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

Monsanto developed a genetic modification in soybean seeds (Roundup Ready® (RR)), known as the 40-3-2 event (RR trait), which enables soybean plants to tolerate application of glyphosate herbicide to kill weeds. Monsanto owns the patent for the RR trait and granted Pioneer a license to produce and sell seeds containing the traits. After Pioneer became a subsidiary of DuPont, Monsanto and Pioneer entered into an amended license, under which DuPont produced and sold RR trait seed. In 2006, DuPont announced that it had developed a glyphosate-tolerant trait, OGAT, expected to confer tolerance to both glyphosate and acetolactate synthase inhibitor herbicide. Testing indicated that OGAT alone did not provide sufficient glyphosate-tolerance for commercial use. DuPont then combined OGAT with the RR trait; the OGAT/RR stack provided increased yields in field trials. DuPont did not sell any OGAT/RR product, however, and discontinued development. Monsanto sued DuPont for breach of the license and patent infringement. The district court granted partial judgment to Monsanto, holding that the license was unambiguous and did not grant the right to stack non-RR technologies with the licensed” trait, but allowed DuPont to amend its answer to assert reformation counterclaims and defenses. The court ultimately told DuPont to “either voluntarily dismiss these reformation claims or produce … all documents … previously withheld.” DuPont continued litigating its reformation counterclaims and produced previously withheld internal e-mails that showed its awareness that it did not have the right to commercialize the OGAT/RR stack. The court found that DuPont’s position was not rooted in fact, that DuPont made misrepresentations and had perpetrated a fraud on the court, struck DuPont’s reformation defense and counterclaims, and awarded limited attorney fees to Monsanto. The Federal Circuit affirmed.View "Monsanto Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co." on Justia Law

Jang assigned his patent rights to the companies in exchange for an upfront payment and a promise under defined circumstances to pay additional compensation if the companies sold stents covered by Jang’s patents. In 2005, Jang sued for breach of contract. In the first two appeals, the Federal Circuit addressed claim construction disputes relevant to whether the accused stents were covered by Jang’s patents. In the meantime, the companies sought ex parte reexamination with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, asserting invalidity. An examiner rejected the claims, which were canceled in issued reexamination certificates. In 2014, the district court denied the companies’ motion for summary judgment, finding that a patentee is not precluded from recovering royalties until the date the assignee first challenges the validity of the patent, so Jang could seek royalties prior to the challenge. The district court certified an interlocutory appeal. The Federal Circuit declined to transfer the petition to the Ninth Circuit despite the underlying contract claim and denied the petition for interlocutory review, stating that it is not clear that the identified legal issues will in fact be controlling, and each question depends on the resolution of factual issues not yet addressed by the district court. View "Jang v. Boston Scientific Corp." on Justia Law

In 1983, Central entered into a contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for an appropriation of water from the New Melones Reservoir in California’s San Joaquin Valley. Upon enactment of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) in 1992, Reclamation made statements indicating that it would not be able to meet the quantity commitments in its contracts because of other demands for the water. In 1993, Central sued for breach of contract. After holding that breaches had occurred in certain years, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded for determination of damages. The district court, on remand, awarded Central $149,950.00 in cost of cover damages, but denied any expectancy damages. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. The trial court erred by not properly considering the effect of Reclamation’s announced breaches on the amount of water that Central may have expected to need to meet demand. This caused the trial court to discount Central’s arguments regarding what would have happened in the non-breach world. View "Stockton E. Water Dist. v. United States" on Justia Law

Veridyne’s first contract to provide logistics services to the Maritime Administration (MARAD), was awarded pursuant to the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 8(a) program for small, disadvantage businesses, 15 U.S.C. 637(a). To obtain extension of the contract without it being submitted to bidding, Veridyne estimated that the new contract would not exceed “$3,000,000 in the aggregate.” Veridyne and MARAD officials knew that the services to be provided under the extension would cost far more than $3,000,000. MARAD proposed that SBA approve the new contract without opening it to competition. MARAD, Veridyne, and the SBA executed the new contract. From 2001 to 2004, MARAD issued additional work orders to Veridyne and paid Veridyne $31,134,931.12. In part due to MARAD’s cost overruns, the Office of Inspector General investigated and concluded that Veridyne had obtained the extension through fraud. After a stop order issued, Veridyne continued to work for MARAD and submitted additional invoices. Veridyne sued to recover $2,267,163. The government entered a defense under the Fraudulent Claims statute, 28 U.S.C. 2514, and counterclaimed for penalties under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729, and the Contracts Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 7103. The Claims Court held that Veridyne’s contract claim was forfeited under the Fraudulent Claims Act, but awarded Veridyne partial recovery under a quantum meruit theory, while awarding penalties to the government under the False Claims Act and the Contract Disputes Act. The Federal Circuit reversed the quantum meruit award, but affirmed the award of penalties.View "Veridyne Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

