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

WesternGeco’s patents are directed to technologies for controlling the movement and positioning of a series of streamers towed in an array behind a ship, emitting acoustic signals and detecting the returning signals that reflect from the ocean floor. The collected data can be used to map the subsurface geology, helping oil companies analyze underwater natural resource formations and explore for oil and gas beneath the ocean floor. Conventional marine seismic survey systems use long streamers that are towed behind ships in open-water conditions. Vessel movements, weather, and other conditions can cause the streamers to tangle or drift apart. In inter partes review proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued six final written decisions, finding all of the instituted claims in the six proceedings to be unpatentable as anticipated or obvious. It rejected WesternGeco’s arguments that the IPR proceedings were time-barred under 35 U.S.C. 315(b). The Federal Circuit affirmed, as supported by substantial evidence, the Board’s unpatentability determinations, and its conclusion that the proceedings were not time-barred. The relationship at issue is not sufficiently close such that an infringement proceeding would have given an unrelated company a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of the claims of the WesternGeco Patents. View "WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp." on Justia Law

Alimanestianu, a U.S. citizen, was killed in the 1989 bombing of Flight 772 by the Abu Nidal Organization. The State Department determined that the Libyan government sponsored the bombing. Libya was protected from suit in the U.S. under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA); in 1996, FSIA was amended to permit claims for personal injury or death caused by acts of foreign sovereigns designated as state sponsors of terrorism, 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(7). Libya had been designated in 1979. In 2002, the Alimanestianus and others sued Libya and obtained summary judgment in 2008, awarding $6.9 billion in total; the Alimanestianus received $1.297 billion. While the defendants appealed, the United States entered into a Claims Settlement Agreement with Libya. Libya agreed to deposit $1.5 billion into a humanitarian fund, $681 million of which was for claims by U.S. nationals for wrongful death or physical injury in pending case as “a full and final settlement.” The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission subsequently awarded the Alimanestianus $10 million. The Federal Circuit rejected a claim that vacating their judgment constituted a compensable taking. The court considered the Penn Central factors: the Executive has an overwhelming interest in conducting foreign affairs; the plaintiffs have no evidence that they had an investment-backed expectation in their claims and nonfinal judgment; plaintiffs’ claim that the Commission’s award was less than their nonfinal judgment does not refute that they received more than they would have without government action. View "Alimanesianu v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs leased part of Love Field airport from the City of Dallas and constructed a six-gate airline terminal. Plaintiffs claim that the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006 (WARA), 120 Stat. 2011, effected a regulatory taking of their leases and a physical taking of the terminal because the statute codified a private agreement in which Dallas agreed to bar the use of plaintiffs’ gates for commercial air transit and to acquire and demolish plaintiffs’ terminal. The Claims Court found that WARA's enactment constituted a per se regulatory taking of plaintiffs’ leaseholds under Supreme Court precedent, Lucas, and a regulatory taking of the leaseholds under Penn Central, and a physical taking of the terminal. The Federal Circuit reversed. Noting the history of regulation of Love Field and limitations in place before WARA, the court stated there can be no regulatory taking because plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that their ability to use their property for commercial air passenger service pre-WARA had any value. Plaintiffs’ reasonable, investment-backed expectations are limited by the regulatory regime in place when they acquired the leases. Rejecting a claim of physical taking the court reasoned that a requirement that federal funds not be used for removal of plaintiffs’ gates explicitly distances the federal government from Dallas’ intended action. View "Love Terminal Partners, L.P. v. United States" on Justia Law

