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

Fuente Marketing Ltd., a family-owned company selling premium hand-rolled cigars, owns two registered standard character trademarks for the letter X in connection with cigars and related products. Vaporous Technologies, LLC, designs and manufactures oral vaporizers and sought to register a mark featuring an abstract stick figure composed of intersecting lines forming a stylized X and a shaded circle above it, for use with various smoking-related goods. Fuente opposed this trademark application, alleging a likelihood of confusion with its own X marks.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), reviewed the opposition. The parties stipulated certain facts, including a description of Vaporous’s mark. The TTAB applied the In re E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. factors, finding that while the goods and trade channels overlapped and thus favored a likelihood of confusion, the dissimilarity of the marks weighed heavily against it. The Board found Fuente’s X marks conceptually strong but commercially weak and determined the relevant DuPont factors were either neutral or favored confusion, except for the critical mark similarity factor. Ultimately, the TTAB concluded that the marks were sufficiently distinct in commercial impression, appearance, and sound to avoid confusion and dismissed Fuente’s opposition.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s decision, holding that the dissimilarity between the marks was sufficient, even in light of other factors, to negate any likelihood of confusion. The court concluded that the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that Fuente had not shown any harmful legal error. The decision of the TTAB was therefore affirmed. View "FUENTE MARKETING LTD. v. VAPOROUS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC " on Justia Law

A company owned a patent involving technology that allows mobile device applications to be downloaded and installed in the background, without requiring users to visit an application store. Another company, which had previously developed and marketed a product with similar features, initiated a post-grant review proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, challenging the validity of the patent's original claims. During the proceeding, the patent owner sought to amend the claims by proposing substitute claims, which included additional limitations. The challenger argued that the substitute claims were also unpatentable.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted the patent owner’s revised motion to amend, finding that the challenger had not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the substitute claims were unpatentable or patent ineligible. The Board also determined that the original claims were unpatentable based on a prior decision invalidating claims of a related parent patent. The challenger appealed the Board’s decision regarding the substitute claims to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered whether the challenger had Article III standing to appeal. The court found that the challenger failed to demonstrate an injury in fact because it did not provide evidence showing concrete plans to engage in activities that would potentially infringe the substitute claims, nor did it sufficiently link its previous product features to the limitations in the new claims. As a result, the court held that the challenger lacked standing and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court awarded costs to the patent owner. View "IRONSOURCE LTD. v. DIGITAL TURBINE, INC. " on Justia Law

Two claimants, a veteran and a non-attorney representative, each appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals after an unfavorable Veterans Affairs regional office decision. In both cases, the Board dismissed their appeals as untimely due to a clear miscalculation of the filing deadline. Each claimant then filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), seeking to overturn the erroneous Board dismissals and to have their cases reinstated for Board review.While the appeals were pending before the Veterans Court, the Board recognized its mistake and, on its own initiative, reinstated both claimants’ cases to its active docket, giving them the relief they had initially sought in their Veterans Court appeals. For one claimant, the Board later granted the full fee award requested; for the other, the Board remanded the benefit claims, and the regional office granted most but not all of the requested benefits.The Veterans Court, sitting en banc and by panel, dismissed both appeals as moot, holding that the Board’s actions rendered further judicial relief unnecessary. The court reasoned that the claimants had already received the relief available through judicial review, so no live controversy remained. The claimants argued that the filing of a notice of appeal divested the Board of jurisdiction and rendered its subsequent actions void.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the government that the claimants lacked standing. The Federal Circuit held that, because the claimants had obtained all the specific relief sought prior to appealing to the Federal Circuit, there was no remaining injury that the court could redress. Accordingly, the court dismissed both appeals for lack of jurisdiction. View "KERNZ v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

