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

Dixon served in the Army, 1979-1992, including as a chemical operations specialist in the Persian Gulf, where he was exposed to pyridostigmine and “encountered smoke from oil fires, diesel, and burning trash,” and had “cutaneous exposure [to] diesel and petrochemical fuel.” In 2003, Dixon was diagnosed with sarcoid lungs and transverse myelitis, which left him temporarily paralyzed from the waist down. He sought service-connected disability benefits. In 2004 a VA regional office denied Dixon’s claim. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed, Dixon filed a pro se notice of appeal, 60 days after the 120-day filing deadline, 38 U.S.C. 7266(a). The Veterans Court dismissed, concluding that it was “without jurisdiction.” In 2011 the Supreme Court held that the filing deadline is not jurisdictional. The Veterans Court issued an order allowing Dixon and others to move to recall the dismissals. Still acting pro se, Dixon sought equitable tolling, explaining that he suffered from physical and psychiatric disabilities that prevented him from filing in a timely manner, accompanied by a statement from his psychiatrist. The Veterans Court denied Dixon’s motion. Attorneys subsequently agreed to represent Dixon. The Veterans Court allowed until October 4, 2012 to move for reconsideration. The VA refused to provide a copy of the file and the earliest available appointment for reviewing the file was October 1. On that dated, VA staff monitored the review and declined requests for copies of documents. The Federal Circuit reversed the denial of an extension, stating that the disability compensation system is not meant as a trap for the unwary, or a stratagem to deny compensation to a veteran who has a valid claim.View "Dixon v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

In 2001 KBR agreed to provide the Army with logistics support services during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Individual task orders required KBR to install, operate and maintain dining services near Mosul, Iraq on a cost-plus-award-fee basis. KBR selected ABC, a subcontractor, to build a prefabricated metal dining facility and to provide dining services for a camp population of 2,573. In June 2004, the Army ordered KBR to stop construction of the metal facility and begin construction of a reinforced concrete facility for an estimated 2,573 to 6,200+ persons. Instead of requesting bids for the new work, KBR kept ABC as the subcontractor due to the urgency of the request. ABC submitted a new proposal with a total monthly cost about triple the monthly cost initially quoted. ABC attributed the increased costs to additional labor and equipment to serve a larger population and to a drastic increase in the cost of labor and a severe shortage of staff willing to work in Iraq. Due to a calculation error, it was determined that ABC’s proposal was reasonable. KBR’s management reviewed and approved a change order, embodying ABC’s proposal. In 2005 the subcontract ended and title to the dining facility passed to the Army. In 2007, the Defense Contract Auditing Agency suspended payment of certain costs paid by KBR to ABC pursuant to the change order. KBR prepared a new price justification for the concrete dining facility and ultimately filed suit, seeking recovery of the $12,529,504 in costs disapproved for reimbursement. The Claims Court awarded $6,779,762. The Federal Circuit affirmed.View "Kellogg Brown & Root Servs. v. United States" on Justia Law

LSI imported beef jerky products consisting of sliced, cooked, cured, and dried meat seasoned with salt and other spices and flavors from New Zealand and Brazil. The manufacturing process for the imported jerky involves curing the sliced boneless beef in a mixture of seasoning, sodium nitrate, and water for 24 to 48 hours, after which the meat is cooked and smoked for several hours. In airtight bags, the product has a shelf life of 18–20 months. U.S. Customs and Border Protection classified the subject beef jerky under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. (HTSUS) subheading 1602.50.09 as “cured” prepared or preserved beef and denied LSI’s protests to classify it under subheading 1602.50.2040 as “other” prepared or preserved beef. LSI filed suit in the Court of International Trade, which granted the government summary judgment. The court considered LSI’s arguments that beef jerky is defined more by its dehydrated properties than by the curing process, but found that subheading 1602.50.09 included all forms of the named article, even improved forms. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Link Snacks, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

EnOcean owns a patent application that claims a self-powered switch, which can be used to turn on and off lights, appliances, and other devices without a battery or connection to an electrical outlet. The named inventors originally filed a patent application disclosing the switch in Germany in 2000; in 2001 they filed a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) international application with a similar disclosure. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences declared an interference in 2010 between EnOcean and Face, the real party of interest in a U.S. Patent that also claims a self-powered switch. The Board found the Face claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on prior art. Face did not appeal. The Board then applied a presumption that EnOcean’s claims were unpatentable for the same reasons. EnOcean’s argument for rebutting the presumption required determination that EnOcean’s claims could benefit from the filing dates of its German and PCT applications, eliminating a reference from prior art. The Board accorded no benefit of priority to the claims and found all of EnOcean’s claims unpatentable under section 103. The Federal Circuit vacated in part, finding that the Board erred in treating certain EnOcean claims as means-plus-function claims and in finding that certain EnOcean claim limitations lack support in its priority German and PCT applications.View "EnOcean GmbH v. Face Int'l Corp." on Justia Law

In the 1830s, the Army Corps of Engineers began constructing harbor jetties into Lake Michigan near the St. Joseph River. In 1950 the Corps began encasing the jetties in steel-sheet piling. The project was completed in 1989. Plaintiffs own land along the lake shore, south of the jetties. The shoreline is eroding naturally, but plaintiffs allege that the jetties block the flow of sand and sediment from the river and the lakeshore north of their properties, interrupting the natural littoral drift and leading to increased erosion on their properties. In 1958, the Corps released a study that documented increased erosion in certain areas. Following another study, a mitigation plan was implemented in 1976, using fine sand. After 15 years of beach nourishment, efforts shifted to using coarser sediment; in 1995, the Corps dumped large rocks into the lake. The Corps released reports in 1973, 1996, 1997, and 1999 on the erosive effects of the jetties and the progress of mitigation. There was also a 1998 newspaper article concerning the erosion. In 1999, plaintiffs filed suit, alleging takings, 28 U.S.C. 1491. The Claims Court dismissed the actions as time-barred. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the court clearly erred in finding that plaintiffs knew or should have known of their claims before 1952 and violated the mandate of a previous remand.View "Banks v. United States" on Justia Law

