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

The 215 patent is directed to improving the efficiency by which messages are sent from a receiver to a sender in a telecommunications system to advise the sender that errors occurred in a particular message. In inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that various claims were anticipated. The Federal Circuit initially affirmed, holding that whether the petition for review was time-barred was not subject to judicial review. On rehearing, en banc, the Federal Circuit remanded. The Patent and Trademark Office is prohibited from instituting inter partes review if the petition requesting that review is filed more than one year after the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint for patent infringement, 35 U.S.C. 315(b); under section 314(d) the determination “whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.” The court, noting the strong presumption in favor of judicial review of agency actions, found no clear and convincing indication of congressional intent to prohibit review of time-bar determinations under section 315(b). In finding such rulings appealable, the court overruled its own precedent. View "Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp." on Justia Law

Pleasure-Way, manufactures and sells Class B motorhomes. In 2008-2009, having bought 144 DaimlerChrysler AG “Sprinter” vans in the U.S., Pleasure-Way exported them to its facility in Canada, where it converted them into its Plateau TS and Ascent TS motorhomes, by installing fully-plumbed kitchen and bathroom fixtures with freshwater and sewage tanks, water heaters, sleeping quarters, countertops with propane burners, microwave ovens, wall-mounted televisions, refrigerators, large picture windows and porch lights, awnings, running boards, and exterior showers. When Pleasure-Way imported the resulting motorhomes into the U.S., it sought to avoid their being classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), 8703.33.00, arguing that the motorhomes should be classified under subheading 9802.00.50, as “[g]oods re-entered after repair or alteration in Canada or Mexico.” Customs rejected the argument and assessed a 2.5% ad valorem import duty. The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment against Pleasure-Way. Pleasure-Way gave the converted motorhomes new names and sold them at a price double to triple the market price for Sprinter vans. It marketed them as upscale leisure vehicles for vacationing and recreation, while the Sprinter vans were marketed primarily as cargo vans. The likely use and consumer base for the vans as exported were broadly different from those for the motorhomes imported after conversion. View "Pleasure-Way Industries, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Monsanto’s patent, titled “Soybean Seed and Oil Compositions and Methods of Making Same,” claims a two-step process for crossing (mating) two parent soybean lines to produce soybean seeds with a modified fatty acid profile. The patent describes “the combination of transgenes that provide both moderate oleic acid levels and low saturated fat levels with soybean germplasm that contains mutations in soybean genes that confer low linolenic acid phenotypes.” After granting DuPont’s request for inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the rejection of several claims as anticipated, 35 U.S.C. 102(b), and one as obvious over prior art (Booth). The Federal Circuit affirmed. The PTAB “reasonably interpreted” Booth’s parent line containing 4% linolenic acid “to be within the scope of ‘about 3%,’” as recited in claim 1 of the patent. Substantial evidence supported the finding that Booth “necessarily includes” step (b) of the asserted claims. View "Monsanto Technology LLC v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours" on Justia Law

The Commerce Department can impose countervailing duties (CVDs) on imported goods if it “determines that the government of a country . . . is providing, directly or indirectly, a countervailable subsidy with respect to” an imported good, 19 U.S.C. 1671(a)(1), and assessed CVD rate of 374.15% on entries of aluminum extrusions from China. Other importers challenged that rate at the Trade Court in a separate case, resulting in an "all-others" rate of 7.37% on entries of aluminum extrusions from China. Capella was not part of the litigation and never sought administrative review of its entries, so those entries were subject to automatic liquidation at the 374.15% cash deposit rate in effect at the time of the entries. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Trade Court’s dismissal of Capella’s complaints. Sections 1516a(c)(1); (e) state the CVD rate that applies to pre-Timken notice entries when liquidation is not enjoined by court decision or the subject of administrative review: the rate Commerce established in its final determination. Capella’s entries were made before the Timken notice and Capella did not participate in the separate litigation or request administrative review of its entries, so Capella could not claim the benefit of the lower all-others rate awarded to the litigants. View "Capella Sales & Services Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission awarded spectrum licenses to Alpine, for use in the provision of wireless telecommunications services. Alpine bid approximately $8.9 million for one license and $17.3 million for the other. As a small business, Alpine was eligible to pay in installments over the 10-year term of the licenses. Alpine’s failure to make required payments in 2002 triggered automatic cancellation under FCC regulations. In addition to taking other steps in response, Alpine sought relief from the FCC and, on review under the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 402(b)(5), from the District of Columbia Circuit. In 2016, Alpine filed this action against the United States under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1), arguing that the FCC breached contractual obligations in canceling the licenses and that the cancellation was a taking for which Alpine was entitled to just compensation. The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal by the Claims Court for lack of jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. The Communications Act provides a comprehensive statutory scheme through which Alpine could raise its contract claims and could challenge the alleged taking and receive a remedy that could have provided just compensation in this case, foreclosing jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. View "Alpine PCS, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioners, employed by the Office of Air and Marine (OAM), within the Department of Homeland Security, alleged that the agency’s actions and policies violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. 4301–4335. They were members of the Air Force and Navy Reserves. They subsequently resigned, claiming that they were “forced to quit.” An administrative judge (AJ) rejected Petitioners’ contention that the OAM violated USERRA by failing to grant them waivers from participating in training courses that conflicted with their military service dates, creating a hostile work environment, forcing them to surrender their badges and weapons during military leaves of 30 or more days, delaying within-grade pay increases, and requiring them to use annual, sick, or other leave in lieu of military leave. The AJ found “a legitimate basis for the [Agency’s] security policy,” and an “absence of any evidence that its [weapons] policy was adopted with discriminatory intent.” Allegedly hostile incidents were either “‘unavoidable’ workplace friction” or did not rise to the level of “humiliating,” “physically threatening,” or “so frequent and pervasive” to render their work environment hostile. They later filed a second complaint, alleging constructive discharge. The AJ, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Federal Circuit agreed that the constructive discharge claims were barred by collateral estoppel as “inextricably linked” to their previous hostile work environment claims. The standard for establishing constructive discharge is higher than that for hostile work environment, View "Bryant v. Merit Systems Protection Board" on Justia Law

