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

The plaintiff, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, sued DISH and related Sling entities for alleged infringement of three patents related to digital data compression. The district court found the asserted claims of one patent ineligible as abstract under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Defendants filed motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, which the district court denied, opting to rehear invalidity arguments after claim construction. The district court later stayed the case pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, which resulted in some claims being found unpatentable. The stay was lifted after the IPR proceedings concluded, and the district court eventually granted summary judgment of invalidity for the remaining patent claims.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado awarded attorneys’ fees to the defendants, citing six "red flags" that should have warned Realtime that its case was flawed. These included prior court decisions finding similar claims ineligible, Board decisions invalidating related patent claims, non-final office actions rejecting claims in the reexamination of the patent at issue, a notice letter from DISH warning of potential fees, and expert opinions from DISH’s witness. The district court found that the totality of these circumstances rendered the case exceptional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision and vacated the award of attorneys’ fees. The appellate court found that some of the red flags cited by the district court should not have been given weight, such as the Adaptive Streaming decision and the Board’s decisions on different patents. The court also noted that the district court failed to adequately explain how certain factors, like the notice letter and expert opinions, constituted red flags. The case was remanded for the district court to reconsider the attorneys’ fees award in light of the appellate court’s findings. View "REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC v. SLING TV, L.L.C. " on Justia Law

The case involves veterans' benefits appeals that were erroneously deactivated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) due to a computer program error. The VA operates two adjudicatory systems for benefits claims, and the legacy system is relevant here. Under this system, a claimant must file a Notice of Disagreement and, if unresolved, a Substantive Appeal. The VA's electronic database, VACOLS, automatically closed appeals if no timely Substantive Appeal was noted, leading to approximately 3,000 erroneously closed appeals. This affected U.S. Army veterans J. Roni Freund and Marvin Mathewson, whose successors are the named petitioners in this class action.The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissed the petitions and denied class certification. The court found the case moot as to the individual petitioners after the VA reactivated their appeals. It also held that the petitioners failed to meet the commonality and adequacy requirements for class certification under Rule 23. The court did not address whether the case was moot as to the class or the superiority of class resolution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and found that the Veterans Court abused its discretion in its commonality and adequacy findings. The Federal Circuit held that the inherently transitory exception to mootness applied, as the VA's practice of reactivating appeals quickly made it likely that individual claims would become moot before class certification could be ruled upon. The court also rejected the Secretary's argument that the class was not ascertainable due to the difficulty in identifying class members.The Federal Circuit vacated the Veterans Court's order denying class certification and remanded the case for further consideration of class certification and appropriate relief. View "FREUND v. MCDONOUGH " on Justia Law

Platinum Optics Technology Inc. (PTOT) appealed a final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,354,369, owned by Viavi Solutions Inc. The patent relates to optical filters with specific properties of hydrogenated silicon. PTOT challenged the patent's claims, arguing they were unpatentable due to obviousness based on prior art references. The PTAB ruled against PTOT, finding that the prior art did not render the claims unpatentable.Previously, Viavi had sued PTOT for patent infringement in two cases in the Northern District of California. The claims related to the '369 patent were dismissed with prejudice in both cases. PTOT then petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of the '369 patent, leading to the PTAB's decision that PTOT failed to prove the claims were unpatentable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. PTOT argued it had standing to appeal based on potential future infringement liability from continuing to supply bandpass filters and developing new models. However, the court found PTOT's arguments speculative and insufficient to establish an injury in fact. The court noted that the previous lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice, and PTOT did not provide concrete plans or specific details about new products that might infringe the '369 patent.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal, concluding that PTOT failed to demonstrate a substantial risk of future infringement or a likelihood that Viavi would assert a claim of infringement. Therefore, PTOT did not have standing to appeal the PTAB's decision. View "PLATINUM OPTICS TECHNOLOGY INC. v. VIAVI SOLUTIONS INC. " on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the validity of several patents related to the drug eluxadoline, marketed as Viberzi®, which is used to treat irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D). Allergan USA, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, "Allergan") hold patents for the drug and its formulations. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited and MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. (collectively, "Sun") sought to market a generic version of Viberzi, leading to litigation over the validity of Allergan's patents.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware held a three-day bench trial and found that claim 40 of U.S. Patent 7,741,356 (the '356 patent) was invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) over claims in two later-filed, later-issued patents (the '011 and '709 patents). The district court also found that the claims of four other patents (the '179, '291, '792, and '516 patents) were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description, as they did not adequately describe formulations without a glidant.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's determination that claim 40 of the '356 patent was invalid for ODP, holding that a first-filed, first-issued, later-expiring claim cannot be invalidated by a later-filed, later-issued, earlier-expiring reference claim with a common priority date. The court also reversed the district court's finding that the asserted claims of the '179, '291, '792, and '516 patents lacked written description, concluding that the specification reasonably conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had possession of a formulation without a glidant.The Federal Circuit's main holdings were that claim 40 of the '356 patent is not invalid for ODP and that the asserted claims of the '179, '291, '792, and '516 patents satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The court reversed the district court's judgment of invalidity and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private LTD." on Justia Law

