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

Lt. Harris has been an officer in the Navy since 2005. He was arrested by civilian authorities in 2013 for sexual offenses involving minors and was held in confinement until his 2015 conviction and sentencing. Between his arrest and conviction, the Navy withheld Harris’s pay pending the outcome of his criminal proceedings. Based on his conviction, the Navy determined that, under the Military Pay Act, 37 U.S.C. 204, and Department of Defense regulations, Harris’s absence was unexcused and he was not entitled to any pay for his absence during confinement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Claims Court’s dismissal of his suit, in which he sought back pay, challenged the civilian court’s jurisdiction to convict him, and claimed due process violations. Harris failed to state a claim under the Military Pay Act because he was convicted of his crimes, and was not entitled to pay during his unexcused absence. Harris failed to state a due process claim because he was not statutorily eligible to receive pay during his detention; the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were not implicated. The Claims Court lacked jurisdiction to review the jurisdiction of civilian authorities to prosecute and convict him as a military service member. View "Harris v. United States" on Justia Law

Ultratec sued CaptionCall for infringement of patents concerning systems for assisting deaf or hard-of-hearing users to make phone calls and won damages of $44.1 million. CaptionCall had filed petitions for inter partes reviews (IPRs). The court stayed post-judgment proceedings pending resolution of the IPRs. CaptionCall retained the same invalidity expert (Occhiogrosso) in the litigation and the IPRs. Ultratec sought to introduce the trial testimony into the IPRs, alleging that Occhiogrosso’s trial testimony conflicted with written declarations he made in the IPRs. Because Ultratec had not first requested authorization to file the motion, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board expunged the motion from the record. Board regulations require that a party seeking to introduce supplemental evidence more than one month after institution first request authorization to file a motion to submit the evidence. The Board held that all challenged claims in the Ultratec patents were either anticipated or would have been obvious in light of prior art references, citing Occhiogrosso’s testimony more than 30 times. The Federal Circuit vacated. The Board failed to consider material evidence and failed to explain its decisions to exclude the evidence to exclude Occhiogrosso’s trial testimony. View "Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC" on Justia Law

Return Mail’s patent is directed to processing mail items that are undeliverable due to an inaccurate or obsolete address, using scannable bar codes. Ex parte reexamination resulted in the cancellation of all original claims and the issuance of new claims in 2011. After trying unsuccessfully to license the patent to the Postal Service, Return filed suit under 28 U.S.C. 1498(a), alleging infringement. The Postal Service sought covered business method (CBM ) review, asserting patent-ineligible subject matter, 35 U.S.C. 101 and anticipation, sections 102 and 103. Return raised patentability arguments and contested the Postal Service’s ability under the America Invents Act (AIA), 125 Stat. 284, to petition for CBM review. The Board held that the Postal Service had statutory “standing,” instituted review, and held that the challenged claims were drawn to ineligible subject matter. The Federal CIrcuit affirmed, first agreeing that the Postal Service has standing. While there are differences between section 1498(a) suits against the government and suits for infringement against private parties, those differences are insufficient to exclude a government-related defendant under section 1498(a) from seeking CBM review. The claims at issue simply recite existing business practices with the benefit of generic computing technology, which is not sufficient to impart patent eligibility. View "Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service" on Justia Law

Stepan’s application is directed to herbicidal formulations containing glyphosate salt with a surfactant system. Surfactants can enhance glyphosate’s effectiveness as an herbicide by providing better leaf-adherence, enhancing penetration; the "invention is based on the unexpected discovery that surfactant systems comprising dialkoxylated alkylamine, water miscible solubilizer and amine oxide allow for formulation of ultra-high loaded (‘high-strength’) glyphosate salt concentrates possessing high or no cloud points” (the temperature at which a solution becomes cloudy due to the surfactants becoming insoluble and separating into layers). Cloudiness can be avoided if the cloud point is higher than the solution’s temperature or if the solution is cooled before adding the surfactant. The specification explains that because glyphosate salt is created at about 75ºC, it is advantageous to formulate glyphosate with a surfactant system exhibiting a high cloud point to “obviate the necessity of waiting for the temperature of the glyphosate salt reaction product to cool.” Surfactant systems with high or no cloud points allow for quicker formulation of glyphosate concentrates and quicker delivery to the market. The Federal Circuit vacated the rejection of 31 claims on grounds of obviousness. The Board failed to adequately articulate its reasoning, erroneously rejected relevant evidence of nonobviousness, and improperly shifted to Stepan the burden of proving patentability. View "In re: Stepan Co." on Justia Law

