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

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

This case involves a dispute over several patents relating to digital communication systems that use non-uniform constellations to increase data transmission capacity compared to traditional, uniform constellations operating within similar signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) bands. The plaintiff, Constellation Designs, LLC, alleged that several LG entities infringed claims from four patents by manufacturing and selling televisions compatible with the ATSC 3.0 standard, specifically protocol A/322, which governs over-the-air television broadcasting. The patents at issue cover two primary types of claims: those that recite methods for optimizing constellations based on parallel decode (PD) capacity (“optimization claims”), and those that recite specific, non-uniform constellations (“constellation claims”).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted summary judgment to Constellation on patent eligibility for all asserted claims, finding them directed to a technical solution to a technical problem. At trial, a jury found the asserted claims not invalid, found infringement by LG’s accused televisions, awarded damages, and found willful infringement. LG moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on non-infringement and no damages, and sought to exclude Constellation’s damages expert, but the district court denied these motions. The court then entered final judgment and ongoing royalties.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the summary judgment of eligibility for the optimization claims, holding that these claims were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they were directed to the abstract idea of “optimizing” a constellation for PD capacity without specifying how to achieve this result. The court affirmed the eligibility of the constellation claims, finding them directed to a concrete technological solution. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the denial of JMOL on non-infringement and no damages, and the denial of the motion to exclude Constellation’s damages expert. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings. View "CONSTELLATION DESIGNS, LLC v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC. " on Justia Law

A U.S. citizen residing in Canada sold real estate located in Canada in 2015 and paid Canadian taxes on the resulting income. He was also required to pay the U.S. “net investment income tax” (NIIT) on the same income. To avoid double taxation, he claimed a foreign tax credit against his NIIT liability, relying on Article XXIV of the U.S.-Canada income tax treaty, which is designed to protect taxpayers from being taxed by both countries on the same income. The IRS rejected his claim for the foreign tax credit against the NIIT.The taxpayer brought a refund action in the United States Court of Federal Claims, arguing that under the treaty, he was entitled to offset his NIIT liability with the credit for Canadian taxes paid. The Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in his favor, holding that the treaty created a foreign tax credit that could be applied against the NIIT, thereby allowing the taxpayer to recoup the NIIT he had paid.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the text of both the Internal Revenue Code and the treaty. The court held that while the treaty’s Credit Clauses broadly apply to U.S. income taxes, the treaty expressly subjects the availability of a foreign tax credit to the limitations of U.S. law. The Code only permits foreign tax credits to offset taxes imposed by Chapter 1, and the NIIT is imposed by Chapter 2A. Thus, there is no statutory authority or independent treaty provision permitting a foreign tax credit to offset the NIIT. The court rejected arguments that the treaty overrides this limitation or that its general principle of avoiding double taxation mandates a credit against the NIIT. The Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, holding that the taxpayer was not entitled to apply a foreign tax credit against the NIIT under either the Code or the treaty. View "ESTATE OF BRUYEA v. US" on Justia Law

Two U.S. citizens lived in France during the 2015 tax year and sold shares of a French company, earning a profit. They paid income taxes to both France and the United States, including a net investment income tax (NIIT) of $3,851 to the IRS. In 2020, they filed a lawsuit in the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking a refund of the NIIT, arguing that the U.S.–France tax treaty entitled them to offset that tax with credits for French income taxes paid.The United States Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The court rejected their first argument based on Article 24(2)(a) of the treaty, finding it did not permit a credit against the NIIT, but accepted their second argument based on Article 24(2)(b), concluding that provision provided a credit against the NIIT without regard to certain limitations in U.S. tax law. The government appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the treaty and statutes de novo. It held that both Article 24(2)(a) and Article 24(2)(b) of the Convention are subject to U.S. tax law limitations, specifically those in the Internal Revenue Code that prohibit offsetting the NIIT with foreign tax credits. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, holding that the treaty does not provide a foreign tax credit to offset the NIIT, and the plaintiffs are not entitled to a refund on that basis. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. View "CHRISTENSEN v. US " on Justia Law

An employee who had previously worked for the Department of State, and later for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a criminal investigator, was removed from his position by DHS. The removal was based on a charge of lack of candor, relating to allegedly deceptive or incomplete responses he gave during the background investigation process, including failing to disclose an agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office that led to his resignation from State, and omitting details about prior criminal charges and a security clearance suspension. The employee contested the removal, arguing that his omissions were not deceptive and that he had legitimate reasons for his responses.After his removal, the employee filed a "mixed case" complaint with DHS’s Office of Diversity and Civil Rights, alleging both discrimination and non-discrimination grounds for his termination. DHS failed to meet certain regulatory deadlines for handling his complaint. The employee eventually appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (the Board), including a motion for sanctions against DHS for missing deadlines. The Board’s administrative judge denied the sanctions request, sustained four of the eleven specifications supporting the lack of candor charge, and upheld the penalty of removal. The full Board split, making the initial decision final and appealable.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, because the employee had formally abandoned his discrimination claims, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of sanctions, as those arguments were based solely on the discrimination aspects of the case. The court affirmed the Board’s findings that four specifications of lack of candor were supported by substantial evidence and that the penalty of removal was reasonable. The court dismissed the appeal as to sanctions for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the Board in all other respects. View "JADUE v. DHS " on Justia Law

