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

3M sells laminate products such as diapers and claimed infringement of four patents by Tredegar, a supplier of breathable and nonwoven film laminates for personal care products, including baby diapers, training pants, and adult incontinence products. After the district court construed claim terms the parties stipulated to noninfringement. The Federal Circuit remanded. The court affirmed the appropriate scope of the claim terms “continuous contact” and “continuous microtextured skin layer over substantially the entire laminate,” but clarified the appropriate scope of those terms. The court reversed claim constructions relating to the terms grouped as “preferential activation zone” and the term “ribbon,” finding that the district court erroneously limited certain claim terms in a manner inconsistent with the intrinsic disclosures. View "3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp." on Justia Law

Tetra Pak’s patent involves commercial cheese-making vats. The district court granted summary judgment, holding that CSI infringed under the doctrine of equivalents and had not proven the patent invalid, and entered a permanent injunction against CSI. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Gallo was an FAA air traffic control specialist until 1995 when she experienced a job-related injury for which she received benefits. Gallo recovered enough to return to light duty. In 1996 she lost her medical certification to continue as an ATCS. Until 2000 she was assigned to a “non-operational” automation specialist position, which did not provide the same retirement credit or weekend pay. She received OWCP benefits for the differential. Gallo fully recovered in 2000 and received medical clearance; the agency terminated OWCP benefits. She applied for restoration under 5 U.S.C. 8151(b)(2), which provides the right to priority consideration to federal employees who have overcome a compensable injury. Gallo was assigned a supervisory ATCS position with a salary did not take into account pay increases granted to operational ATCS employees while Gallo was working as an automation specialist. The Merit Systems Protection Board denied her claim. The Federal Circuit reversed. On remand, an AJ ordered back pay, with interest, and adjustment of benefits under the Back Pay Act. Gallo then sought attorney fees under the Act, 5 U.S.C. 5596. The Federal Circuit denied the request, holding that it lacks authority to award attorney fees under the Act to Federal Aviation Administration employees. View "Gallo v. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

The Department of Veterans Affairs promulgated a rule that purported to eliminate certain procedural and appellate rights for veterans appearing before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates (NOVA) sought review. During the course of review it became clear that the new rule was invalid; the VA made assurances to NOVA and to the Federal Circuit about how the matter would be handled pending resolution. It later became clear that these assurances were not honored by the VA. The Federal Circuit ordered the VA to show cause why it should not be sanctioned. The VA, conceding error, provided a detailed remedial plan. After clarifications, NOVA indicated its satisfaction with, and agreement to, the plan, under which the VA agreed to notify relevant claimants before the Board, to vacate the affected Board decisions, and to provide affected claimants with a new hearing even if relevant deadlines would otherwise have expired. The Federal Circuit approved the plan and did not enter sanctions. View "Nat'l Org. of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

Flora is the widow of Donald, a World War II veteran, honorably discharged in 1945 after being diagnosed with diabetes mellitus. At that time the VA found his diabetes to be service-connected and gave him a disability rating of 40%. Beginning in 1950, Donald was hospitalized at various times for complications and declining health as a result of his diabetes and repeatedly, unsuccessfully, requested increases in his disability rating. In 1961, the Director of the Compensation and Pension Service found “clear and unmistakable error” and increased the rating to 60%, effective 1961. Ultimately, Donald’s disability rating was increased to 100%, effective 1965. Donald died in 1969, from complications of diabetes. Flora was granted dependency and indemnity compensation, 38 U.S.C. 1310, and filed a claim under 38 U.S.C. 1311(a)(2), which provides that a surviving spouse may qualify for increased benefits if the veteran received “or was entitled to receive . . . compensation for a service-connected disability that was rated totally disabling for a continuous period of at least eight years immediately preceding death.” The VA denied the claim in 2003. Flora pursued appeals, which were ultimately rejected by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The Veterans Court and Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Kernea v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

