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

A group of domestic producers and a union petitioned the Department of Commerce to investigate whether steel pipes imported from Argentina were being sold in the United States at less than fair value. The petitioners supplied production data and estimates to demonstrate that their petition met statutory thresholds for industry support, using 2020 shipment figures as a proxy for domestic production. Tenaris Bay City, Inc., a major domestic producer with ties to foreign producers, opposed the petition, arguing that the industry support calculations were unreliable, particularly due to potential double counting of pipes both produced and finished domestically.After receiving comments from Tenaris, Commerce determined that the petition met the statutory requirements for industry support and initiated an antidumping investigation. Tenaris challenged this determination in the United States Court of International Trade (CIT), which remanded the issue to Commerce for further explanation specifically regarding potential double counting in the industry support calculations. On remand, Commerce found no evidence of double counting and addressed concerns about particular companies flagged by Tenaris. The CIT subsequently affirmed Commerce’s remand results, concluding the agency’s calculations were reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, and found that Tenaris’s new arguments concerning undercounting and overcounting were unexhausted because they were not timely raised during the administrative process.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the CIT’s decision de novo and applied a deferential standard to Commerce’s findings, overturning only if unsupported by substantial evidence or not in accordance with law. The court affirmed the CIT, holding that Commerce’s determination of industry support was reasonable and supported by the record, that Tenaris’s concerns about double counting were unsubstantiated, and that the CIT did not abuse its discretion in finding Tenaris’s additional arguments unexhausted. The CIT’s decision was affirmed. View "TENARIS BAY CITY, INC. v. US " on Justia Law

Island Creek Associates, LLC was awarded a multiple award contract (MAC) known as SeaPort-NxG by the United States Navy, alongside two other companies, Don Selvy Enterprises, Inc. (DSE) and Precise Systems Inc., each receiving contracts on identical terms. In 2022, DSE and Precise formed a joint venture, Secise, under the Small Business Administration’s Mentor-Protégé Program (MPP). In 2024, the Navy issued a modification to the SeaPort-NxG MAC, allowing MPP joint ventures, as well as their mentor and protégé members, to each hold a separate MAC, creating an exception to the previous “One Prime Contract Per Company” rule. Following this modification and the issuance of a task order to Secise, Island Creek filed a five-count complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims, raising challenges to the contract modification, its implementation, and an alleged organizational conflict of interest involving a Navy contracting official and a Precise employee.After Island Creek’s complaint, the Navy took corrective action by rescinding the challenged portions of the contract modification, thereby reverting to the original rules. The Navy then moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the corrective action mooted four counts and that the remaining count was barred by statutory restrictions. The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint, holding that Island Creek lacked statutory standing as an “interested party” under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1), but did not rule on mootness or the application of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal, but on alternative grounds. The appellate court held that Counts I–III and V were moot due to the Navy’s corrective action, which eradicated the effects of the challenged modification. It further held that Count IV was barred under the FASA’s task order protest provision, 10 U.S.C. § 3406(f), and Island Creek lacked statutory standing to challenge Precise’s award. The judgment of the Court of Federal Claims was affirmed. View "ISLAND CREEK ASSOCIATES, LLC v. US " on Justia Law

NCS Multistage Inc. sued Nine Energy Service, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging that Nine’s BreakThru Casing Flotation Device infringed various claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,465,445. The patent concerns a float tool for use in oil and gas wellbores, specifically a tool design to reduce friction encountered when running casing to great depths. Central to the dispute were the meanings of the claim terms “internal diameter” and “casing string,” as well as whether certain prior art sales and disclosures anticipated the patent.The district court construed “internal diameter” to refer both to an inner surface and a measured diameter, and construed “casing string” as pipe customarily having an outer diameter of at least 4.5 inches. Following trial, a jury found in favor of NCS on infringement and no invalidity, and the district court entered judgment accordingly, including an award of damages. Nine appealed, challenging the claim constructions, the exclusion of certain prior art, and evidentiary rulings regarding discovery disclosures.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in its constructions of “internal diameter” and “casing string.” The Federal Circuit determined that “internal diameter” means a measured diameter, not also an inner surface, and that “casing string” should not be limited by a specific size. The appellate court further ruled that, under the controlling law, a private sale of a device does not constitute a public disclosure for prior art purposes, making certain prior art relevant. The court vacated the district court’s judgments of infringement, no invalidity, and damages, and remanded for a new trial with instructions consistent with its opinion. Costs were awarded to Nine. View "NCS MULTISTAGE INC. v. NINE ENERGY SERVICE, INC. " on Justia Law

