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

AFTG filed two actions in the District of Wyoming, claiming that defendants infringe several of its patents. Pegatron, PTS, and Unihan are named as defendants in one case; ASUSTeK and ASUS are named as defendants in the other. AFTG’s allegations are the same in both cases. The complaints generally allege that the defendants’ manufacturing, use, testing, and importation of computer chips, motherboards, computers, and other products directly infringe AFTG’s patents and that the defendants knowingly and intentionally induce and contribute to others’ infringement. The complaint against Pegatron, PTS, and Unihan also alleges misappropriation of trade secrets. The court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Wyoming’s personal jurisdiction statute explicitly reaches to the full extent of the United States and Wyoming constitutions. Specific (as opposed to general) jurisdiction examines: whether the defendant purposefully directs activities at the forum’s residents; whether the claim arises out of or relates to those activities; and whether assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair. AFTG’s complaint represented nothing more than “bare formulaic accusation” that the defendants maintain sufficient contacts with Wyoming. View "AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp." on Justia Law

Generic pharmaceutical manufacturers filed abbreviated new drug applications, seeking FDA approval to market generic formulations of the chemotherapy agent pemetrexed, currently marketed as Alimta. Permetrexed won FDA approval in 2004 for use in treating mesothelioma and then in 2008 for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. A 1989 patent application claimed pemetrexed and a broader group of related antifolates containing pemetrexed’s characteristic core structure. The application, eventually abandoned, founded a family of related applications that yielded the three patents at issue; two have expired, but the 932 patent remains in effect until 2016, due to a patent term extension of over four years to compensate for delays, 35 U.S.C. 156. The ANDAs asserted that the 932 patent was invalid, unenforceable, or would not be infringed by the proposed generic products, 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV). Lily, which markets Alimta, sued alleging infringement, 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A). The district court rejected arguments that the 932 patent claims were invalid for obviousness-type double patenting over two earlier-issued claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Med., Inc." on Justia Law

The Army solicited proposals for aerial target flight operations and maintenance services. Kratos provided these services under a predecessor contract. The solicitation listed three evaluation factors: Technical/Management; Past Performance; and Price/Cost to be rated as “outstanding,” “satisfactory,” “marginal,” or “unsatisfactory.” The contract was subject to the Service Contract Act of 1965, under which the Federal Acquisition Regulation requires that “successor contractors … in the same locality must pay wages and fringe benefits … at least equal to those contained in any bona fide collective bargaining agreement … under the predecessor contract.” The Army received three proposals, including the offers from SA-TECH and Kratos. After review, the Technical Evaluation Committee announced a Final Evaluation Report, noting potential difficulties for SA-TECH under the Labor sub-factor, but rating SA-TECH as “outstanding” for all factors. Kratos also received “outstanding” ratings. The Source Selection Authority concluded that SA-TECH offered the best value for the government. Kratos filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office. SA-TECH subsequently protested the Army’s decision to engage in corrective action instead of allowing SA-TECH’s award to stand. The Claims Court denied the Army’s motion to dismiss and found the Army’s actions unreasonable and contrary to law. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Sys. Application & Tech., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Amkor initiated an International Trade Commission investigation, based on the importation, sale for importation, and sale within the U.S. after importation of certain encapsulated integrated circuit devices that allegedly infringed patent claims The Commission determined that the patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(2). The Federal Circuit reversed. Evidence establishing that there might have been a prior conception is not sufficient to meet the clear and convincing burden needed to invalidate a patent. View "Amkor Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

Under 35 U.S.C. 251, a patentee may, within two years of the issuance of a patent, seek a broadening reissue of that patent if the patentee originally claimed “less than he had a right to claim,” but, under the rule against recapture, is precluded from regaining subject matter surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of the original claims. The district court held that two claims in the reissued 370 patent were invalid under the rule against recapture. The specifications of the370 patent and its predecessor, the 585 patent, are substantially identical and disclose improvements to electronic memory devices, EEPROM circuits, in which “the presence or absence of charge on a floating gate electrode indicates a binary one or zero.” In an EEPROM, charge is transferred to and from the floating gate electrode through a tunneling oxide layer that acts as an insulator when not actively tunneling. However, traditional tunneling oxide layers formed by thermal oxide growth are susceptible to pin-hole defects as well as compressive stress. The improved tunneling oxide layer disclosed in the patents reduces defects and stress, and thereby improves, among other things, processing yields, reliability, and the useful life of EEPROM memory. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Greenliant Sys., Inc. v. Xicor, L.L.C." on Justia Law

