the license. The court also found that AlexSam’s complaint sufficiently alleged that Aetna directly and indirectly infringed the patent with its VISA products, providing enough detail to make the claims plausible.The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal of the claims related to both the Mastercard and VISA products and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court emphasized that the district court must take all well-pled factual allegations as true when evaluating a motion to dismiss. View "ALEXSAM, INC. v. AETNA, INC. " on Justia Law

The case involves the importation of door thresholds by Worldwide Door Components, Inc. and Columbia Aluminum Products, LLC. These companies sought a determination from the Department of Commerce that their imported door thresholds were not subject to existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. The door thresholds in question are assemblies containing both extruded aluminum and non-aluminum components, which the companies argued should be excluded from the orders under the finished merchandise exception.The United States Court of International Trade initially reviewed the case and remanded it to the Department of Commerce for further consideration. The court found that the Department had misinterpreted the scope of the orders and failed to properly consider whether the door thresholds qualified for the finished merchandise exception. On remand, the Department again found the thresholds to be within the scope of the orders, categorizing them as subassemblies. The Court of International Trade disagreed, remanding the case multiple times for further analysis and clarification.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and found that the Department of Commerce's determination that the door thresholds were subassemblies was supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that the Department had provided a thorough analysis of the scope language and relevant record evidence, including statements from the companies themselves. The court also clarified that subassemblies and finished merchandise are mutually exclusive categories under the orders, meaning that the Department was not required to consider the finished merchandise exception once it determined the thresholds were subassemblies.The Federal Circuit reversed the Court of International Trade's second remand order and reinstated the Department of Commerce's first remand redetermination, which found the door thresholds to be subassemblies and therefore within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. The court vacated all subsequent opinions and orders by the Court of International Trade. View "WORLDWIDE DOOR COMPONENTS, INC. v. US " on Justia Law

The Boeing Company filed a complaint against the United States, challenging a contracting officer's decision that required Boeing to pay over $1 million due to changes in its cost accounting practices. Boeing argued that the government's demand violated the relevant Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) provisions, which should offset increased costs with decreased costs, resulting in no net increase. Boeing's complaint included three contract claims and an illegal exaction claim.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Boeing's contract claims without prejudice, stating it lacked jurisdiction to review the validity of the regulation under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court also dismissed the illegal exaction claim with prejudice, despite acknowledging jurisdiction, because it believed it lacked the authority to consider the claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction under the CDA to resolve the contract dispute, including the validity of the underlying regulation. The court also held that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over Boeing's illegal exaction claim under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), and that the CDA does not preclude this jurisdiction. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "BOEING COMPANY v. US " on Justia Law

Vensure HR, Inc. ("Vensure") filed tax-penalty-refund claims with the IRS, which were denied on their merits. Vensure then filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, but the IRS moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Vensure had failed to attach a power of attorney to the claims. Despite Vensure having filed two powers of attorney that potentially covered these claims, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the case solely because a power of attorney was not attached at the time of filing.The U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissed Vensure's complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court determined that the requirement to attach a power of attorney to the refund claims was statutory and could not be waived. Vensure appealed this decision, arguing that the requirement was regulatory and thus waivable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the requirement for a power of attorney to "accompany" a claim, as stated in 26 C.F.R. § 301.6402-2(e), is regulatory and not statutory. Therefore, this requirement may be waived by the IRS in certain circumstances. The court vacated the decision of the Court of Federal Claims and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the IRS had waived the requirement in this instance. The main holding was that the "accompany" requirement is regulatory and waivable, not a statutory mandate. View "VENSURE HR, INC. v. US " on Justia Law

In 2006, a footwear company sued several competitors for patent infringement. One of the competitors, Dawgs, counterclaimed in 2016, alleging that the plaintiff falsely advertised its product material, Croslite, as "patented," "proprietary," and "exclusive," misleading consumers about the nature and quality of its products. Dawgs argued that these false claims caused consumers to believe that Croslite was superior to other materials used in competitors' products.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Crocs, concluding that Dawgs' counterclaim failed as a matter of law. The district court determined that the false advertising claims were akin to claims of inventorship, which are not actionable under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, based on precedents set by the Supreme Court in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. and the Federal Circuit in Baden Sports, Inc. v. Molten USA, Inc.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that a cause of action under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act arises when a party falsely claims that it possesses a patent on a product feature and advertises that feature in a way that misleads consumers about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of the product. The court found that Dawgs had sufficiently alleged that Crocs' false claims about Croslite being patented misled consumers about the material's qualities, thus stating a valid cause of action under the Lanham Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "CROCS, INC. v. EFFERVESCENT, INC. " on Justia Law

