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

The plaintiff is an advocacy organization focused on labor rights, which submitted several petitions to the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP). These petitions requested CBP to investigate whether cocoa and cocoa products imported from Côte d’Ivoire were produced using forced child labor, in violation of section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The organization provided extensive evidence, including government reports and firsthand accounts, to support its claims. Despite CBP initiating an investigation and corresponding at various points, no enforcement action, such as a Withhold Release Order, was issued. After years without a definitive response, the organization submitted supplemental petitions with new evidence and eventually filed suit, alleging that CBP unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed action on its petitions.The United States Court of International Trade reviewed the complaint and granted the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, specifically finding that the advocacy organization failed to establish organizational standing. The court determined that the plaintiff did not demonstrate a concrete and demonstrable injury to its activities, as required for Article III standing. The plaintiff appealed this decision, arguing that it suffered financial harm and was denied effective tools for pursuing its mission.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered the appeal, applying a de novo standard of review to the dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court held that the plaintiff had not established a concrete injury sufficient for standing, reasoning that the organization’s expenditure of resources to advocate for government action did not constitute a legally cognizable harm. The court also found that the mere denial of a procedural tool was insufficient to confer standing. Therefore, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal by the Court of International Trade for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES v. MULLIN " on Justia Law

The dispute centers on three patents owned by the appellant, which describe a method for displaying information to facilitate the return of lost or stolen computers. The patented method involves powering on a computer and automatically displaying a screen with return information, either before or alongside the lock screen, and includes the ability to remotely initiate or change the displayed information without assistance from a user with the computer. The appellant alleged that certain devices sold by LG Electronics, featuring Google or Microsoft’s “Find My Device” software, infringed these patents.Following the appellant’s lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Google and Microsoft initiated six inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), contesting the validity of the patents based on prior art. The PTAB instituted review despite the appellant’s arguments referencing a parallel district court action and concerns about duplicative proceedings. LG, named as a real party in interest, filed a “Sotera stipulation,” agreeing not to pursue in district court any grounds raised in the IPRs, which the PTAB considered in its decision to institute review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the PTAB’s final written decisions, which found all challenged claims unpatentable. The Federal Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review challenges tied to the PTAB’s institution decision, specifically regarding the impact of LG’s violation of the Sotera stipulation. On the merits, the court affirmed the PTAB’s construction of the “without assistance” claim limitation, finding no error and concluding that the prior art disclosed the disputed method. The court also determined that the PTAB’s analysis of secondary considerations of non-obviousness was supported by substantial evidence. The court dismissed the appeal in part and affirmed in part, awarding costs against the appellant. View "HAFEMAN v. GOOGLE LLC " on Justia Law

A veteran who served during the Vietnam Era was awarded service connection for PTSD in 1993, effective from May 1991, with a 10% disability rating. In 2019, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals found clear and unmistakable error in the earlier decision and granted an earlier effective date of May 1983. The Board remanded the claim to the regional office to implement the earlier date and determine whether a higher rating was warranted. After the regional office denied a higher rating in a supplemental statement of the case, the Board preemptively issued its own denial before the veteran filed a required notice of disagreement.The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims reviewed the Board’s action after the appellant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction, seeking vacatur and remand. The government conceded the Board lacked jurisdiction but argued for vacatur and dismissal, not remand. The Veterans Court vacated the Board’s decision and dismissed the appeal, concluding it lacked jurisdiction since no notice of disagreement had been filed. The court emphasized the veteran had a separate, properly noticed appeal pending regarding the merits of the regional office’s denial, and thus removed the ultra vires Board decision as an obstacle.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed whether the veteran qualified as a “prevailing party” under the Equal Access to Justice Act for purposes of seeking attorney’s fees. The Federal Circuit held that vacatur of the ultra vires Board decision materially altered the legal relationship between the parties and constituted success on the merits of the judicial review action, conferring prevailing party status. The court reversed the Veterans Court’s denial of fees and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "GREENIDGE v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

