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

Tropp’s patents are directed to the use of dual-access locks in airline luggage inspection. Tropp’s system permits the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to unlock, inspect, and relock checked baggage. Sentry administers a similar system and has license agreements with lock and luggage manufacturers. Under an Agreement with TSA, Sentry provides TSA with passkeys for distribution to field locations. TSA takes no responsibility for damage to baggage secured with Sentry locks but will make good faith efforts to distribute and use the passkeys. TSA does not endorse any particular system. Following earlier appeals, the district court granted summary judgment, finding that Sentry and its licensees did not infringe Tropp’s patents under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). The Federal Circuit vacated. A reasonable jury could conclude that TSA’s performance of the final two claim steps is attributable to Sentry such that Sentry is liable for direct infringement. Although the partnership-like relationship between Sentry and TSA is unique, the court should have considered evidence that TSA, hoping to obtain access to certain benefits, can only do so if it performs certain steps identified by Sentry, under terms prescribed by Sentry. Sentry can stop or limit TSA’s ability to practice the final two steps by terminating the Agreement, discontinuing its practice of replacing passkeys that are damaged or lost or changing the design of future locks such that the TSA keys no longer work. View "Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp" on Justia Law

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes review of the 174 Patent, which is directed to methods and apparatuses for a radio communications system where a subscriber station, i.e., a mobile device, is assigned a plurality of codes for transmitting messages. The Board found that the claims were not obvious or anticipated in prior art, The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the Board’s application of the term “message” improperly excluded embodiments of “transmissions of data at intervals specified in a UMTS [Universal Mobile Telecommunications System] system,” specifically by excluding single frame Enhanced Dedicated Uplink Channel messages. Substantial evidence supported the patentability determination. View "HTC Corp. v. Cellular Communications Equipment, LLC" on Justia Law

Crediford served with the Coast Guard in 1983-1985 and in 1990-1991. In 1985, he visited the VFW Club after work and drank alcohol, then was in a single-vehicle accident. A breath test registered a blood alcohol level of 0.12 percent, more than three hours later. The police charged him with DUI. Crediford's commanding officer’s report stated that fatigue and alcohol were responsible for the accident and that Crediford’s “injuries were not a result of his own misconduct and were incurred in the line of duty.” The conclusion was approved in an “ACTION OF THE CONVENING AUTHORITY.” In December 1985, the Commander of the Thirteenth Coast Guard District issued a Memorandum, that “approved a finding that injuries … were ‘not incurred in the line of duty and were due to his own misconduct.’” In 2004, Crediford sought compensation for chronic pain due to spinal and soft tissue injury resulting from the accident. The VA Regional Office denied compensation, characterizing the injuries as the result of willful misconduct, not occurring in the line of duty. Crediford argued that the Memorandum was issued “post-discharge, without notice that an investigation was ongoing. The Federal Circuit vacated. The Board erred in making its own findings when there were service department findings before it. VA regulations assign “binding” determination of “willful misconduct” and “line of duty” to the Service Department. The Coast Guard’s determinations, made in 1985, must be addressed. View "Crediford v. Shulkin" on Justia Law

Brunetti owns the clothing brand “fuct.” In 2011, individuals filed an intent-to-use application for the mark FUCT for items of apparel. The applicants assigned the application to Brunetti, who amended it to allege use of the mark. The examining attorney refused to register the mark under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), finding it comprised immoral or scandalous matter because FUCT is the past tense of “fuck,” a vulgar word, and is therefore scandalous. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed. The Federal Circuit reversed. While substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings and it did not err concluding the mark comprises immoral or scandalous matter, section 2(a)’s bar on registering immoral or scandalous marks is an unconstitutional restriction of free speech. The bar is a content-based restriction on speech; trademark registration is not a government subsidy program that could justify such a bar. Nor is trademark registration a “limited public forum,” in which the government can more freely restrict speech. The bar survives neither strict nor intermediate scrutiny. Even if the government had a substantial interest in protecting the public from scandalous or immoral marks, the regulation does not directly advance that interest because section 2(a) does not directly prevent applicants from using their marks. View "In re: Brunetti" on Justia Law

Ebanks sought veterans benefits for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder, hearing loss, and arthritis. His claim for an increased disability rating was denied by the VA Regional Office (RO) in October 2014; in December he sought Board of Veterans Appeals review, with a video-conference hearing (38 U.S.C. 7107). Two years later, the Board had not scheduled a hearing. Ebanks sought a writ of mandamus. The Veterans Court denied relief. While his appeal was pending, the Board held his hearing in October 2017. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding the matter moot so that it lacked jurisdiction. The delay is typical and any Board hearings on remand are subject to expedited treatment under 38 U.S.C. 7112. Congress has recently overhauled the review process for RO decisions, so that veterans may now choose one of three tracks for further review of an RO decision, Given these many contingencies, Ebanks has not shown a sufficiently reasonable expectation that he will again be subjected to the same delays. Even if this case were not moot, the court questioned “the appropriateness of granting individual relief to veterans who claim unreasonable delays in VA’s first-come-first-served queue.” The “issue seems best addressed in the class-action context,.” View "Ebanks v. Shulkin" on Justia Law