The Job Corps program, a national residential training and employment program administered by the Department of Labor, was reformed by the 1998 Workforce Investment Act, which authorized the Secretary of Labor to enter into agreements with government agencies or private organizations to operate “Job Corps centers,” 29 U.S.C. 2887. Adams is the incumbent contractor for the Gadsden and the Shriver Job Corps Centers. When the contracts expired, Adams was disqualified from renewal because of the small business limitation imposed by the Department on the bids. Adams cannot does not qualify as a small business. The limit is $35.5 million in annual receipts, 13 C.F.R. 121.201. After unsuccessful bid protests, the Claims Court and the Federal Circuit upheld the administrative actions against challenges that they were arbitrary. View "Adams & Assocs., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

After receiving petitions from the Coalition, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated antidumping (19 U.S.C. 1673) and countervailing duty (19 U.S.C. 1671) investigations covering utility scale wind towers from China and an antidumping investigation covering Vietnam. The U.S. International Trade Commission issued a preliminary determination that there was a reasonable indication of threat of material injury to a domestic industry by reason of the imports. Commerce issued a preliminary affirmative countervailing duty determination with respect to imports from China and preliminary affirmative antidumping duty determinations with respect to imports from China and Vietnam. Commerce instructed Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all entries of the subject merchandise and require cash deposits for the entries. Commerce then made final affirmative determinations. ITC issued a final affirmative determination in an evenly-divided vote, but of the six Commissioners on the panel, three found neither material injury nor threat of injury, two determined that the industry had suffered present material injury, and a third determined that the domestic industry was threatened with material injury, but that the domestic industry would not have suffered material injury in the absence of the provisional measures. Commerce then issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders. Commerce applied the “Special Rule,” 19 U.S.C. 1671e(b)(2) and 1673e(b)(2), making the orders effective prospectively from the publication of the ITC Determination. The orders indicated that Commerce would instruct Customs to terminate the suspension of liquidation and refund deposits made before the publication date of the ITC Determination. The Court of International Trade denied the Coalition’s motions for injunctions. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Wind Tower Trade Coal. v. United States" on Justia Law

Medtronic sued Edwards for infringement of six claims of it 281 patent, entitled “Prosthetic Valve for Transluminal Delivery,” issued in 2011. Filed on January 5, 2009, the 281 patent descends from U.S., international, and French patent applications. On its face, it claims priority to French Application No. 99/14462 filed on November 17, 1999. That application is not relevant to the claims asserted against Edwards, so the pertinent priority chain has its genesis in a French application filed on October 31, 2000. During litigation, Edwards became aware that the 281 patent’s priority chain suffered from several defects for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. 119 and 120. Edwards moved for partial summary judgment that these defects limited the priority date of the asserted claims to no earlier than April 10, 2003, the date on which U.S. Patent Application Serial 4 was filed. The district court granted the motion. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Because Medtronic failed to specifically reference each earlier-filed application in intervening applications in the chain of priority for the patent, the district court was correct to limit the priority date of the patent to no earlier than April 10, 2003 and find the asserted claims invalid as anticipated. View "Medtronic Corevalve, LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp." on Justia Law

Mitchell began working as a Social Security Administration lawyer in 1998. The Department of Justice appointed her as a Special Assistant United States Attorney in 2006, a one-year appointment during which she remained an employee of and was paid by, the SSA. The Department extended that appointment, so that she served more than two years in the Special Assistant position. Effective December 21, 2008, the Department hired Mitchell as an AUSA in the same office. The Department’s form 50-B cited 28 U.S.C. 542, which authorizes AUSA appointments generally. The form stated that the appointment was not to exceed 18 months, was “temporary” and “subject to” successful completion of a pending background investigation. The background check concluded in July 2009. In August 2009, the Department provided Mitchell another form 50-B, citing 28 U.S.C. 542, but stating that Mitchell was subject to a two-year trial period beginning August 2, 2009, during which she could be removed without cause or appeal. The Department fired Mitchell days before that period was to end, without notice or opportunity to respond. The Merit Systems Protection Board dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Mitchell was not an “employee” under 5 U.S.C. 7511(a). The Federal Circuit reversed, reasoning that Mitchell had “completed 2 years of current continuous service in the same or similar positions in an Executive agency under other than a temporary appointment limited to 2 years or less,” considering the time during which the background check was performed.View "Mitchell v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd." on Justia Law

In 1999, Congress provided for extensions of patent terms to compensate for certain application-processing delays caused by the Patent and Trademark Office; 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1) makes a “Guarantee of no more than 3-year application pendency,” The statute provides that “the term of the patent shall be extended 1 day for each day” that the PTO does not meet certain response deadlines, for each day after the PTO fails to issue the patent within three years, subject to exclusions, and for each day of delay due to an interference, secrecy order, or successful applicant appeal. Novartis challenged PTO determinations of how much time to add to the otherwise-applicable term 18 of its patents. The district court dismissed claims regarding 15 patents as untimely. For the other three, the court rejected the PTO’s construction of the statutory provision. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to timeliness, but held the PTO was partly correct and partly incorrect in its interpretation of section 154(b)(1)(B). Novartis was entitled to most, but not all, of three patent term adjustment. View "Novartis AG v. Lee" on Justia Law