Celanese International Corporation, Celanese (Malta) Company 2 Limited, and Celanese Sales U.S. Ltd. (collectively, “Celanese”) filed a petition with the United States International Trade Commission (the “Commission”), alleging that Anhui Jinhe Industrial Co., Ltd., Jinhe USA LLC (collectively, “Jinhe”), and other entities violated 19 U.S.C. § 337 by importing Ace-K (an artificial sweetener) made using a process that infringed Celanese’s patents. The patents in question had an effective filing date of September 21, 2016. It was undisputed that Celanese had sold Ace-K made using the patented process in the United States before the critical date of September 21, 2015.The presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted Jinhe’s motion for a summary determination of no violation of 19 U.S.C. § 337, concluding that Celanese’s prior sales triggered the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). The ALJ found that the America Invents Act (AIA) did not overturn settled pre-AIA precedent, which held that sales of products made using a secret process could trigger the on-sale bar, precluding the patentability of that process. The Commission denied Celanese’s petition for review, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commission.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Commission’s decision. The court held that the AIA did not alter the pre-AIA rule that a patentee’s sale of an unpatented product made according to a secret method triggers the on-sale bar to patentability. The court concluded that Celanese’s pre-2015 sales of Ace-K made using its secret process triggered the on-sale bar, rendering the later-sought patent claims on that process invalid. View "CELANESE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. ITC " on Justia Law

Nevada Health CO-OP, a health insurance provider, received two loans from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Affordable Care Act’s CO-OP program. These loans included a start-up loan and a solvency loan. In 2015, Nevada Health faced financial difficulties and was placed into receivership by the Nevada Commissioner of Insurance. CMS subsequently terminated the loan agreement and began offsetting payments owed to Nevada Health against the start-up loan debt.The United States Court of Federal Claims reviewed the case and granted summary judgment in favor of the Nevada Commissioner of Insurance, acting as the receiver for Nevada Health. The court found that the government improperly withheld statutory payments owed to Nevada Health under the ACA. The court also held that the government could not invoke 31 U.S.C. § 3728 to withhold these payments in the future.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment that the government improperly withheld payments owed to Nevada Health. The court held that the loan agreement subordinated the government’s claim to those of policyholders and basic operating expenses, thus precluding the government from asserting offset rights to jump ahead of these senior creditors. However, the appellate court vacated the portion of the lower court’s order that addressed the government’s ability to invoke 31 U.S.C. § 3728, ruling that the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by addressing this issue, which was not raised by the parties. View "Richardson v. United States" on Justia Law

PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. and other appellants challenged the United States Department of Commerce's calculation of an all-others antidumping duty rate for non-selected respondents in the fourth administrative review of an antidumping duty order on certain steel nails from Taiwan. Commerce had assigned an adverse facts available (AFA) rate of 78.17% to the mandatory respondents, who failed to cooperate, and used this rate to calculate the all-others rate for non-selected respondents, including Liang Chyuan.The United States Court of International Trade (Trade Court) upheld Commerce's decision, finding that the use of the expected method to calculate the all-others rate was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law. The Trade Court determined that the burden of proof lay with the non-selected respondents to show that the expected method was not reasonable, which they failed to do. The court also rejected PrimeSource's argument that Liang Chyuan should receive an individual rate, noting that Liang Chyuan did not meet the statutory requirements to be considered a voluntary respondent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trade Court's decision. The court held that Commerce's use of the expected method was appropriate and that the burden was on the appellants to demonstrate that the method was not feasible or did not reasonably reflect the potential dumping margins of the non-selected respondents. The court found that the appellants failed to provide substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of representativeness of the mandatory respondents. Additionally, the court agreed that Liang Chyuan was not entitled to an individual rate as it did not submit the necessary information in a timely manner to be considered a voluntary respondent. View "PRIMESOURCE BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC. v. US " on Justia Law

In September 2020, the CDC issued a nationwide order temporarily halting residential evictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This eviction moratorium remained effective for nearly a year. Owners of residential rental properties sued the government, claiming that the CDC’s order constituted a physical taking of their property for public use, requiring just compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.The U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissed the property owners' complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court agreed with the government’s argument that a takings claim cannot be premised on government action that was unauthorized, and it concluded that the CDC’s order was unauthorized because it exceeded the CDC’s statutory authority under the Public Health Service Act (PHSA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the lower court’s decision. The Federal Circuit concluded that the CDC’s order was “authorized” for takings-claim purposes because it was issued within the normal scope of the CDC’s duties and pursuant to a good faith implementation of the PHSA. The court also determined that the order did not contravene any explicit prohibition or positively expressed congressional intent. Furthermore, the court held that the property owners’ complaint stated a claim for a physical taking, as the CDC’s order prevented them from evicting non-rent-paying tenants, thus infringing on their fundamental right to exclude others from their property. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "DARBY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. v. US " on Justia Law

The case involves Mobile Acuity Ltd. ("Mobile Acuity") and several Blippar entities ("Blippar"). Mobile Acuity owns U.S. Patent Nos. 10,445,618 and 10,776,658, which disclose methods and devices for storing information that can be accessed using a captured image. Mobile Acuity alleged that Blippar infringed these patents by using similar technology. The patents describe a process where a user captures an image, uploads it to a server, and associates information with the image. Another user can later access this information by capturing a similar image.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Mobile Acuity's patent infringement action, ruling that the asserted patents claimed ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court found that the patents were directed to the abstract idea of leaving information at a location or object for future use or reference and did not contain an inventive concept that would transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The court also denied Mobile Acuity's request to amend its complaint, concluding that any amendment would be futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the claims were directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept. The court noted that the claims involved generalized steps of collecting, analyzing, and presenting information using conventional computer components, which are not patent-eligible. The court also upheld the district court's denial of Mobile Acuity's motion for leave to amend, finding that the proposed amendments would not cure the defects in the complaint. Thus, the dismissal of the patent infringement action was affirmed. View "MOBILE ACUITY LTD. v. BLIPPAR LTD. " on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over a trademark application for "COLOGNE & COGNAC ENTERTAINMENT" by a hip-hop record label. The appellants, Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac and Institut National des Appellations d’Origine, are responsible for controlling and protecting the certification mark "COGNAC" for brandy from the Cognac region of France. They opposed the trademark application, arguing that it would likely cause confusion and dilute their certification mark.The United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the opposition. The Board found that the "COLOGNE & COGNAC ENTERTAINMENT" mark, when used for hip-hop music and production services, was not likely to cause confusion or dilute the "COGNAC" certification mark. The Board concluded that the marks were dissimilar in connotation and commercial impression, and that the relevant goods, services, trade channels, and purchasers did not overlap. The Board also found that the appellants had not proven the fame of the "COGNAC" mark for purposes of dilution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Board's decision. The court found that the Board applied an incorrect legal standard for determining the fame of the "COGNAC" mark and improperly discounted relevant evidence. The court also found that the Board erred in its analysis of the similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods, services, and trade channels. Additionally, the court concluded that the appellants had sufficiently pleaded their dilution claim. The case was remanded for reconsideration of the likelihood of confusion and dilution issues. View "BUREAU NATIONAL INTERPROFESSIONNEL DU COGNAC v. COLOGNE & COGNAC ENTERTAINMENT" on Justia Law