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

Articles Posted in U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
by
Theresa was married to Myron when he retired from the federal government in 1989. Myron elected to receive a reduced annuity and named Theresa to receive a survivor annuity. In 1998, they divorced. Myron married Roksoliana. Myron received annual notices from the Office of Personnel Management explaining that if he wanted to provide survivor benefits to a spouse that he married after retirement, he had to send a signed request within two years after the date of marriage. In 2002 Myron sent a letter requesting survivor annuity benefits for Roksoliana. OPM denied Myron’s request as not submitted within two years of his marriage and instructed Myron to send his divorce decree to change or eliminate the survivor election previously made. In 2006 Myron sent the divorce decree and the certificate documenting his marriage to Roksoliana. OPM sent notification that his election to transfer full survivor benefits to his new spouse was effective immediately. Myron died in 2009. OPM granted Roksoliana benefits and denied Theresa’s application. An ALJ reversed; the Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding OPM’s annual notice insufficient to inform Myron of his rights and obligations and that the Board’s award to Theresa was not supported by substantial evidence. View "Dachniwskyj v.Office of Pers. Mgmt." on Justia Law

by
The district court held that Fairchild willfully infringed several valid patents belonging to Power Integrations and awarded compensatory and enhanced damages in the amount of $12,866,647.16. The patented technology is used in electric chargers for mobile phones. The Federal Circuit affirmed the ruling on obviousness, but reversed construction of the “soft start circuit” limitations in certain claims. The court vacated the award of damages based on infringement by inducement, and remanded for a new trial on damages resulting from direct infringement, with an accounting limited to post-verdict infringing sales related to Fairchild’s direct infringement. The court also vacated the finding of willful infringement. View "Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductors Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

by
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences rejected the 172 design patent application, a continuation of the 709 application, which claimed a design for a bottle with specific shapes and boundaries. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that nothing in the parent application’s disclosure suggested anything uniquely patentable about the top portion of the bottle’s front panel. View "In re Owens" on Justia Law

by
In 1908, the United States granted the railroad right-of-way to Pacific Railroad Company for railroad purposes. In 1976, the government conveyed 83.32 acres of land partially burdened by the right-of-way to Brandt’s parents, in fee simple, subject to the right-of-way. In 1987, WYCO acquired the railroad right-of-way and operated the rail line. In 1996, WYCO filed a Notice of Intent to Abandon Rail Service with the Surface Transportation Board. The STB approved abandonment in 2003, and, in 2004, WYCO notified the STB that it had completed abandonment. In 2006, the government sought declaratory judgment that title to the abandoned right-of-way had vested in the government under the National Trails System Improvements Act of 1988, 16 U.S.C. 1248(c). Brandt sought quiet title and argued that, to the extent the government acquired some interest in land formerly occupied by the easement, that interest would constitute a taking for which just compensation is owed. The Claims Court dismissed the takings claim for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1500. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that Brandt did not have claims “pending” for purposes of section 1500 when he filed his takings complaint. View "Brandt v. United States" on Justia Law

by
Checkpoint and All-Tag are competitors in the manufacture and sale of “resonance tags,” electronic anti-shoplifting devices that are attached to merchandise whereby if the attached tag is not deactivated, the tag triggers an alarm when the tagged goods move past detectors located at the store’s exit. Checkpoint sued All-Tag for infringement of a patent entitled “Resonance Label and Method for its Fabrication.” A jury found the patent not infringed, invalid, and unenforceable. The district court entered judgment on the verdict, held the case “exceptional” in terms of 35 U.S.C. 285, and awarded the defendants $6.6 million in attorney fees, costs, and interest. The patent term has expired and only the award of attorney fees was appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed. The infringement charge was not shown to have been made in bad faith or objectively baseless. View "Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A." on Justia Law

by
1999, Drs. Dawson and Bowman submitted the patent application that led to the issuance of the two patents at issue, which concern a method for topically treating and preventing infections of the eye. They claim to overcome difficulties in existing methods through a process for topically applying an azalide antibiotic to the eye. Both patents are entitled “Topical Treatment or Prevention of Ocular Infections.” In 2007, in order to provoke an interference, UCSF filed a patent application that named Dr. Dawson as the sole inventor and generally copied the specification and claims from the patents. Dr. Dawson declined to join UCSF’s submission. The Patent and Trademark Office’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences found that Dr. Dawson did not conceive of the claimed inventions by himself prior to his collaboration with Dr. Bowman. The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting that, apart from reduction to practice, conception requires that the inventor know how his “definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention ... is hereafter to be applied in practice.” View "Dawson v. Dawson & Bowman" on Justia Law

