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

The patents describe a networked system of gaming machines. The district court entered summary judgment, finding that that defendant's use of promotions to provide incentives for use of certain gaming machines infringed certain claims. The district court correctly construed claims referring to "issuing a command over the network to one of said preselected gaming devices responsive to a predetermined event; and paying at said one gaming device in accordance with the command."

Plaintiff manufactures accessories for small arms weaponry, including handguards that attach to military rifles. Defendant, a distributor who became an employee, signed a nondisclosure agreement, and became familiar with all of plaintiff's products before he was terminated and went into competition with plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court holding that the patent at issue, covering a sleeve for a handgun, was invalid for failing to meet the written description and best mode requirements. Plaintiff introduced sufficient evidence to support a verdict in its favor on Massachusetts law trade secret claims. The district court erred in denying a motion for mistrial and did not take adequate steps to determine whether the presence of a clamp, brought to the jury room by a juror, had a prejudicial effect.

Since 2001 the company has provided professional training, curriculum development, and technical assistance to schools, teachers, and administrators to schools run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The BIA funds its program directly through BIA contracts with a provider and indirectly through distribution of funds under the No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. 6301, to BIA schools, which contract with a provider. The company sought payment from the BIA for specific time periods. The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals dismissed, finding that it did not have jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 601, because the company failed to establish that it had a contract with the government for the unpaid services. The Federal Circuit vacated, in part, dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. Failure to establish the existence of a contract meant that the company failed to state an element of its claim, not that the court lacked jurisdiction. Questions of fact concerning some of the claimed contracts remain unresolved.

The company's patent covers polyol-based resin blends and methods of using them to create closed-cell polyurethane and polyisocyanurate-based foams, used for thermal insulation boards for the walls of homes and buildings. On reexamination, the examiner ruled that all the claims were invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) or, in the alternative, obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). The Board affirmed, relying upon the identical prior art references the examiner had cited. The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that the Board relied on new findings of fact to support rejection and failed to identify this rejection as a new ground, so that the company's notice rights were violated (5 U.S.C. 554(b)(3); 35 U.S.C. 6(b). Had the Board labeled its rejection as a new ground of rejection, the company could have reopened its prosecution to address the newly-alleged deficiencies in its Declaration with the examiner.

A manufacturer of cable connectors that are used to connect coaxial cables to electronic devices filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission asserting that the importation, sale for importation, and sale after importation of certain coaxial cable connectors infringed four of its patents and therefore violated 19 U.S.C. 1337. Its 539 design patent patent issued in 2001 and describes an ornamental design for a coaxial cable connector. The Commission ruled that the company failed to satisfy the requirement of showing that a "domestic industry" exists or was being established. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The company's enforcement litigation expenses did not constitute "substantial investment in exploitation" of the 539 patent. Those costs were not sufficiently related to licensing. The company has no formal licensing program and the litigation opponent was its only licensee.

The patent, entitled "Low Friction Rotary Knife," is directed to a power operated knife used principally in the meat packing and other commercial food processing industries. While plaintiff's claim of invalidity, asserting anticipation in its pre-1998 prior art blades, was pending, defendant sought reexamination. The validity of the claims was affirmed. The district court rejected a claim of invalidity, but found no infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed denial of judgment as a matter of law on the issue of anticipation and affirmed with respect to infringement. The district court had excluded references and denied a new trial on the issue of obviousness, based on its interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 315(c)'s reference to "final determination." The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded that decision.

Plaintiff, a mail processing clerk, was injured on-duty in 2005 and received workers' compensation. She partially recovered and, in 2008, the Postal Service provided a modified light duty assignment. In June 2010, pursuant to the National Reassessment Process, the Postal Service informed plaintiff that work within her medical restrictions was no longer available in her commuting area. The Merit Systems Protection Board dismissed her claim under 5 C.F.R. 353.304(c)) of wrongful denial of restoration following partial recovery from a compensable injury. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board applied the correct standard in determining its jurisdiction, and its factual determinations were supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff did not identify any vacant position available within her commuting area that she was able to perform. Plaintiff did not make a non-frivolous allegation that the Service acted arbitrarily in not restoring her, even after the Board ordered her make such a showing and afforded her time to do so.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection set duty rates on motocross jerseys, pants, and motorcycle jackets imported by plaintiff, classifying the items as apparel under chapters 61 and 62 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, rather than as sports equipment, as argued by plaintiff. The Court of International Trade upheld the classification and the Federal Circuit affirmed.Considering the definition of "sports equipment" as informed and clarified by Explanatory Notes, the subject merchandise is not prima facie classifiable as sports equipment under Chapter 95.

In 2006, plaintiff, employed as an auditor at the Department of Defense was removed from his position for failing to maintain his Secret level security clearance. His loss of security clearance was based on his wife's status as a diplomat for Honduras. The Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The DoD complied with its internal procedures in revoking plaintiff's security clearance and the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Defendant's process patent is directed to methods for preventing the contamination of exposed semiconductor chip terminals during encapsulation of the chips in molded plastic. Plaintiff, one of defendant's licensees, sought a declaration of non-infringement. The parties have been involved in other litigation. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit reversed. The dispute between the parties, as to whether the license agreement requires royalty payments to be tied to valid patent coverage, is sufficient to support declaratory judgment jurisdiction.