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

FG and Randall are competitors, selling products for refrigerated trucks. Both parties manufacture moveable, track-mounted bulkheads (partitions) for dividing cargo space. FG’s patent, issued in 2007, discloses partitioning apparatuses that include two half-width panels independently mounted on the ceiling of the shipping container by rail-and-trolley assemblies, so that panels can be strapped together to form a full-width partition, separately moved along the container’s length for separate positioning or raised and stowed against the ceiling. Randall requested inter partes reexamination of the patent, and the Patent and Trademark Office examiner rejected a number of FG’s claims as obvious over a combination of prior-art references. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences reversed, unable to discern any reason that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the cited references. The Federal Circuit vacated, stating that the Board failed to consider a wealth of well-documented knowledge that is highly material to evaluating the motivation to combine references to arrive at the claimed invention.View "Randall Mfg. v. Rea" on Justia Law

Geib, a World War II veteran, suffers from multiple disabilities connected to his combat service. He developed trenchfoot as a result of exposure to extreme cold weather conditions while stationed in Germany; an enemy artillery shell exploded close to Geib, causing hearing damage. The VA granted Geib disability benefits. He was assigned a 10% disability rating for trenchfoot when he was discharged in 1946. The VA increased the disability rating to 20% in 2003 to account for trenchfoot on his other foot. In 2005, Geib was assigned a 70% combined disability rating after he was diagnosed with service-connected bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. In 2007, Geib applied for total disability based on individual unemployability, stating that he had worked as a self-employed carpet consultant, 1984-1989, prior to becoming too disabled to work. The regional office denied the claim. On remand, following medical examinations, Geib’s combined disability rating increased to 90%. The Board determined that Geib was not entitled to total disability. The Veterans’ Court and Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Geib v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Synthes filed suit, alleging that SK’s M6-C and M6-L intervertebral implants infringed claims of a Synthes patent that is directed to an “Intervertebral Implant,” a prosthetic device designed to replace a diseased or degenerated disc located between adjacent vertebrae of the human spine. The Synthes patent originated from a German language Patent Cooperation Treaty application filed in 2003. The asserted claims were added by amendment in 2008. A jury found that SK’s implants did not infringe the asserted claims and that the claims were invalid for lack of written description. The Federal Circuit affirmed both the finding of invalidity and the district court’s denial of SK’s request for attorneys’ fees.View "Synthes USA LLV v. Spinal Kintetics, Inc." on Justia Law

At age four months, Elias received a Diptheria-Tetanus-acellular-Pertussis (DTaP) vaccine. Elias developed a seizure disorder shortly afterwards. While a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-1, was pending, Elias died as a result of his seizure disorder at the age of seven. A special master determined that the DTaP vaccine caused Elias’ epilepsy and resulting death. The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the estate agreed to a $250,000 death benefit plus $175,000 for actual pain and suffering and past unreimbursable expenses. The estate also sought future lost earnings under section 300aa-15(a)(3)(B). The special master determined that the estate was entitled to future lost earnings. Subject to the right to seek review, the Secretary proffered, and the estate accepted the sum of $659,955.61 as a measure of the lost earnings. The Claims Court affirmed the special master’s future lost earnings award. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that an estate cannot recover lost future earnings under section 300aa-15(a)(3)(B) when the person injured by a vaccine dies before entry of a compensation judgment. View "Tembenis v. Sec'y of Health & Humans Servs." on Justia Law

Sprinkle served in the U.S. Army, 1973-1974. While in the service, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and prescribed a high dose of Thorazine®. In 1990, Sprinkle was diagnosed with mitral valve prolapse and chorea, a movement disorder similar to benign familial myoclonus. He succeeded in establishing entitlement to disability compensation before the Social Security Administration, the VA Regional Office awarded. Sprinkle a non-service-connected pension on effective 1990. In 2001, he sought a service connection for mitral valve prolapse and myoclonus, claiming that he was incorrectly diagnosed with schizophrenia and that the high doses of Thorazine® worsened his mitral valve prolapse and caused his myoclonus.The Regional Office denied the application. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals agreed and the Veterans’ Court affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that Sprinkle was not denied fair process as it related to responding to a medical exam ordered by the Board.View "Sprinkle v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