by
Rohrer Towers is a housing facility for low-income elderly residents in Haddon Township, Camden County, New Jersey. Haddon leased Rohrer Towers to Housing Authority of the Township of Haddon, which entered into a housing assistance payments contract (HAP) with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the Housing Act of 1937, 88 Stat. 633, 662–66. Haddon sued in 2007 alleging that HUD breached the HAP Contract from 2001-2006 by requiring rent “comparability studies” to be submitted along with requests for annual rent adjustments and adopting a one-percent reduction of the annual adjustment factors for units occupied by the same tenants from the previous year. The Claims Court agreed and ordered rent adjustments for all years other than 2002. The government claimed that the complaint should have been dismissed on statute of limitations grounds and appealed the decision that regulatory imposition of a mandatory one-percent rent reduction for non-turnover units was arbitrary, and beyond HUD’s authority. The Federal Circuit reversed the holding that the prevention doctrine applied to the circumstances surrounding Haddon’s 2001 and 2003 rent adjustment, but affirmed the holdings with respect to the contract years 2002 and 2004-2006. View "Haddon Housing Assocs. v. United States" on Justia Law

by
Meritor Bank failed in 1992 after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) breached a capital agreement with Meritor. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the government was liable for breach of contract, and awarding $276 million in “lost value” damages. On remand, the Claims Court applied 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(11), the statute governing the distribution of a receivership surplus by the FDIC acting in its capacity as a receiver, and held that current Meritor shareholders are the proper recipients of the $276 million award. The court also denied a motion to intervene filed by McCarron, a former Meritor employee, on the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and issue and claim preclusion. Intervenors, former shareholders who owned shares of Meritor at the time of its failure but later sold their shares, appealed from an order directing the FDIC-Receiver to distribute the receivership surplus to current shareholders. McCarron appealed denial of his motion to intervene. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Slattery v. United States" on Justia Law

by
Cordis sued Abbott, alleging infringement of patents for drug-eluting stents. The PTO reexamined the 844 patent and issued an initial office action rejecting all claims as obvious. Cordis submitted an expert affidavit asserting secondary considerations of nonobviousness, including that Abbott had copied its patent. The examiner issued a further action, affirming rejection of all claims, finding that Cordis had failed to present evidence of copying. A different examiner issued an initial action rejecting all challenged claims of the 773 patent as obvious. The parties submitted dueling expert declarations. The reexamination of the 773 patent remains pending, while reexamination of the 844 patent is on appeal before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Cordis obtained subpoenas from the district court ordering Abbott to produce documents believed to establish copying and other secondary considerations for use in the pending PTO reexaminations. The court subsequently quashed the subpoenas. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that 35 U.S.C. 24 only empowers a district court to issue a subpoena for use in a “contested case,” and that contested cases are limited to those in which the regulations of the PTO authorize the parties to take depositions. The PTO does not provide for depositions in inter partes reexamination proceedings. View "Abbott Labs v. Cordis Corp." on Justia Law

by
Wilson Sporting Goods agreed to pay Frolow royalties for “Licensed Article(s),” defined as “tennis rackets which are covered by one or more unexpired or otherwise valid claims” of Frolow’s 372 patent. After conducting an audit, Frolow concluded that Wilson was not paying royalties on all the Licensed Articles and filed suit alleging that Wilson breached the License Agreement and infringed the 372 patent. Due to an arbitration provision in the Agreement, the court limited the breach of contract case to determining which Wilson racket models were Licensed Articles and summarily dismissed the patent infringement claim. The court ultimately entered summary judgment for Wilson. The Federal Circuit reversed with respect whether certain rackets were Licensed Articles, reasoning that the fact that Wilson marked their products with Frolow’s patent number supports his allegation that Wilson’s products fall within the claims. View "Frolow v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co." on Justia Law