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

Merck Patent GmbH owns U.S. Patent No. 10,647,861, which relates to α-alumina flakes used in various applications such as paints and cosmetics. CQV Co., Ltd. petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for post-grant review of claims 1-22 of the '861 patent, arguing that the claims were unpatentable due to obviousness based on prior art references, including a product known as Xirallic®. The PTAB concluded that CQV failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the challenged claims were unpatentable.The PTAB found that CQV did not adequately demonstrate that the Xirallic® lot used for Sample C qualified as prior art under the relevant critical dates. Consequently, the PTAB did not consider Xirallic® in its analysis and determined that CQV had not proven the claims were unpatentable. CQV appealed the PTAB's decision, arguing that the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that it failed to consider relevant evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the PTAB had not adequately considered the entirety of the evidence, particularly the unrebutted testimony regarding the availability of Sample C. The court noted that the PTAB must consider all relevant evidence and provide a satisfactory explanation for its decisions. The Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the PTAB to reassess whether Sample C was available as prior art by the critical dates and to provide a clear explanation of its findings. View "CQV CO., LTD. v. MERCK PATENT GMBH " on Justia Law

Daniel R. Smith, who is currently blind, underwent medical examinations upon entering military service in August 1964 and upon leaving in June 1965. Both examinations noted poor night and color vision, with vision correctable in both eyes. After his discharge, Smith filed several claims with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for benefits based on retinitis pigmentosa, an eye disease causing vision loss. An ophthalmologist opined that Smith's condition preexisted his service and did not worsen during service. The VA denied his claim, and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals agreed, finding clear and unmistakable evidence rebutting the presumption of sound health upon entry into service. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims reviewed the case and affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Dr. Wilson's opinion constituted clear and unmistakable evidence that Smith's retinitis pigmentosa did not increase in severity during service. Smith appealed, arguing that Dr. Wilson's opinion did not meet the clear and unmistakable evidence standard and that it improperly relied on the absence of evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and dismissed Smith's appeal. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the factual determination that Dr. Wilson's opinion met the clear and unmistakable evidence standard. The court also found that the Veterans Court did not rely on an absence of evidence but rather on affirmative evidence comparing Smith's vision tests at entry and separation from service. Therefore, the Federal Circuit concluded that it could not address Smith's legal contention regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. View "SMITH v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

Sisvel S.p.A. owns U.S. Patent No. 7,869,396, which relates to a data transmission and retransmission method in a wireless communication system. The patent describes a method where data is packaged into protocol data units (PDUs) and assigned sequence numbers. The method includes a variation of the automatic repeat request (ARQ) method, where a receiver activates a timer when a PDU is detected as missing. If the missing PDU is not received before the timer expires, a reception failure is reported to the transmitter. If the missing PDU is received before the timer expires, the timer is stopped.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) held claims 1, 2, and 6–8 of the '396 patent to be unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious in view of International Patent Application Publication No. WO 02/091659 (Sachs). However, the Board held that claims 3–5, 9, and 10 were not shown to be unpatentable. Appellants Sierra Wireless, ULC; Honeywell International Inc.; and Telit Cinterion Deutschland GmbH appealed the Board’s decision regarding claims 3–5, 9, and 10. Sisvel cross-appealed the Board’s decision regarding claims 1, 2, and 6–8.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the Board erred in its construction of the claim limitations and that its finding that Sachs disclosed certain limitations was not supported by substantial evidence. The court also determined that the Board abused its discretion by relying on testimony from Sisvel’s expert, Mr. Bates, without finding that he was qualified as an ordinarily skilled artisan.The Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s holdings that claims 1, 2, and 6–8 were unpatentable and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court did not reach the arguments regarding the patentability of claims 3–5, 9, and 10 due to the vacatur of the independent claims. View "SIERRA WIRELESS, ULC v. SISVEL S.P.A. " on Justia Law

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