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

The patent, “Method of Operating a Memory Having a Variable Data Output Length and Programmable Register” is one of a family of patents that claim priority to the 898 Application, which has a priority date of 1990, and, therefore, is now expired. In 2005, Rambus sued Hynix and several other chip manufacturers, including Micron, alleging infringement of several patents in the 898 family. After the district court entered judgment finding infringement, Hynix sought ex parte reexamination of certain claims of the patent. During reexamination, the examiner construed the term “memory device” broadly as a “device[] that allows for the electronic storage and retrieval of information.” Under this construction, the examiner rejected claim 18 as anticipated. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and the Federal Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence supports the PTO’s determination Claim 18, as correctly construed reads on the “memory module” in the prior art iAPX 432 Interconnect Architecture Reference Manual published by Intel Corp. in 1982. View "In re Rambus, Inc." on Justia Law

DuoProSS and Inviro sell medical syringes designed to prevent accidental needle sticks. A person using an Inviro syringe: rotates the plunger; pulls the plunger back, drawing the needle into the syringe barrel; and snaps off the plunger, sealing the needle inside. Inviro owns the two trademarks at issue: the “SNAP! design mark,” for use with “ medical, hypodermic, aspiration and injection syringes” and the “SNAP SIMPLY SAFER mark,” for use with “cannulae; medical, hypodermic, aspiration and injection needles; medical, hypodermic, aspiration and injection syringes.” Inviro petitioned to cancel a trademark registration owned by DuoProSS for the design mark BAKSNAP, for use with a “safety syringe for medical use.” DuoProSS counterclaimed for cancellation of several Inviro registrations, including the marks at issue. Inviro withdrew its petition and agreed to voluntarily surrender one registration. The Board concluded that other registrations for the SNAP mark in typed format were merely descriptive and ordered cancellation, but declined to cancel the SNAP! design mark and the SNAP SIMPLY SAFER word mark. The Federal Circuit reversed. The Board failed to consider one of the marks as a whole, unduly focusing on one portion (!) and erroneously concluded that puffing could render the marks more than descriptive.View "Duopross Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med.Devices, Ltd." on Justia Law

MIT is the assignee of the 922 patent and MagSil is the exclusive licensee. The patent application was filed in 1995; it issued in 1997. The patent claims read-write sensors for computer hard disk drive storage systems. Hard disk drives store digital data in microscopic magnetic patterns on the surface of spinning platters, or disks, inside the drive. The patent claims both a method of manufacturing a tri-layer tunnel junction and the junction itself. MagSil filed suit in 2008 against several defendants, alleging that their disk drive products infringed the patent. The district court found the asserted claims invalid as a matter of law for lack of enablement. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The specification must contain sufficient disclosure to enable an ordinarily skilled artisan to make and use the entire scope of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The specification containing the broad claims at issue, does not contain sufficient disclosure to present “even a remote possibility” that an ordinarily skilled artisan could have achieved the modern dimensions of this art.View "Magsil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage Techs." on Justia Law

Shell imported petroleum products, 1993-1994, upon which custom duties, taxes, and other fees were paid. During the same period, Shell exported drawback-eligible substitute finished petroleum derivatives. In 1995-1996, substitution drawback claims were filed with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Shell’s behalf. Generally, Customs provides a drawback of 99% of any duty, tax, or fee imposed under federal law upon entry or importation if the merchandise (or a commercially interchangeable substitute) is subsequently exported or destroyed under Customs supervision and not used within the U.S. before exportation or destruction, 19 U.S.C. 1313(j),(p). Drawback claims must be filed within three years of exportation. During the time of Shell’s imports, drawback eligibility of Harbor Maintenance Tax and Environmental Tax payments, which Shell now seeks, were heavily disputed. Shell was found not to have included an express request for HMT and ET in the “net claim” figure. In 1997, after the three-year period for the filing of drawback claims had expired Shell filed protests with Customs, seeking drawback as to HMT and ET payments. Customs denied Shell’s protests. The Court of International Trade found the claims time-barred. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that 1999 and 2004 statutory amendments did not change Shell’s position. View "Shell Oil Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

Wake Forest is the owner of asserted patents, and KCI are the exclusive licensees of the patents, which claim methods and apparatuses for treating difficult-to-heal wounds by applying suction or negative pressure. In response to S&N’s 2008 announcement that it was launching a new foam-based negative pressure wound treatment product, Wake Forest and KCI asserted that S&N infringes two apparatus claims of the patent and induces infringement of four method claims. Rejecting the jury’s findings of non-obviousness, the district court found obviousness, based on prior art, and rejected infringement claims. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. The objective evidence strongly supported the jury’s findings under the first three Graham factors and cut against the view that the claimed inventions were an obvious combination of known elements from the prior art. View "Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc." on Justia Law

