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

Cunningham worked for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in 2004-2005. He appealed his termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging discrimination based on marital status. Cunningham agreed to withdraw his appeal; OPM agreed to pay him $50,000. The agreement designated the OPM’s director of human resources as the contact for reference inquiries and permitted disclosure of dates of service only. The termination letter was to be removed from the personnel file and both parties were prohibited from disclosing the agreement or the grievance. In 2006, Cunningham accepted a position with USIS, a private company that contracts with federal agencies to perform background investigations. A week after Cunningham began training USIS suspended him without pay at the direction of OPM's security office. OPM employees (not the Director of Human Resources) had discussed Cunningham’s termination. An administrative judge found that OPM had breached the agreement, but that MSPB could not award damages. Cunningham was only entitled to rescind the agreement, reinstate his appeal, and return the $50,000 payment. MSPB adopted the findings. Cunningham did not want his appeal reinstated and sought breach-of-contract damages. The Claims Court found that it had subject matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, but dismissed based on res judicata. The Federal Circuit vacated, agreeing that the court had jurisdiction, but holding that res judicata did not apply because jurisdictional limits on the MSPB did not permit him to seek damages in the prior matter.View "Cunningham v. United States" on Justia Law

Trebro’s patents involve sod harvesters: vehicles with knives that cut sod pieces from the ground, conveyor belts to transport the pieces, and mechanisms to stack them on a pallet. FireFly’s accused product is the ProSlab 150. Trebro also sells sod harvesters, including the SC2010 Slab. FireFly did not contest priority on the claims. While the preliminary injunction motion was pending, FireFly requested ex parte reexamination of thepatent, based primarily on two patents invented by the same individuals. After ordering reexamination, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office terminated the proceeding because neither of the patents qualified as prior art because they were not considered invented] by “others’ under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (e) and because each was published within the one year grace period. The district court denied a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, noting a record that strongly suggests a likelihood of success on the merits and a likelihood of irreparable harm. The court reasoned that the nature of the market is such that money damages would likely be inadequate and that the fact that Trebro does not presently practice the patent does not detract from its likely irreparable harm. View "Trebro Mfg., Inc. v. Firefly Equip., LLC" on Justia Law

Former GM and Chrysler dealers, whose franchises were terminated in the 2009 bankruptcies of those companies, sued, alleging that the terminations constituted a taking because the government required them as a condition of its providing financial assistance to the companies. The Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 363, 365, authorizes certain sales of a debtor’s assets and provides that a bankruptcy trustee “may assume or reject any executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor.” Debtors-in-possession in chapter 11 bankruptcies, like GM and Chrysler, generally have a trustee’s powers. The Claims Court denied motions to dismiss. In interlocutory appeals, the Federal Circuit remanded for consideration of the issues of the “regulatory” impact of the government’s “coercion” and of economic impact. While the allegations of economic loss are deficient in not sufficiently alleging that the economic value of the franchises was reduced or eliminated as a result of the government’s actions, the proper remedy is to grant to leave to amend the complaints to include the necessary allegations. View "A&D Auto Sales, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

ISE asserted infringement of its patent, “Automated Exchange for Trading Derivative Securities,” directed to an automated exchange for trading options contracts that allocates trades among market professionals and assures liquidity. It distinguishes an “automated” exchange from the traditional, floor-based “open outcry” system for trading options contracts. The Chicago Board Options Exchange’s accused product, the “Chicago Board Options Exchange,” uses the Hybrid Trading System, which includes a fully screen-based trading system called “CBOEdirect” integrated with traditional, open outcry trading. On appeal, the Federal Circuit construed the term “automated exchange” as “a system for executing trades of financial instruments that is fully computerized, such that it does not include matching or allocating through the use of open-outcry” and found that the patentee disavowed all manual or partially automated systems of trading. On remand, ISE stipulated to noninfringement because it concluded that the district court’s pretrial rulings, including a statement that “it will be a jury question whether CBOEdirect is a stand alone automated exchange alongside a floor-based system or whether it is a system that includes matching or allocating through open outcry,” prevented it from proving that the accused product met the “automated exchange” limitation. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of noninfringement, but reversed a finding that one claim was indefinite. View "Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int'l Secs., LLC" on Justia Law

Teles owns the 453 patent, issued in 2005, which recites a “method for transmitting data in a telecommunications network and switch for implementing said method.” In 2007, a third party sought ex parte reexamination. The examiner rejected claims 34–36 and claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over the White patent combined with either the Jonas or the Farese patent. The Board of Patent Appeals affirmed. The district court dismissed an appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that, after 1999 amendments, Section 145 proceedings (35 U.S.C. 145) could not be maintained by patent owners. The Federal Circuit agreed that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the version of Section 145 in effect at the time, but held that the court erred in dismissing the case. The court treated the case as having been transferred to the Federal Circuit as an appeal from the Board’s decision and affirmed rejection of claim 35 as obvious.View "In re: Teles AG Informationstechnologien" on Justia Law

