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

Hauge and his former employer, ERI, disputed ownership of intellectual property rights related to “pressure exchangers,” a type of energy recovery device used in reverse osmosis. In 2001 they entered into an Agreement. The district court adopted the Agreement, holding that ERI was to be the sole owner of three U.S. patents and one pending patent application. After expiration of the Agreement’s non-compete clause, in 2004, Hauge filed a patent application, titled “Pressure Exchanger,” and a utility application. The patent issued in 2007, describing “[a] pressure exchanger for transferring pressure energy from a high-pressure fluid stream to low-pressure fluid stream.” In 2009, Hauge’s new company, Isobarix, unsuccessfully attempted to reach a new agreement with ERI. Isobarix began selling a pressure exchanger, called “XPR.” Hauge entered into a consulting agreement with two ERI employees. ERI sought an Order to Show Cause, in 2012, submitting an expert’s declaration that Isobarix was using pressure exchanger technology from pre-March 19, 2001 in design and manufacture of XPR, which is “virtually identical to the ERI pressure exchanger” in operation. The court entered a Contempt Order, finding that allowing Hauge to develop new products using technology he assigned to ERI solely because the new inventions post-date the Agreement would render the Agreement useless. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that Hauge did not violate the “four corners” of the 2001 Order. View "Energy Recovery, Inc. v. Hauge" on Justia Law

The Tariff Act of 1930 permits the Department of Commerce to impose two types of duties on imports that injure domestic industries: antidumping duties on goods sold in the U.S. "at less than ... fair value,” 19 U.S.C. 1673 and countervailing duties on goods that receive “a countervailable subsidy” from a foreign government, 1671(a). Commerce has long collected both types of duties from market economy importers. In 2012, Congress enacted legislation that overruled the Federal Circuit’s 2011 decision, GPXI, and permitted imposition of both antidumping and countervailing duties with respect to importers from non-market economy (NME) countries. Because this law is retroactive and does not require Commerce to adjust for any double counting that may result from the retroactive imposition of both countervailing and antidumping duties, Wireking, an importer affected by the change, claimed that it violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. The Court of International Trade upheld the new law. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Wireking did not show that the absence of a retrospective double-counting provision negates the law’s predominantly remedial impact. The 2012 law is not punitive and does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. View "Guangdong Wireking Housewares v. United States" on Justia Law

Alcon’s patents disclose methods for enhancing the stability of prostaglandin compositions, including Alcon’s glaucoma and ocular hypertension drug Travatan Z®, which contains travoprost, the synthetic prostaglandin fluprostenol isopropyl ester. Barr submitted an FDA Abbreviated New Drug Application, seeking approval to manufacture and sell an ophthalmic travoprost solution as a generic version of Travatan Z®. Although the Alscon patents are not listed as referenced to Travatan Z® in the FDA Orange Book, Alcon sued, asserting infringement of different Book-listed patents. Alcon did not assert those patents at trial and neither party adduced any evidence specifically relating to those patents. Barr stipulated that its generic product infringed the remaining Alcon patents and that those patents were not invalid. After a Markman hearing, the district court construed the claimed phrase “enhancing the chemical stability” to mean “to increase or increasing the ability of the prostaglandin to resist chemical change (as opposed to merely increasing the physical stability of the prostaglandin or composition). The court distinguished physical stability as referring to physical phenomena such as absorption, adsorption, and precipitation and construed the claim term “prostaglandin” to correspond to the patents’ written description regarding prostaglandins that may be used with the invention. The court held that Barr did not infringe and held the claims invalid for lack of enablement and lack of an adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to non-infringement, but reversed the invalidity determinations.View "Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Barr Labs. Inc." on Justia Law

