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

CMW’s patent generally relates to a two-pipe drill for boring underground holes horizontally. An inner pipe rotates the drill bit. An outer pipe, with a body and casing, is used for steering. The patent discusses a structure called a “deflection shoe” as a steering mechanism; it is included on one side of the casing to create an asymmetry about the casing’s centerline axis. If the casing does not rotate, the deflection shoe causes the drill to deflect away from a straight path. When the casing rotates, the drill follows a straight horizontal path. CMW sued Vermeer for infringement. The district court held that the accused commercial products and non-commercial prototypes do not infringe, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The Federal Circuit vacated in part, holding that CMW did not have sufficient notice that the prototypes were within the scope of the summary judgment decision. The court reversed with respect to the doctrine of equivalents, but affirmed that there is no literal infringement. View "Charles Mach. Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co." on Justia Law

Generic manufacturers submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) seeking FDA approval to market generic versions of Copaxone®, a drug used in treating multiple sclerosis. Teva, which markets Copaxone®, sued the generic manufacturers for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A). The patents at issue share a common specification and are listed in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book) entry for Copaxone®. The patents include claims reciting a product called copolymer-1 and recite two methods of making copolymer-1: one using statistical average measures and the other describing how many molecules in a polymer sample have molecular weights that fall within an arbitrarily set range. The district court found that various claims of the nine patents by Teva are infringed, based on holdings regarding indefiniteness, nonenablement, and obviousness. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that Group I claims are invalid for indefiniteness, but that Group II claims were not proven indefinite. The district court did not err in finding that the claims are infringed, and that the generic manufacturers failed to prove that the claims would have been obvious and are not enabled. View "Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc." on Justia Law

The patent at issue concerns methods for preventing bovine mastitis, the inflammation of udder tissue in cows, and is entitled “Antiinfective free intramammary veterinary composition.” The summary of the invention describes how the composition employs a physical barrier within the teat canal to block introduction of mastitis-causing organisms without requiring use of antiinfectives such as antibiotics. A patent examiner rejected certain claims introduced in the context of ex parte reexamination. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that one claim failed the written description requirement because the disclosure did not “describe[] a formulation excluding a specific species of the anti-infective genus, while permitting others to be present.” View "In re: Bimeda Research & Dev. Ltd." on Justia Law

La Crosse imports electronic devices that measure atmospheric conditions and display the information alongside time and date. The devices use wireless instruments that measure outdoor conditions and a base unit that measure indoor conditions and have an LCD display, a barometer, and a microprocessor. The microprocessor uses an algorithm to analyze historical barometric measurements to provide a forecast of whether the weather will improve or deteriorate, is displayed as an arrow, a series of icons, or an image of a boy whose clothes indicate the type of weather predicted. U.S. Customs initially classified all the devices as “other clocks” under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) c9105.91.40. The U.S. Court of International Trade reclassified many of the devices according to three general categories. The court classified Weather Station models under HTSUS subheading 9025.80.10 (including thermometers, barometers, hygrometers, and combinations of these instruments); Professional models under subheading 9015.80.80 (including certain “meteorological ... instruments and appliances”); and Clock models under subheading 9105.91.40 (certain clocks). The Federal Circuit reversed as to the Weather Station and Clock models and ordered classification under HTSUS subheading 9015.80.80. View "La Crosse Tech., Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

Novozymes’s 723 patent, entitled “Alpha-Amylase Mutants with Altered Properties,” relates to recombinant enzyme technology. Enzymes are proteins that catalyze biochemical reactions; they facilitate molecular processes that would not occur or would occur more slowly in their absence. The 723 patent claims particular modified enzymes with improved function and stability under certain conditions. Novozymes sued DuPont, alleging infringement. DuPont counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity for failing to satisfy enablement and written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112. The district court granted Novozymes summary judgment on the issue of infringement and denied DuPont summary judgment of invalidity. A jury concluded that the claims were not invalid and awarded infringement damages of more than $18 million, but the district court granted DuPont’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law that the claims are invalid for failure to satisfy the written description requirement. The Federal Circuit affirmed. To actually possess the variant enzymes claimed in the patent would require Novozymes to confirm its predictions by actually making and testing individual variants or at least identifying subclasses of variants that could be expected to possess the claimed properties, which it did not do before filing its 2000 application. View "Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences, APS" on Justia Law

