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

Presidio is a manufacturer of electrical components for high-tech applications, operated by the three listed inventors on the 356 patent, entitled “Integrated Broadband Ceramic Capacitor Array.” ATC manufactures electrical components. ATC’s 545L capacitors, a variety of monolithic broadband capacitors, compete with Presidio’s Buried Broadband capacitor. Presidio asserted that ATC’s 545L capacitors infringed the 356 patent. The district court denied ATC’s motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on validity and infringement and denied Presidio a permanent injunction and judgment on willfulness, its ongoing royalty rate, and false marking. The Federal Circuit affirmed most of the holdings, but vacated the finding of no irreparable injury, the related denial of a permanent injunction, the ongoing royalty determination, and a false marking judgment (due to an intervening change in law). View "Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics, Inc." on Justia Law

When merchandise is sold in the U.S. at less than fair value, the Commerce Department may impose antidumping duties, 19 U.S.C. 1673e(a)(1), 1677b(a)(1), 1677a(a). Commerce generally determines individual margins for each exporter or producer, but if that is not practicable, may investigate a reasonable number of respondents. Others are assigned a separate “all-others” rate. In proceedings involving non-market economy countries, including China, Commerce presumes that exporters and producers are state-controlled, and assigns them a state-wide rate. This presumption is rebuttable; a company that demonstrates sufficient independence from state control may apply for a separate rate. Commerce concluded that the Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical was entitled to a separate rate. The company subsequently challenged the rate calculation. The Court of International Trade held that Commerce did not exceed the scope of a remand order when it recalculated the U.S. price and that the explanation given for calculation of the separate rate was not unreasonable. The Federal Circuit reversed in part and remanded to Commerce to again reconsider its approach to calculating the separate rate. “Commerce must act non-arbitrarily and must explain why its approach is a ‘reasonable method,’” in light alternatives available and with recognition that the calculation will affect only cooperating respondents. View "Changzhou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

IGT owns patents related to “wheel games,” casino gaming machines containing a secondary bonus game incorporating a spinning wheel. IGT sued Bally for infringement and Bally counterclaimed under state and federal antitrust laws. The district court denied motions for summary judgment on the antitrust issues, granted the motions that the patents were invalid and not infringed, and certified the patent issues for interlocutory appeal. The Federal Circuit affirmed. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment against Bally on its antitrust counterclaims. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that the undisputed facts were insufficient to establish the existence of a relevant antitrust market in wheel games. View "IGT v. Alliance Gaming Corp." on Justia Law

In the 1970s Intel and National developed semiconductor technology and entered into a cross-licensing agreement that gave Intel “non-exclusive, non-transferrable, royalty-free, world-wide licenses under NATIONAL PATENTS and NATIONAL PATENT APPLICATIONS to make, to have made, to use, to sell (either directly or indirectly), to lease and to otherwise dispose of LICENSED PRODUCTS,” for the life of the patents. “NATIONAL PATENTS” were: all classes or types of patents and utility models of all countries, “applications for which have a first effective filing date in any country prior to the date of expiration or termination of this Agreement, in respect of which, as of the EFFECTIVE DATE, or thereafter during the term of this Agreement . . . [has] the right to grant licenses of the scope granted herein.” The Agreement gave National similar rights in Intel’s patents. The agreement expired in 2003. In 2006, National’s successor sued an Intel customer, alleging infringement. The district court held that, under the Agreement, reissued patents should be treated as National Patents, agreeing with Intel that the intent was “to grant broad rights to all patents owned or controlled by the other party for the life of the patents ... and avoid future infringement suits.” The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Intel Corp. v. Negotiated Data Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

The 314 patent, a reissue of the 440 patent, covers the “statin” drug with the brand name Crestor®, which is approved for use in control of cholesterol and for treatment of atherosclerosis. The active ingredient of Crestor® is the calcium salt of a chemical compound whose common name is rosuvastatin, one of several statin products that lower cholesterol production in the liver by inhibiting the enzyme HMG-CoA reductase. Several generic producers initiated a challenge to the 314 patent by filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV). An ANDA permits a generic producer to market a drug product based on the federal approval obtained by the original registrant. Submission of an ANDA constitutes a statutory act of infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A). If the challenge to the patent fails, the ANDA cannot be approved until expiration of the patent. The generic producers argued that the 314 patent was invalid on the ground of obviousness and improper reissue, and that the patent is unenforceable for inequitable conduct in the Patent and Trademark Office. The district court ruled that the patent is valid, enforceable, and infringed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Astrazeneca UK, Ltd. v. Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd." on Justia Law

