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

The case involves an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,265,096, which relates to methods for constructing frame structures in orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) systems. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found claims 1–4, 6, and 7 of the patent unpatentable as obvious but did not find claim 8 unpatentable. The PTAB also granted the patentee's motion to amend, canceling claims 1–4, 6, and 7 and substituting them with new claims 44–47, 49, and 50.The PTAB's decision was appealed by ZyXEL Communications Corp., which contested the finding that claim 8 was not obvious and the decision to grant the motion to amend. UNM Rainforest Innovations (UNMRI) cross-appealed the finding that claims 1–4, 6, and 7 were unpatentable. The PTAB had found that the combination of prior art references Talukdar and Li rendered claims 1–4, 6, and 7 obvious but did not find a motivation to combine Talukdar and Nystrom to render claim 8 obvious.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's determination that claims 1–4, 6, and 7 were unpatentable as obvious. The court found substantial evidence supporting the PTAB's conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine Talukdar and Li. However, the court reversed the PTAB's decision regarding claim 8, concluding that the combination of Talukdar and Nystrom would render claim 8 obvious.The court also affirmed the PTAB's decision to grant UNMRI's motion to amend, finding no procedural error in allowing UNMRI to supplement its motion with a reply brief. The court remanded the case to the PTAB to determine if the substitute claims are unpatentable as obvious under collateral estoppel based on the court's holding that claims 1–4 and 6–8 are unpatentable as obvious. The PTAB was also instructed to consider whether to evaluate the substitute claims' obviousness on a new ground. View "ZYXEL COMMUNICATIONS CORP. v. UNM RAINFOREST INNOVATIONS " on Justia Law

Koss Corporation (Koss) owns several patents related to wireless earphones. Koss filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Bose Corporation (Bose) in the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of three patents. Bose challenged the venue and also filed for inter partes review (IPR) of the patents with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Concurrently, Bose sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement in the District of Massachusetts. The Texas court dismissed Koss's case for improper venue, leading Koss to file counterclaims in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts court stayed the case pending the IPR outcomes.In parallel, Koss's infringement action against Plantronics, Inc. was transferred to the Northern District of California. Plantronics moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The California court agreed, invalidating all claims of the patents. Koss amended its complaint but eventually stipulated to dismiss the case with prejudice, without appealing the invalidation order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the PTAB's decisions on the IPRs. However, since the California court had already invalidated all claims of the patents and Koss did not appeal this decision, the Federal Circuit found the appeals moot. The court held that the invalidation order from the California court was final and precluded any further action on the patents, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. View "KOSS CORPORATION v. BOSE CORPORATION " on Justia Law

Miller Mendel, Inc. sued the City of Anna, Texas, alleging that the City’s use of the Guardian Alliance Technologies software platform infringed claims 1, 5, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,043,188, which relates to a software system for managing pre-employment background investigations. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted the City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the asserted claims do not claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court also denied the City’s motion for attorneys’ fees.The district court found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of performing a background check and did not contain an inventive concept that would transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Miller Mendel’s motion for reconsideration was denied, with the court clarifying that its decision only invalidated claims 1, 5, and 15. The City’s motion for attorneys’ fees was denied on the grounds that the case was not exceptional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Federal Circuit agreed that the claims were directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept. The court also upheld the district court’s decision to limit its invalidity finding to claims 1, 5, and 15, as Miller Mendel had narrowed the scope of the asserted claims before the court ruled on the motion. Additionally, the Federal Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees, concluding that Miller Mendel’s litigation conduct did not make the case exceptional. View "MILLER MENDEL, INC. v. CITY OF ANNA, TEXAS " on Justia Law

