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

The patents share a common specification, directed to an improved apparatus for offshore drilling. Transocean sought to improve on the time-consuming process of lowering equipment to the seabed by using a “dualactivity” drilling apparatus. Transocean alleged that Maersk infringed claims in the three patents by entering into a contract that granted Statoil the right to use an allegedly infringing drilling rig. The Federal Circuit previously vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement and reversed its grant of summary judgment of invalidity for obviousness and lack of enablement. On remand, a jury found that Maersk failed to prove that the asserted claims would have been obvious or were not enabled. The jury made specific findings that the prior art failed to disclose every element of the asserted claims and that each of seven objective factors indicated nonobviousness and awarded $15 million in compensatory damages for infringement. The district court, however, granted Maersk judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims are invalid as obvious and not enabled, that Maersk did not infringe. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding the jury verdict supported by substantial evidence. View "Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Chu was a professor of physics, Hor was a graduate student and Meng worked in Chu’s group as an independent materials scientist, researching superconducting compositions with transition temperatures higher than the boiling point of liquid nitrogen. The 866 patent, filed in 1987 and issued in 2006, is titled “Superconductivity in Square-Planar Compound Systems.” The 418 patent, filed in 1989 and issued in 2010, is titled “High Transition Temperature Superconducting Compositions.” Compositions claimed in the patents were conceived between November 1986 and March 1987, and Chu is the sole named inventor on both patents. In 2008, Hor filed a complaint against Chu, seeking correction of inventorship of the 866 patent under 35 U.S.C. 256. In 2010, the district court allowed Meng to intervene. In 2010, after the 418 patent issued, the district court allowed Hor and Meng to add inventorship claims with respect to that patent, but held that laches, or, alternatively, estoppel, barred the claims, which arose before the patents issued. The Federal Circuit reversed the judgment in favor of Chu on his laches defense and vacated with respect to estoppel, but affirmed judgment in favor of Chu with respect to Meng’s unclean hands defense. View "Hor v. Chu" on Justia Law

The 392 patent discloses a “four-sided, generally rectangular clamp” for connecting fluid flow elements, especially those used in compressed air systems—filters, regulators, and lubricators. The only independent claim is for a four-sided, generally rectangular clamp having a hinged side that can be opened to receive flanges of the elements and closed to hold the flanges. Norgren complained to the International Trade Commission that importation or sale of SMC devices alleged to infringe the patent violated the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. 1337. The ALJ found no violation, construing the claim to require four projecting rims on the flange of the element whereas SMC flanges have two rims and found the claims nonobvious. The Federal Circuit reversed because the generally rectangular ported flange of the asserted claims was not limited to a flange having four projecting rims. On remand, the ALJ found the asserted claims not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Commission reversed, finding the asserted claims obvious, and, thus, no section 337 violation. A prior art SMC clamp is four-sided and generally rectangular; addition of a hinge to that connector would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Norgren, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

The patent, issued in 1995, entitled “Valve Prosthesis for Implantation in the Body and a Catheter for Implanting Such Valve Prosthesis,” describes a prosthetic heart valve, mounted on a stent and implanted by catheter to avoid open heart surgery. The district court found the patent valid and infringed by and that the infringement was willful. The jury awarded damages of $72,645,555 in lost profits and $1,284,861 as a reasonable royalty. The district court entered judgment on the verdict, but declined to enhance damages for the willful infringement. The court also declined to issue an injunction against future infringement, apparently on defendant’s representation that, if enjoined, it would move its manufacturing operations to Mexico. The court also denied a request to modify the litigation-agreed protective order and to permit patent counsel and technical expert to participate in ongoing reexamination proceedings of the patent in suit and related patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed, but remanded reconsideration of the denial of an injunction in view of the representation of changed circumstances, and for reconsideration of the ruling on the protective order as applied to patents not in suit, to the extent that this issue has not become moot. View "Edwards Lifesciences AG v. Corevalve, Inc." on Justia Law

Youngman, fiduciary for deceased veteran Richardson, sought payment of accrued benefits of about $350,000 that had been awarded to Richardson before his death. Payment had been delayed while the Kansas state courts were accrediting Youngman as successor fiduciary for Richardson, who had been adjudged incompetent several years earlier. Richardson died after the accreditation but before payment. The VA denied payment. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed. Periodic monetary benefits to which an individual was entitled at death are to be paid to the veteran's spouse, children, or dependent parents and, in “all other cases, only so much of the accrued benefits may be paid as may be necessary to reimburse the person who bore the expense of last sickness and burial” 38 U.S.C.5121(a). Richardson had only cousins as heirs. The Federal Circuit affirmed. While 38 U.S.C. 5502 allows a fiduciary to stand in the shoes of a veteran, it does not grant the fiduciary rights beyond those of the veteran himself. Richardson died without any heirs in the categories qualifying under 5121, so his unpaid benefits died with him. View "Youngman v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