The companies obtained an oil and gas lease from the government for a 5760-acre tract on the Outer Continental Shelf. They made an initial bonus payment of $23,236,314 and have paid additional rental payments of $54,720 per year. The lease became effective on August 1, 2008, and had an initial term running through July 31, 2016. It provided that it issued pursuant to and was subject to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of August 7, 1953, (OCSLA) 43 U.S.C. 1331 and “all regulations issued pursuant to the statute in the future which provide for the prevention of waste and conservation of the natural resources of the Outer Continental Shelf and the protection of correlative rights therein; and all other applicable statutes and regulations.” In 2010, an explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon semi-submersible oil drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 workers and caused an oil spill that lasted several months. As a result, the government imposed new regulatory requirements, Oil Pollution Act (OPA), 33 U.S.C. 2701. The companies sued for breach of contract. The Claims Court and Federal Circuit ruled in favor of the government, finding that the government made the changes pursuant to OCSLA, not OPA. View "Century Exploration New Orleans, LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

Vederi alleged that Google’s “Street View” infringed claims of related patents with a common specification and priority to a common provisional application. The patents relate to methods for creating synthesized images of a geographic area through which a user may visually navigate via a computer. To acquire images, a recording device is mounted on a car that is driven through an area. In one embodiment, one camera points generally horizontally and perpendicularly to the axis of the street to capture front views and some side views of objects lining the streets. The patents disclose that multiple cameras may be used to capture views in different directions. The patents disclose combining images to generate a composite image that provides a field of view wider than that provided by any single image. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that the court erred in its construction of “images depicting views of objects in a geographic area, the views being substantially elevations of the objects in the geographic area” as “vertical flat (as opposed to curved or spherical) depictions of front or side views.” “Views being substantially elevations of the objects” refers to “front and side views of the objects.” Properly construed, the claims do not exclude curved or spherical images depicting views that are substantially front or side views of the objects in the area. View "Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2004, Becton sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement of patents concerning Becton’s blood glucose test strip. The defendant, Abbott, sued Becton, Nova (Becton’s supplier), and Bayer, for infringement. In consolidated cases, the court granted summary judgment of noninfringement with respect to two patents and found most asserted claims of another patent invalid due to anticipation. The court later found remaining claims invalid due to obviousness and found the patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct. The court found the case concerning that patent to be exceptional and awarded Becton and Nova costs and fees ($5,949,050) under 35 U.S.C. 285, specifically due after exhaustion of all appeals if the inequitable conduct judgment was upheld. Abbott appealed the judgments of invalidity, unenforceability, and noninfringement, but did not appeal the exceptional case finding or fee award. The Federal Circuit, en banc, affirmed regarding obviousness, noninfringement, and anticipation, but vacated the inequitable conduct judgment. Applying a new standard on remand, the district court concluded again that the patent was procured through inequitable conduct. Becton and Nova sought appellate and remand fees and expenses; fees spent seeking additional fees; pre-judgment interest on fees; and post-judgment interest calculated from the date the district court found the case to be exceptional. The district court reinstated its 2009 fee award and added post-judgment interest calculated from 2012, but denied all additional fees and interest. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co." on Justia Law