Sean Ravin, an attorney, sought fees for representing Curtis D. Skogsbergh, a veteran claiming disability benefits. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) initially granted Skogsbergh a 10% disability rating, later increased to 20%. Skogsbergh, acting pro se, appealed for a higher rating and submitted a claim for total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU). The VA denied TDIU, and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) did not address it in their decision. Skogsbergh retained Ravin, who represented him in an appeal to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), which vacated the Board’s decision for not addressing TDIU.The Board later remanded the TDIU claim, and the VA granted TDIU with past-due benefits. However, the VA denied Ravin’s attorney fees, leading him to appeal to the Board, which found the fee agreement valid but denied fees, stating the Board’s decision was not final. Ravin appealed to the Veterans Court, which vacated the Board’s decision, finding the Board’s interpretation of finality incorrect but remanding for clarification on whether all fee award requirements were met.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the Veterans Court’s decision was non-final, as it remanded the case for further proceedings. The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that the remand did not meet the criteria for a final decision and that the Veterans Court was within its authority to remand for clarification. View "RAVIN v. MCDONOUGH " on Justia Law

Backertop Licensing LLC and Lori LaPray appealed the U.S. District Court of Delaware’s orders requiring LaPray to appear in-person for testimony regarding potential fraud and imposing monetary sanctions for her failure to appear. The District Court identified potential misconduct in numerous related patent cases involving IP Edge and Mavexar, which allegedly created shell LLCs, assigned patents for little consideration, and directed litigation without disclosing their ongoing rights. The court was concerned that this arrangement concealed the real parties in interest and potentially perpetrated fraud on the court.The District Court ordered LaPray, the sole owner of Backertop, to produce documents and appear in-person to address these concerns. LaPray moved to set aside the order, citing travel difficulties and requesting to appear telephonically, which the court denied. The court rescheduled the hearing to accommodate her schedule but maintained the requirement for in-person testimony to assess her credibility. LaPray did not attend the rescheduled hearing, leading the court to hold her in civil contempt and impose a daily fine until she appeared.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the District Court’s orders were within its inherent authority and not an abuse of discretion. The court found that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which limits the geographic range of subpoenas, did not apply to the court’s sua sponte orders. The court affirmed the District Court’s orders, emphasizing the necessity of in-person testimony to investigate potential misconduct and assess credibility. The monetary sanctions for LaPray’s failure to appear were also upheld. View "BACKERTOP LICENSING LLC v. CANARY CONNECT, INC. " on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the distribution of interest associated with antidumping and countervailing duties under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA). Plaintiffs, who are affected domestic producers, argued that the United States Customs and Border Protection (Customs) unlawfully excluded delinquency interest from the distributions they were entitled to receive under the CDSOA. Customs had been distributing only interest charged on antidumping and countervailing duties at liquidation, as specified by 19 U.S.C. § 1677g, and not delinquency interest assessed under 19 U.S.C. § 1505(d).The United States Court of International Trade (CIT) initially dismissed claims related to distributions made more than two years before the complaints were filed, citing the statute of limitations. The CIT found that the Final Rule published by Customs in 2001 provided adequate notice of its decision to exclude delinquency interest. The CIT also denied plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration, maintaining that the Final Rule sufficiently informed the public of Customs' decision. Finally, the CIT denied plaintiffs' motions for judgment on the agency record, holding that the CDSOA did not require Customs to distribute delinquency interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the CIT's decisions. The Federal Circuit held that the Final Rule provided adequate notice of Customs' decision to exclude delinquency interest, thus supporting the CIT's dismissal of claims outside the two-year statutory period. The court also concluded that the CDSOA unambiguously excludes delinquency interest from distributions to affected producers. Therefore, the court affirmed the CIT's judgment in favor of the government, upholding Customs' practice of excluding delinquency interest from CDSOA distributions. View "ADEE HONEY FARMS v. US " on Justia Law

Natera, Inc. and NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. are healthcare companies in the oncology testing industry. Natera owns two patents, U.S. Patent No. 11,519,035 and U.S. Patent No. 11,530,454, which cover methods for amplifying and sequencing DNA to detect cancer relapse. Natera uses these methods in its Signatera product, while NeoGenomics offers a competing product called RaDaR. Natera sued NeoGenomics, alleging that RaDaR infringed its patents and sought a preliminary injunction to stop NeoGenomics from using, selling, or promoting RaDaR.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted the preliminary injunction, finding that Natera was likely to succeed on the merits of its infringement claim for the ’035 patent. The court did not address the ’454 patent. The district court determined that Natera demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm due to direct competition in a two-player market, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the injunction. The injunction was tailored to allow ongoing use of RaDaR for existing patients and certain clinical trials.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The Federal Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, agreeing that Natera showed a likelihood of success on the merits and that NeoGenomics did not raise a substantial question of validity. The court found no error in the district court’s handling of claim construction, irreparable harm analysis, or public interest considerations. The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. View "Natera, Inc. v. NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc." on Justia Law