The claims relate to methods of removing hair using nanoparticles to damage hair follicles. GHC is the named applicant on the 575 application. Sienna owns the 941 patent. In 2015, at GHC’s suggestion, the Board declared an interference and identified claim 1 of the 941 patent as the sole count. Claim 1 is directed to a method of localizing thermal damage to a hair follicle by applying a composition comprising a plurality of unassembled plasmonic nanoparticles to a skin surface. The Board identified claims 65–67 of the 575 application and claims 1–20 of the 941 patent as corresponding to that count. Sienna argued that claims of the 575 application were unpatentable for failure to meet the written description requirement. The Board found claims 65–67 lack written description support and are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 112 and denied GHC’s motion to add new claim 74, determining that GHC did not show interference-in-fact with Sienna claim or correspondence to Count 1, and failed to provide supporting evidence that this claim was patentable. The Federal Circuit vacated. Substantial evidence supports a finding of a lack of sufficient of written description but the Board erred in denying the motion to amend; its determination that GHC had not established claim 74 interferes with any of Sienna’s claims was not in accordance with controlling precedent. View "General Hospital Corp. v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc." on Justia Law

The patent is titled “Water Heating Apparatus for Continuous Heated Water Flow and Method for Use in Hydraulic Fracturing.” The inventor, Hefley, HOTF's founder, filed the earliest provisional application in 2009; the critical date for analyzing the on-sale and public-use bars under 35 U.S.C. 1023 is September, 2008. Before the critical date, Hefley and his companies performed on-the-fly heating of water on at least 61 frac jobs using the patented system and collected over $1.8 million for those services. Hefley knew that the patent process required that he file his application within one year of the first offer for sale or public use. Hefley did not disclose any of the frac jobs to the PTO. The patent issued in May 2012. Energy, HOTF's competitor, began using its accused process of heating water on frac jobs in 2012. Energy alleged that HOTF tortiously interfered with its prospective business relationship by alleging that Energy’s water heaters infringed a patent. The court granted Energy summary judgment. A jury found HOTF represented in bad faith that it possessed a valid patent, knowingly engaged in unlawful sales or advertising practices, and unlawfully interfered with Energy’s contractual rights and prospective business relationship. The court granted declaratory judgment against Hefley on inequitable conduct, finding that even if the prior frac jobs were experimental, they were focused on economic viability, not how to meet the claims of the patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and the findings of tortious interference but vacated the denial of attorneys’ fees. View "Energy Heating, LLC. v. Heat On-the-Fly, LLC" on Justia Law

VerHoef’s dog developed a walking problem called “knuckling.” Their veterinarian, Dr. Lamb, suggested trying a commercially available harness to support the leg during therapy. The harness did not fix the problem. VerHoef recognized that the harness would work if connected to the dog’s toes. Lamb suggested a strap configured in a figure 8 that fit around the toes and wrapped around the lower leg, above the paw. VerHoef implemented Lamb’s figure eight idea, and, after adjustments, had a working device that reduced the knuckling problem. VerHoef filed a patent application listing the two as joint inventors. A single independent claim expressly recited the figure eight loop. Relations between VerHoef and Lamb soured. VerHoef’s attorney abandoned the joint application and filed a substantially identical application, listing VerHoef as the sole inventor. That same day Lamb filed a substantially identical application listing herself as sole inventor. Each application recites the same independent claim. The examiner issued a final rejection (35 U.S.C. 102(f)). The Patent Board agreed that VerHoef did not maintain “intellectual domination” over the inventive process and that Lamb was a joint inventor. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence in the form of VerHoef’s affidavit supports determinations that Lamb contributed the idea of the figure eight loop and that the figure eight loop is an essential feature of the invention not insignificant in quality or well-known in the art. View "In re: Verhoef" on Justia Law

