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

AliveCor, Inc. appealed from three final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) in related inter partes reviews (IPRs) that found all claims of its three patents unpatentable over certain prior art. The patents in question relate to systems and methods for measuring and analyzing physiological data to detect cardiac arrhythmias. The Board found the claims unpatentable based on obviousness and AliveCor's forfeiture of its discovery challenge.The Board's decisions were based on the combination of prior art references, including Hu 1997 and Li 2012, which teach the use of machine learning to assess ECG data, and Shmueli, which describes a system for detecting irregular heart conditions using PPG and ECG data. The Board found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use machine learning in the context of PPG and ECG data to detect cardiac arrhythmias, and that Shmueli teaches the step of confirming arrhythmias using ECG measurements after detecting a potential arrhythmia using PPG.AliveCor argued that the Board erred in its obviousness findings and that Apple violated its discovery obligations by not producing secondary consideration evidence from a parallel ITC proceeding. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence, including expert testimony, and that AliveCor forfeited its discovery argument by failing to raise it with the Board.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the machine learning claims were obvious over the prior art and that the Board's interpretation of Shmueli was reasonable. The court also held that AliveCor's failure to present its discovery concerns to the Board precluded it from raising the issue on appeal. View "ALIVECOR, INC. v. APPLE INC. " on Justia Law

IQRIS Technologies LLC sued Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. and National Molding, LLC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for patent infringement. The patents in question relate to quick release systems on tactical vests. The defendants moved for summary judgment of noninfringement, arguing that their products did not include a "pull cord" as required by the patent claims. The district court agreed, granting summary judgment on the basis that the accused products did not infringe either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.The district court construed the term "pull cord" to mean a cord that can be directly pulled by a user to disengage a releasable fastener or hook. Based on this construction, the court found that the accused products did not have a pull cord as defined, since their release mechanisms involved triggers and internal Bowden cables, which are not directly pulled by the user. The court also held that the accused products did not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents because the use of a trigger mechanism was not equivalent to a pull cord.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court's claim construction de novo. The Federal Circuit found that the district court erred in its construction of "pull cord" by improperly limiting it to cords that are directly pulled by a user and excluding cords with handles. The appellate court held that the claim language and specification did not support such a narrow interpretation. Consequently, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court's summary judgment of noninfringement and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the correct claim construction. View "IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. " on Justia Law

Vandewater International Inc. requested a scope ruling from the U.S. Department of Commerce to determine if its steel branch outlets were subject to an antidumping duty order on "butt-weld pipe fittings" from China. Vandewater argued that its products did not meet the definition of "butt-weld pipe fittings" as they had contoured ends and were used differently. Commerce determined that Vandewater's products were within the scope of the order, leading to an appeal.The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) reviewed the case and initially found that the term "butt-weld pipe fittings" was ambiguous, requiring further analysis. The CIT remanded the case to Commerce to conduct a full scope inquiry using the (k)(2) criteria, which include physical characteristics, expectations of purchasers, ultimate use, channels of trade, and manner of advertisement. Commerce reaffirmed its decision that Vandewater's products were within the scope of the order based on these criteria.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the CIT's decision. The court held that the term "butt-weld pipe fittings" was ambiguous and that Commerce's determination using the (k)(2) criteria was supported by substantial evidence. The court also found that the (k)(1) sources were not dispositive in determining whether Vandewater's products were within the scope of the order. Additionally, the court dismissed SCI's challenge to Commerce's suspension of liquidation instructions as moot, as there were no unliquidated entries of Vandewater's products before the relevant date. View "Vandewater International Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