Danisco and Novozymes compete as suppliers of Rapid Starch Liquefaction products, genetically modified industrial enzymes that convert plant-based material into ethanol. They have patents that claim α-amylase enzymes, genetically engineered through substitution of amino acids in the peptide sequence to improve liquefaction performance. Novozymes has sued Danisco several times. Once Novozymes amended a pending patent application to claim one of Danisco’s new products, and sued Danisco the same day that the patent issued. Danisco owns the 240 patent, issued 2011 and claiming priority from a 2008 provisional application, claiming a variation for increased viscosity reduction in a starch liquefaction assay; it is the active ingredient in Danisco’s RSL products. After the PTO issued a Notice of Allowance, Novozymes amended a pending application to claim the enzyme, and contested entitlement to priority, arguing that its amended claim covered the same invention as the 240 patent. After Danisco’s 240 patent issued, Novozymes requested continued examination and made comments about its refusal to “acquiesce.” Upon issuance of Novozymes’s 573 patent, Danisco sought declaratory judgments that its products did not infringe and that the 573 patent was invalid, or that its 240 patent had priority under 35 U.S.C. 291. The district dismissed, acknowledging that Novozymes’s 573 patent presented a substantial risk to Danisco, but that Danisco’s action was filed before Novozymes could take action to enforce its rights. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the totality of the circumstances established a justiciable controversy. View "Danisco U.S. Inc. v. Novozymes A/S, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2005, the Department of Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China; importers who were not individually investigated are required to post a deposit at a country-wide rate of 216.01%. Marvin, a Chinese furniture producer and exporter, did not export subject merchandise during the investigation period. In 2011, Marvin requested new shipper review to obtain an individual rate and avoid the country-wide rate. Based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection data, Commerce determined that Marvin’s exports had entered the U.S. in 2010. Marvin explained that the entries contained only non-subject merchandise samples for a trade show with no offers for sale. Commerce accepted Marvin’s explanation and initiated new shipper review covering Marvin’s exports entered from January 1 through June 30, 2011. Marvin later submitted information that the 2010 entries included some subject merchandise, entered for consumption, contrary to its initial request. In 2012, Commerce preliminarily rescinded Marvin’s new shipper review. Marvin argued harmless and unintentional error that did not affect new shipper review eligibility. Commerce finalized the rescission, citing19 C.F.R. 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A) and (B). The Trade Court affirmed, holding that 19 U.S.C. 1677m, which allows a party to correct filings, was inapplicable because Marvin’s request for a new shipper review was not filed in “response to a request for information” under the statute. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Marvin Furniture Co., Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

Larson, a Vietnam War veteran, suffered a gunshot wound in service. In 1969, he was granted a 40 percent combined disability rating. He did not appeal. In 2007, he claimed clear and unmistakable error (CUE), arguing misapplication of diagnostic codes in effect in 1969. The Regional Office denied his claim. The Board affirmed, stating: “the Veteran has not demonstrated that the law in effect during that time was incorrectly applied or that the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before the adjudicators.” The Veterans Court rejected his challenges on the merits and a motion to modify the decision by deleting the phrase “or that the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before the adjudicators.” Larson was concerned that the language could be interpreted as a ruling on a “correct facts” CUE claim, precluding him from raising such a claim in the future. The Federal Circuit reversed. The Veterans Court erred in holding that there is only one opportunity to raise any allegation of CUE for each claim decided by the Board. Under 38 C.F.R. 3.105(a) a veteran may raise a new argument that a RO committed CUE at any time. Larson only challenged the legal basis for the 1969 determination, and did not assert that the adjudicators did not have the correct facts before them; he remains free to raise a “correct facts” CUE claim, so his request for clarification of the Board’s decision was not moot. View "Larson v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Ancora’s patent, entitled “Method of Restricting Software Operation within a License Limitation,” describes a method of preventing unauthorized software use by checking whether a program is operating within its license and taking remedial action if it is not. Methods for checking license coverage of software were known at the time of application, but some were vulnerable to hacking, while others were expensive and inconvenient to distribute. The specification claims to overcome those problems by using memory space associated with the computer’s basic input/output system (BIOS), rather than other space, to store encrypted license information for the verification process. While the contents of BIOS space may be modified, the level of expertise needed to do so is unusually high, and the risk of accidentally rendering the computer inoperable is too high for the ordinary hacker. The method eliminates the expense and inconvenience of using additional hardware. Ancora sued, alleging that products running Apple’s iOS operating system infringed the patent. Ancora stipulated to non-infringement under the district court’s construction of the claim term “program” and appealed that construction. Apple cross-appealed. The Federal Circuit reverses the construction of “program” as limited to application programs, affirmed a conclusion that the terms “volatile memory” and “non-volatile memory” are not indefinite, and remanded.View "Ancora Tech., Inc. v. Apple, Inc." on Justia Law