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

Irwin imported several styles of hand tools, including straight jaw locking pliers, large jaw locking pliers, curved jaw locking pliers with and without wire cutters, and long nose locking pliers with wire cutters. U.S. Customs and Border Protection classified Irwin’s tools as “wrenches” under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 8204.12.00 and denied each of Irwin’s protests to classify them as “pliers” under 8203.20.6030. The Trade Court granted Irwin summary judgment that the tools are properly classified as pliers. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The term pliers is not defined by use; it refers to a versatile hand tool with two handles and two jaws that are flat or serrated and are on a pivot, which must be squeezed together to enable the tool to grasp an object. The Irwin tools “1) are versatile hand tools, 2) have two handles, and 3) have two jaws, that are flat or serrated and are on a pivot, which can be squeezed together to enable the tools to grasp an object.” View "Irwin Industrial Tool Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

Omega sued CalAmp for infringement of patents that generally relate to multi-vehicle compatible systems that can remotely control various vehicle functions (for example, remote vehicle starting), and read the status of various vehicle devices (for example, battery health). The systems can also be used to notify the driver, or the driver’s employer, if certain conditions occur (for example, speeding). CalAmp operates in the telematics industry, assisting businesses and government entities monitor and collect data for their assets (for example, a fleet of vehicles). CalAmp sells its Location Messaging Unit products, which are multi-vehicle compatible devices that include a GPS receiver for vehicle tracking. The Federal Circuit upheld a finding that the patents are not invalid; reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded as to direct infringement; and vacated and remanded for a new trial on indirect infringement, compensatory damages, willful infringement, enhanced damages, and attorney’s fees. View "Omega Patents, LLC v. CalAmp Corp." on Justia Law

The Court of International Trade sustained the remand determination of the Department of Commerce in the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from Korea. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding Commerce’s determination to not make a circumstances of sale adjustment to normal value under 19 U.S.C. 1677b(a)(6)(C)(iii) in the form of a commission offset. Hyundai, the party seeking the adjustment, incurred no commission expenses on home market sales and no commission expenses outside the United States on U.S. sales but did incur commission expenses inside the United States on constructed export price sales in the United States. View "ABB, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Montano, a service-disabled veteran, owns 51% of VCG, which qualified as a service-disabled-veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) under the VA system, 38 U.S.C. 8127(e)–(f), and appeared on the VetBiz database as eligible for set-aside contracts. VCG was the lowest bidder on an SDVOSB set-aside contract for an agency working with the Small Business Administration (SBA). Another bidder challenged VCG’s eligibility. The SBA determined that, because of the limitations on Montano's ownership in case of his death or incapacity, Montano did not “unconditionally” own his interest, and VCG did not qualify as an SDVOSB under 15 U.S.C. 657f. VA regulations required the removal from VetBiz of any business found ineligible in an SBA proceeding. Before VCG’s removal from VetBiz, the VA solicited bids for SDVOSB set-aside contracts for a roof replacement and for relocation. Hours before the deadline on the roof solicitation, VCG filed a bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims. Because VCG was not listed on VetBiz on the day bidding closed, the contracting officer could not consider VCG’s roofing bid and recommended cancellation and reposting. VCG sought a preliminary injunction. The VA finalized cancellation; hours later, the Claims Court entered a preliminary injunction restoring VCG to VetBiz, noting that the VA and SBA differ in defining unconditional ownership, but specifically declined to address relief related to the roofing solicitation. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the contracting officer acted rationally in requesting cancellation based on the record. View "Veterans Contracting Group, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Hamilton had been employed by the EEOC for 20 years, with no disciplinary problems, until one day in 2016, when, while engaged in mediation, he suddenly began using racial epithets, engaging in physical violence, and refusing to follow orders. The EEOC removed him from federal service. The union filed a grievance, which led to arbitration. During a hearing, the EEOC called 11 witnesses; the union called Hamilton. Although the arbitrator found that certain aspects of the EEOC’s case had not been proved, he credited the testimony of EEOC witnesses to conclude that Hamilton “had a major physical and/or mental breakdown.” Because Hamilton denied taking any of the actions he was charged with, the arbitrator concluded that Hamilton “did not remember.” The arbitrator found that the EEOC had not shown that Hamilton’s behavior had any negative effect on its reputation and had failed to consider that Hamilton’s behavior “was caused by his obvious medical condition,” and set aside Hamilton’s removal, awarding back pay. The arbitrator denied the union’s request for arbitration costs and attorney fees. The Federal Circuit vacated the denial of attorneys’ fees; 5 U.S.C. 7701(g) provides that an adjudicator may require an agency to pay the employee’s reasonable attorney fees if the employee is the prevailing party and the adjudicator determines that payment by the agency “is warranted in the interest of justice.” On remand, the arbitrator must reconsider the issue and include a statement of reasons. View "AFGE Local 3599 v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission" on Justia Law

