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

Before the invasion of Iraq, KBR entered into contracts with the U.S. Army for the provision of dining facility (DFAC) services in Iraq. The contract at issue was for DFAC services at Camp Anaconda, one of the largest U.S. bases in Iraq. KBR subcontracted with Tamimi to provide services in Anaconda. As troop levels increased, the Defense Contract Auditing Agency (DCAA) engaged in audits of DFAC subcontracts. With respect to Anaconda, the DCAA concluded that KBR had charged $41.1 million in unreasonable costs for services provided from July 2004 to December 2004 and declined to pay KBR that amount. KBR sued and the government brought counterclaims, including a claim under the Anti-Kickback Act. The Court of Federal Claims held that KBR was entitled to $11,460,940.31 in reasonable costs and dismissed the majority of the government’s counterclaims, but awarded $38,000.00 on the AKA claim. The Federal Circuit affirmed the determination of cost reasonableness and dismissal of the government’s Fraud and False Claims Act claims and common-law fraud claim. The court remanded in part, holding that the Claims Court improperly calculated KBR’s base fee and erred in determining that the actions of KBR’s employees should not be imputed to KBR for purposes of the AKA. . View "Kellogg Brown & Root Servs, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Accenture alleged infringement of its patent, which describes a “computer program ... for handling insurance-related tasks” and discloses software components of the program, including a “data component that stores, retrieves and manipulates data” and a client component that “transmits and receives data to/from the data component.” The client component includes a business component that “serves as a data cache and includes logic for manipulating the data.” The program also describes a controller component to handle program events and an adapter component to interface with a data repository. The district court found all of the claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101. Accenture appealed only with respect to claims 1–7, directed to a system for generating tasks to be performed in an insurance organization, but did not appeal the similar method claims 8–22. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the system claims at issue recite patent-ineligible subject matter both because Accenture was unable to point to any substantial limitations that separate them from the similar, patent-ineligible method claim and because the system claim does not, on its own, provide substantial limitations to the claim’s patent-ineligible abstract idea. View "Accenture Global Servs. GMBH v. Guidewire Software, Inc." on Justia Law

Bayer’s patent concerns genetically modifying plants to confer resistance to a common herbicide (2,4-D) by inserting a particular DNA segment into plant cells, which reproduce to create new cells that contain that gene. Those cells produce an enzyme that catalyzes a biochemical reaction with 2,4-D in which the herbicide is broken down into something harmless to the plant. A plant with the gene survives 2,4-D application while surrounding weeds do not. At the time of the patent application, the inventors had sequenced one gene coding for one enzyme, using a test supposedly capable of finding other, similar genes. In writing the application, they claimed a broad category based on the function of the particular enzyme, defining the category by using a term with established scientific meaning. Years before the patent issued, experiments showed that the term did not apply to the particular enzyme whose gene was sequenced, but Bayer did not change its claim language. When Bayer sued Dow for infringement, Bayer recognized that the term’s established scientific meaning, did not cover the accused product, which was, itself, different from the enzyme whose gene Bayer’s inventors had sequenced. Bayer argued for broad functional claim construction. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement, citing particularly the great breadth of the asserted functional construction. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow AgroSciences, LLC" on Justia Law

TT’s 411, 768, 374, and 055 parents relate to software used for electronic trading on a commodities exchange, were issued in 2010-2011, and claim priority to applications filed in 2000. In consolidated infringement proceedings, the district court found the patents invalid for failure to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112 and that prosecution history estoppel barred TT from asserting the 055 patent against software products that include certain display functions. The holdings were premised on a 2010 Federal Circuit decision involving two related patents from TT’s portfolio. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the earlier decision does not control the issues presented in this litigation. View "Trading Techs. Int'l v. Open E Cry, LLC" on Justia Law