A dispute arose between two companies over patents related to wireless communications for building automation systems. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s smart thermostat products infringed four patents, which addressed improvements in wireless network architecture, power and bandwidth usage, and data redundancy within building control systems. At trial, a jury found that the defendant had infringed at least one of the asserted patents (without specifying which), determined that the claims of one patent were not limited to well-understood or routine technology, found another patent’s claims invalid, and awarded the plaintiff lump sum damages.In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the defendant moved to dismiss based on patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but the court denied these motions for the patents at issue, except for one where factual disputes precluded summary judgment. The court also denied the defendant’s post-trial motions, including challenges to the verdict form, jury instructions related to patent eligibility, and motions to exclude expert testimony. The plaintiff, in turn, appealed the district court’s limitation on prejudgment interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the district court’s verdict form, which combined all asserted patents into a single infringement question, violated the defendant’s right to a unanimous verdict. The appellate court vacated both the infringement and damages judgments and remanded for a new trial on those issues. The court also vacated and remanded the § 101 eligibility determination for one patent, requiring further proceedings under the Alice framework. However, the court affirmed the district court’s findings that the asserted claims of two other patents were not directed to abstract ideas and that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict of infringement on one patent. Remaining evidentiary and interest issues were dismissed as moot. View "OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC " on Justia Law

AGI SureTrack LLC brought suit against Farmers Edge Inc. and its U.S. subsidiary, alleging infringement of several patents relating to automated systems and methods for capturing, processing, and sharing farming data. The core patented technology involved using a relay device with generic computer components to collect real-time data from various farming equipment, process this information, and share it via an online exchange. The patent claims described a system using a microprocessor, bus connector, GPS receiver, and memory storage, together with software that records and interprets data from farming implements.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted summary judgment in favor of Farmers Edge. The court found that the asserted patent claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, the court concluded that the claims merely used generic computer components to collect and process data and did not constitute an inventive concept. The district court also ruled that the case was not exceptional and denied Farmers Edge’s request for attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed both AGI’s challenge to the finding of patent ineligibility and Farmers Edge’s cross-appeal regarding exceptionality. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the asserted patents were not patent-eligible, holding that the claims were directed to an abstract idea and lacked any inventive concept beyond conventional technology. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s summary determination that the case was not exceptional, finding the lower court failed to provide adequate reasoning or allow both parties to present argument on the issue. The case was remanded for further proceedings on exceptionality and attorney’s fees. View "AGI SURETRACK LLC v. FARMERS EDGE INC. " on Justia Law

A Turkish steel producer was subject to an antidumping-duty order issued in 2016 after the U.S. Department of Commerce found that two Turkish firms, including the appellant, were dumping hot-rolled steel products in the U.S., and the International Trade Commission (ITC) determined that these imports caused material injury to the U.S. industry. The appellant did not challenge the ITC’s injury determination at that time, but both Turkish firms challenged the Commerce dumping determination in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). In 2020, Commerce found that the other Turkish firm’s dumping margin was zero, leading to its exclusion from the antidumping order.After the exclusion, the appellant sought relief from the ITC, arguing that Turkish imports were now negligible, and requested: (1) reconsideration of the 2016 injury finding, (2) a changed-circumstances review (CCR), and (3) revocation of the order through a five-year sunset review. The ITC denied reconsideration and the CCR, and in the sunset review decided not to revoke the order. The appellant then filed three separate actions in the CIT to challenge these denials.The CIT sustained the ITC’s refusal to revoke the order in the sunset review, finding the ITC properly relied on its final, unchallenged 2016 injury determination and that the sunset review was forward-looking. The CIT also dismissed the CCR claim, holding that the sunset review provided all the relief a CCR could have provided. Finally, the CIT dismissed the challenge to the denial of reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction, because the appellant could have brought a timely action under the proper statute in 2016.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed all three CIT judgments, holding that the ITC’s actions and the CIT’s dismissals were correct under the law and statutory framework. View "EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC " on Justia Law

A legal advocacy organization petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to update its mailing addresses, alleging that the VA continued to send correspondence to incorrect addresses despite repeated notifications of changes. The petitioner requested court intervention to ensure the VA updated its address records, ceased sending correspondence to wrong addresses, and imposed financial penalties for future errors.The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissed the petition as moot after the VA voluntarily corrected the addresses and created a policy to guide attorneys on updating their addresses. The VA also provided affidavits and a fact sheet to confirm these corrections. The petitioner subsequently sought attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), asserting that the Veterans Court’s order requiring affidavits constituted the necessary “judicial imprimatur” for prevailing-party status. The Veterans Court denied the application, relying on Cavaciuti v. McDonough, and found there was no court-mandated decision on the merits and no material alteration to the parties’ legal relationship.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed whether the Veterans Court erred in denying attorney fees under EAJA. The Federal Circuit held that a court order requiring a party only to confirm voluntary corrective actions for the purpose of assessing mootness does not constitute sufficient judicial imprimatur to confer prevailing-party status under EAJA. The court found that the Veterans Court’s order did not address the merits of the petition or alter the legal relationship between the parties. The Federal Circuit therefore affirmed the Veterans Court’s denial of the EAJA application. View "VETERANS LEGAL ADVOCACY GROUP v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

