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

The patent involves screening devices used in the pulp and paper industry. According to the specification of the asserted patent, a persistent problem in the screening process is clogging of the openings in the screen resulting in reduced efficiency. The patent purports to include specially-designed screening devices that offer substantially increased efficiency and flow capacity. Submission for reissue in 2003 was initially rejected as anticipated by prior art 35 U.S.C. 102 (b). After the examiner withdrew the rejection, the patent-holder filed suit for infringement. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement and lack of willfulness. The Federal Circuit affirmed on willfulness, but reversed with respect to infringement, finding that the court erred in its construction of the term "perforated."View "Advanced Fiber Tech. Trust. v. J&L Fiber Serv., Inc." on Justia Law

Federal employees are entitled up to 15 days each year of military leave to attend training as a member of a reserve of the armed forces or National Guard. 5 U.S.C. 6323(a)(1). The Federal Circuit held that federal agencies cannot charge military leave on non-workdays. Duncan worked as a civilian for the Air Force until his retirement in 2005. From 1980 to 1998, he was also in the Air Force Reserve and performed 12 days each year of active duty plus additional duty for training. In 2009, he filed a claim with the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging that the Air Force had charged his leave on non-workdays in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, seeking compensation for six days. An Administrative Law Judge granted the request, finding Duncan's recollection credible. The Board reversed, holding that it requires more than personal recollection and reliance on military documents. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The record did not show that all corroborating evidence was unavailable. View "Duncan v. Dep't of the Air Force" on Justia Law

In 1996, RG, exclusive licensee of a German patent and corresponding patents in the U.S., Europe, and Japan relating to genetic identification, entered into a license agreement with Promega, granting Promega certain licenses. The agreement included a clause, providing that “all controversies or disputes arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or relating to the breach thereof, shall be resolved by arbitration” and prohibited assignment without consent. Assignments were approved in 2001 and 2003; a subsequent assignment from IP to LT was not approved. In 2008 LT believed that Promega was paying less than required royalties. Negotiations failed and LT demanded arbitration. Promega sought a declaratory judgment of non-arbitrability, alleging infringement of five patents and contenting that rights under the 1996 agreement had never been assigned to LT. IP then moved to compel arbitration. The district court ordered arbitration, finding that IP was the assignee, remained in existence, and that it was irrelevant that Promega alleged that IP was merely a puppet of LT. The Federal Circuit affirmed.View "Promega Corp. v. Life Tech. Corp." on Justia Law

Domestic producers submitted an antidumping investigation petition to the Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission concerning imports of butt-weld pipe fittings from China and Thailand. Butt-weld fittings are forged steel products used to join pipe where conditions require permanent, welded connections. The petition identified products by inside diameter and compliance with certain ASTM and ANSI industry standards. Commerce issued a final determination that the products were being dumped. The ITC concluded that the domestic industry was materially injured by the dumped imports. The final anti-dumping duty order referred to fittings used to "join sections in piping systems." In 2009, King requested a scope ruling that butt-weld pipe fittings it imported from China were outside the scope of the order; its imported fittings are physically identical to those subject to the order, but were used "for structural use in applications such as handrails, fencing, and guardrails." Commerce concluded that the imports were within the scope of the order. The Trade Court concluded that the order was restricted to fittings used in piping systems. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the Trade Court gave inadequate deference to Commerce's scope ruling that the order did not contain such an end-use restriction. View "King Supply Co., LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

Avery and 3M are competitors in the market for retroreflective sheeting technology, used in applications including road signs. In 2001, Avery sued 3M concerning patents not currently at issue; during the course of settlement discussions, 3M became aware that Avery was prosecuting reissue of the Heenan patents. Avery indicated that certain 3M sheeting products might infringe the patents and that licenses were available. 3M rejected the suggestion and asked for more information. Avery responded that it had performed an analysis of 3M’s product and would send claim charts, but never did so. The patents emerged from reissue 2009. n 2010 Avery filed another unrelated patent infringement claim and 3M filed with respect to the Heenan patents. 3M conceded that conversations prior to 2009 were covered by a confidentiality agreement that precluded their use as a basis to support a declaratory judgment action, then cancelled its declaratory judgments claims and refiled those claims separately (the current action). The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit vacated, noting that the court would have jurisdiction under facts alleged by 3M and that the court did not resolve those factual issues. View "3M Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp." on Justia Law

