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

The Tariff Act of 1930 gives the International Trade Commission authority to remedy only those unfair acts that involve the importation of “articles” as described in 19 U.S.C. 1337(a). The Commission instituted an investigation based on a complaint filed by Align, concerning violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337 by reason of infringement of various claims of seven different patents concerning orthodontic devices. The accused “articles” were the transmission of the “digital models, digital data and treatment plans, expressed as digital data sets, which are virtual three-dimensional models of the desired positions of the patients’ teeth at various stages of orthodontic treatment” from Pakistan to the United States. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the Commission lacked jurisdiction. The Commission’s decision to expand the scope of its jurisdiction to include electronic transmissions of digital data runs counter to the “unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” View "ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" 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

Halo is a supplier of electronic components and owns three patents directed to surface mount electronic packages containing transformers for mounting on a printed circuit board inside electronic devices such as computers and internet routers. Halo alleged that Pulse infringed its patents. The district court entered summary judgment that Pulse did not sell or offer to sell certain accused products within the U.S. and, therefore, did not directly infringe, and that that Pulse’s infringement with respect to accused products that Pulse sold and delivered outside the U.S. was not willful. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Pulse did not sell or offer to sell within the U.S. those accused products that Pulse manufactured, shipped, and delivered outside the U.S., so there was no direct infringement by those products. The court upheld the constructions of the claim limitations “electronic surface mount package” and “contour element,” found the patents not invalid for obviousness, and affirmed the judgment of direct infringement with respect to products that Pulse delivered in the U.S. and the judgment of inducement with respect to products that Pulse delivered outside the U.S. but were ultimately imported by others. View "Halo Elec., Inc. v. Pulse Elec., Inc." on Justia Law

The Bra Top, which is imported by Victoria’s Secret, and the Bodyshaper, imported by Lerner. Both are sleeveless garments, made of knit fabric, worn as tops. Both are designed for body coverage and bust support, without the need for a garment on top or a separate brassiere underneath. The Court of International Trade classified them under heading 6114 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which covers “other garments, knitted or crocheted.” The importers contend that the garments should have been classified under heading 6212, which covers “brassieres, girdles, corsets, braces, suspenders, garters and similar articles and parts thereof.” The Federal Circuit affirmed the classification under heading 6212. The Bra Top and Bodyshaper are not “similar articles” under heading 6212 because they do not possess the unifying characteristics of the listed items in that heading. View "Victoria's Secret Direct, LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

Nooren owns patent 044, entitled “Use of a Preparation for Insulation/Sealing and Coating Purposes and Method for Sealing Manhole Covers,” which discloses a composition for insulating and protecting substrates, such as manhole covers, underground tanks, pipes, and cable sleeves, from corrosion, water ingress, and mechanical stresses. The patent is licensed exclusively to Stopaq, a Dutch company that designs and manufactures coatings and sealants that exhibit both viscous and elastic properties (visco-elasticity) and are designed for corrosion protection and waterproofing. Kleiss, a Dutch company, manufactures similar products that prevent corrosion and protect against leaks, which are distributed in the U.S. by Amcorr. Kleiss and Amcorr sought a declaratory judgment in the Netherlands that their products did not infringe the 044 patent. Nooren filed suit in the U.S., alleging infringement. The parties agreed to focus on the phrase “a filler comprising a plurality of fractions each comprising different size particles, and wherein said different fractions have different particle size distributions” in the only independent claim in the patent. The court granted summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Amcorr. The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that the district court erred in at least on claim construction. View "Frans Nooren Afdichtingssystem v. Stopaq Amcorr Inc." on Justia Law

Solvay’s 817 patent claims an improvement to a method of making a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC-245fa), which does not deplete the ozone layer as legislatively mandated to replace ozone-depleting alternatives. HFC-245fa is especially useful in preparing polymeric materials used for insulation in refrigeration and heat systems. The patent has a 1995 priority date. In 1994, Honeywell and RSCAC entered into a contract, under which RSCAC engineers, in Russia, studied commercial production of HFC-245fa. RSCAC sent Honeywell a report documenting a continuous process capable of producing high yields of HFC-245fa. Honeywell used the report to run the same process in the U.S., before the 817 patent’s priority date. Solvay sued Honeywell, alleging infringement. Honeywell argued that the Russian inventors made the invention in this country by sending instructions to Honeywell personnel who reduced the invention to practice in the U.S. The district court held that the RSCAC engineers should be treated as inventors who made the invention in the U.S. under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(2), that RSCAC disclosed claim1 in a 1994 Russian patent application such that they did not abandon, suppress, or conceal it. The Federal Circuit affirmed judgment for Honeywell. It is not required that the inventor be the one to reduce the invention to practice if reduction to practice was done on his behalf in the U.S., so Honeywell’s invention qualified as prior art.View "Solvay, S.A. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