Under 35 U.S.C. 292(a) it is unlawful to engage in specified acts of false patent marking, such as affixing a mark that falsely asserts that the item is patented, with intent to deceive the public. Prior to 2011, the statute authorized private parties (relators) to bring a qui tam or informer’s suit for violations, but did not specify procedures or authorize the government to file its own suit to collect the penalty. The 2011 AIA eliminated the qui tam provision, but authorized actions for damages by any person “who has suffered a competitive injury as a result of a violation.” The AIA provides that marking products with expired patents is not a violation and that it applies to all pending cases. In 2010, Brooks sued, alleging that Dunlop marked a guitar string winder with the number of a patent that was both expired and invalidated. The AIA was enacted while the case was stayed, pending the outcome in another case. The district court held that the application of the AIA to pending actions did not violate the Due Process Clause and that the legislation rationally furthered a legitimate legislative purpose. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Brooks v. Dunlop Mfg., Inc." on Justia Law

OSRAM’s patent claims a closed-loop tubular electrodeless lamp, having certain and specific discharge current and pressure parameters. The invention generally relates to “a low pressure, high intensity fluorescent light source that can produce considerably more light per unit length than conventional electroded fluorescent lamps.” Electrodeless fluorescent lamps were first disclosed in several patents issued to and articles authored in the 1960s and 1970s. The district court entered summary judgment of invalidity on certain claims. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact that preclude a finding of anticipation and obviousness on summary judgment and that the district court erred in failing to consider objective indicia of nonobviousness.View "OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

The Department of Defense issued a solicitation seeking offers for a multiple award, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for information technology services. The agency described the services as “Net-Centric Integrated Enterprise Information Technology Services,” including help desk, server, network, and applications support services. The solicitation instructed bidders to submit separate bids for the Basic Contract, Task Order 1, and Task Order 2. Every bidder, including Comint, submitted separate bids. The Department then limited the initial award to the Basic Contract and amended the solicitation. Comint acknowledged the amendment. The Source Selection Evaluation Board evaluated each proposal according to factors in the solicitation, the most important of which was “Quality/Capability.” The Board rated Comint’s proposal as “marginal,” concluding that Comint had a “moderate to high associated risk of unsuccessful performance.” The district court rejected Comint’s challenge of the award to another bidder; Comint lacked standing to challenge the solicitation or award because the agency had not erred in rejecting Comint’s bid on technical grounds. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that Comint failed to preserve its right to challenge the solicitation by failing to raise objections before award and that Comint has not demonstrated standing to protest the agency’s failure to award it a contract. View "Comint Sys. Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

Raylon’s patent, directed to a hand-held identification investigating and ticket issuing system is intended to provide an affordable system that reduces the amount of time a user spends identifying and issuing tickets and allows the user to maintain visual contact with the individual throughout the process. The system has a housing containing an input assembly for entering data, an elongated slot for receiving identification forms that have a magnetic tape, an elongated aperture for access to the housing’s interior, a transceiver assembly to communicate remotely with a computer, a printer assembly for printing tickets, and a display, pivotally mounted on the housing. Raylon alleged infringement by three defendants. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, denied their motions for Rule 11 sanctions, and denied attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. 285, citing its Rule 11 decision. The Federal Circuit reversed as to Rule 11. The district court erroneously evaluated Raylon’s damages model and early settlements to determine whether it brought its suits in good faith or merely to obtain nuisance value settlements; it should have conducted an objective inquiry and “expressly rejected any inquiries into the motivation behind a filing.”View "Raylon, LLC v. Complus Data Innovations, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1995, Yamazaki filed a patent application, “Improved Semiconductor Having Low Concentration of Phosphorus.” The examiner issued an obviousness-type double patenting rejection based on Yamazaki’s earlier-issued 476 patent. Yamazaki filed a terminal disclaimer in November, 1996, disclaiming the statutory term of any patent granted on the application that would extend beyond expiration of the 476 patent In December, 2003. Yamazaki later amended each claim of the 1995 application, such that, in Yamazaki’s view, the pending claims became patentably distinct over the claims of the 476 patent and the terminal disclaimer became unnecessary. Yamazaki petitioned (37 C.F.R. 1.182) for withdrawal of the recorded terminal disclaimer The PTO did not act. Notice of Allowance issued in July, 2000. With the Petition to Withdraw still pending, Yamazaki paid the issue fee; the 991 patent issued in 2001; it would have expired in 2018, given a 17-year term (35 U.S.C. 154(c)(1)); however, adopting the 476 patent expiration date gave it 35-month term. The PTO dismissed the Petition to Withdraw. Yamazaki filed a Reissue Application, to correct “errors” that rendered the 991 patent inoperative during part of the statutory term. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed rejection, for lack of a correctable error. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "In re Yamazaki" on Justia Law