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

The agency removed plaintiff from her position based on charges of rude, disruptive, aggressive, or intimidating behavior and misrepresentation. Plaintiff denied the charges and alleged retaliation for prior Equal Employment Opportunity claims of sex discrimination. The Administrative Judge and Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed the removal. Plaintiff petitioned the EEOC for review; that agency found that the evidence supported the conclusion that her removal was not motivated by retaliatory animus. The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's decision on the "mixed case." The case involved both a specific type of action against an agency which may be appealed to the Board and an allegation in the nature of an affirmative defense that a basis for the action was discrimination within one of the categories” listed in 5 U.S.C. 7702(a)(1)(B). Affirmative defenses of retaliation for prior EEO activity are assertions of discrimination under Title VII and within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 7702. View "Diggs. v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev." on Justia Law

The company imported plasma flat panel televisions, made or assembled in Mexico, between 2003, and 2005 that were liquidated as dutiable under subheading 8528.12.72 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule at a rate of five percent. The company claimed that the televisions should be treated as duty-free under the North American Free Trade Agreement. After filing protests with United States Customs and Border Protection, the company filed in the Court of International Trade, arguing that its protest was denied or deemed denied under 19 U.S.C. 1515(a) because Customs had taken more than two years to act on its protest, or under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i). The Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, interpreting 1515(a) to impose neither automatic allowance nor automatic denial of a protest, and concluding that jurisdiction was therefore not proper under 1581(a) or (i). The Court noted that, to establish jurisdiction, the company could file for accelerated disposition under 19 U.S.C. 1515(b) and wait for a maximum of 30 days. The Federal Circuit affirmed, View "Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit, asserting infringement of patents. Defendant argued invalidity on the ground that its employee was the earlier inventor. The jury answered "No" to: Has defendant proven by clear and convincing evidence that its employee was the first to invent and did not abandon, suppress or conceal that invention? The court declined to stay the suit pending completion of the Patent and Trademark Office interference. The PTO awarded priority to defendant's employee, but, in a subsequent civil action for interference under 35 U.S.C. 146, the district court awarded priority to plaintiffs. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Section 146 establishes de novo review; the court is not required to accept the PTO findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. The judicial process is the final arbiter of the rights and issues administratively assigned to the PTO. View "Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, employed by the federal government for almost 30 years, appealed from termination of her position with the VA. During her last months on the job she suffered depression and high blood pressure. The parties entered into a settlement in which plaintiff agreed to withdraw her appeal and forego all claims against the VA. An ALJ dismissed the appeal as settled. The March 2009 decision became final in April 2009. In November 2009, plaintiff filed a new appeal, seeking reinstatement. The appeal was docketed as a petition to enforce the agreement, but without allegation of noncompliance. The ALJ dismissed. The Board, unable to determine whether plaintiff's filing was an untimely appeal of the March decision or any basis for appeal, affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff failed to show good cause for her untimely filing of the November 2009 appeal and the March 2009 decision implementing the agreement operated as a res judicata bar. View "Ford-Clifton v. Dep't of Veterans' Affairs" on Justia Law

In the first appeal in a case regarding clopidogrel bisulfate tablets, sold by plaintiff under the brand name Plavix®, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction concerning defendants' generic product. In the second appeal, the court affirmed a judgment that the patent-in-suit is not invalid, was infringed, and not unenforceable. The district court then awarded prejudgment interest and denied defendants' motion for leave to file a supplemental answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims pleading patent misuse and breach of contract. The Federal Circuit reversed in part. The district court erred by awarding prejudgment interest in addition to actual damages specified in a settlement agreement. The court affirmed the district court’s holding that defendant is jointly and severally liable for all damages and denial of defendant's motion.

The Information Security Management Act, 44 U.S.C. 3541–49, requires that federal agencies meet information security standards. Compliance is monitored by the Office of Management and Budget. The Department of Justice purchased a license for plaintiff’s compliance product. Plaintiff participated with DOJ in seeking designation as a "Center of Excellence." Without notifying plaintiff, DOJ developed an alternative product, accessing plaintiff's database to learn the system’s architecture. OMB selected DOJ as a Center of Excellence and required agencies to purchase from COEs. DOJ’s product substituted its alternative for plaintiff's software. Plaintiff filed, in district court, a Lanham Act claim; a common law unfair competition claim; and a breach of fiduciary duty claim. Months later, plaintiff filed, in the Court of Federal Claims, claims of: breach of oral or implied contract, breach of license agreement, and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. The district court dismissed all but the Lanham Act claim. The Claims Court dismissed all claims, applying 28 U.S.C. 1500, which precludes it from exercising jurisdiction over "any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff … has pending in any other court any suit … against the United States." The Federal Circuit reversed, in part, reasoning that the license agreement claim does not arise from substantially the same facts as the district court claim.

Plaintiff develops and sells windshield wiper blades and owns patents covering beam blade technology, a new technology for distributing pressure more evenly over the length of the blade. Defendant is a competitor. The district court found certain of plaintiff's patents valid and infringed, but denied plaintiff an injunction. The Federal Circuit reversed. Although a finding of infringement does not automatically justify an injunction, the application of the four-factor test indicated that plaintiff was entitled to an injunction. The court examined: plaintiff's irreparable injury; whether remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, would be inadequate to compensate for that injury; the balance of hardships; and the public interest.

Defendant, a domestic manufacturer of cast steel railway wheels, owns two secret processes for manufacturing such wheel. It uses one process at three of its domestic foundries and has licensed the other to firms with foundries in China. Unsuccessful in obtaining a license for plaintiff's process, defendant hired employees that had been trained in plaintiffs' processes and began manufacturing wheels in China for sale in the U.S. The International Trade Commission found violation of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, finding that found that the wheels were manufactured using a process developed in the U.S., protected under domestic trade secret law, and misappropriated abroad. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the wheel imports threaten to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the U.S., in violation of section 337, which covers "[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles . . . into the United States." The Commission has authority to investigate and grant relief based in part on extraterritorial conduct insofar as it is necessary to protect domestic industries from injuries arising out of unfair competition in the domestic marketplace.

The companies sell competing software products that track lost or stolen electronic devices, using a global network. Each side asserted claims of patent infringement.The district court entered summary judgment of non-infringement for each. The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor or plaintiff, but concluded that issues of fact precluded granting summary judgment of non-infringement to defendant. The court did not alter any of the district court's claim constructions of "communication links used to enable transmission between said electronic device and said host system;" "semi-random rate;" "unique usage information agreement;" and "terms of said usage agreement imbedded in said software."

In 1996 petitioner, who had served in the Marine Corps from 1965 to 1968, filed a claim for compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder. The VA Regional Office granted the claim and assigned a disability rating of 30%, effective October 1996. Petitioner requested an increase in the percentage and made multiple submissions before 2000, when the Office increased the rating to 70%, effective July 1999. The Veterans Court affirmed as to the rating, but remanded with instructions for assigning an effective date. On remand, the Board found that a February 1998 submission met the requirements for an informal claim for TDIU and assigned an effective date of February 11, 1998 that was affirmed by the Veterans Court. The Federal Circuit vacated. To comply with the directive of 38 C.F.R. 3.156(b) that new and material evidence be treated as having been filed in connection with the pending claim, the VA must evaluate submissions received during the relevant period and determine whether they contain new evidence relevant to a pending claim, whether or not the relevant submission might otherwise support a new claim; the VA failed to make such a determination.