TexasLDPC Inc. held an exclusive license to several patents and copyrights relating to LDPC code technology, originally developed by Dr. Kiran Gunnam while at Texas A&M University (A&M). After attempts to commercialize and sublicense the technology failed, TexasLDPC shifted its business focus exclusively to enforcing its rights through litigation. TexasLDPC filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Broadcom Inc., LSI Corporation, and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. for infringement, without joining A&M, the patent owner.The District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed the suit, holding first that TexasLDPC’s license agreement with A&M had automatically terminated when TexasLDPC ceased its business operations by focusing solely on enforcement. Second, the court found that even if the agreement had not terminated, TexasLDPC could not proceed without joining A&M, as the agreement did not convey “all substantial rights” in the patents and copyrights. The court also determined A&M was a necessary party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) due to its interests and sovereign immunity, and dismissed the federal claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. It held that TexasLDPC’s exclusive license agreement had not terminated, as the contract contemplated enforcement as a legitimate business operation. The court also determined that the agreement conveyed “all substantial rights” in the asserted patents to TexasLDPC, enabling TexasLDPC to sue for infringement in its own name without joining A&M. Furthermore, A&M was not a necessary party under Rule 19(a). The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the action. View "TEXASLDPC INC. v. BROADCOM INC. " on Justia Law

The case concerns a dispute over patents related to spinal implant technology. The plaintiff, a company that owns three patents describing various spinal implant systems and related tools, sued a medical device manufacturer, alleging that several of the manufacturer’s products infringed its patents. At issue were claims from three patents: one describing a tool for manipulating and inserting a “universal, intervertebral bone fusion spacer,” another covering a “universal, intervertebral combination internal screw guide and fixation apparatus,” and a third involving an expandable spinal implant system. The meaning of the word “universal” in the claims of two patents was especially significant, as was the question of whether this term in the preambles of the claims was limiting.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania construed “universal” to mean a device designed to be inserted between vertebrae in any region of the spine using any surgical approach. The district court determined that the preambles containing “universal” were limiting, and, based on the agreed construction, granted summary judgment of noninfringement to the defendant for the two patents in question. A jury later found no infringement of the third patent, and the district court denied the plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s claim constructions, summary judgment, and denial of judgment as a matter of law. The appellate court held that the district court correctly found the preambles to be limiting and properly construed the term “universal.” It also concluded that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict of noninfringement regarding the third patent. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. View "MOSKOWITZ FAMILY LLC v. GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC. " on Justia Law

Ford hired Versata to develop software for vehicle configuration, resulting in two products: Automotive Configuration Manager (ACM) and Materials Cost Analytics (MCA). In 2004, the parties entered into a licensing agreement called the Master Subscription and Services Agreement (MSSA). When the MSSA expired in 2014 and negotiations failed, Ford developed its own software, PDO, while still licensing Versata’s products. Ford sought a declaratory judgment that it had not infringed Versata’s rights. Versata counterclaimed, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets (specifically three combination secrets within ACM) and breach of contract.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan excluded testimony from Versata’s damages expert regarding trade secret damages, limiting Versata to damages based on the parties’ licensing history. At trial, a jury found Ford liable for trade secret misappropriation (of ACM, not MCA) and breach of contract, awarding Versata $22,386,000 for misappropriation and $82,260,000 for breach. Post-trial, the district court reduced both awards, setting trade secret damages to $0 and breach damages to $3, reasoning that the jury lacked sufficient evidentiary basis for their calculations. The district court denied Ford’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. It held that Versata was entitled to pursue unjust enrichment damages under both the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and the district court erred in precluding this. The Federal Circuit vacated the district court's judgment on trade secret damages, remanding for a new trial with instructions to consider previously excluded damages models. For breach of contract, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s reduction and reinstated the jury’s $82,260,000 award. It affirmed the district court’s denial of Ford’s motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding liability for trade secret misappropriation. View "VERSATA SOFTWARE, LLC v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY " on Justia Law

The claimant in this case is the surviving spouse of a veteran who served in Vietnam and was granted service connection for coronary artery disease in January 2021, with an effective date of January 5, 2021. The veteran sought an earlier effective date, which was denied by a Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in July 2021. Shortly thereafter, the veteran’s representative requested a complete copy of his VA claims file under the Privacy Act, and asked for a 90-day extension from the date of receipt to submit additional argument to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement and opted for the “Direct Review” lane under the Appeals Modernization Act, which does not permit submission of additional evidence but allows argument. The Board denied both the request for an earlier effective date and the extension, issuing its decision 47 days after the claims file was produced.The veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing that the Board’s refusal to grant the 90-day extension violated the court’s “fair process” doctrine. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that while the veteran had a right to submit argument, the requested delay was inconsistent with the procedural standards and the expeditious nature of the Direct Review lane. The surviving spouse was substituted as appellant following the veteran’s death.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit assumed, without deciding, that the fair process doctrine exists, survives the Appeals Modernization Act, and applies to the Direct Review lane. The court held that a claimant in the Direct Review lane does not have a reasonable expectation that the Board must grant a request for a 90-day period after receipt of a claims file to submit argument. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Veterans Court’s judgment. View "BRACK v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