The patent, entitled “Real Time Video Communications System,” discloses “tools and techniques for providing video calling solutions” and relates to real-time video conferencing where two or more users communicate, over a network, in a conference that includes video and audio of each participant. In three separate inter partes review proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that Microsoft failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims were anticipated, 35 U.S.C. 102, or obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding the decision supported by substantial evidence and upholding the Board's claim constructions. View "Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc." on Justia Law

Henderson was a VA Program Analyst. Veterans may, under certain circumstances, obtain medical care from private physicians and facilities after obtaining preauthorization from a VA supervisory physician. An “unresolved authorized consult” means that a veteran’s medical appointment with an outside provider has not been scheduled or completed, or the completed appointment has not been memorialized. Henderson was charged with 50 counts of making false statements related to health care matters, 18 U.S.C. 1035, for ordering VA employees under his direction to close 2700 unresolved authorized consults by falsely declaring the consults were completed or refused by the patients. The VA informed Henderson that it proposed to suspend him for an indefinite period, noting that if convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of five years in prison on each count. Henderson, through counsel, denied the allegations, requested documentary evidence from the VA regarding his alleged wrongdoing, and asked that the proposed suspension be stayed pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. The VA indefinitely suspended Henderson. A Merit Systems Protection Board administrative judge found, and the Board, and Federal Circuit affirmed, that the indictment provided the VA with reasonable cause to believe that he had committed a crime for which imprisonment could be imposed. The VA established a nexus between the criminal charges and the efficiency of the service. View "Henderson v. Department of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

Bosch’s patent, titled “Remote Tire Monitoring System,” relates to a handheld tool for activating remote tire pressure monitoring system (RTMS) tire sensors and communicating with a vehicle’s RTMS receiving unit. The RTMS receiving unit can then use that information to alert the driver of a specific tire characteristic such as low tire pressure. Different manufacturers use different types of devices and/or signals for activating RTMS tire sensors, including magnets, valve core depressors, continuous wave signals, and modulated signals, and use different methods to transmit data to the receiving unit. The patent’s claimed activation tool is intended to work with all of these known RTMS architectures. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted inter partes review (IPR). Bosch filed a patent owner response and a “contingent” motion to amend, seeking to substitute amended claims for original claims in the event that the Board found the challenged claims unpatentable. The Board found all challenged claims unpatentable and denied Bosch’s contingent motion to amend. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding of unpatentability of claims 1, 4–15, and 20–22, under 35 U.S.C. 103, and vacated its denial of Bosch’s motion to amend as to proposed substitute claims 23–38, with respect to which the Board improperly assigned the burden of proof to Bosch. View "Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Matal" on Justia Law

In a dispute concerning the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) classification of 38 entries of Chemtall’s product, acrylamido tertiary butyl sulfonic acid (ATBS) during 2010 and 2011, the Trade Court concluded that ATBS was not an “amide” but a derivative of amide. ATBS contains an amide functional group and has a hydrocarbyl group in the R1 position; a hydrogen atom in the R2 position; and a compound containing hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, and sulfur (S) atoms in the R3 position. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The great weight of authority indicates that amides, when precisely defined, are limited to having only hydrogen, alkyl, or aryl groups bonded to the nitrogen atom. Because ATBS contains sulfonic acid (SO3H) in a radical attached to the nitrogen atom of the amide functional group, ATBS cannot, under the definitions provided in the secondary sources, be an amide. View "Chemtall, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law