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

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology owns three patents related to fuel management systems for spark ignition engines, which are exclusively licensed to Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC. These patents describe a system that uses both direct and port fuel injection to mitigate engine knock and optimize performance. The system operates with varying injection mechanisms depending on engine torque or manifold pressure, and includes a three-way catalyst to reduce emissions. The patents contain claims focusing on the interplay of injection types with engine operating ranges and the use of anti-knock agents.Previously, Ford Motor Company petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for inter partes review (IPR) of all three patents. The PTAB initially denied institution, largely due to a claim construction that restricted the definition of “fuel” in a manner consistent with a district court’s prior interpretation, which required the directly injected fuel to differ from the port-injected fuel and to contain an anti-knock agent other than gasoline. After the Federal Circuit, in Ethanol Boosting Sys., LLC v. Ford Motor Co., vacated the district court’s construction regarding the “different fuel” requirement (but did not address the anti-gasoline requirement), the PTAB granted Ford’s rehearing request and instituted the IPRs.On appeal from the PTAB, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s final written decisions, which found the relevant claims of all three patents unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit rejected EBS’s arguments that the Board lacked authority to delay its rehearing decision and that the Board was bound by the non-appealed portion of the district court’s claim construction. The court affirmed the Board’s adoption of the plain and ordinary meaning of the disputed terms and found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s factual findings regarding obviousness. The holding is that the PTAB’s decisions finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious are affirmed. View "ETHANOL BOOSTING SYSTEMS, LLC v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY " on Justia Law

Several property owners upstream of the Addicks and Barker Dams in Houston, Texas, experienced flooding on their land during Hurricane Harvey in 2017. The Army Corps of Engineers, responsible for the design and operation of these dams, had long maintained a protocol to protect downtown Houston from flooding, which involved allowing reservoir water to inundate upstream private property under extraordinary storm conditions. The Corps had previously considered purchasing all land that would flood during such events but ultimately acquired only a portion, leaving other private lands at risk. When Hurricane Harvey produced record rainfall, water exceeded government-owned land and flooded privately owned properties, resulting in significant damage.The property owners brought suit against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the government’s operation of the dams constituted an uncompensated taking of their property under the Fifth Amendment. The court consolidated and subdivided the cases, held a liability trial for thirteen bellwether properties, and found the government liable for taking flowage easements. The court later denied a motion for class certification on grounds of untimeliness and selected six bellwether properties for a damages trial, awarding a total of $454,535.03 plus interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ findings of liability and its denial of class certification. With respect to damages, the Federal Circuit affirmed the awards for leasehold advantage, damaged personal property, and the offsetting of FEMA relief, but vacated the awards for lost rent, displacement, and the valuation of the flowage easement for one property owner, remanding those issues for further proceedings. The main holdings are that the government’s operation of the dams constituted a permanent physical taking of flowage easements, and that certain categories of damages were compensable while others were not. View "ABLAN v. US " on Justia Law

In August 2021, following the withdrawal of U.S. military and diplomatic personnel from Afghanistan due to the Doha Agreement with the Taliban, the U.S. government vacated several leased properties in Kabul, comprising five residential villas owned by Abdul Mutakaber and two military vehicle storage lots owned by Hamidullah. These leases were executed between 2013 and 2020, during Afghanistan’s Ghani administration. After the Taliban seized control of Kabul, they occupied all the properties previously leased by the U.S., preventing the owners from regaining access. The U.S. government then sent notices to terminate the leases, invoking force majeure, and requested refunds of advance rental payments from both landlords.Both Mutakaber and Hamidullah filed certified claims with the State Department under the Contract Disputes Act, seeking unpaid rent, restoration of possession, or purchase of the properties. After the contracting officer denied their claims, they appealed to the United States Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. The Board denied their breach of contract claims, finding that the government did not properly terminate the leases under the force majeure clause but did validly terminate for convenience under the leases’ termination provisions. The Board also determined the government was not obligated to return physical possession of the properties, as the leases did not impose such a duty. The Board awarded judgments for unpaid rent and refunds based on pre-paid amounts: Mutakaber was found to owe the government $115,429.85, while Hamidullah was awarded $193,270.15.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s legal conclusions de novo. The court held that the leases did not expressly or impliedly obligate the government to restore physical possession of the properties to the landlords upon termination, nor did Afghan law require such action under the circumstances. The court affirmed the Board’s judgments. View "Mutakaber v. Secretary of State" on Justia Law