The patent describes an infusion system used to meter and deliver fluids from multiple sources into a patient's body. Different fluids may be discharged at different rates using a central control device. Ergo sued CareFusion for infringement of several of the patent's claims; the parties stipulated that several terms were means-plus-function terms, including the terms "programmable control means" and "control means." The parties agreed that the analysis for both terms is the same and that the function for the terms is "controlling the adjusting means." The district court held that the "control means" terms are indefinite for failure to disclose corresponding structure. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc." on Justia Law

The widow of a veteran, who had service connected post-traumatic stress disorder rated at 100% disabling, was denied dependency and indemnity compensation benefits in 2002. She filed a Notice of Disagreement. The VA regional office informed her that it was continuing to deny her claim and that she could appeal within 60 days. More than 120 days later, she attempted to appeal using VA Form 9. The VA responded that the claim could only be reopened if she submitted new and material evidence. Several months later she filed a statement and, after she submitted new evidence, the claim was reopened and granted effective July 2004, when the VA first received the request to reopen. She sought benefits effective at the date of her husband's death. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board, noting that her earlier submissions were not accompanied by new, material evidence required to reopen, 38 C.F.R. 3.156(a). The Federal Circuit affirmed. To establish an effective date of benefits granted under a reopened claim, an otherwise proper informal request to reopen need not be accompanied by new and material evidence, but the error was harmless because the Form 9 did not show any intent to reopen.View "Akers v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Plaintiff entered into a "Stipulation Agreement Regarding Damages," approved by the EEOC, to resolve her Title VII pregnancy discrimination claim against the U.S. Postal Service. She later filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging breached of that Agreement. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction because the Agreement was a consent decree, not a contract. In the federal system, when the United States is the defendant, whether the issue is enforcement of a court decree by the issuing forum or enforcement of a settlement contract in a separate suit determines which court can hear the case. The Federal Circuit reversed, stating that the "dispute is yet another example of the wastefulness of litigation over where to litigate." Consent decrees and settlement agreements are not necessarily mutually exclusive; a settlement agreement, even one embodied in a decree, is a contract within the meaning of the Tucker Act. View "VanDesande v. United States" on Justia Law

The veteran served in Vietnam in the 1960s. He was honorably discharged and received service connection compensation for arthritis and hearing loss. In 1993, he had a malignant melanoma surgically removed; it continued to spread and he died in 1994. The surviving widow filed an Application for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation alleging that her husband’s death was service connected due to exposure to Agent Orange and extensive sunlight while serving in Vietnam. The Regional Office denied the claim. In 2004, she filed the current claim and submitted an internet article discussing an Air Force study that found an elevated risk of melanoma in veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange. The Board reopened and remanded the claim. On remand, a VA medical examiner determined that it was "at least as likely as not" that the melanoma was causally related to active duty service. The RO again denied the claim.. The Board affirmed. The Veterans Court vacated and remanded. The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that there was no final decision.View "Ebel v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Bridgestone registered the mark POTENZA for tires in 1984, stating use in commerce since 1981. Bridgestone registered the mark TURANZA for tires in 2004, stating use in commerce since 1991. Federal filed an intent-to-use application to register the mark MILANZA for tires in 2004. Bridgestone opposed registration, arguing likelihood of confusion. The Board gave little weight to survey evidence of consumer confusion as to the source of tires bearing the MILANZA mark, and held that the "dissimilarity of the marks simply outweighs the other relevant factors." The Federal Circuit reversed, noting the identity of the goods, the lengthy prior use of POTENZA and TURANZA, market strength of the POTENZA and TURANZA marks, and the similarities of words, sounds, and connotation with MILANZA. Sufficient similarity has been shown as would be likely to cause consumer confusion, deception, or mistake.View "Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC v. Federal Corp." on Justia Law