Following the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, each of the Oil Companies entered into contracts with the government to provide high-octane aviation gas (avgas) to fuel military aircraft. The production of avgas resulted in waste products such as spent alkylation acid and “acid sludge.” The Oil Companies contracted to have McColl, a former Shell engineer, dump the waste at property in Fullerton, California. More than 50 years later, California and the federal government obtained compensation from the Oil Companies under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601, for the cost of cleaning up the McColl site. The Oil Companies sued, arguing the avgas contracts require the government to indemnify them for the CERCLA costs. The Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of the government. The Federal Circuit reversed with respect to breach of contract liability and remanded. As a concession to the Oil Companies, the avgas contracts required the government to reimburse the Oil Companies for their “charges.” The court particularly noted the immense regulatory power the government had over natural resources during the war and the low profit margin on the avgas contracts. View "Shell Oil Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2006, the U.S. Army Contracting Agency solicited bids for repair, maintenance, and construction services at Fort Rucker, Alabama, with indefinite delivery and quantity terms. The mechanism for pricing such jobs involves identification of costs and multiplication by certain “coefficients” set in the contract. It was well known that construction costs in the region had increased after Hurricane Katrina, 15 months before the government solicited bids. The Army awarded the contract to Lakeshore in 2007. In 2008, Lakeshore began 78 construction projects at Fort Rucker. When the Army exercised its option to extend the contract, it increased payments based on the contract’s price-adjustment clause. Lakeshore began 74 more delivery orders. After two years under the contract, Lakeshore concluded that it had incurred higher costs than were covered by payments under the contract and requested an equitable adjustment. The government denied the request. Acting under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 7101, the contracting officer denied a claim for recovery of $1,996,152.40. The Claims Court rejected claims of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied warranty, and mistake on summary judgment, stating that the government was not obliged to provide accurate local prices or to bear “economic consequences if one or more prices in the guide proved inaccurate.” The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Lakeshore Eng'g Servs., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Endo sells Opana® ER extended-release tablets containing a painkiller, oxymorphone. In earlier litigation, Endo sued Roxane and Actavis for patent infringement, 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A), based on their Abbreviated New Drug Applications to market generic versions of Opana® ER. The lawsuits settled; Endo granted defendants a license and a covenant not to sue. After making the agreements the 122 and 216 patents issued to Endo. They are continuations of the same parent application and directed to extended-release oxymorphone compositions and methods of treating pain using those compositions. Endo also acquired the unrelated 482 patent, concerning purified oxymorphone compositions and methods of making those compositions. The asserted patents are listed in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book) entry for Opana® ER. Endo again sued for infringement and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent marketing or sales of generic oxymorphone formulations. The district court held that Endo was estopped from claiming that the activity of defendants, “which has gone on for a substantial period of time, is now suddenly barred because of these new patents.” The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that the defendants did not have an express or implied license to practice the patents at issue.View "Endo Pharm. Inc. v. Actavis, Inc." on Justia Law

Hauge and his former employer, ERI, disputed ownership of intellectual property rights related to “pressure exchangers,” a type of energy recovery device used in reverse osmosis. In 2001 they entered into an Agreement. The district court adopted the Agreement, holding that ERI was to be the sole owner of three U.S. patents and one pending patent application. After expiration of the Agreement’s non-compete clause, in 2004, Hauge filed a patent application, titled “Pressure Exchanger,” and a utility application. The patent issued in 2007, describing “[a] pressure exchanger for transferring pressure energy from a high-pressure fluid stream to low-pressure fluid stream.” In 2009, Hauge’s new company, Isobarix, unsuccessfully attempted to reach a new agreement with ERI. Isobarix began selling a pressure exchanger, called “XPR.” Hauge entered into a consulting agreement with two ERI employees. ERI sought an Order to Show Cause, in 2012, submitting an expert’s declaration that Isobarix was using pressure exchanger technology from pre-March 19, 2001 in design and manufacture of XPR, which is “virtually identical to the ERI pressure exchanger” in operation. The court entered a Contempt Order, finding that allowing Hauge to develop new products using technology he assigned to ERI solely because the new inventions post-date the Agreement would render the Agreement useless. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that Hauge did not violate the “four corners” of the 2001 Order. View "Energy Recovery, Inc. v. Hauge" on Justia Law

The companies obtained an oil and gas lease from the government for a 5760-acre tract on the Outer Continental Shelf. They made an initial bonus payment of $23,236,314 and have paid additional rental payments of $54,720 per year. The lease became effective on August 1, 2008, and had an initial term running through July 31, 2016. It provided that it issued pursuant to and was subject to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of August 7, 1953, (OCSLA) 43 U.S.C. 1331 and “all regulations issued pursuant to the statute in the future which provide for the prevention of waste and conservation of the natural resources of the Outer Continental Shelf and the protection of correlative rights therein; and all other applicable statutes and regulations.” In 2010, an explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon semi-submersible oil drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 workers and caused an oil spill that lasted several months. As a result, the government imposed new regulatory requirements, Oil Pollution Act (OPA), 33 U.S.C. 2701. The companies sued for breach of contract. The Claims Court and Federal Circuit ruled in favor of the government, finding that the government made the changes pursuant to OCSLA, not OPA. View "Century Exploration New Orleans, LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2002 oil companies filed breach of contract actions against the government, concerning sales of offshore oil and glass leases in the 1980s. The Claims Court held that the government had breached its contracts by preventing the companies from drilling for oil in the offshore areas covered by the leases. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment and restitution awards of approximately $1 billion. Nycal, which held a 4.25 percent interest in two of the leases, waived its right to restitution and pursued a claim for lost profits. The Claims Court held that it was permissible for Nycal to seek lost-profits damages even though the other owners of the leases in which Nycal held a partial share had accepted restitution, but concluded that Nycal had not proved its case for lost profits. The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting the government’s evidence that Nycal could not have made a profit on its share of the leases.View "NYCAL Offshore Dev. Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law