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

International Boundary and Water Commissioner Ruth hired McCarthy as an attorney in 2009. Within months, McCarthy had prepared four legal memoranda challenging Commission activities as “gross mismanagement,” contrary to existing law, and characterizing certain officers as lacking “core competencies.” McCarthy submitted a report: “Disclosures of Alleged Fraud, Waste and Abuse” to the Office of Inspector General (OIG), and other federal agencies and informed Ruth of his reports. Ruth terminated McCarthy’s employment, citing McCarthy’s failure to support the executive staff in a constructive manner. McCarthy filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), alleging whistleblower retaliation, citing his report to OIG, but not the legal memoranda, as protected activity. Existing precedent held that reports made in the course of an employee’s normal duties and reports made to a supervisor about a supervisor’s conduct were not protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act, 103 Stat. 16. The administrative judge found no retaliation. The Merit Systems Protection Board and Federal Circuit affirmed in 2012. While McCarthy’s petition was pending, Congress enacted the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012, 126 Stat. 1465-76, under which McCarthy’s legal memoranda could be protected disclosures. The Act can be applied retroactively to pending cases. McCarthy did not raise the change in law while his petition for rehearing was pending. The Federal Circuit affirmed MSPB’s refusal to reopen his case. McCarthy has not exhausted OSC remedies with respect to the memoranda, rendering the MSPB without jurisdiction. View "McCarthy v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd." on Justia Law

GA entered into a blanket purchase agreement (BPA 218), with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in June 2011, to furnish trained service dogs for disabled veterans. A year later, the contracting officer sent an email questioning GA's performance. On August 31, 2012, the officer sent notice terminating BPA 218 for default and suspending open orders, informing GA that it had the right to appeal under the disputes clause of the contract. On December 21, 2012, GA sent a letter to the VA’s Rehabilitation Research & Development Service, arguing that it had fulfilled its duties and that the default termination should be converted to a termination for the convenience of the government. On February 28, 2013, GA sent the contracting officer a “formal demand.” On March 21, the officer sent a letter stating that she had received the claim but needed supporting documentation. GA began compiling documentation, but on May 3, the officer sent another letter, stating that she would not reconsider her decision, but that GA could appeal under 41 U.S.C. 7104(b). On January 7, 2014, GA filed suit. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed, finding the claim time-barred because, while the February 2013 letter qualified as a request for reconsideration, the officer did not reconsider, so the statute of limitations never tolled. The Federal Circuit reversed. The 12-month statutory appeal period did not begin to run until the officer rejected the request for reconsideration on May 3. View "Guardian Angels Med. Serv. Dogs, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

USF&G filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1), seeking reimbursement from the government for legal expenses and settlement costs it allegedly incurred in its capacity as general liability insurer for Gibbs Construction, a government contractor. USF&G alleged that, in a contract for renovation work at the New Orleans main post office, the U.S. Postal Service agreed to indemnify Gibbs and its agents against any liability incurred as a result of asbestos removal work under the contract. USF&G alleged that the Postal Service failed to indemnify Gibbs in connection with a lawsuit filed against Gibbs by a former Postal Service police officer, in which the officer claimed that he contracted mesothelioma as a result of asbestos removal during performance of the contract, and that, as Gibbs’s general liability insurer, it was required to litigate and settle the officer’s claim. The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal. The Claims Court lacked jurisdiction under a theory of equitable subrogation. View "Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Tesco sued NOV for infringement of patents that involve an apparatus and method for handling sections of pipe used for lining a well-bore. NOV filed an answer, counterclaims, a request for attorney’s fees, and motions to compel requesting information about documents to show what occurred during the six months before the on-sale bar date. Ultimately, based on non-production of an original brochure, the court sanctioned Tesco by reversing the burden of proof on validity, setting the burden at a preponderance of evidence. The jury concluded that NOV infringed the relevant claims, found certain of those claims to be not invalid, and found that the brochure was not enabling. During post-trial discovery on the brochure. NOV filed “post-trial summary judgment motions of invalidity” (35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 103) based on what it asserts was disclosed in the brochure. The court granted NOV’s motion for obviousness, relying on an obvious-to-try analysis, set a trial date for the exceptional case counterclaim, and, later, issued an order sua sponte dismissing the case with prejudice under its inherent authority, finding that certain testimony was “contrary to the representations Tesco made to the Court during trial,” stating that the attorneys’ conduct was “entirely out of character ... serious and has had significant and costly ramifications.” The parties, including the attorneys, later entered into a settlement resolving all outstanding issues, and signed releases. The attorneys contend that, despite the settlement, the harm to their reputation from the court’s opinion justified continued jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit dismissed, finding no remaining case or controversy. View "Tesco Corp. v. Nat'l Oilwell Varco, L.P." on Justia Law

Achates sued QuickOffice, Apple, and others for infringing its patents.Apple sought inter partes review. The Patent and Trademark Office found certain claims invalid, rejecting Achates’s claim that, based on a blank indemnification agreement, Apple had a relationship with QuickOffice and that such relationship caused Apple’s petitions for IPR to be time-barred under 35 U.S.C. 315(b). The Board denied Achates’s motion for discovery of evidence to prove Apple’s specific relationships with the codefendants, finding no basis to believe that even if the blank indemnification agreement had been signed, it would show QuickOffice or any other codefendants to be real parties in interest or in privity with Apple as those terms are used in section 315(b). The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the decision to institute inter partes review were final and nonappealable under 35 U.S.C. 314(d). View "Achates Reference Publ'g, Inc. v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law