A group of utility companies operating nuclear power plants in Maine, Connecticut, and Massachusetts entered into contracts with the Department of Energy (DOE) requiring DOE to dispose of their spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in exchange for fees paid into a federal fund. DOE failed to meet its obligations, resulting in the utilities retaining and storing SNF on-site beyond their planned plant decommissioning. To ensure funds for safe decommissioning and continued SNF storage, the utilities established nuclear decommissioning trusts (NDTs), funded by electricity ratepayers and managed according to federal regulations. These trusts generated significant investment gains, which were used to pay for ongoing SNF storage expenses.Previously, the United States Court of Federal Claims and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found DOE in partial, ongoing breach of the contracts, awarding damages to the utilities for costs incurred due to the breach. In the current claim period (2017–2021), the utilities sought reimbursement for $145 million in SNF storage costs. DOE conceded liability but argued that the investment gains from the NDTs should be credited against damages, effectively reducing its liability to zero. The Court of Federal Claims rejected this argument, granting summary judgment to the utilities and entering judgment for the full $145 million, subject to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Court of Federal Claims’ grant of summary judgment de novo. It held that the investment gains from the NDTs are not “mitigation” of damages and cannot be set off against the utilities’ breach-induced expenses, because the gains did not reduce or avoid losses caused by DOE’s breach and were not directly related to the breach. The court affirmed the judgment, requiring DOE to reimburse the utilities for their SNF storage costs without offset for NDT investment earnings. View "CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO. v. US" on Justia Law

After serving twenty years in the United States Air Force, the claimant sought educational assistance benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to pay for a flight training course at MidCoast Aviation Services, LLC. He needed this pilot certification to qualify for a job as a sensor operator with General Atomics. Although he supported his application with a certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) confirming MidCoast’s status as an approved pilot school, his application was denied.The VA initially denied the benefits, and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed the denial. The Board found that while the claimant had basic entitlement to educational assistance, the law did not permit benefits for the MidCoast course because the school was not an educational institution of higher learning (IHL), and the course was not part of a college degree program. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims also affirmed the Board’s decision. The majority held that the claimant was ineligible for benefits because MidCoast was not affiliated with an IHL, relying on 38 U.S.C. § 3680A(b). A dissenting judge argued that FAA-approved flight training courses should be eligible regardless of IHL affiliation, based on 38 U.S.C. § 3672(b)(2)(A)(ii).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed how to reconcile the two statutes. It held that while FAA-approved courses at certified pilot schools are “deemed approved,” veterans are only eligible for benefits if the flight training course is provided by an IHL and counts toward a college degree, per 38 U.S.C. § 3680A(b). Since the claimant’s course did not meet this requirement, the court affirmed his ineligibility for benefits. The court further concluded that any challenge to related VA regulations was moot, as statutory ineligibility foreclosed relief. View "LOOMIS v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

Netlist, Inc. owned a patent related to computer memory systems, specifically methods for improving the performance and capacity of memory boards using dual in-line memory modules. The patent described memory modules with buffers that are normally disabled to electrically isolate the memory devices from the controller, but which can be selectively enabled during data operations. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. first filed a petition for inter partes review, challenging the patent’s claims as obvious over two prior art references: Ellsberry and Halbert. Micron Technology, Inc. and related entities filed a similar petition and were later joined to Samsung’s proceeding. While Samsung settled with Netlist and withdrew from the appeal, Micron remained as appellee.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office reviewed the matter and determined, by a preponderance of the evidence, that all challenged claims of Netlist’s patent were obvious in view of the cited prior art. The Board found that the references taught enabling and disabling data paths through buffers in accordance with a latency parameter, and further found that the prior art disclosed the structural and functional limitations recited in the claims. The Board also addressed and rejected various procedural arguments, including those based on the Administrative Procedure Act.Netlist appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court reviewed the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. The Federal Circuit found that the Board’s determinations were supported by substantial evidence and that it had adequately explained its reasoning. The court affirmed the Board’s conclusion that all challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious, rejecting Netlist’s arguments on both substantive and procedural grounds. Costs were awarded against Netlist. View "NETLIST, INC. v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. " on Justia Law