ImmunoGen, Inc. sought a patent for a dosing regimen for administering IMGN853, a drug used to treat ovarian and peritoneal cancers. The patent application claimed a specific dosing method using adjusted ideal body weight (AIBW). The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected the claims, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the rejection. ImmunoGen then filed a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 145 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking a judgment that it was entitled to the patent.The district court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the government, finding the claims indefinite and obvious, and unpatentable under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. The Federal Circuit vacated this decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the district court held a bench trial and again ruled in favor of the government, determining that the claims were fatally indefinite and obvious, and thus unpatentable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment on the grounds of obviousness, finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use AIBW dosing to address known toxicities associated with the drug and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. The court noted that the prior art disclosed similar dosing regimens and that the claimed dosing method was within the knowledge of a skilled artisan. The Federal Circuit did not address the issue of indefiniteness, as the obviousness determination was sufficient to affirm the judgment. View "IMMUNOGEN, INC. v. STEWART " on Justia Law

Military-Veterans Advocacy (MVA) filed a petition for review challenging the validity of two provisions in a Final Rule issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The provisions in question are 38 C.F.R. § 1.601(a)(2), which requires users of VA’s Information Technology (IT) systems to potentially pass a background suitability investigation, and 38 C.F.R. § 1.602(c)(1), which permits the VA to inspect the computer hardware and software used to access VA IT systems and their location at any time without notice.The VA issued the Final Rule on June 24, 2022, after a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and consideration of public comments, including those from MVA. MVA argued that the regulations violated the pro-veteran canon of construction, due process, and were arbitrary and capricious. The VA addressed some of these comments in the Final Rule but maintained the provisions as proposed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the VA has the authority to promulgate the Background Check Provision under 38 U.S.C. §§ 501, 5721–28, which allows the VA to establish and maintain information security programs. The court found that the Background Check Provision was reasonable and based on risk assessments, thus within the VA’s statutory authority.However, the court found that the Inspection Provision exceeded the VA’s statutory authority. The provision allowed the VA to inspect the location where the hardware and software are used, which could include private areas such as a user’s home. The court determined that this provision was not based on a risk assessment and was overly broad, thus not the product of reasoned decision-making.The court granted MVA’s petition in part, setting aside 38 C.F.R. § 1.602(c)(1), and denied the petition in part, upholding 38 C.F.R. § 1.601(a)(2). View "MILITARY-VETERANS ADVOCACY v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS " on Justia Law

Odyssey Logistics & Technology Corp. filed a patent application for a web service interface for transit time calculation in 2007. The application was rejected by a patent examiner in 2015, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) affirmed the rejection in 2018. Odyssey appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the PTAB's decision in 2020. Odyssey did not raise an Appointments Clause challenge during this appeal.After the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. in 2021, which held that PTAB administrative judges' unreviewable authority violated the Appointments Clause, Odyssey requested Director review of the PTAB's 2018 decision. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied this request, stating that it did not accept requests for Director review of ex parte appeal decisions. Odyssey then filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking to compel the Director to consider its request. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal, but on different grounds. The Federal Circuit concluded that the PTO did not abuse its discretion in denying Odyssey's request for Director review, noting that Odyssey had forfeited its Appointments Clause challenge by not raising it during the initial appeal. The court held that the PTO's decision to deny the request for review was reasonable given the significant delay and lack of justification for Odyssey's failure to raise the issue earlier. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision for failure to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6). View "ODYSSEY LOGISTICS & TECHNOLOGY CORP. v. STEWART" on Justia Law

Lashify, Inc., an American company, distributes and sells eyelash extensions and related products in the United States, which are manufactured abroad. Lashify holds patents on these products and filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging that other importers were infringing on its patents, specifically a utility patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,721,984) and two design patents (U.S. Design Patent Nos. D877,416 and D867,664). Lashify sought relief under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which requires the existence of a domestic industry related to the patented articles.The ITC denied Lashify relief, ruling that Lashify failed to meet the economic-prong requirement of the domestic-industry test, which demands significant investment in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor or capital, or substantial investment in exploitation of the patents. The ITC excluded expenses related to sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, and distribution, deeming them insufficient to establish a domestic industry. Additionally, the ITC found that Lashify's products did not satisfy the technical-prong requirement for the utility patent, as the products did not meet the "heat fused" claim limitations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with Lashify that the ITC applied an incorrect legal standard for the economic-prong requirement. The court held that significant employment of labor or capital should include expenses related to sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, and distribution. The court vacated the ITC's decision on the economic prong and remanded for reevaluation regarding the design patents. However, the court affirmed the ITC's finding that Lashify failed to satisfy the technical-prong requirement for the utility patent, upholding the construction of "heat fused" to mean joined to form a single entity. View "LASHIFY, INC. v. ITC " on Justia Law