A medical device company that manufactures an adhesive, wearable insulin patch pump alleged that a competitor misappropriated trade secrets and infringed patents. The competitor had hired several former employees of the company, including a director who had extensive knowledge of the company’s product design and development. The alleged misappropriation occurred in 2018, when this former director provided design files and technical information to the competitor as it developed a second-generation insulin patch pump.The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which bifurcated the trade secret and patent claims. The company moved for a preliminary injunction, which the district court granted, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that decision in Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co. (“Insulet I”), finding that the district court had not properly analyzed the statute of limitations and other elements. On remand, the district court denied both sides’ summary judgment motions on the statute of limitations for the trade secret misappropriation claim, and the matter proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff on four trade secrets, found the claims timely, awarded damages, and the district court entered judgment, imposed joint and several liability, and issued a permanent injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. It held that it had jurisdiction because the patent claims had been effectively dismissed with prejudice due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for at least one alleged infringing act. On the merits, the Federal Circuit held that, under the applicable statute of limitations standard, the evidence established the plaintiff knew or should have known of the alleged misappropriation more than three years before filing suit. The Court found the claims time-barred and reversed the judgment. View "INSULET CORP. v. EOFLOW, CO. LTD. " on Justia Law

The petitioner began working as an Operational Support Technician with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Miramar, Florida, in 1987. Her duties required her physical presence at the office, and she commuted daily from her home. In December 2016, she was found to have engaged in workplace misconduct—specifically, being under the influence while on duty—and was removed from her position in July 2018. In April 2019, she applied for Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) disability retirement benefits, claiming that recurring seizures prevented her from commuting to work and performing the essential duties of her position.The Office of Personnel Management denied her application and subsequent request for reconsideration, determining that she had not established that her medical condition rendered her unable to provide “useful and efficient service” in her position. The petitioner appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board. An administrative judge affirmed OPM’s determination, finding insufficient evidence that she was unable to perform the essential functions of her job. The judge also rejected her argument that her inability to commute, due to seizures and lack of transportation options, should be considered in assessing her disability status. The full Board adopted the administrative judge’s findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s final decision. The court held that, under 5 U.S.C. § 8451(a)(1)(B), the statutory definition of disability for FERS benefits does not include an employee’s ability to commute; only the refusal of reassignment to a position within the commuting area is governed by such considerations under § 8451(a)(2)(A). The court also ruled that it is statutorily barred from reviewing factual determinations underlying OPM’s disability findings. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision. View "CHAFIN v. OPM " on Justia Law

Ford retained Versata to develop specialized software to manage its vehicle configuration processes, resulting in two main products: Automotive Configuration Manager (ACM) and Materials Cost Analytics (MCA). The parties entered into a licensing agreement in 2004, which eventually expired in 2014 without renewal. Ford then released its own software, PDO, which Versata alleged incorporated its proprietary trade secrets from ACM and MCA. Disputes arose when Ford sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and non-misappropriation, while Versata counterclaimed, alleging trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA), as well as breach of contract.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan excluded Versata’s damages expert’s testimony regarding trade secret damages, limiting Versata to a reasonable royalty model based solely on the parties’ prior licensing history. At trial, the jury found Ford liable for misappropriating three ACM trade secrets and breaching the licensing agreement, awarding Versata $22,386,000 for trade secret misappropriation and $82,260,000 for breach of contract. However, the district court subsequently reduced these awards: it set trade secret damages to zero, citing insufficient evidence regarding the time required for Ford to independently develop the misappropriated trade secrets, and reduced breach of contract damages to $3, finding Versata’s evidence insufficient to support the jury’s calculation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment on trade secret damages and remanded for a new trial, holding that Versata was entitled to seek unjust enrichment damages under both the DTSA and MUTSA, and that the district court erred in precluding consideration of alternative damages models. The Federal Circuit also reversed the reduction of the breach of contract damages, reinstating the jury’s $82,260,000 award, and affirmed the denial of Ford’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on trade secret misappropriation liability. View "VERSATA SOFTWARE, LLC v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY " on Justia Law