Nidec’s patent is directed to low-noise heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and includes a permanent magnet electric motor that turns a fan to move air through ductwork. An improved motor controller performs sinewave commutation instead of more conventional square-wave commutation. Commutation is the repeated sequencing of electrical currents applied to windings within the permanent magnet motor that causes the motor to rotate. Square-wave commutation involves abrupt changes in the voltage applied to a given winding as the sequence progresses, similar to repeatedly flipping a switch. Sinewave commutation involves more gradual and continuous oscillations in applied voltage, similar to sliding a dimmer switch between those states, resulting in less vibration and noise. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board conducted inter partes review. The Federal Circuit affirmed its determination that several claims are invalid as obvious over a combination of prior references, 35 U.S.C. 103. And that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 102. View "Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Gazelle served in the U.S. Army, 1962-1965, and incurred service-connected disabilities. He receives compensation for: degenerative disc disease and joint disease of the cervical spine rated at 20 percent; degenerative disc disease and spondylosis of the thoracolumbar spine rated at 20 percent; left upper extremity radiculopathy rated at 10 percent; left lower extremity radiculopathy rated at percent; and post-traumatic stress disorder. In 2009, the VA increased Gazelle’s disability rating for his service-connected PTSD to 100 percent. Gazelle filed a Notice of Disagreement, alleging the VA failed to award him additional special monthly compensation under 38 U.S.C. 1114(s)(1). In 2011, Gazelle was denied entitlement to special monthly compensation because he did not have additional service-connected “disabilities . . . independently ratable as [60 percent] or more disabling.” Instead of adding together Gazelle’s additional service-connected disabilities at their respective amounts, the VA calculated the independent additional rating via the combined ratings table pursuant to 38 C.F.R. 4.25 (2010), which resulted in a combined rating of 50 percent. In 2014, the Board affirmed. The Veterans Court and Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that consistent with the plain meaning of subsection 1114(s), the Board appropriately applied the combined ratings table to determine eligibility for special monthly compensation benefits. View "Gazelle v. Shulkin" on Justia Law

Prime Hospitals provide inpatient services under the Medicare program, submitting payment claims to private contractors, who make initial reimbursement determinations. Prime alleged that many short-stay claims were subject to post-payment review and denied. Prime appealed through the Medicare appeal process. Prime alleged short-stay claims audits were part of a larger initiative that substantially increased claim denials and that the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) was overwhelmed by the number of appeals. CMS began offering partial payment (68 percent) in exchange for dismissal of appeals. Prime alleged that it executed CMS's administrative settlement agreement so that CMS was contractually required to pay their 5,079 Medicare appeals ($23,205,245). CMS ultimately refused to allow the Prime to participate because it was aware of ongoing False Claims Act cases or investigations involving the facilities. Prime alleged that the settlement agreement did not authorize that exclusion. The district court denied a motion to dismiss Prime’s suit but transferred it to the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part. The breach of contract claim is fundamentally a suit to enforce a contract and does not arise under the Medicare Act, so the Claims Court has exclusive jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491. That court does not have jurisdiction, however, over Prime’s alternative claims seeking declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief from an alleged secret and illegal policy to prevent and delay Prime from exhausting administrative remedies. View "Alvarado Hospital, LLC v. Cochran" on Justia Law

Georgetown’s patent relates to a system for inspecting the steel tie plates that connect rail tracks to wooden ties, using digital technology. Georgetown's Aurora System uses lasers and cameras mounted on a vehicle to collect and process information about track ties to allow customers to “manage the logistics of crosstie replacement.” Holland purchases track and crosstie measuring technologies from Rail Vision and places those technologies on its own track inspection "TrackStar" vehicles. Data from the track is sent to third-parties for processing. Rail Vision sends finished reports to Holland for distribution to Holland’s customers. Holland and Georgetown knew of each other’s place in the track-tie market. The companies participated in a “head-to-head challenge,” and demonstrated their services to potential customer Union Pacific. Following the demonstrations, Union Pacific and Holland agreed to alter an existing contract to allow Holland to provide Rail Vision Systems technology to Union Pacific. Georgetown sued Holland for infringement and was granted a preliminary injunction, ending Holland’s potential sales to Union Pacific. A jury found that Holland willfully infringed Georgetown's patent and awarded $1,541,333 in damages. The court awarded Georgetown an additional $1,000,000 in enhanced damages based on a finding of willful infringement, 35 U.S.C. 284. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence supports a finding that subjective recklessness led to willful infringement in this case. View "Georgetown Rail Equipment Co. v. Holland L.P." on Justia Law

Visual’s 740 patent purports to overcome deficiencies in computer systems using a three-tiered memory hierarchy to enhance performance by creating a memory system with programmable operational characteristics that can be tailored for use with multiple different processors without an accompanying reduction in performance. The Federal Circuit reversed the dismissal of Visual’s patent infringement complaint against NVIDIA. The patent claims an improvement to computer memory systems and is not directed to an abstract idea, so it is patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. The patent includes a microfiche appendix having a combined total of 263 frames of computer code. View "Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp." on Justia Law

Lottery, a state agency, began operating traditional lottery drawing games and instant lottery scratch-off games in North Carolina in 2006. It introduces new scratch-off games on the first Tuesday of each month and asserts that it has continuously used the mark FIRST TUESDAY since July 2013 in print materials, on its Website, and on point-of-sale displays. In 2014, Lottery applied for registration of the mark FIRST TUESDAY for “Lottery cards; scratch cards for playing lottery games” and for “Lottery services,” submitting specimens that have explanatory text such as “[n]ew scratch-offs” or “[n]ew scratch-offs the first Tuesday of every month.” The examining attorney refused registration, finding that the mark used in the context of Lottery’s promotional materials “merely describes a feature of [its] goods and services, namely, new versions of the goods and services are offered the first Tuesday of every month.” The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and the Federal Circuit affirmed. Lottery’s promotional materials make clear that “new scratch-off games are offered on the first Tuesday of every month” and that fact would “be so understood by the relevant consumers who encounter the designation FIRST TUESDAY.” No “mental thought or multi-step reasoning is required to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the involved goods and services.” View "In re: North Carolina Lottery" on Justia Law