Antonellis, a member of the Navy Reserve since 1986, is a member of boththe Selected Reserve, a paid unit, and the Individual Ready Reserve, which is unpaid. From 2009 through 2011, Antonellis submitted 69 applications, but he was not assigned to any Selected Reserve billet and was instead assigned to a Volunteer Training Unit in the Individual Ready Reserve. He performed those duties without pay. In 2011 Antonellis filed suit under the Military Pay Act, 37 U.S.C. 206(a), asserting that, based on his outstanding service record and the standards described in the Commander’s guidance letter, he “has been clearly entitled to a pay billet” and that the decision not to assign him to a Selected Reserve pay billet was arbitrary. He sought more than $64,700 in back pay. The Claims Court dismissed the claim as nonjusticiable, because there were no standards by which it could review the Navy’s assignment decisions. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Antonellis v. United States" on Justia Law

The 096 application states that “[p]athologies of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract may exist for a variety of reasons such as bleeding, lesions, angiodisplasia, Crohn’s disease, polyps, celiac disorders, and others.” It can be difficult to detect the pathologies, although the majority of pathologies result in changes of color and/or texture of the inner surface of the GI tract and may be due to bleeding. The 096 application is directed to a system for detection of blood within a body lumen, such as the esophagus, and includes a swallowable capsule having an in-vivo imager for obtaining images from within the body lumen. An examiner rejected the claims (35 U.S.C. 103) as obvious over several prior art references. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and Federal Circuit affirmed. View "In re: Adler" on Justia Law

The Court of International Trade rejected the Department of Commerce’s interpretation of an antidumping order, imposed under 19 U.S.C. 1673a(b), on nails from the People’s Republic of China. The Trade Court held that nails included in certain household tool kits imported by Target were subject to the order. The Federal Circuit vacated, noting that whether a “mixed media” item (a tool kit) is subject to an antidumping order that covers included merchandise is not addressed in the regulations. Commerce has historically treated the answer as depending on whether the mixed media item is to be treated as a single, unitary item, or a mere aggregation of separate items. Remand is necessary for Commerce to revisit its mixed media determination in light of a statutory requirement that any implicit mixed media exception to the literal scope of the order be based on preexisting public sources. Problems presented by this case could be avoided if Commerce identified, in its antidumping orders or in prospective regulations, factors that it will consider in resolving mixed media and other cases. View "Mid Cont't Nail Corp v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs own properties surrounded by or adjacent to the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, the largest national forest in California, encompassing approximately 2.1 million acres. In 2008 the “Iron Complex” wildfires burned within the Forest. The U.S. Forest Service intentionally lit fires to reduce unburned timber that might fuel the fires, causing destruction of 1,782 acres of marketable timber on plaintiffs’ properties. Plaintiffs alleged a taking for which they should be compensated. The district court dismissed, citing the doctrine of necessity, which absolves the government from liability for any taking or destruction of property in efforts to fight fires. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded, reasoning that not every action taken for the purpose of fire prevention is protected by the necessity doctrine. The facts pled in the complaint do not demonstrate that the Iron Complex fire created an imminent danger and an actual emergency necessitating the burning of 1,782 acres. View "TrinCo Inv. Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

Louis Burden, a Vietnam veteran, served on active duty in the Army from 1948 until 1968. He married Michele in a ceremonial marriage in April, 2004. Two months later, Burden died. In August 2004, Michele applied for dependency and indemnity compensation. A VA regional office denied her claim because she had not been married to Burden for at least one year prior to his death, 38 U.S.C. 1102(a). Michele asserted that she and Burden had been living in a common law marriage for five years prior to his death. The board acknowledged that she had provided some evidence to support her claim, but concluded that it did not constitute the “clear and convincing proof” required to establish a valid common law marriage under Alabama law. The Veterans Court and the Federal Circuit upheld the denial. State law, including state law evidentiary burdens, applies in determining the validity of a purported common law marriage View "Burden v. Shinseki" on Justia Law