Burris’s father served on active duty in Vietnam, 1969-1971, and was granted a permanent and total disability rating for schizophrenia effective 2000. Because of his father’s disability, Burris was eligible to receive Dependents’ Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits. In October 2010, Burris, then 35-years old, elected to receive retroactive benefits for a period 2002-2010. During a portion of that period, Burris was enrolled as an undergraduate student. Burris’s studies were interrupted in 2005 when his mother unexpectedly passed away. Burris became the primary caretaker for his father, who suffered from prostate cancer. Burris was unable to attend school until his DEA eligibility had expired. The VA denied Burris’s request for an extension of his eligibility period, citing VA regulations that prohibit extensions for dependents “beyond age 31,” 38 C.F.R. 21.3041(g)(1), (g)(2), 21.3043(b), and refused to reimburse Burris for educational expenses incurred 2002-2004 because DEA benefits cannot be paid for expenses incurred more than one year prior to the application date. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals and Veterans Court affirmed the denial of equitable relief. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Veterans Court lacks jurisdiction to grant equitable relief in these circumstances, 38 U.S.C. 7261. View "Burris v. Wilkie" on Justia Law

TAOS and Intersil were both developing ambient light sensors for electronic devices. Ambient light sensors use a silicon- or other semiconductor-based photodiode that absorbs light and conducts a current. The resulting photocurrent is detected by a sensor, and measurements of the current, a function of the ambient light, are used to adjust the brightness of an electronic screen display. One benefit is better visibility; another is improved battery efficiency. In 2004, the parties confidentially shared technical and financial information during negotiations regarding a possible merger that did not occur. Soon after, Intersil released new sensors with the technical design TAOS had disclosed in the confidential negotiations. TAOS sued for infringement of its patent, and for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and tortious interference with prospective business relations under Texas state law. A jury returned a verdict for TAOS and awarded damages on all four claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed liability for trade secret misappropriation, though on a more limited basis than TAOS presented to the jury, and affirmed liability for infringement of the asserted apparatus claims of the patent, but vacated the monetary awards. The court noted that there was no evidence of Intersil’s independent design of the photodiode array structure. View "Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America, Inc." on Justia Law

Disc’s 113 patent, entitled “Spinal Brace,” is directed to an air injectable band with a rigid panel worn around the waist. When the band is inflated it expands vertically to provide traction to the spine of the user to relieve back pain. Disc's 509 patent is entitled “Wrinkled Band Without Air Expansion Tube and its Manufacturing Method.” VGH manufactures and sells inflatable spinal brace products. Disc sued for infringement, specifically identifying VGH’s products and alleging that the products meet “each and every element of at least one claim of the 113 [or 509] Patent, either literally or equivalently.” Disc attached the asserted patents and photographs of the accused products. The following day, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect, abrogating Rule 84 and Form 18, stating that the amendments “shall govern in all proceedings in civil cases thereafter commenced and, insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings then pending.” The district court dismissed Disc’s complaint with prejudice, reasoning that the change applied and that the complaint did not meet the “Iqbal/Twombly” standard articulated by the Supreme Court. The court denied Disc’s motions for reconsideration and to amend the judgment. The Federal Circuit reversed. Disc’s allegations are sufficient under the plausibility standard of Iqbal/Twombly. Disc’s disclosures provided VGH fair notice of infringement of the asserted patents. View "Disc Disease Solutions Inc. v. VGH Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

The VA sought bids for procurement of medical gases. Three bids were determined to be in the competitive range: RAS, Irish, and Progressive. Progressive won a bid protest in part. The Claims Court enjoined the VA from awarding the contracts to RAS and Irish, vacated the awards to those companies, and remanded the case to the VA. The VA filed a Motion, explaining its need to continuously supply medical gases and informed the court of its plan to award an emergency bridge. Without receiving a response from Progressive, the court stated that it “[did] not deem the proposed course of action to be non-compliant.” A series of motions followed, concerning Progressive’s “entitlement to compensation for the severe economic harm” and its deadline for seeking attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(2)(G). Later, the court denied Progressive’s request that it direct the VA to re-evaluate the bid proposals within the competitive range, rather than resolicit the contracts altogether. Meanwhile, the VA resolicited the contracts, applied the Rule of Two, and awarded contracts to RAS and Irish. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Progressive’s Rule 59(e) motion was untimely and the Claims Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Progressive’s 60(b)(6) motion. View "Progressive Industries, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law