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

Plaintiff owns registration for the mark G THE GOODYMAN. An examining attorney rejected defendant's application to register GOODY MAN for bakery goods, on the ground of likelihood of confusion with G THE GOODYMAN; the rejection is on appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Defendant filed a petition for cancellation of registration for G THE GOODYMAN, citing grounds of fraud and abandonment. Based on failure to comply with discovery orders, the Board entered default judgment against plaintiff and cancelled his registration of G THE GOODYMAN. On remand from the Federal Circuit, the Board held that the suspension of proceedings as required by Rule 2.127(d) was not automatic with plaintiff's filing of a motion for summary judgment, reinstated its default judgment, and cancelled plaintiff's trademark registration. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that default was reasonable, in light of plaintiff's repeated failures to comply, regardless of the court's reading of the Rule. View "Bendict v. Super Bakery, Inc." on Justia Law

The 564 patent, entitled Mobile Screen Assembly for Rubble and Debris, is directed to a vehicle for screening rocks and plant matter (among other things) based on size from, for example, soil or dirt at a construction site. In reexamination proceedings, the PTO rejected some claims as obvious (35 U.S.C. 103). The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences generally affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Every limitation of each claim on appeal is found in one or another of the available references. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to combine the available references in such a way as to practice the alleged invention of each claim and such a person would have had a reason to make such combinations, for the reasons set forth by the Board and by the Examiner. View "In re Constr Equip. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff designed a radial arm saw guard and sold eight prototype units for use by defendant, a major retailer, at stations for cutting lumber. Defendant contracted with another to make copies of the guard for all of its stores at a lower price. The district court concluded that plaintiff had not committed inequitable conduct and declined to hold plaintiff's patent unenforceable. The court made findings of willful infringement and bad faith litigation and awarded enhanced damages and attorney fees. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding the willful infringement and damages determinations are supported by substantial evidence. The trial court properly construed the claim terms "dust collection structure" and "table top." View "Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc." on Justia Law

The patents at issue are titled "Portable Computer with Touch Screen and Computer System Employing Same." The district court held that the patents were invalid and not infringed by defendants, manufacturers or sellers of laptop and tablet computers and handheld devices. The Federal Circuit affirmed rulings concerning the claim terms "memory for storing," "processor for executing," "operating in conjunction," and "keyboardless," supporting the judgment of noninfringement. The court reversed the judgment of invalidity on the ground of claim indefiniteness, which was based on the use of the term “means for cross referencing;” that term is in the statutory form authorized by 35 U.S.C. 112, whose purpose is to allow claiming of an element of an apparatus or a step of a method in terms of the function performed by that element or step. View "Typhoon Touch Tech., Inc. v. Dell, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit, asserting infringement of patents. Defendant argued invalidity on the ground that its employee was the earlier inventor. The jury answered "No" to: Has defendant proven by clear and convincing evidence that its employee was the first to invent and did not abandon, suppress or conceal that invention? The court declined to stay the suit pending completion of the Patent and Trademark Office interference. The PTO awarded priority to defendant's employee, but, in a subsequent civil action for interference under 35 U.S.C. 146, the district court awarded priority to plaintiffs. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Section 146 establishes de novo review; the court is not required to accept the PTO findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. The judicial process is the final arbiter of the rights and issues administratively assigned to the PTO. View "Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

In the first appeal in a case regarding clopidogrel bisulfate tablets, sold by plaintiff under the brand name Plavix®, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction concerning defendants' generic product. In the second appeal, the court affirmed a judgment that the patent-in-suit is not invalid, was infringed, and not unenforceable. The district court then awarded prejudgment interest and denied defendants' motion for leave to file a supplemental answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims pleading patent misuse and breach of contract. The Federal Circuit reversed in part. The district court erred by awarding prejudgment interest in addition to actual damages specified in a settlement agreement. The court affirmed the district court’s holding that defendant is jointly and severally liable for all damages and denial of defendant's motion.

Plaintiff develops and sells windshield wiper blades and owns patents covering beam blade technology, a new technology for distributing pressure more evenly over the length of the blade. Defendant is a competitor. The district court found certain of plaintiff's patents valid and infringed, but denied plaintiff an injunction. The Federal Circuit reversed. Although a finding of infringement does not automatically justify an injunction, the application of the four-factor test indicated that plaintiff was entitled to an injunction. The court examined: plaintiff's irreparable injury; whether remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, would be inadequate to compensate for that injury; the balance of hardships; and the public interest.

Defendant, a domestic manufacturer of cast steel railway wheels, owns two secret processes for manufacturing such wheel. It uses one process at three of its domestic foundries and has licensed the other to firms with foundries in China. Unsuccessful in obtaining a license for plaintiff's process, defendant hired employees that had been trained in plaintiffs' processes and began manufacturing wheels in China for sale in the U.S. The International Trade Commission found violation of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, finding that found that the wheels were manufactured using a process developed in the U.S., protected under domestic trade secret law, and misappropriated abroad. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the wheel imports threaten to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the U.S., in violation of section 337, which covers "[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles . . . into the United States." The Commission has authority to investigate and grant relief based in part on extraterritorial conduct insofar as it is necessary to protect domestic industries from injuries arising out of unfair competition in the domestic marketplace.

The companies sell competing software products that track lost or stolen electronic devices, using a global network. Each side asserted claims of patent infringement.The district court entered summary judgment of non-infringement for each. The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor or plaintiff, but concluded that issues of fact precluded granting summary judgment of non-infringement to defendant. The court did not alter any of the district court's claim constructions of "communication links used to enable transmission between said electronic device and said host system;" "semi-random rate;" "unique usage information agreement;" and "terms of said usage agreement imbedded in said software."

The patents describe a networked system of gaming machines. The district court entered summary judgment, finding that that defendant's use of promotions to provide incentives for use of certain gaming machines infringed certain claims. The district court correctly construed claims referring to "issuing a command over the network to one of said preselected gaming devices responsive to a predetermined event; and paying at said one gaming device in accordance with the command."