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

The examiner rejected claims 11 and 21 of Patent Application No. 505, titled "System and Method for Distribution Chain Management" as anticipated by a 2001 application. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed on the alternate ground that there is no permissible construction of the claims, so they fail to satisfy the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112. The court remanded to afford the applicant the right to amend.

In 2003, the company entered into contracts with the government for roof repairs of two government buildings. Due to delays the projects were not completed and accepted by the government until September and October 2005. At the time, Federal Acquisition Regulations required that a performance report be prepared for each construction contract for $550,000 or more, 48 C.F.R. § 36.201. The company received negative interim performance evaluations from the resident engineer for both projects in February, 2004. In March, 2006, the resident engineer issued proposed negative final performance evaluations for both projects. The company protested the proposed evaluations, asserting that subcontractors and other problems, beyond its control, caused the delays. In final performance evaluations, the engineer assigned an overall performance rating of unsatisfactory and assigned unsatisfactory ratings for each project in 15 individual categories. The contracting officer issued a final decision that the unsatisfactory performance appraisal was justified. The Claims Court rejected the company's suit. The Federal Circuit affirmed. A contractor is responsible for the unexcused performance failures of its subcontractors and the complaint did not allege facts that would excuse the delays.

Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the patents, which claim tobacco curing methods. The district court found th patents invalid and entered a judgment of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit reversed with respect to validity but affirmed the finding of non-infringement. No reasonable juror could find that the patents were anticipated by prior use under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), nor were they obvious or indefinite.

Plaintiff owns a patent on an FDA-approved (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(2) ) pharmaceutical nasal spray Fortical, used to treat osteoporsis, with the active ingredient salmon calcitonin. In its FDA filing, plaintiff identified the drug as bioidentical to Miacalcin. Defendant filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application with the FDA, stating intent to make, use, offer to sell, sell, and/or import a generic version of Fortical product before the expiration of plaintiff's patent. Plaintiff claimed infringement. Defendant alleged invalidity under 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103,and 112, noninfringement and inequitable conduct in failure to disclose an allegedly material piece of prior art and making allegedly misleading statements during patent prosecution. The district court found that the patent would not have been obvious at the time of invention, denied defendant's motion to breach the attorney-client privilege under the crime-fraud exception, and determined that defendant had waived several counter-claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Even accepting that there was a design need and market pressure to develop a pharmaceutical formulation bioequivalent to Miacalcin, there was no evidence that the claim would be an obvious solution to those motivations.

Plaintiffs, California grape growers who purchased grapevines covered by the USDA's patents, brought this action to challenge the validity and enforceability of the USDA's patents on three varieties of grapes, as well as the conduct of the California Table Grape Commission (Commission) and the USDA in licensing and enforcing the patents. The court held that the district court correctly held that the USDA was a necessary party to plaintiffs' declaratory judgement claims based on the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq. The court also held that the waiver of sovereign immunity in section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., was broad enough to allow plaintiffs to pursue equitable relief against the USDA on its patent law claims. The court further held that plaintiffs' claims were sufficient to overcome any presumption of regularity that could apply to a certain USDA employee who was one of the co-inventors of each of the three varieties of grapes. The court finally held that because plaintiffs failed to point to anything other than the issuance of a patent for the Sweet Scarlet grapes that would provide a plausible basis for finding that Sweet Scarlet grapes form a relevant antitrust market, the court upheld the district court's decision dismissing plaintiffs' antitrust claim.

This tax case concerned the procedures to be followed when the IRS conducted a partnership proceeding under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), I.R.C. 6221-6233. Plaintiffs, individual taxpayers and limited partners in partnerships that were the subject of such proceedings, filed suit on grounds that the lack of deficiency notices rendered the IRS's assessments invalid. At issue was whether the IRS was required to issue notices of deficiency before assessing additional tax payments from plaintiffs. The court held that the assessments in this case amounted to computational adjustments and therefore, no deficiency notices were necessary. The court noted that the three remaining questions the court put to the parties as part of en banc rehearing each presumed that a deficiency notice was required. Because the court's holding here definitively contradicted that presumption, the court need not analyze those questions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgement of the Court of Federal Claims.

The district court dismissed plaintiff's suit (35 U.S.C. 291) alleging interference with patent claims relating to truncated forms of an essential blood-clotting protein. The Federal Circuit affirmed, after first holding that the expiration of one of the patents following the district court’s final decision did not strip it of jurisdiction over the appeal. The district court properly determined that there was no interference in fact.

In 1983, Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, authorizing contracts with nuclear plant utilities, generators of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HWL) under which the gVovernment would accept and dispose of nuclear waste in return for the generators paying into a Nuclear Waste Fund, 42 U.S.C. 10131. In 1983, the Department of Energy entered into the standard contract with plaintiff to accept SNF and HLW. In 1987, Congress amended the NWPA to specify that the repository would be in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The government has yet to accept spent fuel. The current estimate is that the government will not begin accepting waste until 2020, if at all. In 2001, plaintiff began constructing dry storage facilities to provide on-site storage for SNF rather than to continue using an outside company (ISFSI project). The Court of Federal Claims awarded $142,394,294 for expenses due to DOE’s breach; 23,657,791 was attributable to indirect overhead costs associated with the ISFSI project. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Breach of the standard contract caused plaintiff to build, staff, and maintain an entirely new facility; the ISFSI facilities had not existed prior to the breach and were necessitated by the breach.

Plaintiffs asserted infringement of claims 1 and 3 of the patent, directed to a system and a method for inspecting integrated circuits printed on substrates such as wafers. The jury found that defendant's device infringed both claims, but that the infringement was not willful, and awarded about $6.8 million in lost profits. Because the jury found that plaintiff's NSX-80 wafer inspection machine was not prior art, the court held that there was no need for a separate trial on defendant's inequitable conduct claim, based on plaintiff's nondisclosure of the NSC-80 to the patent office. The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of the inequitable conduct claim, but reversed and remanded the determination of infringement and award of damages and injunction. The court improperly construed the claim in defining a wafer as any portion of a wafer having two or more dies. A wafer, as recited in the claims at issue, refers to a thin, discrete slice of semiconductor material with circuitry thereon that is ready for electrical testing having one or more dies. A plurality of wafers means more than one physically distinct wafer.

In 1971 the veteran unsuccessfully sought benefits. In 1979, he sought to reopen and provided a psychiatric evaluation. The veteran took steps to appeal the regional office's refusal to reopen. The regional office requested form I-9 to "reactivate" the appeal. He responded that he had already sent the form. The VA responded in 1980 that no further action would be taken unless he submitted the form within 30 days. The veteran did not respond. In 1994, he again sought to reopen. The regional office granted him service connection for bipolar disorder with an effective date of 1994. He contended that the effective date should be 1979. In 2005 the Board rejected his "pending claim" argument because he had not filed Form 1-9 within one year of the 1979 decision. The veterans court agreed. The Federal Circuit reversed. An appeal should set out specific allegations of error of fact or law, such allegations related to specific items in the statement of the case (38 U.S.C. 7105(d)(3) ); the statute must be construed liberally. Since there was a single issue identified in the statement of the case, the 1980 letters were sufficient to identify the issue on appeal and satisfy the statute.