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

The district court entered summary judgment, finding that asserted patents relating to modernizing conventional elevator systems by allowing passenger to input their destinations when calling for an elevator were invalid for failure to meet the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. The district court erred in holding that the claimed "modernizing device" and "computing unit" limitations were means-plus-function limitations subject to the requirement and that the written descriptions failed to disclose any corresponding structure. The inventor did not draft the claims in "means for" format, and his decision to avoid the term "means" raises a strong presumption that the claimed "computing unit" connotes sufficiently definite structure to those skilled in the art.

The district court found infringement on a patent for coronary stents--stainless steel tubes that are surgically inserted into an occluded artery and expanded in place, opening the artery to blood flow. The court awarded damages calculated as a royalty on defendant's sale of the infringing product, but did not award enhanced damages or attorney fees, despite a jury finding of willful infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the determination of infringement, finding that the evidence supported a finding that the patent was not "obvious," and affirmed.the jury’s choice of a five-percent royalty as reasonable in light of trade practices and the economic and competitive circumstances. The court vacated the district court's denial of attorney fees and enhanced damages and remanded for a determination concerning the egregiousness of defendant’s conduct based on all the facts and circumstances, the test for enhanced damages.

The Department of Justice issued a request for quotations for an automated recruiting and staffing system, providing that conflicting provisions would be considered as exceptions to the terms of the RFQ, and noting that any exceptions could adversely impact the evaluation rating. Plaintiff's bid included exceptions relating to confidentiality of data and how payments would be made, among other matters. Plaintiff's program obtained a higher score on a performance test. The DOJ disqualified plaintiff's bid and accepted intervenor's bid, stating that plaintiff's slight technical advantage did not justify the higher price and that plaintiff's exceptions were unacceptable. The government accountability office, claims court, and Federal Circuit upheld the decision. The contracting officer was not required to engage in discussions about the exceptions before disqualifying the bid and acted rationally in disqualifying the bid. The officer was entitled to rely on a certification of compliance with RFQ terms for the bid that was accepted and rationally accepted that bid.

The district court held that the patents-in-suit, relating to drug-eluting coronary stents used in the treatment of coronary artery disease, are invalid for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112 for lack of adequate written description. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Determining whether a specification contains adequate written description requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. No reasonable jury could have determined that the description was adequate.

Patent application 747, covering a mixing device for use in preparation of sugar-water nectar for certain bird and butterfly feeders, was rejected on grounds of obviousness. The examiner cited prior art on devices for mixing sugar-to-water ratios. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed. The Federal Circuit reversed, reasoning that the application described a device with moveable dividers to allow mixing of different ratios for different species, which is not analogous to the devices cited by the examiner.

The district court held that check-security products sold by defendant did not infringe plaintiffâs patent on a method and system for guarding against check fraud and forgery. The Federal Circuit reversed a holding that there could be no direct infringement because defendant did not direct or control the encrypting or printing steps referenced in the patent claims; the defendant could "use" the described process without controlling those steps. The court vacated summary judgment on a claim that defendant induced infringement by banks and disagreed with the district court's construction of a phrase in the claim. The specifications supported plaintiff's construction. The court acted within its discretion in denying a motion to amend the complaint to include a false advertising claim.

The veteran, active in the Navy 1968-1971, reported traumatic events during a 1991 psychiatric evaluation. In 1993-1994 he sought benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder, again reporting an incident involving the death of a friend. In 1999 the VA awarded 100% disability, effective as of 1993. The veteran's complaints about how his claim was handled led to an OIG inspection in 2004, which disclosed that the veteran was not present at the accident that killed his friend. The veterans' court upheld a decision to severe benefits on the basis of fraud. The veteran had already receive about $320,000 and was subsequently convicted of fraud and sentenced to 48 months in prison and ordered to pay restitution. The federal circuit affirmed the veterans' court. The veteran had only claimed one stressor, so the VA was not required to investigate other possible stressors before terminating benefits. The VA properly followed its own procedures after determining that the matter exceeded the jurisdictional cap under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. 3801. The Act is not an exclusive remedy and the veteran was afforded due process.

Plaintiff imported the LCD monitors and entered them under a subheading of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States for "Automatic data processing machines and units thereof; magnetic or optical readers, machines for transcribing data onto data media in coded form and machines for processing such data, not elsewhere specified or included: Input or output units, whether or not containing storage units in the same housing: Other: Display units: Other: Other." The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection classified and reliquidated the monitors under a subheading, dutiable at 5% ad valorem, for: "Reception apparatus for television, whether or not incorporating radiobroadcast receivers or sound or video recording or reproducing apparatus; video monitors and video projectors: video monitors: Color: With a flat panel screen: Other: Other. " The Court of International Trade upheld the designation. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded because the Court of International Trade expressly did not reach the issue of the adequacy of the evidence for either a principal use or principal function.

Companies sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of patents on diabetes testing products; the patent-holder claimed infringement. The district court found no infringement of two patents, found that several claims in one patent were anticipated, and found another patent (551) unenforceable due to obviousness and inequitable conduct. The Federal Circuit affirmed. With respect to patent 551, there was ample evidence to support a finding of intent to deceive the Patent Office in failing to disclose highly material statements made during revocation proceeding on a European patent. There was also ample evidence to support findings of non-infringement and of anticipation.

The holder of patents on an FDA-approved product that promotes eyelash growth claimed patent infringement and violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200 unfair competition provisions against companies marketing similar products. The district court dismissed the state law claims for lack of standing under an amendment to that law, enacted by the voters as Proposition 64. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. The complaint adequately alleged economic injury caused by defendants' unfair business practices; it is not necessary that the plaintiff had direct business dealings with the defendants.