Aevoe’s patent is directed to a touch screen protector for electronic devices, consisting of plastic film and a spacer that can be attached and removed without trapping air bubbles or dust. The spacer, sized to fit a particular device and having an adhesive for attachment and removal, surrounds the thin plastic film and is thick enough that the film does not make direct contact with the screen, but thin enough that a user can make contact with the touch screen by pressing the film. Aevoe sued, alleging that AE’s touch screen products infringed the patent. Despite receiving notice of restraining and show cause orders, AE did not respond. The district court issued a preliminary injunction. AE moved to reconsider and vacate, arguing that the patent was invalid. The court amended the injunction to omit “trademark language.” AE did not appeal. Aevoe subsequently filed an amended complaint, claiming that S&F sold infringing products obtained from AE and requested that both AE and S&F be held in contempt. After examining a redesigned AE product, the court found that added channels were a nonfunctional and trivial attempt to design around the patent and held all defendants in contempt. The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal as untimely; amendment of the injunction was a mere clarification and did not substantially change the legal relationship between the parties. View "AEVOE Corp. v. AE Tech Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Kit Carson was born in May 1996, and received numerous vaccinations during his first year of life. At his 18-month and 24-month check-ups, Kit’s pediatricians noted that his speech was delayed. Following his three-year check-up, Kit was referred for evaluation and diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder in 2001. His parents sought compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa, in 2002. A Special Master concluded that the first symptoms of Kit’s disorder were recorded in May 1999 and that the claim was not filed within the 36-month limitations period. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that speech delay cannot be a “first symptom” because it is an insufficient basis for a diagnosis of autism. View "Carson v. Sec'y, Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

SkinMedica owns the 494 and 746 patents, which relate to methods for producing pharmaceutical compositions containing “novel conditioned cell culture medium compositions ... [and] uses for the[m].” Skinmedica filed a patent infringement suit against Histogen for producing dermatological products according to methods covered by the claims of those patents. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement after construing the phrase “culturing ... cells in three-dimensions” as “growing ... cells in three dimensions (excluding growing in monolayers or on microcarrier beads).” The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "SkinMedica Inc v. Histogen Inc" on Justia Law

Apple sued Samsung, asserting that Samsung’s smartphones and tablets infringed several of Apple’s patents and infringed Apple’s trade dress embodied in its iPhone and iPad products. Samsung counterclaimed that the iPhone and iPad infringed several of Samsung’s patents. A jury returned a verdict awarding Apple more than $1 billion in damages. The trial drew an extraordinary amount of attention and the press was given extraordinary access to the judicial proceedings. The district court agreed to seal only a small number of trial exhibits. After each trial day, the parties, by court order, provided the press with electronic copies of every exhibit used that day. Most exhibits attached to pre-trial and post-trial motions were ordered unsealed. The parties appealed denial of requests to seal confidential exhibits. The Federal Circuit reversed, stating that the public’s interest in judicial proceedings does not extend to mere curiosity about the parties’ confidential information where the information is not central to a decision on the merits. View "Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

In 2003, pursuant to a petition by U.S. furniture manufacturers and labor unions, the Department of Commerce initiated an antidumping investigation of Chinese wooden bedroom furniture manufacturers. The International Trade Commission (ITC) investigated whether the domestic industry had been materially injured and distributed questionnaires to all known domestic wooden bedroom furniture producers. Producers are required by law to respond. One question asked, “Do you support or oppose the petition?” and gave the choices: “Support,” “Oppose,” or “Take no position.” Ashley answered “Oppose;” Ethan Allen answered “Take no position.” The ITC issued an antidumping duty order. Commerce directed U.S. Customs to collect duties on entries of Chinese wooden bedroom furniture. The ITC prepared a list of Affected Domestic Producers eligible to receive a share of the duties, 19 U.S.C. 1675c(a), (d)(1) (Byrd Amendment). The ITC did not include Ashley and Ethan Allen, who sued. The Byrd Amendment has been repealed;t they sought their share from prior years. The Court of International Trade dismissed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that “this framework may create incentives for domestic producers to indicate support for a petition even when they may believe that an antidumping duty order is unwarranted, it is not our task to pass on Congress’s wisdom in enacting the Byrd Amendment.” View "Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Itochu asked the U.S. Department of Commerce to act under 19 U.S.C. 1675(b) to revoke part of an antidumping-duty order applicable to imported steel nails. Before Commerce issued its preliminary determination, Itochu submitted comments and provided legal authority to urge that the requested partial revocation take effect at an early specified date. Commerce rejected that position in its preliminary ruling and generally invited interested parties to comment. Itochu did not avail itself of that opportunity. In its final ruling, Commerce adopted the partial revocation, which the domestic industry did not oppose, but with the later effective date. When Itochu challenged the effective-date determination, the U.S.s Court of International Trade declined to address the merits, citing failure to exhaust administrative remedies, 28 U.S.C. 2637(d), because Itochu had failed to resubmit, after the preliminary ruling, the comments it had submitted earlier. The Federal Circuit reversed, stating that in these circumstances, requiring exhaustion served no discernible practical purpose and resulting delay would have risked harm to Itochu. View "Itochu Bldg. Prods. v. United States" on Justia Law