Charles J. Love, Jr. appealed a decision regarding the reduction of his disability rating for service-connected prostate cancer. Initially rated at 100% due to active cancer, his rating was reduced to 20% after his cancer went into remission. Love argued that the procedural protections of 38 C.F.R. § 3.344, which require certain steps before reducing long-standing disability ratings, should apply to his case.The Veterans Benefits Administration Regional Office (RO) proposed the reduction in February 2019, which was finalized in September 2019. Love appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which upheld the RO’s decision. He then appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing that the reduction was improper without following § 3.344. The Veterans Court, referencing its decision in Foster v. McDonough, ruled that the procedural protections of § 3.344 did not apply to disabilities rated under diagnostic code 7528 for prostate cancer, as the diagnostic code itself provided specific procedures for rating changes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the Veterans Court, holding that the specific procedures outlined in diagnostic code 7528 for prostate cancer, which include a mandatory VA examination six months after treatment cessation, supersede the general procedural protections of § 3.344. The court found that applying § 3.344 would create conflicting standards and redundancy. Therefore, the reduction of Love’s rating was affirmed as proper under the specific guidelines of diagnostic code 7528. The court affirmed the decision of the Veterans Court, concluding that the procedural protections of § 3.344 do not apply to diagnostic code 7528. View "Love v. McDonough" on Justia Law

International Development Solutions, LLC (IDS), a security service contractor, entered into a contract with the Department of State for the provision of personal protection services in Afghanistan. IDS was initially a joint venture between ACADEMI Training Center, Inc. (ATCI) and Kaseman, LLC. However, ATCI later purchased all of Kaseman, LLC’s membership interest in IDS, making IDS a sole member LLC with ATCI as the sole member and owner. IDS then sold and transferred all of its interests in all of its contracts, subcontracts, and all property and assets to ATCI. ATCI requested the State to recognize it as the successor-in-interest to IDS’s contract through a formal novation agreement, but the State denied the request.The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals denied IDS’s consolidated appeal seeking cost-reimbursement of tax payments made by related corporate entities. The Board found no entitlement to reimbursement as IDS did not present evidence that tax amounts paid were costs incurred by IDS, the contractor, rather than by entities higher in IDS’s ownership chain.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s finding that IDS did not present evidence that tax amounts paid were costs incurred by IDS, the contractor, rather than by entities higher in IDS’s ownership chain. Therefore, IDS was not entitled to reimbursement. View "INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC v. SECRETARY OF STATE " on Justia Law

The case involves Amarin Pharma, Inc., Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited, and Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Amarin”) and Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC (collectively, “Hikma”). Amarin markets and sells icosapent ethyl, an ethyl ester of an omega-3 fatty acid commonly found in fish oils, under the brand name Vascepa®. In 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved Vascepa for the treatment of severe hypertriglyceridemia. In 2019, following additional research and clinical trials, the FDA approved Vascepa for a second use: as a treatment to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients having blood triglyceride levels of at least 150 mg/dL.In the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Hikma moved to dismiss Amarin’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted Hikma’s motion, concluding that Amarin’s allegations against Hikma did not plausibly state a claim for induced infringement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the district court. The court held that Amarin had plausibly pleaded that Hikma had induced infringement of the asserted patents. The court noted that the case was not a traditional Hatch-Waxman case or a section viii case, but rather a run-of-the-mill induced infringement case arising under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The court concluded that the totality of the allegations, taken as true, plausibly plead that Hikma “actively” induced healthcare providers’ direct infringement. View "AMARIN PHARMA, INC. v. HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. " on Justia Law