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

In 2010, the inventors filed the 989 Patent Application as part of the national stage of the Patent Cooperation Treaty, 35 U.S.C. 371. The application is directed to improved methods and apparatuses for “microwave vacuum-drying of organic materials, such as food products and medicinal plants.” It describes dehydrating organic material, such as fruits and berries, by placing the material in a container, transferring the container to a vacuum chamber, and rotating the container as it moves through the vacuum chamber while applying microwave radiation to the organic material. The Patent Board affirmed an examiner’s obviousness rejection of the claims. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that the Board failed to consider arguments in applicants’ reply brief that were properly made in response to the examiner’s answer. The court directed the Board to consider arguments on whether the divider walls in the containers are a part of the claimed structure of the tumbling limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112 and whether a structural identity rejection can be used to find a prima facie case of obviousness for method claims. View "In Re: Durance" on Justia Law

Robinson, a Marine Corps veteran, served in Vietnam from 1966-1969 and later had coronary problems. He sought treatment at a VA medical facility. In 2006, a VA cardiologist recommended that he undergo certain medical testing. The tests, performed 14 months later, revealed that Robinson suffered from left ventricular diastolic dysfunction. The VA granted Robinson a 60% disability rating effective April 2, 2007, the date he underwent cardiac testing. The Board denied Robinson entitlement to a higher rating. In the Veterans Court, Robinson argued for the first time—through the same counsel that represented him before the Board—that his rating should have been assigned an effective date in February 2006, when his doctor ordered tests. The court did not identify any error by the Board but “set aside” its decision and remanded for it to address Robinson’s argument in the first instance. Robinson sought attorney fees, arguing that, because he secured remand, he was a prevailing party under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Federal Circuit affirmed denial of Robinson’s application. This particular remand did not confer prevailing party status on Robinson because it “was not predicated on administrative error by the Board,” did not materially alter the legal relationship of the parties, and was solely to allow the Board to consider an issue first raised on appeal. View "Robinson v. O'Rourke" on Justia Law

Robinson, a Marine Corps veteran, served in Vietnam from 1966-1969 and later had coronary problems. He sought treatment at a VA medical facility. In 2006, a VA cardiologist recommended that he undergo certain medical testing. The tests, performed 14 months later, revealed that Robinson suffered from left ventricular diastolic dysfunction. The VA granted Robinson a 60% disability rating effective April 2, 2007, the date he underwent cardiac testing. The Board denied Robinson entitlement to a higher rating. In the Veterans Court, Robinson argued for the first time—through the same counsel that represented him before the Board—that his rating should have been assigned an effective date in February 2006, when his doctor ordered tests. The court did not identify any error by the Board but “set aside” its decision and remanded for it to address Robinson’s argument in the first instance. Robinson sought attorney fees, arguing that, because he secured remand, he was a prevailing party under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Federal Circuit affirmed denial of Robinson’s application. This particular remand did not confer prevailing party status on Robinson because it “was not predicated on administrative error by the Board,” did not materially alter the legal relationship of the parties, and was solely to allow the Board to consider an issue first raised on appeal. View "Robinson v. O'Rourke" on Justia Law

IV’s patent is entitled “Method of Baseband Frequency Hopping Utilizing Time Division Multiplexed Mapping between a Radio Transceiver and Digital Signal Processing Resources.” Frequency hopping is used in wireless systems in which a base station communicates with entities (such as mobile subscribers) on varying radio frequencies, so as to reduce interference among communications. In inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board sustained the patentability of 16 of the patent’s claims. The Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that the Board erred in its decision with respect to claim 1, the only claim whose patentability was analyzed by the Board and remanded for a determination of patentability of claims 2–16. Claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious in view of prior art; the experts were in agreement that a person having ordinary skill in the field would have known how to implement frequency hopping. View "Ericsson, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC" on Justia Law

The 551 patent discloses and claims lacosamide, the active ingredient in Vimpat®, a drug that treats epilepsy and other central nervous system disorders. UCB holds New Drug Applications that cover the FDA approval of Vimpat®. The 551 patent is listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book). Generic drug manufacturers filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs), seeking approval for generic versions of Vimpat®. Pursuant to the governing Hatch-Waxman Act provisions, they certified in their ANDAs that the 551 patent is invalid, unenforceable, or that their proposed generic lacosamide products will not infringe the patent. UCB sued and the generic manufacturers stipulated to infringement of claims 9, 10, and 13 but maintained that these claims are invalid for obviousness-type double patenting, 35 U.S.C. 101, obviousness, and anticipation. The district court concluded that the asserted claims are not invalid. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court applied the correct legal standards and that there was no clear error in its underlying fact findings. The district court did not err by focusing its double patenting analysis on the claims’ differences, as well as the claims as a whole. View "UCB, Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc." on Justia Law

