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

Kevin D. Jones, an attorney, held a term position with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) before transferring to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). At the USDA, Jones primarily provided advice and counsel regarding discrimination complaints filed against the agency and litigated ensuing discrimination claims before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). At the ATF, Jones served as an advisor to the Professional Review Board (PRB) as part of a team of attorneys in the Management Division of the ATF Office of General Counsel (OGC). After three months at the ATF, Jones was asked to resign due to his lack of contract law experience. Jones filed a complaint alleging discrimination and lack of due process in his termination.The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) dismissed Jones's administrative appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Administrative Judge (AJ) of the MSPB found that Jones was not an "employee" as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(B) because his positions at the USDA and ATF were not the same or similar. The AJ noted several distinctions between the tasks Jones performed at each agency. Jones did not appeal the Initial Decision to the full Board, so the AJ’s Initial Decision became the Final Decision of the Board.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision. The court found that the AJ did not err in her determination that Jones's positions at the USDA and ATF were not similar. The court also found that the AJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court affirmed the Board's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Jones's appeal. View "Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board" on Justia Law

The case involves Benito R. Chavez, a Vietnam War veteran who sought service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). After being diagnosed with chronic, moderately severe PTSD, he was granted a 100 percent disability evaluation by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). However, after a subsequent medical examination, his disability rating was reduced to 50 percent, and later increased to 70 percent, as it was determined that his condition did not result in total occupational impairment. Chavez disagreed with this decision and appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which upheld the reduction.Chavez then appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing that the Board's decision should be reversed and his 100 percent rating reinstated. The Veterans Court agreed that the Board may have improperly relied on evidence developed after the rating reduction, but instead of reversing the Board’s decision, it remanded the case back to the Board for further examination.Chavez appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that the Veterans Court should have reversed the Board’s decision rather than remanding the case. The government contended that the Federal Circuit lacked jurisdiction over Chavez's appeal. The Federal Circuit rejected the government's jurisdictional argument but affirmed the decision of the Veterans Court on the merits. The Federal Circuit held that the Veterans Court was fully entitled to remand the case to the Board for clarification, and therefore, the decision of the Veterans Court was affirmed. View "Chavez v. McDonough" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a minor, A.L., who developed immune thrombocytopenic purpura after receiving the DTaP, Hib, and MMR vaccines. Her parents, Victoria and Kevin Leming, filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (the “Vaccine Act”), alleging that the vaccines caused A.L.'s condition. The Lemings argued that A.L.'s condition met the "surgical intervention" severity requirement of the Vaccine Act, as she was hospitalized for two weeks and underwent a bone marrow aspiration and biopsy.The Court of Federal Claims initially ruled that the Lemings could not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that A.L. satisfied the “surgical intervention” severity requirement. The court held that the bone marrow aspiration and biopsy performed on A.L. was purely diagnostic and did not qualify as a "surgical intervention" under the Vaccine Act. On appeal, the case was reassigned to another special master who requested the Lemings offer more evidence to address the “residual effects” prong of the severity requirement. The Lemings failed to prove that A.L. suffered from the “residual effects” of the vaccine injury for more than six months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the term “surgical intervention,” as used in the Vaccine Act, requires a surgical act or measure, either diagnostic or therapeutic, taken to prevent harm to a patient or to improve the health of a patient. The court found that the bone marrow aspiration and biopsy performed on A.L. was a surgical intervention as it was a surgical act taken to improve the health of and prevent harm to A.L. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "LEMING v. HHS " on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between two manufacturers of dining mats for toddlers, Luv n' Care, Ltd. and Nouri E. Hakim (collectively, “LNC”), and Lindsey Laurain and Eazy-PZ, LLC (collectively, “EZPZ”). LNC filed a lawsuit against EZPZ, seeking a declaratory judgment that EZPZ’s U.S. Patent No. 9,462,903 (the “’903 patent”) is invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed. EZPZ counterclaimed, alleging infringement of the ’903 patent, among other claims. After a bench trial, the district court found that LNC failed to prove that the ’903 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, but that EZPZ was barred from obtaining relief due to its “unclean hands.” The court also granted LNC’s motion for partial summary judgment that the claims of the ’903 patent are invalid as obvious. Both parties appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on the doctrine of unclean hands, meaning that EZPZ was barred from obtaining relief due to its misconduct during the litigation. However, the court vacated the district court’s judgment on inequitable conduct and invalidity, finding that there were genuine disputes of material fact that precluded summary judgment. The court also vacated the district court’s denial of LNC’s motion for attorney fees and costs, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Luv n' Care, Ltd. v. Laurain" on Justia Law