Micron Technology and its subsidiaries, along with the State of Idaho, were sued for patent infringement by Katana Silicon Technologies in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The patents at issue related to technology for shrinking semiconductor devices and had expired. In response, Micron asserted a counterclaim under the Idaho Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act, alleging that Katana had made bad faith assertions of patent infringement. Katana moved to dismiss the counterclaim, arguing that the Idaho Act was preempted by federal patent law. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, where the State of Idaho intervened to defend the statute. Separately, Micron filed suit in Idaho state court against Longhorn IP, alleging similar bad faith assertions and seeking the imposition of a bond. Longhorn removed that case to federal court and also moved to dismiss on preemption grounds.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho denied both motions to dismiss, holding that federal law did not preempt the Idaho statute. The court also imposed an $8 million bond on Longhorn and Katana pursuant to the Act, finding that there was a reasonable likelihood that a bad faith assertion of patent infringement had occurred. Katana and Longhorn appealed these decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court determined that there was no final judgment from the district court, as the only decisions made were the denial of motions to dismiss and the imposition of a bond, neither of which ended the litigation on the merits. The Federal Circuit also found that none of the exceptions for interlocutory appellate review applied, including those for injunctions, the collateral order doctrine, or mandamus, nor was pendent jurisdiction appropriate. View "Micron Technology, Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC" on Justia Law

David S. Brimer, a disabled veteran with preference eligibility, was employed as a GS-13 Supervisory Human Resources Specialist for the Naval Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. He applied for a merit promotion to a GS-14 Assistant Human Resources Officer position with the Naval Education and Training Command. Although the position was open to current permanent employees, VEOA eligibles, and DoD Military Spouse Preference eligibles, his application was not initially referred to the hiring official due to an erroneous belief by the agency that he had not met the time-in-grade requirement. After Brimer filed a complaint with the Department of Labor, the agency acknowledged the error but determined, upon review, that Brimer was not among the most highly qualified candidates for the position.Brimer subsequently appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging that the agency obstructed his right to compete for employment and violated his veterans’ preference rights under 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1). The administrative judge denied his request for corrective action, stating that the initial error had been remedied through a proper merit review. The Board affirmed, relying on Kerner v. Department of the Interior, 778 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and concluded that § 3304(f) does not apply to veterans already employed by the federal government, thus denying Brimer corrective action as a matter of law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision. Applying the standard set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c), the court held that the Board correctly interpreted precedent and the statute, affirming that 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1) does not entitle currently employed federal veterans to corrective action under VEOA for merit promotion vacancies. The Board’s decision denying Brimer's claims was affirmed. View "BRIMER v. NAVY " on Justia Law

Wonderland Switzerland AG owns two patents related to child car seats, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,625,043 and 8,141,951. Wonderland sued Evenflo Company, Inc., alleging that five Evenflo convertible car seat models, categorized as “4-in-1” and “3-in-1” seats, infringed claims of both patents. The dispute focused on specific features of the accused car seats, such as mechanisms for attaching the seat back to the seat assembly and the structure of engaging components.A jury in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware found that both Evenflo’s 3-in-1 and 4-in-1 seats infringed claim 1 of the ’043 patent under the doctrine of equivalents and that the 4-in-1 seats also infringed claims 1 and 5 of the ’951 patent, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents. The jury found Evenflo’s infringement of the ’043 patent was not willful. The district court denied both parties’ motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, granted a permanent injunction covering both patents, and denied Wonderland’s motion for a new trial on willful infringement.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment that Evenflo’s 4-in-1 seats infringe claim 1 of the ’043 patent under the doctrine of equivalents, finding no substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict on that point. The court also reversed the permanent injunction as to both patents because the injunction for the ’951 patent was not requested and the showing for irreparable harm as to the ’043 patent was insufficient. Furthermore, the court reversed the denial of a new trial on willful infringement of the ’043 patent (for the 3-in-1 seats only) due to wrongful exclusion of key evidence. The judgment was otherwise affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "WONDERLAND SWITZERLAND AG v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC. " on Justia Law

A registered nurse who worked for the Indian Health Service during the COVID-19 pandemic claimed that she and similarly situated nurses were required by supervisors to work overtime without compensation. After resigning, she filed a class action lawsuit in the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging, among other things, that the government violated the federal overtime statute by failing to pay for overtime that was allegedly induced by supervisors. Specifically, she argued that the statutory requirement for overtime to be “officially ordered or approved” should cover such induced overtime, even in the absence of written authorization.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed all counts of her complaint for failure to state a claim. With respect to the overtime claim (Count II), the court found that she did not allege that she or any potential class members had written authorization for their overtime, as required by the relevant Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, reviewed the validity of the OPM’s regulation that requires overtime orders or approvals to be in writing, in light of the statutory language and recent Supreme Court precedent on agency rulemaking authority. The court held that the statute delegates to OPM the authority to prescribe necessary regulations for administering the overtime pay statute, and that this includes the discretion to require written authorization as part of the “officially ordered or approved” process. The court concluded that the writing requirement is a valid exercise of OPM’s rulemaking authority and does not contradict the statute. The Federal Circuit therefore affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of the overtime claim and remanded the remaining claims to the original panel for further consideration. View "Lesko v. United States" on Justia Law