SSI is an original equipment manufacturer (OEM): a manufacturer who resells another company’s products under its own name and branding. TEK sells tire repair kits to various OEMs and owns the 110 patent, which is directed to an emergency kit for repairing vehicle tires deflated by a puncture. When TEK filed the 110 patent, a common way to handle a flat tire was to simply replace it with a spare tire. Because the repair kit disclosed in the patent comprises a small compressor and a container of sealing liquid to mend the hole, it is intended to serve as a smaller, lighter, and less complicated alternative to conventional spare tires. TEK sued SSI for infringement. Following a remand, the district court found several claims infringed and not invalid, awarded $2,525,482 in lost profits and $255,388 in the form of a reasonable royalty for infringing sales for which TEK did not prove its entitlement to lost profits, and granted TEK a permanent injunction. The Federal Circuit vacated in part. The district court improperly restricted SSI’s efforts to present the jury with relevant evidence of invalidity. With respect to the other issues, the Federal Circuit affirmed, “if the patent is found to be not invalid on remand.” View "TEK Global, S.R.L. v. Sealant Systems International, Inc." on Justia Law

The patents at issue are listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book) for NUCYNTA® ER (extended release), a tapentadol hydrochloride tablet. The 364 patent is directed to the Form A polymorph of the chemical compound tapentadol hydrochloride and a method of treating pain and/or urinary incontinence and states that Form A “is very stable at ambient conditions and therefore useful for producing a pharmaceutical composition.” The 130 patent describes a method of using tapentadol and tapentadol hydrochloride for the treatment of polyneuropathic pain, which is caused by damage to multiple nerves. In an infringement suit, stemming from Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) filings seeking to market generic versions of immediate and extended release tapentadol hydrochloride tablets, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court in finding that the 364 patent is not invalid for obviousness or lack of utility (the defendants had stipulated to infringement) and that the ANDA filings do not infringe the 130 patent, which is not invalid as anticipated. View "Grunenthal GMBH v. Alkem Laboratories Limited" on Justia Law

ChargePoint’s patents pertain to charging stations for electric vehicles. At the time the patent application was filed, the charging process “typically require[d] hours and [was] often done overnight or while the electric vehicle [was] parked for a significant time.” Businesses such as restaurants, apartments, and shopping centers have installed electric vehicle charging stations for the convenience of their customers. During periods of high demand, utility companies sometimes reduce the power supply to certain customers based on a preplanned load prioritization scheme, (demand response). In addition to pulling electricity from a local electricity grid, electric vehicles may also supply electricity to the grid. Vehicle-to-grid transfer can be helpful during periods of high demand. ChargePoint contends that its inventors created networked charging stations, managed from a central location, allowing drivers to locate charging stations in advance, and allowing all users to interact intelligently with the electricity grid; the patents suggest that drivers can choose to transfer power from their vehicles to the power grid during periods of high demand. The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of ChargePoint’s infringement suit. The eight asserted claims ChargePoint were ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101, as directed to abstract ideas concerning communication. View "ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc." on Justia Law

Endo’s patent, entitled “Method of treating pain utilizing controlled release oxymorphone pharmaceutical compositions and instruction on dosing for renal impairment,” covers a method of using oxymorphone to treat pain in patients with impaired kidney function. Controlled-release dosage forms that maintain optimal levels of pain relief for longer periods are useful to patients and clinicians. Patients’ pain relief levels can be impacted by the way their body processes oxymorphone. The inventor discovered that patients with moderately or severely impaired kidney function need less oxymorphone than usual to achieve a similar level of pain management. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s conclusion that the claims were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The district court incorrectly concluded that the claims at issue are directed to a natural law. The claims prescribe a regimen for specific patients, using a specific compound at specific doses to achieve a specific outcome. Claiming a new treatment for an ailment, albeit using a natural law, is not claiming the natural law. View "Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Arctic’s patents, both titled “Power Distribution Module for Personal Recreational Vehicle,” describe an assertedly inventive electrical-connection box having an array of receptacle openings that allow wires to be arranged and secured in various positions for distributing power to various electrical components, including components of a personal recreational vehicle. GEP petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for inter partes reviews of all claims of both patents under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. The Board determined that all claims of the patents are unpatentable. The Federal Circuit affirmed as to the 822 patent but reversed in part as to the 188 patent. The Board did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the deposition-transcript submission and correctly held preamble references to a vehicle in the claims at issue not to be limiting. The Board improperly determined that Boyd was prior art; the inventions antedated Boyd. View "Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Products, Inc." on Justia Law