DataTern previously sued several Microsoft and SAP customers, alleging infringement of its 402 and 502 patents. DataTern sent the customers claim charts alleging infringement based on customers’ use of Microsoft’s ADO.NET and SAP’s BusinessObjects software. The claim charts refer to Microsoft and SAP functionality, but the 402 patent claim charts cite only to third-party-provided (not Microsoft-provided) ADO.NET documentation for several claim limitations. Some customers sought indemnification. Microsoft told DataTern that Microsoft had no obligation to defend or indemnify its customers. DataTern indicated that it was not interested in suing Microsoft. SAP and DataTern did not discuss the lawsuits or the patents before SAP and Microsoft sought declaratory judgments of noninfringement and invalidity. The district court denied DataTern’s motion to dismiss, finding that it has jurisdiction based on: the claim charts in the customer lawsuits; the indemnification demands; DataTern’s conditional counterclaims of infringement; DataTern’s reference to “infringement” in its proposed scheduling order; and DataTern’s refusal to grant a covenant not to sue. Following claim construction, DataTern conceded noninfringement and the court entered summary judgment. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, holding that the district court had jurisdiction over some declaratory judgment challenges to the patents, but not over Microsoft’s challenge to 402 patent.View "Microsoft Corp. v. Datatern, Inc." on Justia Law

In the early 2000s, Raytheon underwent a major reorganization, including the sale of several business segments, including AIS, Optical, and Aerospace (segments at issue). As part of each sale, Raytheon retained the assets and liabilities of defined-benefit pension plans associated with the segments. Raytheon also calculated segment closing adjustments as required by CFR Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). Raytheon determined that some of its segments had pension surpluses, but the segments at issue had deficits. Although Raytheon paid the government its share of the surpluses, the government refused to pay its share of the deficits. Raytheon submitted certified claims for recovery of the deficits under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 7103 (2011). The contracting officer issued final decisions denying these claims, reasoning that the adjustments were subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation’s timely funding requirement, 48 CFR 31.205-6(j)(2)(i), and the deficits were therefore unallowable because Raytheon failed to fund the full amount of the pension deficits in the same year as the closings and that Raytheon’s segment closing calculations “do[] not comply with CAS 413[.]” The Claims Court awarded Raytheon $59.209,967 and rejected a claim for recovery with respect to one segment, finding that Raytheon applied the wrong asset allocation method in its adjustment calculation. The Federal Circuit affirmed.View "Raytheon Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

AVS filed a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas, five months after AVS was incorporated in the Western District of Texas. AVS is a subsidiary of a patent-licensing company Acacia and shares an office in the Eastern District of Texas with other Acacia subsidiaries of Acacia. Some of the patents at issue are in the same family as patents that were the subject of cases previously litigated in the Eastern District of Michigan. A few months later, Toyota and Gulf States moved to sever claims against Gulf States; to transfer the claims against Toyota to the Eastern District of Michigan under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a); and to stay claims against Gulf States s pending resolution of the transferred case. Gulf States is located in Houston, Texas (the Southern District of Texas), and is an independent distributor of Toyota vehicles in five states. The district court denied the motions. The Federal Circuit vacated. Nothing favors the transferor forum, but several factors favor the transferee forum. Toyota has a clear right to transfer. View "In re: Toyota Motor Corp." on Justia Law

MRC owns the 488 patent, claiming an ornamental design for a football jersey for a dog, and the 487 patent, which claims a similar baseball jersey. Cohen is the named inventor and principal shareholder of MRC and assigned his rights to that company. Hunter is a retailer of licensed sports consumer products, including pet jerseys and previously purchased pet jerseys for dogs from Cohen through companies with which he was affiliated. Cohen claims that in 2009 he designed another pet jersey, known as the “V3” jersey, which later became the subject of the 488 patent. Hunter began purchasing the V3 jersey in 2009. In 2010, Cohen filed a patent application for the V3 jersey and the baseball equivalent that became the subject of the 487 patent. Cohen informed Hunter that he no longer intended to do business with Hunter because Hunter was having difficulty making payments. Hunter sought proposals from other companies to manufacture and supply it with pet jerseys like the V3 and contracted with CDI. MRC sued Hunter and CDI for willful infringement. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Hunter and CDI, finding both patents invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP" on Justia Law

Endo sells Opana® ER extended-release tablets containing a painkiller, oxymorphone. In earlier litigation, Endo sued Roxane and Actavis for patent infringement, 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A), based on their Abbreviated New Drug Applications to market generic versions of Opana® ER. The lawsuits settled; Endo granted defendants a license and a covenant not to sue. After making the agreements the 122 and 216 patents issued to Endo. They are continuations of the same parent application and directed to extended-release oxymorphone compositions and methods of treating pain using those compositions. Endo also acquired the unrelated 482 patent, concerning purified oxymorphone compositions and methods of making those compositions. The asserted patents are listed in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book) entry for Opana® ER. Endo again sued for infringement and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent marketing or sales of generic oxymorphone formulations. The district court held that Endo was estopped from claiming that the activity of defendants, “which has gone on for a substantial period of time, is now suddenly barred because of these new patents.” The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that the defendants did not have an express or implied license to practice the patents at issue.View "Endo Pharm. Inc. v. Actavis, Inc." on Justia Law