The appellant, a Navy veteran who served as a flight deck signalman from 1984 to 1988, filed claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 2009 seeking service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The VA regional office denied both claims in 2010. Upon appeal, a VA medical examination in 2011 found the appellant’s hearing to be within normal limits during service and opined that his tinnitus was likely associated with hearing loss, but did not address whether the tinnitus itself was service connected. The regional office again denied both claims in 2012.In 2017, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals granted service connection for tinnitus, finding the veteran credible in reporting symptoms since service, and remanded the hearing loss claim for further medical opinion. After additional examinations, the Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss in 2021, with no discussion of whether the hearing loss could be connected to the now service-connected tinnitus. The appellant appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing that the Board erred by not discussing secondary service connection for hearing loss. That court affirmed the Board, finding no clear error in denying direct service connection for hearing loss and concluding that the record did not reasonably raise the theory of secondary service connection.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that to establish secondary service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a), a veteran must show a causal link between the secondary condition and an underlying primary condition for which service connection was granted, not merely a direct link to an in-service event. The Federal Circuit found no error in the Veterans Court’s interpretation of the regulation or its treatment of the facts and affirmed the decision. View "GOLDEN v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

A non-profit organization focused on supporting student-athletes registered a stylized mark incorporating the phrase “I AM MORE THAN AN ATHLETE. GP GAME PLAN” for use in charitable fundraising via apparel sales. Later, a media company filed six intent-to-use applications for marks containing “I AM MORE THAN AN ATHLETE” and “MORE THAN AN ATHLETE,” covering clothing and entertainment services. The non-profit opposed these applications before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, arguing likelihood of confusion and asserting priority based on both its registration and alleged common law rights. The media company counterclaimed, seeking cancellation of the non-profit’s registration and asserting that it had acquired priority through an assignment of common law rights from a third party who had used “MORE THAN AN ATHLETE” since at least 2012.During the Board proceeding, the non-profit failed to introduce any trial evidence to establish its common law rights or priority. The Board dismissed the opposition due to lack of evidence. As to the counterclaim, the Board found that the media company had acquired valid and enforceable common law rights in the mark through its assignment, which included the goodwill associated with the mark. The Board rejected arguments that the assignment was invalid because it occurred during litigation or was an assignment in gross, and concluded that, at least for clothing, the transfer was valid. The Board canceled the non-profit’s registration and dismissed its opposition.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence and legal conclusions de novo. The court held that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed that the assignment was not in gross, did not violate statutory or regulatory prohibitions, and that the non-profit’s failure to submit evidence justified dismissal. The decision to cancel the non-profit’s registration and dismiss its opposition was affirmed. View "GAME PLAN, INC. v. UNINTERRUPTED IP, LLC " on Justia Law

IBM owns a patent concerning single sign-on (SSO) technology, which allows users to access protected resources on a second system using credentials from a first system. In simplified terms, the invention facilitates account creation on a second platform (such as a healthcare provider) using a user identifier already stored by the first platform (such as a social media website), thereby avoiding the need for users to create separate accounts for each service. The patent describes specific systems and processes for transmitting user identifiers and managing account creation in distributed environments.Ebates Performance Marketing, Inc. (Rakuten) filed petitions for inter partes review of IBM’s patent at the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), asserting anticipation and obviousness based on several prior art references, especially a system disclosed in Sunada. The PTAB adopted IBM’s construction of certain claim terms but found that Sunada taught or suggested most relevant limitations. The Board held claims 1–4, 12–16, and 18–19 unpatentable, while claims 5–11, 17, and 20 were found not unpatentable because the prior art did not disclose a specific process required by those claims.IBM appealed the PTAB’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that the Board’s analysis exceeded the scope of Rakuten’s petition and that its findings lacked substantial evidence. Zillow, which had joined the review, cross-appealed regarding claims found not unpatentable. The Federal Circuit held that the Board’s analysis was consistent with the petition and supported by substantial evidence. It found the Board’s distinction between similar claims reasonable and affirmed both the appeal and cross-appeal, leaving the PTAB’s patentability determinations undisturbed. View "IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC. " on Justia Law