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

The patents involve topical compositions for protecting pets from fleas and ticks. The 940 patent, now expired, claimed fipronil for pest control by direct toxicity. Merial, as exclusive licensee, developed compositions sold as Frontline. Merial also devised compositions, covered by the 329 patent, combining fipronil with an insect growth regulator, sold as Frontline Plus, the leading flea and tick treatment. In 2007 Merial sued Cipla and other internet retailers, alleging infringement. No defendant responded. The district court found that the patents were not invalid, that Cipla had infringed each patent, and entered a permanent injunction barring Cipla from directly or indirectly infringing the patents. In 2008 Cipla filed an informal communication, not intended to constitute an appearance, denying infringing or having any presence in the U.S., and requesting dismissal. The district court entered final judgment. Velcera, led by former Merial executives, engaged with Cipla to develop, test, manufacture, and distribute products to compete with Merial. Both Velcera and Cipla entered into development and supply agreements with various companies. In 2011, they began selling PetArmor Plus. The district court held Velcera and Cipla in contempt. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to jurisdiction and to the contempt order’s application to Velcera. View "Merial, Ltd. v. Cipla, Ltd." on Justia Law

Whitmore began his federal government career in 1972. In 1990 his group transferred to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Prior to 2005, Whitmore regularly received better than satisfactory performance reviews, bonuses, and awards, and was never subject to discipline. In 2005, Whitmore began making public disclosures that OSHA was failing to enforce its recordkeeping requirements and acquiescing in industry reports of impossibly low numbers of injuries and illnesses. He provided comments to newspapers. Also in 2005, Whitmore provided an affidavit supporting a co-worker in her Equal Employment Opportunity complaint for alleged discrimination and retaliation by her managers at OSHA. Due to various medical and personal matters, Whitmore took significant leave from work. Following a number of additional incidents, he was removed from his position. The Merit Systems Protection Board upheld the termination. The Federal Circuit reversed. In analyzing whether the DOL had proven by clear and convincing evidence that Whitmore would have been removed regard-less of his whistleblowing disclosures (5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)), the MSPB excluded or ignored evidence offered by Whitmore necessary to adjudicate Whitmore’s retaliation claim, and otherwise applied the law incorrectly. View "Whitmore v. Dep't of Labor" on Justia Law

The 148 patent claims a structure for encasing meat products. It describes prior art, which use netting that allows meat to bulge between strands and produce a desirable checkerboard pattern on the meat’s surface, but causes difficulty in peeling netting off the cooked meat. Prior art tried to solve this problem by using a separate layer of collagen film, or stockinette; this required a two-step stuffing process that was labor intensive and expensive. The 148 patent integrates a stockinette into a netting to make a new kind of meat encasement. The integrated stockinette has more stretching ability than the netting and solves the adherence problem without the two-step stuffing process while allowing some bulging to create the grid-like pattern on the meat. Mintz asserts that the 148 patent covers its Jif-Pak knitted meat encasement products. PCM, previously a distributor of Mintz’s Jif-Pak products, now competes with Mintz. Mintz accused PCM’s bubble netting, collagen replacement, and cubic netting product lines of infringement. The district court ruled in favor of PCM. The Federal Circuit affirmed the non-infringement determination and vacated the invalidity holding. With respect to determining obviousness, entirely omitting meat encasement art led the validity search astray View "Mintz v. Dietz & Watson" on Justia Law

The patent is entitled “Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene Molded Article for Artificial Joints and Method of Preparing the Same.” The examiner rejected a reissue application as obvious, finding that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use cross-linked UHMWPE in the method of making the UHMWPE products disclosed by a reference, given the teaching of another reference that cross-linking prior to compression deformation results in improved transparency, an increased melting point, and excellent dimensional stability. The examiner further found that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining those enhanced properties by combining the techniques taught by the two references. The Board affirmed, rejecting an argument that there would have been no motivation to combine the teachings because the references are directed to different products. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "In Re: Hyon" on Justia Law

The claims court found that the taxpayers were not entitled to refunds of $142,277.55 and $725,205.28 paid to the IRS for tax deficiencies in tax year 1992 and tax year 1995. The taxpayers disputed whether the IRS properly mailed the two notices of deficiency prior to December 31, 2000, tolling the statute of limitations and making the 1992 and 1995 assessments timely. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part. Use of the form prescribed in the Internal Revenue Manual for establishing compliance with the notice of deficiency mailing requirement (PS Form 3877) is not a prerequisite to the government demonstrating mailing of a notice of deficiency, but some corroborating evidence of both the existence and timely mailing of the notice of deficiency is required. The IRS presented such corroborating evidence for the 1992 notice of deficiency but not as to the 1995 notice. View "Welch v. United States" on Justia Law