WhitServe, owned by Whitmyer, an inventor and a practicing patent attorney holds four patents, namely: “Onsite Backup for Internet-Based Data Processing,” “System Automating Delivery of Professional Services,” “System for Delivering Professional Services Over the Internet,”; and “Web Site Providing Professional Services.” Whitserve sued CPi, which helps other businesses pay their patent maintenance fees on time, alleging infringement by CPi’s system, which are used by a CPi customer, such as a law firm, to generate and send reminders to its clients of upcoming patent or trademark annuity or maintenance fee deadlines. A jury found that CPi failed to prove any claims invalid, that CPi’s systems infringed the patents, that CPi’s infringement was willful, and that WhitServe was entitled to $8,378,145 in damages. The court denied WhitServe’s request for a permanent injunction and did not address a request for a compulsory license. WhitServe’s requests for enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, prejudgment remedy, and disclosure were denied. The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of infringement, the finding of no anticipation of most, but not all, claims, and denial of fees and sanctions. The case was remanded for a new trial on damages. View "Whitserve, L.L.C. v Computer Packages, Inc." on Justia Law

Hillyard suffered a head injury and was hospitalized for two weeks while serving in the U.S. Army. Hillyard filed a single claim for service connection for a mental condition, which he attributed to his in-service head injury. The Veterans Administration denied his claim and the Board affirmed and subsequently denied Hillyard’s request for revision. The Veterans Court affirmed. Hillyard later filed a second request for revision alleging clear and unmistakable error (CUE) by the Board in failing to consider and apply 38 U.S.C. 105(a) and 1111, a different CUE allegation from the one he made in his first request. The Board dismissed the second request for revision with prejudice, concluding 38 C.F.R. 20.1409(c) permitted only one request for revision to be filed. The Veterans Court affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The interpretation of Rule 1409(c) proffered by the VA is consistent with the language of the regulation and is in harmony with the VA’s description of the regulation in its notice of rule-making. View "Hillyard v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Conyers and Northover were indefinitely suspended and demoted, respectively, from their positions with the Department of Defense after they were found ineligible to occupy “noncritical sensitive” positions. The Department argued that, because the positions were designated “noncritical sensitive,” the Merit Systems Protection Board could not review the merits of the Department’s determinations under the precedent set forth in Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). The Board held that Egan limits review of an otherwise appealable adverse action only if that action is based upon eligibility for or a denial, revocation, or suspension of access to classified information. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. Egan prohibits Board review of agency determinations concerning eligibility of an employee to occupy a “sensitive” position, regardless of whether the position requires access to classified information. View "Berry v. Conyers" on Justia Law

The district court held that medical organizations, researchers, genetic counselors, and patients had standing under the Declaratory Judgment Act to challenge patent claims to "isolated" DNA molecules and granted summary judgment that all of the challenged claims were drawn to non-patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. On remand for consideration under Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), the Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to standing and reversed, in part, on the merits. The court reversed a holding that composition claims to “isolated” DNA molecules cover patent-ineligible products of nature under section 101 because each of the claimed molecules represents a nonnaturally occurring composition of matter. The court also reversed a holding that a method claim to screening potential cancer therapeutics via changes in cell growth rates of transformed cells is directed to a patent-ineligible scientific principle. The court affirmed that method claims directed to “comparing” or “analyzing” DNA sequences are patent ineligible; such claims include no transformative steps and cover only patent-ineligible abstract, mental steps View "Ass'n for Moleculat Pathology v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office" on Justia Law

Brady, the sole inventor of the 087 and 122 patents, was, from 1986-1996, an independent sales representative for Bodum, a company that designs and sells housewares products, including coffee makers, milk frothers, and other kitchen products. He conceived of a frother using aeration instead of steam in the mid-1990s, introduced it at a 1996 trade show, and began selling frothers through his company BonJour. In 1996, Brady filed a patent application directed to a “Method for Frothing Liquids,” which became the 087 Patent, issued in 1998. While the application was pending, Brady filed a continuation application that later became the 122 patent, that issued in 1999. In 2005 Brady sold Bonjour and the patents to Meyer. Meyer sued Bodum for infringement. The district court granted Meyer summary judgment after prohibiting Bodum from: introducing and relying on prior art; presenting testimony relating to that prior art; and introducing evidence to support inequitable conduct claims. The jury determined that the patents were not invalid, found that Bodum’s infringement was willful, and awarded Meyer damages of $50,000. The court awarded Meyer attorney fees of $906,487.56. The federal circuit reversed. View "Meyer Intellectual Props., Ltd. v. Bodum, Inc." on Justia Law