Exelixis, Inc. developed Cabometyx®, a cancer treatment containing cabozantinib (L)-malate. After identifying and characterizing crystalline and amorphous forms of this compound, Exelixis obtained several related patents. MSN Laboratories Private Limited and MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. sought FDA approval for a generic version using a specific polymorph of cabozantinib (L)-malate and received their own patent for that form. Exelixis sued MSN in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of patents covering crystalline cabozantinib (L)-malate salts (the “Malate Salt Patents”) and a patent directed to pharmaceutical compositions with low levels of a genotoxic impurity (the ’349 patent).The District Court held a bench trial. MSN conceded infringement of the Malate Salt Patents but argued they were invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). For the ’349 patent, MSN contested both infringement and validity. The District Court found the Malate Salt Patents were not invalid, holding the written description requirement was met because the patents disclosed the chemical structure, formula, and crystalline nature of the claimed salts. The court analogized its analysis to GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Banner Pharmacaps, Inc. For the ’349 patent, the court found no infringement and no invalidity, concluding that the evidence failed to show the prior art inherently disclosed the “essentially free” impurity limitation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the District Court’s finding that the asserted claims of the ’439, ’440, and ’015 patents had adequate written description support. Regarding claim 3 of the ’349 patent, the Federal Circuit dismissed MSN’s appeal as moot after Exelixis dropped its cross-appeal and vacated the District Court’s judgment of nonobviousness of that claim. The main holdings were affirmance of written description support for the asserted Malate Salt Patents and dismissal and vacatur regarding claim 3 of the ’349 patent. View "EXELIXIS, INC. v. MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LTD. " on Justia Law

T-Mobile and KAIFI settled a patent infringement lawsuit involving claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,728, which covers Wi-Fi calling technology. As part of their settlement, T-Mobile agreed to make two payments: one immediate payment and another conditional payment, the latter to be made if any of the asserted patent claims “survived” an ex parte reexamination (EPR) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. After the Patent Office confirmed the patentability of most of the asserted claims without amendment, T-Mobile refused to make the additional payment, arguing that the claims had not truly “survived” the EPR due to alleged changes in claim scope and supposed inequitable conduct by KAIFI during the reexamination.T-Mobile filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, seeking a determination that it had not breached the settlement agreement by withholding the payment. The district court granted summary judgment for KAIFI, holding that the settlement agreement was clear: a claim “survives the EPR” if the Patent Office confirms its patentability in the Reexamination Certificate. The court found T-Mobile’s arguments about claim scope and inequitable conduct irrelevant to the payment obligation and ordered T-Mobile to make the additional payment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction. The court determined that the dispute centered on the interpretation of a contract governed by Texas law and did not necessarily involve a substantial question of federal patent law. Consequently, the court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction and transferred the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over appeals from the Eastern District of Texas. View "T-MOBILE US, INC. v. KAIFI LLC " on Justia Law

AML IP, LLC brought lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc., The Buckle, Inc., and other entities, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,876,979. The patent concerns e-commerce methods using a “bridge computer” to facilitate transactions between service providers. Each defendant moved to dismiss the suit on two grounds: improper venue, arguing the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) were not satisfied, and failure to state a claim, contending the patent’s claims were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.The district court addressed both grounds. It concluded that AML had not established proper venue, justifying dismissal, and separately determined that the patent claims were ineligible for patenting, also warranting dismissal. The court entered judgment accordingly. AML filed a motion to amend the judgment, arguing the court should have dismissed only for venue and not for ineligibility after finding venue improper. The district court denied the motion, explaining it had discretion to address both grounds given they were briefed together and no alternative venue was suggested for transfer. AML appealed, challenging the district court's decision to dismiss on both grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the appeal, applying Fifth Circuit law for procedural questions. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing for both improper venue and patent ineligibility, as venue is a waivable issue and courts may resolve multiple grounds when briefed together. The appellate court also declined to address whether the merits dismissal would have preclusive effect in future cases, noting that such determinations are properly made in subsequent actions. The judgment was affirmed. View "AML IP, LLC v. BATH & BODY WORKS DIRECT, INC." on Justia Law