The case involves Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bausch Health Ireland Ltd., and Alfasigma S.P.A. (collectively, “Salix”) and Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Norwich”). Salix appealed from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding certain claims of their patents invalid as obvious. Norwich cross-appealed from an order that issued after the district court concluded that Norwich infringed certain claims of Salix's patents and had failed to prove those claims were invalid.Salix's patents were related to the treatment of hepatic encephalopathy (“HE”) and irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (“IBS-D”) using a specific dosage of the drug rifaximin, and to a specific polymorphic form of rifaximin. The district court found that Norwich's Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) for a generic version of rifaximin infringed Salix's patents, but also held certain claims of Salix's patents invalid as obvious.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found no clear error in the district court's conclusion that a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in administering the claimed dosage regimen for the treatment of IBS-D. The court also affirmed the district court's conclusion that the polymorph patent claims were invalid as obvious. The court further affirmed the district court's order setting the effective approval date of Norwich's ANDA to be no earlier than the date of expiration of the last to expire of the HE patents, and the district court's denial of the motion to modify the final judgment. View "Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves Rimco Inc., an importer and reseller of wheels, who appealed against the United States Court of International Trade's dismissal of its action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Rimco sought judicial review of a denied protest against the assessment of countervailing and antidumping duties by Customs and Border Protection. Rimco argued that the Court of International Trade had exclusive jurisdiction to review the denial of protests under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a), or alternatively, residual jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i).Previously, the Court of International Trade had dismissed Rimco's action, stating that it lacked jurisdiction under § 1581(a) because Customs' application of antidumping and countervailing duties was not a protestable decision. The court also found that it lacked jurisdiction under § 1581(i) because jurisdiction under § 1581(c) would have been available if Rimco had sought administrative review of Commerce’s antidumping and countervailing duties determinations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade's dismissal. The court held that Customs' ministerial assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties was not a protestable decision. Furthermore, the court found that jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) would have been available and not manifestly inadequate if Rimco had not failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Therefore, the Court of International Trade correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Rimco Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

AI Visualize, Inc. accused Nuance Communications, Inc. and Mach7 Technologies, Inc. of patent infringement in the District of Delaware. The patents in question concerned the visualization of medical scans, with an emphasis on three-dimensional views via a low-bandwidth web portal. Nuance and Mach7 sought dismissal of the case on the grounds that the patents were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court agreed, ruling that the patents were directed to an abstract idea and failed to provide an inventive step that transformed the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Consequently, AI Visualize’s case was dismissed.Prior to this, the district court had granted Nuance and Mach7's motion to dismiss AI Visualize's complaint for failing to state a claim. AI Visualize then filed an amended complaint, which Nuance and Mach7 again moved to dismiss. The district court found that the patents attempted to address prior art problems with transporting large volume visualization datasets over a standard internet connection. However, the court ruled that the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art was abstract, and AI Visualize’s arguments that the claims were directed to improvements in computer functionality were rejected.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that the patents in question were directed to an abstract idea and did not offer an inventive step that transformed the idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Further, the court observed that AI Visualize's amended complaint failed to provide sufficient factual allegations to support that the claims involved unconventional technology or a concrete application of the abstract idea of virtual view "creation". Thus, the dismissal of AI Visualize’s case was affirmed. View "AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc." on Justia Law

The case at hand involves United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), an Australian producer and exporter of hot-rolled steel, BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd., and its affiliated U.S. importer, BlueScope Steel Americas, Inc. U.S. Steel alleged that the Australian company had reimbursed its U.S. affiliate for antidumping duties, a claim which BlueScope denied. The core dispute arose from differing interpretations of a supply agreement between the companies, which determined the pricing of the steel products.Prior to reaching the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the case was reviewed by the United States Court of International Trade. This lower court sustained the Department of Commerce's determination that BlueScope had not reimbursed its U.S. importer for antidumping duties. The court found that the agency's determination was supported by substantial evidence and was otherwise in accordance with the law.Upon reaching the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court reviewed the decisions of the Court of International Trade de novo, applying the same standard of review used by the trial court in reviewing the administrative record before the agency. The appeals court upheld the decision made by the lower court, finding that the agency's determination was supported by substantial evidence and was in accordance with the law. The court also held that the agency did not err in its interpretation of the antidumping duty regulation, and therefore did not depart from an established practice. As a result, the appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "United States Steel Corporation v. United States" on Justia Law

This case revolves around the dispute between Daniel Bader, a military officer who previously held the rank of Colonel but had attained the rank of Brigadier General at the time of his application for retirement in 2012, and the United States. Bader was found to have violated ethical standards set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) and 5 C.F.R. § 2635, which led to his retirement at the rank of Colonel, affecting his rate of retirement pay. Bader brought suit in the Court of Federal Claims seeking compensation for his allegedly lost pay. The court, however, ruled against him, finding no error in the decision to retire him at the lower rank of Colonel.Bader appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that he was unfairly penalized for holding both a military and civilian employment concurrently, which was permissible. He also contended that he was acting in accordance with multiple ethics opinions that he believed permitted his actions, and that his employer's operation through an Other Transactions Authority allowed him to engage in the conduct he was penalized for.The Appeals Court, however, affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that Bader's simultaneous employment in military and civilian capacities did not exempt him from ethical obligations. His reliance on ethics opinions didn't change the fact that he used his government position to benefit his private employer. The court also clarified that the Other Transactions Authority doesn't exempt government employees from generally applicable ethics regulations. Therefore, Bader's retirement at the rank of Colonel was deemed appropriate given his violations of ethical standards. View "BADER v. US " on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard the appeal of Inline Plastics Corp. against Lacerta Group, LLC. Inline Plastics alleged that Lacerta infringed on several of its patents concerning tamper-resistant plastic containers and methods of making them. After a district court ruling in favor of Lacerta, Inline appealed on the grounds that the court erred in its judgment of invalidity and infringement. Lacerta cross-appealed, challenging the denial of attorney fees and the dismissal of certain patent claims Inline dropped near the end of trial.The Court of Appeals decided to affirm the district court's denial of Inline's motion for judgment as a matter of law of validity, but vacated the court's judgment of invalidity and remanded for a new trial on this issue. The court affirmed the district court's finding of non-infringement of various claims by Lacerta, but vacated the without-prejudice dismissal of Inline’s late-withdrawn claims. The court also vacated the district court's denial of Lacerta’s motion for attorney fees under § 285. Each party will bear their own costs. View "Inline Plastics Corp. v. Lacerta Group, LLC" on Justia Law