Adams was employed as an Information Technology Specialist with the Missile Defense Agency of the Department of Defense, a position designated Special Sensitive and requiring the employee to maintain a Top Secret security clearance with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information. The Defense Intelligence Agency notified Adams that it had suspended his access to Sensitive Compartmented Information and had made a preliminary determination to revoke his security clearance for violations of agency security regulations. Weeks later, the Missile Defense Agency notified Adams that he would be suspended from his position indefinitely without pay. The Merit Systems Protection Board sustained the decision and the Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the agency had afforded Adams the required minimal procedural protections and that “an employee is not entitled to a transfer to a nonsensitive position absent a separate transfer right arising from some” other source. Adams remained on indefinite suspension without pay pending completion of the agency appeals process. The Department of Defense terminated his employment and denied his request for early retirement. The MSPB held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the termination and denial. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, but reversed concerning MSPB authority to review denial of a retirement request. View "Adams v. Dep't of Def." on Justia Law

In 2004 Ford owned the British car maker Jaguar. In 2004 and 2005, Ford imported Jaguar-brand cars. On the cars’ entry into the U. S., Ford deposited estimated duty payments with Customs. Ford subsequently concluded that its estimates were too high and filed reconciliation entries seeking a refund. The total refund claimed, across nine disputed entries at issue, was about $6.2 million. The general one-year time period imposed for liquidating such entries had long expired when Ford filed suit, 19 U.S.C. 1504(a). The Court of International Trade rejected the complaint’s assertion of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i), the Tariff Act’s grant of residual jurisdiction over matters concerning enforcement and administration of duty assessment. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding valid invocation of the court’s residual jurisdiction, as the importer could not have asserted jurisdiction under any of the other enumerated provisions of section 1581. Post-complaint efforts by Customs to clear the importer’s accounts did not undo such jurisdiction. View "Ford Motor Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

Griglock, a 70-year-old retired woman, received an influenza vaccination in 2005. Weeks later, she went to her doctor, complaining of weakness, and was admitted to the hospital. Her treating neurologist determined that she suffered from Guillain-Barré Syndrome. She improved initially, but soon developed respiratory failure and was placed on a ventilator. She died about 18 months later; her death certificate lists “ventilator-dependent respiratory failure due to GBS” as the immediate cause of death. Her estate filed a petition for compensation under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-1, 300aa-10(a). The government responded that there was insufficient evidence to find that the influenza vaccine caused her GBS and death, but that it would not contest the issue and recommended an award of up to $250,000. The estate then sought unreimbursable medical expenses and compensation for pain and suffering. The Special Master determined that Griglock’s death was caused by an influenza vaccination, that her estate had standing, but that entitlement was limited to death benefits because injury benefits were barred by the statute of limitations. The Court of Federal Claims affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Griglock v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

Jensen, a licensed customs broker, filed with Customs 308 protests on behalf of importers, seeking reliquidation of 1,529 entries of softwood lumber from Canada. More than two years later, Jensen inquired about the status of the protests. After nearly two months, Customs replied that the protests had been consolidated under a “lead protest” and that a draft decision letter had been prepared, but not finalized, and suggested that Jensen contact the Port of Detroit for a list of consolidated protests. Jensen expressed concern that Port of Detroit might not possess a complete list, as some protests had been filed in other ports. Receiving no response, Jensen filed suit in the Court of International Trade to preserve appeal rights. Customs subsequently stated, via email, that pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 177.7(b), it would not issue a ruling with respect to any issue pending before the Court of International Trade. Jensen then sought a writ of mandamus to compel Customs to rule on its protests. The Court of International Trade held that it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i), reasoning that Jensen could seek accelerated disposition of its protests by Customs under 19 U.S.C. 1515(b) and contest any subsequent denial. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Norman G. Jensen, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Whiteman was employed by the FAA and reported violations of regulations, mismanagement, and abuses of authority. Whiteman alleged that colleagues and supervisors began to threaten and intimidate her. She filed EEO actions and reported one incident to police. She was excluded from the radar room and stripped of duties, then reassigned to the control tower instead of her previous job. In 2003, Whiteman settled with the FAA resolving all claims, “known or unknown” in exchange for guaranteed priority consideration for the next available supervisor position. December 9, 2003, Whiteman applied for a position. No other applicants were considered. December 18, 2003, the FAA adopted pay scale changes, which reduced the salary of the position. Whiteman accepted the position, but sued, alleging that the FAA’s delay in notifying her of the vacancy breached the settlement agreement and caused loss of earnings. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Whiteman appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board contending that the FAA had unlawfully retaliated against her for whistleblowing. The Board concluded that the claim was barred. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part. The MSPB incorrectly concluded that Whiteman’s post-settlement retaliation claim was collaterally estopped, but its conclusion that the settlement agreement is enforceable is supported by substantial evidence. View "Whiteman v. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law