Fortress Iron, LP developed a pre-assembled vertical cable railing system for outdoor spaces, collaborating with two Chinese companies for its manufacture and quality control. Fortress's owner originated the idea, and an employee prepared initial sketches. Employees of the quality control company, HuaPing Huang and Alfonso Lin, contributed critical refinements to the design. After incorporating these suggestions, Fortress filed for and obtained two patents, listing only its owner and employee as inventors, omitting Lin and Huang. Huang later left his company and could not be located.Fortress sued Digger Specialties, Inc. for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. During litigation, it emerged that Lin and Huang were coinventors. Fortress successfully added Lin to the patents under 35 U.S.C. § 256(a), but was unable to add Huang due to his unavailability. Fortress then moved for partial summary judgment to correct inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), while Digger Specialties moved for summary judgment asserting patent invalidity due to incorrect inventorship. The district court denied Fortress’s motion to correct inventorship, holding that notice and an opportunity for hearing must be given to all parties concerned—including Huang—before correction could be ordered. The court granted summary judgment to Digger Specialties, holding the patents invalid for omission of an inventor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Federal Circuit held that an omitted coinventor is a “party concerned” under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b) and must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before inventorship can be corrected. As Fortress could not satisfy this statutory requirement, correction was unavailable and the patents were invalid. The Federal Circuit thus affirmed the grant of summary judgment of invalidity. View "FORTRESS IRON, LP v. DIGGER SPECIALTIES, INC. " on Justia Law

An attorney entered into a fee agreement with a veteran to represent him in a claim for increased disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The agreement provided that the attorney would receive 20% of any past-due benefits awarded, and this fee would be paid directly by the VA from any such award. The veteran had previously requested an increased rating on his own, and after the attorney became involved and filed a notice of disagreement, the VA granted the increase, awarding past-due benefits. The VA initially determined the attorney was entitled to the agreed fee but failed to withhold it from the benefits paid to the veteran, resulting in an overpayment. The VA later paid the attorney and recouped the overpaid amount from the veteran’s future benefits.Subsequently, the veteran challenged the reasonableness of the attorney’s fee before the VA Office of General Counsel (OGC), which concluded that the fee was excessive considering the attorney’s limited involvement and the fact that the award was based on the veteran’s earlier request. The OGC reduced the allowed fee and ordered the attorney to refund the difference to the veteran. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed this decision. The attorney appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which also affirmed the Board’s determination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that, under 38 U.S.C. § 7263(d), it lacked jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans Court regarding the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees in such proceedings. The statute clearly provides that such orders by the Veterans Court are final and may not be reviewed by any other court. Therefore, the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "KENDALL v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

The claimant, a veteran who served from 1986 to 1990, sought special monthly compensation (“SMC”) under federal law based on his total disability rating due to individual unemployability (“TDIU”). His TDIU was awarded because of several service-connected disabilities, including bowel and bladder incontinence, intervertebral disc syndrome, hypertension, radiculopathy, and cervical spine arthritis, resulting in a combined rating of ninety percent. He applied for SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s), arguing that his TDIU and the underlying disabilities qualified him for this additional benefit.His claims for SMC were denied by the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office. He appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which found that he was not entitled to SMC because he did not have a single service-connected disability rated as totally disabling, nor was his TDIU based on one disability, as the statute required. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the Board’s decision, rejecting the argument that multiple disabilities could be combined to constitute “a service-connected disability rated as total” under the statute.On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the statutory interpretation of 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s). The court held that, based on the plain language of the statute, SMC eligibility requires a single service-connected disability rated as total. The court also held that the regulation allowing multiple disabilities to be combined for TDIU purposes does not satisfy the requirement for SMC under § 1114(s). The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. View "MACKEY v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

Two pharmaceutical companies developing treatments for achondroplasia, a genetic disorder, became involved in litigation after one company (Ascendis) filed a New Drug Application (NDA) for its product. The other company (BioMarin), holding a relevant patent, filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging patent infringement by Ascendis’s product. Shortly afterward, Ascendis filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking a judgment of non-infringement and arguing that its activities were protected under the statutory “safe harbor” for regulatory approval.More than thirty days after filing its district court complaint, Ascendis moved for an expedited hearing. BioMarin responded by seeking to dismiss or stay the district court action pending the ITC’s investigation. Ascendis voluntarily dismissed its complaint without prejudice and promptly refiled a nearly identical complaint, this time moving for a mandatory stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a)(2), which requires a district court to stay its proceedings if requested within thirty days of the action’s filing or of being named as a respondent in the ITC. BioMarin opposed, contending Ascendis’s request was untimely, and sought a discretionary stay instead.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted BioMarin’s motion for a discretionary stay and denied Ascendis’s motion for a mandatory stay as moot. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that § 1659(a)(2) does not permit a litigant to restart the thirty-day period for a mandatory stay by voluntarily dismissing and refiling a substantially identical action. The court reasoned that the statutory deadline applies to the original action and that allowing refiling would circumvent the statute’s purpose. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "ASCENDIS PHARMA A/S v. BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL INC. " on Justia Law