In 2001, Wagner, who served in the Navy for 23 years, sought disability compensation for a thyroid disorder that he claimed was contracted or aggravated in the line of duty. He finally prevailed in 2009, then timely filed an application for $11,710.57 in fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412.In October, 2009, the Veterans Court awarded $8,601.80, which gave the government all the reductions it sought except for 3.2 hours of work. Wagner filed his first supplemental application 12 days later, seeking $2,458.90 in fees for defending the original application against the government’s reasonableness challenges. The Veterans Court vacillated, then denied entry of judgment on the October 2009 fee award on the original fee application, and denied the first supplemental application. The Federal Circuit reversed in April 2011. On remand the Veterans Court granted Wagner’s first supplemental application for $2,458.90. The Federal Circuit vacated the denial of Wagner’s motion for the entry of a judgment and mandate regarding the 2009 and 2011 fee awards and affirmed the judgment regarding Wagner’s second supplemental application. View "Wagner v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

The Ibormeith patent, entitled “Sleepiness Detection for Vehicle Driver or Machine Operator,” concerns the monitoring a vehicle driver’s sleepiness and issuing a warning to the driver. The monitor disclosed in the patent may take into account factors including natural body-clock (circadian) rhythm, the magnitude and number of corrective steering actions the driver takes, cabin temperature, monotony of the road, and how long the driver has been driving. Some factors involve actions or conditions at the moment, like steering and light conditions, which are measured by sensors in the vehicle. Others involve general or driver-specific background information, such as circadian rhythm or a driver’s recent sleep patterns and alcohol consumption, which must be input by other means (the programmer or driver). The factors are weighted, according to contributory importance, and combined in a computational decision algorithm or model, to provide a warning indication of sleepiness. The claims at issue contain a “computational means” element that is subject to 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Ibormeith sued Mercedes for infringement. Mercedes argued that the means-plus-function “computational means” limitations in two independent claims were indefinite. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Mercedes. The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting that the specification does not contain an algorithm that adequately provides structure for the claimed functions. View "Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA" on Justia Law

The patent examiner rejected claims in an application directed to a bone screw with a shank that is easy to produce and eliminates the need for an additional element to avoid splaying. The Patent Trial and Appeals Board affirmed. The Federal Circuit vacated on the basis that the examiner and the Board stated different grounds for rejection. View "In re Biedermann" on Justia Law

The district court entered summary judgment that Sturm, a manufacturer of cartridges for brewing single servings of coffee, did not infringe Keurig’s patents covering single-serving coffee makers and cartridges for the machines. The court concluded that exhaustion of Keurig’s patent rights was triggered by its sale of a patented item that completely practiced the claimed invention and that its claims were not saved by the fact that a consumer could use non-Keurig cartridges in a Keurig brewer in a noninfringing way. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Keurig, Inc. v. Sturm Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1998, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals rejected a claim by Tyrues, a Persion Gulf veteran, for benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1110, because his lung condition lacked the required service connection, but remanded to the VA Regional Office for further consideration of whether his chronic symptoms manifested Persian Gulf Syndrome, which might have entitled him to benefits under standards later enacted as 38 U.S.C. 1117. In 2004, on remand, the Board decided that Tyrues was not entitled to benefits under section 1117. Tyrues asked the Veterans Court to review both the 2004 denial under section 1117 and the 1998 denial under section 1110. The Veterans Court dismissed with respect to the 1998 decision, ruling that Tyrues missed the 120-day deadline, 38 U.S.C. 7266(a), and presented no basis for equitable tolling. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Tyrues v. Shinseki" on Justia Law