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

Petitioner served in the Army for about 30 months, 1981-1983 and suffered injury to her knees and wrist. The VA regional office assigned a 10 percent rating to her left wrist with an effective date of 1986. In 1987, her right arm was injured as a result of medical care she received from the VA. In 1990, her injury to right knee and shoulder were each rated at 20 percent and her left knee at 30 percent. In 1996, she was unable to continue working as a bookkeeper and brought a claim for total disability based on individual unemployability. The regional office rated her service-connected disabilities at 70 percent, but denied a total rating based on unemployability under 38 C.F.R. 4.16(a). The regional office and Board of Veterans’ Appeals rejected her 2004 application for review. The Secretary conceded that the regional office committed error by incorrectly computing petitioner’s rating. The Veterans Court found no “clear and unmistakeable error” and that the error was harmless because the RO had made an unemployability determination that satisfied the requirements for a 4.16(a) analysis. The Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because there was no issue of the interpretation of 4.16(a)View "Githens-Bellas v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Landmark invented an LED billboard and retained Kohler to file a patent application. Kohler filed the 096 application. USPTO indicated that the application contained multiple inventions. Kohler pursued two claims and withdrew others, intending that withdrawn claims would be pursued in divisional applications, to benefit from the 096 filing date. Kohler submitted an incomplete (916) divisional application, not using a postcard receipt to enable prompt notification of deficiencies. Months later, PTO issued notice of incomplete application. Kohler had changed firms. The anniversary of the 096 application’s publication passed; the 096 application became prior art against the 916 application under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The attorneys did not immediately notify Landmark. Their petition to grant the 916 application an earlier filing date was dismissed. Landmark eventually filed suit alleging malpractice, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty and reached a partial settlement. The state court dismissed remaining claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Landmark filed the same claims in federal court, adding claims for breach of contract and fraud. The district court dismissed all except the fraud claim under a one-year limitations period and later dismissed the fraud claim under a three-year limitations period. The Federal Circuit reversed. Under California equitable tolling law, the state law fraud claim was timely filed. View "Landmark Screens, L.L.C. v. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, L.L.P" on Justia Law

In 2004, the Army awarded Parsons the prime contract for work in Iraq. The contract incorporated Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), for reimbursement of sub-contractor costs. Parsons entered into a subcontract with Odell for health care facilities and medical equipment. After the Army terminated task orders for convenience, Odell attempted to collect reimbursement above the amount determined by the Defense Contract Audit Agency as its provisional indirect cost. Settlement for termination of the prime contract did not address the issue. Following an audit, Parsons submitted Odell’s revised invoice to the termination contract officer, who stated that it would not settle directly with Odell under FAR 49.108-8 because it was not in the best interest of the government. Parsons submitted a sponsored Certified Claim under the Contract Disputes Act on behalf of Odell to the Procurement Contracting Officer, who denied the claim. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeal held that the request was routine and, under 48 C.F.R. (FAR) 2.101, needed to be in dispute to constitute a claim over which it had jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Parsons made no argument that its request was in dispute. The record did not indicate that the PCO ever received a proper request for payment.View "Parsons Global Servs., Inc. v. McHugh" on Justia Law

Taxpayers filed original federal income tax returns for 2003 through 2006, followed by alleged amended returns seeking refunds for those same years. They filed original returns in 2007 and 2008, seeking refunds. In 2010, they filed a complaint seeking a claim for refund for tax years 2003 through 2008 and damages for a tax lien filed as a result of penalties. The Claims Court dismissed, finding that the statute of limitations had expired with regard to 2003 and that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction with respect to other years because amended returns and original returns that contained zeros in place of income did not constitute returns and were not proper claims for refund. Taxpayers did not allege any facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for a tax refund. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The amended returns replaced income previously reported, consistent with third-party information provided the IRS, with zeros; taxpayers took no action to obtain corrected third party forms that would corroborate the claims. The returns do not implicate an "honest and reasonable intent to supply information required by the tax code" or rise to the level of specificity required by regulation. View "Waltner v. United States" on Justia Law

Donnellan served in the National Guard from 1969 until 2000. In 1996, a portion of his sigmoid colon was removed as treatment for colon cancer. In March 1998, after diagnosis of acquired polyposis, he had a total colectomy. While on active duty for training in May-June 1998, he became ill and underwent emergency surgery to remove a portion of his small intestine because of a small bowel perforation. After surgery, his doctors treated a small bowel fistula. The DVA denied a service connection to ensuing complications. In 2007, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied benefits, finding by clear and unmistakable evidence that Donnellan’s disease and ensuing complications did not increase in severity beyond natural progression during his period of active duty for training. The Veterans Court remanded, holding that the statutory presumption of aggravation does not apply to an increase in the degree of a disability suffered by a member of the National Guard while on active duty for training who is not a veteran under 38 U.S.C. 101(2) and that his doctor’s medical opinion did not satisfy the Board’s instructions on remand. The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal. The Veterans Court’s remand order is not a final decision. View "Donnellan v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