Power companies sought damages for the cost of storing spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste beyond when the government promised by contract to begin storing that waste in a permanent repository. In 2004, the claims court held a seven-week trial on damages. The Federal Circuit accepted its findings on foreseeability, reasonable certainty and the use of the substantial causal factor standard for causation purposes, and the determination that an award of Nuclear Waste Fund fees should be denied as premature, but remanded for application of the 1987 annual capacity report rate to damages claimed by the parties. On remand, the claims court accepted the fuel exchange model presented by plaintiffs’ expert and concluded that plaintiffs would not have built dry storage; two of the companies would not have reracked their storage pools under the 1987 ACR rate. The court found that, using fuel exchanges, plaintiffs would have emptied their wet storage facilities in the non-breach world within the first 10 years of DOE’s performance. The Federal Circuit reversed with respect to denial of claims for wet storage pool costs and NRC fees, which were within the mandate on remand, but otherwise affirmed. View "Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

Duchesneau served on active duty in the Army, July 1996 to January 1999. In 2000, a VA Regional Office granted service connection for her right shoulder bursitis with a 10 percent disability rating. In 2003 she sought an increased disability rating, but the RO denied her claim. The Board affirmed. The veterans' court rejected her claim for two separate disability ratings under a single diagnostic code, set aside the Board's decision as to a single appropriate disability rating under DC 5201 and remanded to the Board to clarify the precise extent of her right shoulder limitation. The Federal Circuit rejected an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the veterans' court decision was not a final judgment. View "Duchesneau v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Baxter's patent relates to hemodialysis machines that can function in place of a human kidney to cleanse the blood of toxins using a solution called a dialysate. The patent, entitled "Method and Apparatus for Kidney Dialysis," discloses and claims a hemodialysis machine integrated with a touch screen user interface that allows an operator to monitor and control a number of parameters. To ensure that the process does not filter essential nutrients from the blood, a hemodialysis machine must facilitate the monitoring and control of a number of parameters. In parallel with litigation concerning the patent, the U.S. PTO reexamined and rejected claims in the patent as obvious, 35 U.S.C. 103. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "In Re Baxter Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Morris served on active duty for two months in 1964. His entrance examination and examination upon separation revealed no psychiatric abnormality. In 1966 Morris sought disability compensation for a psychiatric disorder, claiming that in basic training, he had suffered abuse from his sergeant, which caused him to experience nervous breakdown. The VA Regional Office denied the claim. In 1986, the RO concluded that additional evidence did not constitute new and material evidence. Following another denial, Morris presented evidence that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and a VA physician's opinion that it had its onset during service. The Board denied the claim. On remand in 1992, the Board concluded that evidence supported the claim but that its 1988 decision was final. In 1993, the RO awarded service connection for schizophrenia effective from 1987. In 1996, the Board denied a claim that the award should be retroactive to 1966. The Veterans Court rejected an argument that the 1988 Board failed to apply correctly 38 U.S.C. 105(a), 1110, and 1111, noting no evidence that the Board incorrectly considered his condition a personality disorder. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Under 38 C.F.R. 3.303(c), personality disorders are not diseases or injuries within the meaning of 1110 and are not compensable. View "Morris v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Apple claimed that Samsung smartphones, the Galaxy S and the Infuse, and its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet infringed four Apple patents. Apple sought a preliminary injunction to block importation and U.S. sales. The district court denied the motion with respect to each device and all asserted patents. As to one patent, the court found that Apple failed to show likelihood of success on the merits because the patented design did not cover functional features and the design aspect was likely anticipated. As to others, the court held that Apple failed to show that it would likely suffer irreparable harm from continuing infringement while the case was pending, rejecting a claim of erosion of design distinctiveness. The court concluded that the absence of a nexus between the claimed design and the loss of market share, coupled with delay in seeking an injunction, undercut a claim of irreparable harm. With respect to a patent for the tablet computer, the court found that the design was not dictated by functionality and may have been obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to three patents. With respect to the fourth, the court vacated, holding that the district court erred in its validity analysis. View "Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd." on Justia Law