EnOcean owns a patent application that claims a self-powered switch, which can be used to turn on and off lights, appliances, and other devices without a battery or connection to an electrical outlet. The named inventors originally filed a patent application disclosing the switch in Germany in 2000; in 2001 they filed a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) international application with a similar disclosure. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences declared an interference in 2010 between EnOcean and Face, the real party of interest in a U.S. Patent that also claims a self-powered switch. The Board found the Face claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on prior art. Face did not appeal. The Board then applied a presumption that EnOcean’s claims were unpatentable for the same reasons. EnOcean’s argument for rebutting the presumption required determination that EnOcean’s claims could benefit from the filing dates of its German and PCT applications, eliminating a reference from prior art. The Board accorded no benefit of priority to the claims and found all of EnOcean’s claims unpatentable under section 103. The Federal Circuit vacated in part, finding that the Board erred in treating certain EnOcean claims as means-plus-function claims and in finding that certain EnOcean claim limitations lack support in its priority German and PCT applications.View "EnOcean GmbH v. Face Int'l Corp." on Justia Law

In 1985, Behringwerke filed a U.S. patent application directed to the use of DNA sequences (enhancers) identified in human cytomegalovirus. An enhancer, when introduced into a cell that produces a drug, can enable the cell to produce the drug at a much higher rate. In 1992, Behringwerke and Genentech entered into a licensing agreement related to enhancers that matured into the patents-in-suit; for fixed annual payments, Genentech could practice the patents for research purposes. Genentech was to pay a royalty on sales of commercially marketable goods incorporating a “Licensed Product.” The Agreement, governed by German law, required that disputes be settled by arbitration. Behringwerke sold its pharmaceutical business to Sanofi, but the Agreement and patent rights stayed with Hoechst; both are German entities. In 2008, Sanofi sued Genentech for infringement based on sales of the allegedly infringing drugs Rituxan and Avastin, which Genentech had not identified as licensed products. Hoechst demanded arbitration before a European arbitrator. The district court found no infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Arbitration continued. On remand, Genentech sought to enjoin Sanofi from continuing the foreign arbitration. The district court denied the motion, finding that Hoechst is a party to the arbitration, but not a party to the litigation and that an injunction would frustrate policies favoring enforcement of forum selection clauses, and would not be in the interest of international comity. The arbitrator determined that German substantive law, not U.S. patent law, would be used, that a drug could be a licensed article even though it did not contain the patented enhancers, if those enhancers were used in its manufacture, and that Genentech was liable for damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed that Genentech was not entitled to an injunction. View "Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, GMBH v. Genentech, Inc." on Justia Law

In its tax return for the year 1997, ConEd claimed multiple deductions pertaining to a lease-in/lease-out (LILO) tax shelter transaction under which a Dutch utility, EZH, a tax-indifferent entity because it is not subject to U.S. taxation, conveyed to ConEd a gas-fired cogeneration plant that delivers power to customers in the Netherlands, then leased it back, followed by a reconveyance to EZH and a sublease. The stated purpose of the arrangement was tax avoidance. LILO transactions accelerate losses to the taxpayer and defer gains. The transaction provided several upfront deductions that allowed ConEd to pay lower taxes in 1997 (and in later years) than it otherwise would have. The IRS disallowed these claimed deductions and assessed a deficiency of $328,066. ConEd paid the deficiency and filed a refund claim; when this claim was denied, ConEd filed suit. The Claims Court awarded ConEd a full refund. The Federal Circuit reversed, applying the substance-over-form doctrine to conclude that ConEd’s claimed deductions must be disallowed. There was a reasonable likelihood that EZH would exercise its purchase option at the conclusion of the ConEd sublease, thus rendering the master lease illusory. View "Consol. Edison Co. of NY v. United States" on Justia Law

The Tariff Act of 1930 provides for two types of duties on imports that injure domestic industries: antidumping duties on goods sold in the U.S. at less than fair value, 19 U.S.C. 1673, and countervailing duties to offset subsidies on goods from a foreign government (1671(a)). In the case of goods exported from market economy countries (non-NME countries), both antidumping and countervailing duties may be imposed. The U.S. Court of International Trade ordered the Department of Commerce not to impose countervailing duties on goods from China, a NME country. The Trade Court held that Commerce's 2007 interpretation of countervailing duty law as permitting the imposition of such duties was unreasonable because of the high likelihood of double counting when both countervailing duties and antidumping duties are assessed against goods from NME countries. The Federal Circuit affirmed on different grounds. In amending and reenacting countervailing duty law in 1988 and 1994, Congress legislatively ratified earlier consistent administrative and judicial interpretations that government payments cannot be characterized as subsidies in a NME context, therefore countervailing duty law does not apply to NME countries.View "GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law