Provisur Technologies, Inc. owns patents related to food-processing machinery, specifically high-speed mechanical slicers and a fill and packaging apparatus. Provisur sued Weber, Inc. and its affiliates, alleging that Weber's food slicers and SmartLoader products infringed on these patents. The case was tried before a jury, which found that Weber willfully infringed several claims of Provisur's patents and awarded Provisur approximately $10.5 million in damages.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied Weber's motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on noninfringement and willfulness, as well as a motion for a new trial on infringement, willfulness, and damages. Weber appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of JMOL for noninfringement regarding the '812 and '436 patents, as Weber conceded its noninfringement arguments were no longer available due to an intervening decision. However, the court reversed the district court's denial of JMOL for noninfringement of the '936 patent, finding that Provisur failed to provide sufficient evidence that Weber's SmartLoader could be readily configured to infringe the patent.The court also reversed the district court's denial of JMOL on willfulness, ruling that the evidence presented, including testimony about Weber's failure to consult a third party, was insufficient to establish willful infringement. Additionally, the court found that the district court abused its discretion in allowing Provisur to use the entire market value rule for calculating damages without sufficient evidence that the patented features drove customer demand for the entire slicing line. Consequently, the court reversed the denial of a new trial on damages.The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Federal Circuit's decision. View "PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. WEBER, INC. " on Justia Law

Astellas Pharma, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, "Astellas") sued Sandoz Inc. and other defendants for patent infringement related to their attempts to market generic versions of Myrbetriq®, a drug used to treat overactive bladder. The patent in question, U.S. Patent 10,842,780, covers sustained-release formulations of mirabegron, which Astellas developed to mitigate the drug's undesirable "food effect."The United States District Court for the District of Delaware held a five-day bench trial focusing on issues of infringement and validity under 35 U.S.C. § 112. However, the district court, sua sponte, determined that claims 5, 20, and 25 of the '780 patent were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, reasoning that the claims were directed to an ineligible natural law. This decision was made despite the fact that Sandoz had not raised a § 101 defense during the trial or in its post-trial briefing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court had abused its discretion by addressing a ground not raised by the parties, thereby disregarding the principle of party presentation. The Federal Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for adjudication of the issues properly raised by the parties, specifically infringement and validity under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The Federal Circuit also declined Astellas's request to reassign the case to a different judge, trusting that the district court could resolve the remaining issues impartially. View "ASTELLAS PHARMA, INC. v. SANDOZ INC. " on Justia Law

The case involves Vascular Solutions LLC, Teleflex LLC, Arrow International LLC, and Teleflex Life Sciences LLC (collectively, Teleflex) suing Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (collectively, Medtronic) for patent infringement. Teleflex asserted forty claims across seven patents related to a coaxial guide catheter. The District Court for the District of Minnesota conducted claim construction proceedings and found the term "substantially rigid portion/segment" to be indefinite, invalidating all asserted claims. The parties stipulated to final judgment based on this determination, leading Teleflex to appeal.Previously, in the District Court for the District of Minnesota, Teleflex sought a preliminary injunction, which was denied due to substantial questions of invalidity. The court stayed the case pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found some claims unpatentable but upheld others. Teleflex then filed a second preliminary injunction request, which was also denied. The district court appointed an independent expert, Andrei Iancu, who proposed a construction for "substantially rigid portion/segment." The district court ultimately found the term indefinite and invalidated all claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in determining the claims were mutually exclusive and indefinite. The Federal Circuit clarified that the boundary of the "substantially rigid portion/segment" does not need to be consistent across claims and can be understood functionally. The court vacated the district court's final judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing that the claims are not necessarily mutually exclusive and that the term "substantially rigid portion/segment" does not need a consistent boundary across different independent claims. View "Vascular Solutions LLC v. Medtronic, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a bid protest action initiated by Oak Grove Technologies, LLC against the United States Department of the Army's award of a contract to F3EA, Inc. The contract, known as SOF RAPTOR IV, was for procuring training services for special forces. Oak Grove, a competing bidder, alleged that the bidding process was flawed and that F3EA had an unfair advantage due to an organizational conflict of interest involving the chairperson of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), RM.The Court of Federal Claims reviewed the case and agreed with Oak Grove, finding that the Army's evaluation process was flawed. The court enjoined the Army from proceeding with the contract award to F3EA and ordered the Army to either restart the procurement process or reopen it to accept revised proposals. The court also sanctioned the government for failing to include material evidence in the administrative record, which delayed the proceedings and increased costs for Oak Grove.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the judgment and injunction issued by the Court of Federal Claims. The appellate court held that Oak Grove had waived its argument that the Army was required to hold discussions with bidders, that F3EA was not required to include teaming agreements in its proposal, and that the Army's investigation into RM's alleged misconduct was adequate. The court also found that the Court of Federal Claims erred in determining that Lukos, another bidder, was financially irresponsible and ineligible for the contract. However, the appellate court affirmed the sanctions imposed on the government for failing to compile a complete administrative record. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "OAK GROVE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. US " on Justia Law