Restem, LLC (Restem) appealed a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176, owned by Jadi Cell, LLC (Jadi Cell). The patent is related to stem cells with specific cell markers obtained from the subepithelial layer (SL) of mammalian umbilical cord tissue through a two-step process. Restem challenged claims 1–15 of the patent, arguing they were inherently anticipated or obvious based on prior art references.The Board held that Restem failed to prove the claims were unpatentable. The Board found that the prior art did not necessarily produce cells with the claimed cell marker expression profile, and thus did not inherently anticipate the claims. Additionally, the Board found that the prior art did not render the claims obvious, as the specific cell marker expression profile was not shown to be produced by the prior art processes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that the prior art did not inherently anticipate the claims because the processes disclosed did not necessarily result in cells with the claimed marker profile. The court also upheld the Board's finding that the claims were not obvious, as Restem did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the prior art would produce the claimed cell marker expression profile. The court concluded that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the decision in favor of Jadi Cell. View "RESTEM, LLC v. JADI CELL, LLC " on Justia Law

Apple Inc., LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics USA Inc., and Google LLC filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431, which relates to camera-based sensing in handheld devices. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) joined the petitions and issued a final written decision, holding claims 1–10, 12, and 14–31 unpatentable, while claims 11 and 13 were not found unpatentable.Apple appealed the PTAB's decision regarding claims 11 and 13, arguing that the Board applied the wrong legal standard for obviousness and ignored Apple's arguments. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC cross-appealed the decision, arguing that claims 1, 7, 12, and 14 were not unpatentable and that the Board lacked jurisdiction over expired patents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Gesture forfeited its argument that Apple was estopped from appealing under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) because Gesture did not raise this issue before the Board. On the merits, the court affirmed the PTAB's decision that claims 11 and 13 were not shown to be unpatentable, finding that the Board did not misapply the legal standard for obviousness and did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act.Regarding Gesture's cross-appeal, the court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings that Numazaki taught the disputed limitations of claims 1, 7, 12, and 14. The court also rejected Gesture's argument that the Board lacked jurisdiction over expired patents, affirming that the Board has jurisdiction over IPRs concerning expired patents.The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision in its entirety, holding that claims 1–10, 12, and 14–31 of the '431 patent are unpatentable and that claims 11 and 13 were not shown to be unpatentable. View "APPLE INC. v. GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC " on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an intelligence analyst with the FBI, was required to complete the FBI Basic Field Training Course (BFTC), which included in-person training sessions and various tasks and assessments, some of which were scheduled outside working hours. Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that they were not compensated for all overtime hours worked during the BFTC.The United States Court of Federal Claims denied the government's motion for summary judgment, holding that the OPM regulation 5 C.F.R. § 551.423(a)(3), which bars overtime compensation for entry-level training, was invalid. The court reasoned that the regulation was inconsistent with the Department of Labor (DOL) regulations and that the government failed to justify the categorical rule against overtime compensation for entry-level training. The court certified the validity of the regulation for interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the OPM regulation 5 C.F.R. § 551.423(a)(3) is valid. The court reasoned that the differences between OPM and DOL regulations are justified by the need to accommodate the differences between federal and non-federal employment, particularly considering the Government Employees Training Act (GETA), which generally prohibits overtime pay for training for federal employees. The court concluded that OPM's regulation is a legitimate policy choice consistent with both the FLSA and GETA. The case was remanded to determine whether the OPM regulation is consistent with the FLSA. View "DOE NO. 1 v. US " on Justia Law