Three nonprofit organizations filed a nationwide class action against the United States, alleging that the federal judiciary overcharged the public for access to court records through the PACER system. They claimed the government used PACER fees not only to fund the system itself but also for unrelated expenses, contrary to the statutory limits set by the E-Government Act. The plaintiffs sought refunds for allegedly excessive fees collected between 2010 and 2018.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia oversaw extensive litigation, including class certification and an interlocutory appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit previously affirmed that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act and that the government had used PACER fees for unauthorized expenses. After remand, the parties reached a settlement totaling $125 million. The district court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also approved attorneys’ fees, administrative costs, and incentive awards to the class representatives. An objector, Eric Isaacson, challenged the district court’s jurisdiction, the fairness of the settlement, the attorneys’ fees, and the incentive awards.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act because each PACER transaction constituted a separate claim, none exceeding the $10,000 jurisdictional limit. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in approving the class settlement, the attorneys’ fees, or the incentive awards. The court also held that incentive awards are not categorically prohibited and are permissible if reasonable, joining the majority of federal circuits on this issue. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "NVLSP v. US " on Justia Law

Apple Inc. launched the Apple Watch Series 6, featuring technology to estimate the wearer’s blood oxygenation level. Masimo Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories, Inc. alleged that Apple’s importation and sale of the device infringed on several Masimo patents related to wearable blood oxygen measurement technology. Masimo filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission, asserting that Apple’s actions violated § 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which prohibits importation of infringing articles if a related domestic industry exists. The patents at issue, called the Poeze Patents, cover user-worn devices utilizing optical emitters and photodetectors for physiological measurements.Following an investigation, an administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing and concluded that Masimo had established a domestic industry, Apple’s devices infringed some asserted claims, and several claims were not proven invalid. The ALJ found Masimo was not barred from enforcement by prosecution history laches. The ALJ’s decision led to a limited exclusion order barring importation of infringing Apple Watches. Both Apple and Masimo sought review by the Commission. The Commission affirmed the finding of infringement and the existence of a domestic industry, as to certain claims, and maintained the exclusion order.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Commission’s determinations under the Administrative Procedure Act, affirming its findings as reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The Federal Circuit held that Masimo satisfied both the technical and economic prongs of the domestic industry requirement, that the Apple Watch infringed valid claims of the asserted patents, and that Apple failed to prove invalidity or prosecution laches. The Commission’s judgment and the exclusion order were affirmed. View "APPLE INC. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION" on Justia Law

Columbia University sued Gen Digital Inc., which markets Norton antivirus software, alleging infringement of certain claims in two patents related to methods for detecting anomalous program executions. These patents described techniques using an emulator to execute portions of software and compare function calls against models created from multiple computers, aiming to detect malicious activity. Columbia also sought to correct inventorship on a third patent owned by Norton. Norton’s products, including the SONAR/BASH feature, were sold both domestically and internationally. Columbia claimed that these products infringed the asserted patent claims by utilizing the patented detection methods.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia construed disputed claim terms largely in Columbia’s favor and denied Norton’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under 35 U.S.C. § 101, ruling that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea at Alice step one. Prior to trial, the district court struck Norton’s § 101 defense. At trial, the jury found willful infringement of four claims and awarded substantial damages, including damages based on Norton’s foreign sales. The district court denied Norton’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law regarding infringement, willfulness, and foreign sales damages. It also awarded enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees, partly relying on a contempt finding against Norton’s counsel.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment. The Federal Circuit held that the asserted claims are abstract at Alice step one and remanded for the district court to address step two. The court found no error in claim construction or in the denial of judgment as a matter of law for infringement and willfulness, but concluded that damages for foreign sales were improperly awarded. The contempt finding having been reversed in a companion case, the enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees awards must also be reconsidered. The disposition was reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY v. GEN DIGITAL INC. " on Justia Law