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), governs abbreviated biologics license applications (aBLAs) based on the licensing of a reference product. BPCIA allows patent infringement suits before approval: the applicant provides confidential access to its aBLA. The parties negotiate a list of patents for an immediate infringement action. Under subsection 262(l), the applicant gives notice at least 180 days before commercial marketing, to allow a suit for preliminary injunction. If the applicant discloses information, neither may bring suit based on non-listed patents before notice of commercial marketing. Amgen has marketed Neupogen® since 1991. Sandoz filed an aBLA, for a Neupogen biosimilar. Sandoz notified Amgen that intended to launch its biosimilar upon approval and would not provide its aBLA. In 2015, the FDA approved Sandoz’s aBLA. Sandoz gave notice of commercial marketing. Amgen sued, asserting state law claims of unfair competition based on BPCIA violations; conversion; and patent infringement. The court held that BPCIA permits an applicant not to disclose its aBLA and that the applicant may give notice of commercial marketing before FDA approval. The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of Amgen’s state law claims, but directed the court to consider the patent infringement claims. The Supreme Court held that an injunction under federal law is not available to enforce 42 U.S.C. 262(l)(2)(A) and a biosimilar applicant may provide the notice required by 262(l)(8)(A) either before or after FDA approval to start the 180-day clock. The Federal Circuit then affirmed dismissal of the state law claims; Sandoz did not forfeit its preemption defense and the BPCIA preempts state law remedies for failure to comply with section 262(l)(2)(A). View "Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz" on Justia Law

Lentz entered federal service in 2002. He had no disciplinary record until May 2014, when his supervisor issued a reprimand based on his authorization of grazing on public lands, without prior approval. In November, Lentz’s supervisor proposed a 14-day suspension, citing his management of interns, behavior toward supervisors, and interaction with outsiders. Lentz then went on medical leave. The proposed suspension was sustained, to commence on February 15, 2015. Lentz resigned on February 13, citing harassment and a hostile work environment that aggravated an illness and his veterans disability. He claimed to have filed complaints under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. 4301–4335, and that the reprimands were retaliatory. Before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), Lentz asserted constructive discharge, discrimination on the basis of his status as a disabled veteran, and retaliation for filing a complaint. The Administrative Judge dismissed the involuntary resignation claim under 5 U.S.C. 75, and held that Lentz was collaterally estopped from raising in the USERRA proceeding the evidence and issues assigned to the involuntary resignation proceeding. The AJ later dismissed the discrimination charges, stating that Lentz failed to make non-frivolous allegations that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign due to discrimination or reprisal. The Board affirmed. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that the dismissal was based on incorrect evidentiary procedures including the inappropriate application of collateral estoppel, and remanded the issue of constructive discharge. View "Lentz v. Merit Systems Protection Board" on Justia Law

IH’s patent relates to a method of purchasing goods at a local point-of-sale system from a remote seller. IH sued Bed Bath & Beyond for infringement. Two months later, the district court granted BBB summary judgment, concluding that the Supreme Court’s intervening decision, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, rendered the asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the asserted claims are directed to the abstract idea of “local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods.” The Federal Circuit affirmed. BBB moved for an award of attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, arguing that, once Alice issued, IH should have reevaluated its case and dismissed the action. The district court granted BBB’s fees motion, holding that, “following the Alice decision, IH’s claims were objectively without merit,” and awarded BBB its attorney fees beginning from the date of the Alice decision, including fees incurred during the section 101 appeal. The Federal Circuit affirmed. IH’s claims were “dubious even before the Alice decision” and Alice was a significant change in the law as applied to the facts of this particular case. View "Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc." on Justia Law

Arctic Cat sued BRP for infringement of the 969 and 545 patents, which disclose a thrust steering system for personal watercraft propelled by jet stream. The district court rejected, as a matter of law, BRP’s argument that the asserted claims would have been obvious (35 U.S.C. 103), that Arctic Cat failed to mark patented products, that the jury’s royalty award was based on improper expert testimony, and that BRP did not willfully infringe the asserted claims. The court awarded treble damages and an ongoing royalty. The Federal Circuit affirmed as to obviousness, the jury’s royalty rate, willfulness, the awards of treble damages and an ongoing royalty. Substantial evidence of industry recognition and “long-felt need” supported a conclusion that a skilled artisan would not have “anticipated success” with the claimed combination. The court vacated as to marking, 35 U.S.C. 287(a), and remanded for further consideration limited to that issue. View "Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc." on Justia Law

Addressing appeals in three companion cases from inter partes reviews by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit affirmed the “Iron Dome” and “DISH” Final Written Decisions but reversed the Board’s determination on obviousness in the “Hulu” decision. The patent at issue describes methods and systems for “user-directed transfer of an on-going software-based session from one device to another device.” Substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that five claims of the patent were anticipated and multiple claims would have been obvious over the combination of prior art. View "CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal" on Justia Law