In 1999 Beasley filed a patent application for personalized postage stamps. In 2001 the PTO issued notice of allowance. Beasley then entered into a licensing agreement with Avery, specifying that Avery would assume responsibility for prosecution of the patent application and would pay patent prosecution expenses. Beasley appointed Renner to prosecute his application. A Renner attorney filed a supplemental information disclosure statement concerning prior art references. The PTO issued a second notice of allowance. Beasley transferred ownership USPPS. USPPS and Avery entered into an agreement. Later, the PTO vacated its notice of allowance and issued final rejections. Beasley and USPPS alleged that Avery mismanaged the application. Beasley’s suit for was dismissed for lack of standing. USPPS filed suit, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, based on Avery’s alleged representation that Beasley was the client of Renner. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. The Fifth Circuit transferred to the Federal Circuit, finding that jurisdiction was based, in part, on 28 U.S.C. 1338 and that the alleged malpractice involves a question of patentability, even if no patent actually issued. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that it had jurisdiction and that the complaint was untimely. View "USPPS, Ltd. v. Avery Dennison Corp." on Justia Law

A drug manufacturer can obtain FDA permission to market a generic version of an approved drug by Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA), rather than full New Drug Application (NDA). It is an act of infringement to file an ANDA for a drug or use of the drug claimed in a patent, 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A). Every NDA must identify every patent that could reasonably be asserted in an infringement action, 21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1), for publication in the Orange Book. An ANDA for a generic drug must address each patent in the Orange Book that relates to that drug. For patents that will not expire prior to proposed marketing, the applicant can include a statement that the applicant is not seeking approval for the method of use claimed in the patent or can certify that the patent is invalid or will not be infringed. Bayer markets Yasmin, an oral contraceptive, approved by NDA in 2001. Defendants filed ANDAs to market generic versions and certified that three patents would not be infringed, arguing that their ANDAs related only to contraceptive use and not to claimed methods for treating hirsutism or acne or reducing water retention. The district court entered judgment of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed.View "Bayer Schering Pharma, AG v. Lupin, Ltd." on Justia Law

In 1983, Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 10101-10270, authorizing the Department of Energy to enter into contracts with nuclear facilities for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW). Congress mandated that, under the Standard Contract, DOE dispose of SNF and HLW beginning not later than January 31, 1998. In 1983, DOE entered into a Standard Contract with Consolidated Edison under which DOE agreed to accept SNF stored at the Indian Point facility. Following DOE’s breach, the Claims Court awarded two categories of damages: wet storage costs for continued operation of its Unit 1 spent fuel pool and regulatory fees paid to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Federal Circuit reversed the awards, affirmed denial of damages for the cost of financing mitigation activities, but reversed denial of damages for indirect overhead costs associated with mitigation. The company had chosen to prioritize removal of Unit 2 SNF and Unit 1 material would not have been removed by the time at issue; the company did not establish that the breach caused an increase in fees to the NRC. View "Consol. Edison Co. of NY, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

A brand-name company seeking FDA new drug approval must submit information about patents for which a claim of infringement could reasonably be asserted, 21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1), for publication in the Orange Book. A generic company may seek FDA approval using abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), including, for each patent in the Orange Book, certification that approval is not sought until the patent expires or paragraph IV certification that such patent is invalid or will not be infringed. If an ANDA contains only paragraph IV certifications, it may be approved unless the holder sues for patent infringement within 45 days. The first generic company to file an ANDA containing paragraph IV certification receives a 180-day exclusivity period from the date of its first commercial marketing. The period can be forfeited by failure to launch after final judgment of noninfringement or invalidity. An ANDA filer, not sued within 45 days, can seek declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. 2201. Plaintiffs obtained declaratory judgment that a generic pharmaceutical did not infringe defendant's patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting a challenge to the district court’s jurisdiction, based on a covenant not to sue contained in an earlier settlement between the parties.View "Dey Pharma, LP v. Sunovion Pharm., Inc." on Justia Law

In 1998, the Supreme Court held that the Harbor Maintenance Tax, 26 U.S.C. 4461-4462, was unconstitutional as applied to exports. U.S. Customs enacted procedures for refunds and established a separate HMT database with data from its ACS database, through which HMT payments had been processed. Customs discovered wide-spread inaccuracies in its HMT database, but was unable to make corrections related to payments made before July 1, 1990, because it no longer had original documents. Customs established different requirements for supporting documentation, depending on whether an exporter was seeking a refund of pre- or post-July 1, 1990 payments. Ford sought HMT refunds for both pre- and post-July 1, 1990, payments and has received more than $17 million, but claims that Customs still owes about $2.5 million. In addition to a FOIA Report of Ford’s pre-July 1, 1990 payments was drawn from information in the ACS database, Ford submitted an affidavit attesting that it was only claiming refunds of HMT paid on exports and declarations about the consistency and quality of its quarterly HMT payment records. Customs denied the claims. The Trade Court entered judgment in favor of the government. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The claims were insufficient because there still was high potential for error. View "Ford Motor Co. v. United States" on Justia Law