ASNA is an inter-tribal consortium of federally recognized tribes situated in Alaska. In 1996, 1997, and 1998, ASNA contracted with the Department of Health and Human Services, under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to operate a hospital. ISDA requires the government to pay costs reasonably incurred in managing the programs, 25 U.S.C. 450j-1. There have been three previous class actions concerning payments. One resulted in settlement; in two the courts denied class certification for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because claims had not first been submitted to the contracting officer. ANSA brought its claim, arguing that it was a putative class member in those suits even though it did not individually present claims to the contracting officer within the Contract Disputes Act six-year limitations period and that the limitations period was tolled while those cases were pending. The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals dismissed. The Federal Circuit reversed. The class actions involved similar issues and parties, and put the government on notice of the general nature and legal theory underlying ASNA’s claims. ASNA monitored the legal landscape, took action as appropriate, and reasonably relied upon controlling authority, holding that it did not need to exhaust administrative remedies to be a class member.View "Arctic Slope Native Assoc., Ltd. v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Voter Verified’s patent, issued in 2008 and claiming priority from an application filed in 2000, patent discloses and claims automated systems and methods for voting in an election. It features a self-verification procedure by which machine and human error may be detected and corrected before the ballot is submitted by the voter for tabulation. The voter enters a vote into an electronic voting station, which temporarily records the voter’s input in digital storage and generates a corresponding printed ballot. That printed ballot is then checked for accuracy, either by visual inspection by the voter or by a computerized scanning mechanism capable of comparing the face of the printed ballot with the vote data represented in the station’s temporary storage. Only ballots deemed consistent with the voter’s intended or recorded input are accepted for final tabulation. The district court held that claims 1-93 were not infringed, that claims 49 and 94 were invalid, and that other claims were not invalid. The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting that several of the steps involved in the alleged infringement require action by the voter. View "Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Hibbard, then 41 years old and working as a teacher, received a flu vaccination in 2003. She claims that the flu vaccine caused her to develop a neurological disorder known as dysautonomia, a dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system and sought compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C.300aa-1 to 300aa-34. Following a two-day hearing, a special master found that Hibbard had failed to show that her dysautonomia resulted from autonomic neuropathy caused by the vaccine she received in 2003. The Court of Federal Claims upheld the decision. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding substantial evidence to support the denial. View "Hibbard v. Sec'y Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

Flo sued Rioux for infringing a patent that describes a mobile computer workstation intended for medical care environments. Rioux then initiated an inter partes reexamination of the patent. The Patent and Trademark Office granted Rioux’s request, finding a substantial new question of patentability with respect to all 44 claims. The district court stayed the infringement suit pending the PTO’s final determination in the reexamination. The parties later agreed to voluntarily dismiss the infringement suit. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ultimately upheld the examiner’s rejections of claims 8-17, 23, 24, 35, 40-42, 73, 76-79, 87, and 88. The Federal Circuit affirmed, reasoning that Flo’s only argument on appeal was that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a length-adjustable vertical beam; the claims on appeal when properly construed, do not require a length-adjustable vertical beam. Flo acknowledged that the prior art rejections must stand in the absence of such a limitation. View "Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Kappos" on Justia Law

The patent describes a “global paging system utilizing a land-based packet-switched digital data net-work (e.g. the Internet) and a feature for permitting subscribers to remotely designate countries in which they are, or expect to be, located.” The patent asserts that prior art was deficient because it did not fulfill the need for a cheap and efficient global paging system that allows users to “remotely input country designations in which they are to be paged,” noting that other than the roaming feature, the receiving user cannot input designated country locations where he expects to be and that the roam feature is expensive. TPL sued more than 100 defendants for infringement: domestic carriers and handset companies, including AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Motorola, and others; software providers, including Microsoft, Yahoo, and Clickatell; and foreign carriers. The district court dismissed foreign carriers for lack of personal jurisdiction and granted summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of domestic carriers and software providers. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of noninfringement to the domestic carriers, stating that the judgment applies to the foreign carriers, affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement to software providers with respect to certain claims, but vacated judgment of noninfringement with respect to others. View "Tech. Patents LLC v. T-Mobile (UK) Ltd." on Justia Law