In 2011, the Forest Service solicited proposals for 34 line items, calling for a negotiated procurement process pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 15. Each line item sought heavy or medium exclusive use helicopters for large fire support, tailored for a specific base and meeting performance specifications for operation at that base. Croman, an unsuccessful bidder, filed suit, alleging that the Forest Service’s evaluations of proposals did not have rational bases and were contrary to law. The Claims Court granted the government judgment on the administrative record. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the Forest Service had a rational basis for its decision to partially cancel the solicitation and that the Service conducted a proper tradeoff analysis so that its decision was reasonable. View "Croman Corporation v. United States" on Justia Law

Boeri, a citizen of Italy, has never lived or worked in the U.S. He worked for Verizon in Italy for 11 years, Brazil for 5 years, Argentina for 5 years, and the Dominican Republic for 15 years. In 2003 Boeri chose to participate in Verizon’s Management Voluntary Separation Plan, and was awarded a gross separation payment of $247,177 in 2004. Verizon withheld a total of $70,559, including U.S. income tax withholding, Social Security tax, and Medicare tax. In 2009 Boeri filed a nonresident alien income tax return for the 2004 tax year, seeking a refund. The IRS denied the request as untimely. The IRS Appeals Office denied an administrative appeal in 2011. Boeri appealed to the Claims Court, arguing that he is not seeking a refund of a tax overpayment, but correction of erroneous withholding and that these circumstances are not within the scope of the three-year look-back provision of 26 U.S.C. 6511(b)(2)(A). The Claims Court dismissed, reasoning that sections 6513(b)(1) and (c)(2) specify when advance payments of income tax and social security and Medicare taxes are deemed paid, and that the payments for which Boeri sought a refund were deemed paid on April 15, 2005. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Boeri v. United States" on Justia Law

The Plantronics patent is directed to a concha-style headset for transmitting received sounds to the ear of a user, and discloses an apparatus for stabilizing a concha style headset during use. The district court granted-in-part Aliph’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement and invalidity, construing certain terms and holding the asserted claims invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, holding that the terms “stabilizer support member” and the “concha stabilizer” are not structurally limited either in claim language or in their corresponding description in the specification. The district court concluded that the patent was invalid as obvious before considering objective indications of nonobviousness. View "Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc." on Justia Law

Trek was the importer of record for 72 entries of men’s suits in 2004. Mercantile was the consignee. Shadadpuri is president and sole shareholder of Trek, and a 40% shareholder of Mercantile. Trek and Mercantile provided a number of fabric “assists” to manufacturers outside the U. S. An assist refers to “materials, components, parts, and similar items incorporated in the imported merchandise,” 19 U.S.C. 1401a(h)(1)(A)(i). Customs determined that the entry documentation failed to include the cost of the fabric assists in the price paid for the suits which lowered the amount of duty payable by Trek. Shadadpuri had previously failed to include assists in entry declarations when acting on behalf of a corporate importer. The Court of International Trade found Shadadpuri liable for gross negligence in connection with the entry of imported merchandise and imposed penalties under 19 U.S.C. 1592(c)(2). The Federal Circuit reversed the penalty assessment, holding that corporate officers of an “importer of record” are not directly liable for penalties. Shadadpuri is not liable, absent piercing Trek’s corporate veil to establish that Shadadpuri was the actual importer of record, as defined by statute, or establishing that Shadadpuri is liable for fraud or as an aider and abettor. View "United States v. Trek Leather, Inc." on Justia Law

Massie served on active duty in the Army, 1968-1970 and was awarded VA benefits for varicose veins and related surgery, initially at 10% and increased to 50%, disability effective in 1990. In, 2001, Massie sought an increased disability rating. He submitted a letter from a VA physician who had treated Massie for “multiple medical problems” including “chronic venous insufficiency” that had “persisted in spite of prior surgical treatment with vein stripping” and that left Massie with significant pain when he was on his feet for any period of time. The regional office increased Massie’s rating to 100%, as of the 2001 date of his filing. The Veterans Court determined that the physician’s letter, dated 1999, did not qualify as an informal claim that would entitle Massie to an earlier effective date for the 100% rating. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the letter was not a “report of examination” because it did not describe the results of a “specific, particular examination” and did not suggest that Massie’s condition had worsened. View "Massie v. Shinseki" on Justia Law