The state filed a complaint, alleging that letters mailed by MPHJ to Vermont businesses informing them that they may be infringing certain patents were deceptive and violated the Vermont Consumer Protection Act, 9 V.S.A. 2451. MPHJ is a non-practicing entity incorporated in Delaware that acts through shell corporations incorporated in many states. MPHJ removed the case twice to federal court, once under the original complaint and once under an amended complaint. The district court remanded the case to state court both times. The Federal Circuit affirmed. While 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(2), provides jurisdiction “in any civil action arising under, or in any civil action in which a party has asserted a compulsory counterclaim arising under, any Act of Congress relating to patents,” the patents at issue were transferred to MPHJ from the original patent owner; they were not directly “derived from a federal officer.” The complaint neither alleged violation of nor sought relief under the Vermont Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act so there is no risk that the state court action can affect the validity of federal law. View "Vermont v. MPHJ Tech. Inv., LLC" on Justia Law

In 2010, Keranos sued 49 parties for infringing three patents by using a specific type of flash memory technology developed by SST, called “SuperFlash,” that implements a split-gate flash memory design. Keranos, which was formed weeks earlier, obtained the rights to the asserted patents from UMC, through an “Exclusive Patent License and Royalty Agreement.” UMC continued to hold the legal title to the asserted patents, all of which expired in 2006-2008. Keranos did not join UMC as co-plaintiff. SST and certain defendants then sued Keranos, UMC, and others, seeking declaratory judgments of noninfringement and invalidity of the same patents. The cases were consolidated into two cases. Following a joint Markman hearing, the district court regrouped the defendants into two new cases: case 00017 pitting Keranos, UMC, and individuals against the manufacturers of the accused products, and case 00018, pitting Keranos against the alleged customers of the accused products who incorporated those products into larger products for sale. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that Keranos has standing to sue for infringement of the asserted patents, but vacated and remanded for consideration of Keranos’s motions for leave to amend infringement contentions based on the local patent rules. View "Keranos, LLC v. Silicon Storage Tech., Inc." on Justia Law

Nippon Steel filed suit, charging POSCO with patent infringement and unfair competition. The court entered a protective order prohibiting cross-use of confidential materials which “shall be used by the receiving Party solely for purposes of the prosecution or defense of this action.” POSCO later produced several million pages of documents containing confidential information. Nippon also sued POSCO (based in Korea) in Japan for alleged trade secret misappropriation. POSCO filed a declaratory judgment action in Korea. Discovery in U.S. federal courts is more generous than in Japan and Korea, so Nippon moved the court to modify its discovery protective order for the purposes of providing foreign counsel in the Japanese and Korean actions approximately 200 pages of proprietary documentation relating to POSCO’s manufacturing process. Based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the balancing framework for modifying discovery orders, a special master concluded that modification should be granted, subject to restrictions to keep the information confidential. Among the restrictions: “[b]efore the documents may be submitted to a foreign court, the court must identify the information and agree that it would be maintained as confidential and restricted from third party access.” The district court and Federal Circuit affirmed. View "In re: Posco" on Justia Law

Carter served in the Army, 1965-1967. In 1989, he sought disability benefits for an injury to his back. The VA denied his claim. He sought to reopen in 2005, filing new evidence that he had aggravated the injury during his service. In 2006, the VA reopened, but denied the claim. The Board of Appeals affirmed in 2009. While appeal was pending, Carter changed counsel. He filed Form 21-22a in March 2010, naming a private attorney in place of Disabled American Veterans. New counsel requested a copy of Carter’s claim file. In June 2010, new counsel and the government jointly requested partial vacatur of the 2009 decision; the Veterans Court remanded the case with instructions. The Board sent a letter to Carter and Disabled American Veterans, stating that additional evidence must be submitted within 90 days (November 4, 2010). Counsel did not receive the letter. On December 13, 2010, the VA sent new counsel Carter’s file, nearly nine months after her requested. She did not immediately read the file and did not see the letter. In February 2011, without hearing from Carter, the Board again denied his claim. Carter’s attorney received a copy of the decision in December 2011. The Veterans Court affirmed. The Federal Circuit vacated. The Veterans Court incorrectly understood the law governing this notice defect. View "Carter v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Versata successfully sued SAP for infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed a damages award, but vacated an injunction, and remanded. Meanwhile, SAP petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to institute covered business method (CBM) review --an administrative review procedure established in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), 125 Stat. 284 (2011), asserting that key claims were unpatentable and invalid. While the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was conducting CBM review, Versata sued to set aside the decision to institute review. The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction: “AIA’s express language, detailed structure and scheme for administrative and judicial review, legislative purpose, and nature of administrative action evince Congress’s clear intent to preclude subject matter jurisdiction over the PTAB’s decision to institute patent reexamination.” The court state that “the decision to institute post-grant review is merely an initial step in the PTAB’s process to resolve the ultimate question of patent validity, not a final agency action. . . . Plaintiff retains an alternative adequate remedy through appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.” The Federal Circuit affirmed; Versata’s attempt to obtain judicial review was addressed to the decision to institute stage, so the court was correct in barring judicial review, 35 U.S.C. 324(e). View "Versata Dev. Grp. v. Lee" on Justia Law