XY’s patents relate to the sorting of X- and Y-chromosome-bearing sperm cells, for selective breeding purposes. Trans Ova provides services related to embryo transfer and in-vitro fertilization for cattle. XY and Trans Ova entered into a five-year licensing agreement in 2004 under which Trans Ova was authorized to use XY’s technology, subject to automatic renewal unless Trans Ova was in material breach. In 2007, Inguran acquired XY and sent a letter purporting to terminate the Agreement because of alleged breaches. For several years, the parties negotiated but failed to resolve their disputes. Trans Ova continued to make royalty payments to XY, which were declined. XY alleges that it became aware of further breaches, including underpayment of royalties and development of improvements to XY’s technology without disclosure of such improvements to XY. XY sued for patent infringement and breach of contract. Trans Ova counterclaimed, alleging patent invalidity, breach of contract, and antitrust violations. The district court granted XY summary judgment on the antitrust counterclaims. A jury found breaches of contract by both parties; that Trans Ova failed to prove that the asserted patent claims were invalid and willfully infringed the asserted claims; and XY was entitled to patent infringement damages. The court denied all of Trans Ova’s requested relief and granted XY an ongoing royalty. The Federal Circuit affirmed except the ongoing royalty rate, which it remanded for recalculation. View "XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, L.C." on Justia Law

The Commerce Department's duty orders concerning aluminum extrusions from China cover “aluminum extrusions” described as "parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation.” The scope “includes the aluminum extrusion components that are attached (e.g., by welding or fasteners) to form subassemblies, i.e., partially assembled merchandise” but “excludes finished merchandise containing aluminum extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry.” The orders also exclude goods containing aluminum extrusions that are entered unassembled in a “finished goods kit, a packaged combination of parts that contains all of the necessary parts to fully assemble a final finished good without further finishing, such as cutting or punching, for assembly “as is” into a finished product, except that “[a]nimported product will not be considered a finished goods kit "merely by including fasteners such as screws, bolts.” Whirlpool requested a scope ruling concerning its kitchen appliance door handles with end caps. Commerce found that the handles were within the Orders’ scope. The Federal Circuit held that substantial evidence supports Commerce’s Scope Ruling. The exception for fasteners unambiguously applies only to the finished goods kit exclusion and not to the finished merchandise exclusion; because the finished goods kit exclusion is inapplicable to Whirlpool’s assembled handles, so is the fasteners exception to the finished goods kit exclusion. The court remanded for a determination of whether Whirlpool’s assembled handles meet the requirements for the finished merchandise exclusion. View "Whirlpool Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

The U.S. Department of Commerce determined that certain extruded aluminum door handles for kitchen appliances that are packaged with two plastic end caps and two screws were within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders applicable to aluminum extrusions from China. The duty order describes imports from China of aluminum extrusions that are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion process, made from specified aluminum alloys, and possessing “a wide variety of shapes and forms” in “a variety of finishes.” Subject aluminum extrusions may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, window frames, door frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or furniture. The scope includes the aluminum extrusion components that are attached (e.g., by welding or fasteners) to form subassemblies. On remand, Commerce determined, under protest, that the subject products are not included in the scope of the orders. The Federal Circuit reversed. The Trade Court impermissibly substituted its judgment for that of Commerce to conclude that the plastic end caps rendered the handles “assemblies” excluded from the general scope language. The order's scope as a whole supports Commerce’s treatment of the end caps as fasteners. The scope language does not limit fasteners to non-plastic components, but rather provides examples of common fasteners. View "Meridian Products, LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

D Three’s patents, issued in 2014-2015, are directed to roof mount sealing assemblies. EcoFasten’s allegedly infringing product was available to the public in June 2009. D Three claimed priority from its 2009 Application’s effective filing date, February 2009. The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment, holding that the asserted claims could not claim priority from the application because they were broader than the invention disclosed in the application, such that they did not meet the written description requirement, 35 U.S.C. 112(a). The court divided the asserted claims into two categories–– claims that recited a washer and claims that did not––and asked whether “the parent applications disclose roof mount assemblies that (a) do not have a soft washer but also do not limit the type of attachment bracket, and (b) have a soft washer but do not limit its location.” The application’s only disclosure of a washerless assembly “requir[ed a] W[-]pronged attachment bracket 1700,” but the asserted claims disclosed broader configurations of washerless assemblies; the application's assemblies with washers only disclosed washers situated “above the flashing,” but the asserted claims covered assemblies with washers below the flashing. The court invalidated the asserted claims as anticipated. View "D Three Enterprises, LLC v. Sunmodo Corp." on Justia Law

Mallinckrodt’s 112 patent is directed to methods of distributing nitric oxide gas cylinders for pharmaceutical applications. Inhaled nitric oxide is approved by the FDA for treating neonates with hypoxic respiratory failure, a condition where oxygen levels in the blood are too low. Nitric oxide functions to dilate blood vessels in the lungs and can thereby improve blood oxygenation. Mallinckrodt exclusively supplies inhaled nitric oxide in the United States for pharmaceutical use under the brand name INOmax®. On inter partes review, the Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board found claim 9 not unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 but found claims1-8 and 10-11 unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit reversed as to claim 9 but otherwise affirmed. The Board did not err in applying the printed matter doctrine to claims 1–8 and 10, but its findings regarding the differences between the prior art and claim 9 and its findings on secondary considerations depended on an incorrect interpretation of that claim, and are not supported by substantial evidence. The Board’s uncontested findings regarding prior art render claim 9 obvious under the proper reading of the claim. View "Praxair Distribution Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP, Ltd." on Justia Law