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

Honeywell’s 366 patent is directed to the use of 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoropropene, an unsaturated hydrofluorocarbon compound, and a polyalkylene glycol lubricant in heat transfer systems, such as air conditioning equipment. In merged inter partes examinations, an examiner rejected several claims under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed. The Federal Circuit vacated. The Board erred: by improperly relying on inherency to find obviousness and in its analysis of motivation to combine the references; in dismissing Honeywell’s evidence of unpredictability in the art when it stated that one of ordinary skill would no more have expected failure than success in combining the references; and in relying on a new grounds for rejection. View "Honeywell International, Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A." on Justia Law

Regeneron accused Merus of infringing the 018 patent. The district court issued an opinion construing various terms and declared one term indefinite. Merus asserted a counterclaim of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct. It argued that during prosecution of the patent, Regeneron’s patent prosecutors withheld four references that were cited in a third-party submission in related U.S. patent prosecution and in European opposition briefs, were but-for material, and were withheld by Regeneron with the specific intent to deceive. There was no dispute that Regeneron knew of the Withheld References during prosecution. Regeneron argued that the references were not but-for material, that they were cumulative of references actually relied-on during prosecution, and that Regeneron did not have any specific intent to deceive. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court, which had “exhaustively detailed Regeneron’s discovery misconduct" throughout the litigation and sanctioned Regeneron by drawing an adverse inference of specific intent to deceive the PTO. The court noted Regeneron’s repeated violations of discovery orders and improper secreting of relevant and non-privileged documents. Regeneron committed inequitable conduct, rendering the patent unenforceable. View "Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus N.V." on Justia Law

Kerry is the CEO of KEI, the son of Dale Earnhardt (a professional race car driver who died in 2001), and the stepson of Teresa. KEI's ventures include the EARNHARDT COLLECTION lifestyle brand. KEI licensed that mark to Schumacher for use in connection with custom home design and construction. Teresa, Dale's widow, owns trademark registrations and common law rights containing the mark DALE EARNHARDT in connection with various goods and services and has sold licensed merchandise totaling millions of dollars since 2001. Teresa filed notices of opposition to KEI's trademark application. The Trademark Board found that Teresa did not establish a likelihood of confusion and that EARNHARDT COLLECTION is not primarily merely a surname, 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(4). The Board found that “collection” is “not the common descriptive or generic name” for KEI’s goods and services. The Federal Circuit vacated. The Board's decision could be understood as finding that “collection” is neither generic nor merely descriptive of KEI’s goods and services, and adding “collection” to “Earnhardt” alters the surname significance of Earnhardt in the mark as a whole; it could be understood as finding that a mark consisting of a surname and a merely descriptive term is registrable as a matter of law if the descriptive term is not generic. View "Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc." on Justia Law

The specifications of the three Soft Gel patents describe a method for dissolving CoQ10. The patented inventions include a composition, a soft gelatin capsule, and a method of making such a soft gelatin capsule, each involving a solution of CoQ10 dissolved in a monoterpene. CoQ10, also called ubiquinone, is a coenzyme, i.e., a chemical compound that is required for the biological activity of certain proteins and is necessary for certain metabolic processes and for the production of cellular energy; it has a secondary role as an antioxidant. In clinical trials, CoQ10 has been shown to be effective in regulating blood pressure and cholesterol levels, improving cardiovascular health, and “thwarting various diseases such as certain types of cancers.” It is “sparingly soluble in hydrophilic solvents such as water.” According to the patents, at the time of the inventions, most solvents that were used to administer CoQ10 in liquid form could dissolve, at most, only about 5 to 10 percent of the CoQ10. Jarrow requested inter partes reexaminations of the three Soft Gel patents. The Patent Board invalidated several claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding the claims invalid as obvious in light of prior references, 35 U.S.C. 103(a). View "Soft Gel Technologies, Inc. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc." on Justia Law

Miskill was employed as an IT Specialist with the Social Security Administration for 14 years. Her supervisor proposed to remove Miskill for violations of the time and attendance policy. The Assistant Associate Commissioner sustained four charges and removed Miskill from Federal Service. The Union submitted a grievance and subsequently invoked arbitration. Miskill obtained the records of the eight other individuals within her component at the Division of Network Engineering (DNE) for the relevant time period. Those records were analyzed by a CPA, Certified Product Examiner, and Certified Information Technology professional, who concluded that the eight other DNE employees had committed the same or similar violations as Miskill; none were investigated or charged with misconduct. The parties later stipulated that those employees were under investigation, but had not yet been charged. The Arbitrator sustained Miskill’s removal, finding that the comparators were not similarly situated because possible disciplinary action regarding them was still pending. The Federal Circuit vacated. Miskill sufficiently raised the issue of disparate treatment but arbitrator erred in its treatment of the comparator evidence. His categorical conclusion that the eight DNE employees could not be comparator employees because they were under investigation was an incorrect statement of law. Although the fact that a comparator employee is under investigation is a factor to be considered in determining whether that comparator is similarly situated, it is not a complete bar. View "Miskill v. Social Security Administration" on Justia Law

Manzanares served on active duty, 1986-1991. In 1992, she was awarded service connection for a history of stress fractures in both legs, with a non-compensable rating. In 2006, she sought an increased rating. The VA assigned a 10-percent rating for each ankle, with a February 2006 effective date. Manzanares filed a notice of disagreement and claimed: “[e]ntitlement to service connection for degenerative disc disease lumbar spine as secondary to bilateral ankle disabilities.” The VA granted secondary service connection for “degenerative arthritis and disc disease, lumbar spine” with a rating of 20 percent and an April 2007 effective date. Manzanares argued that the VA should have awarded a February 2006 effective date for the secondary service-connected condition, citing 38 C.F.R. 3.156(b), which provides that, for a pending claim, “[n]ew and material evidence received prior to the expiration of the appeal period . . . will be considered as having been filed in connection with the claim which was pending at the beginning of the appeal period.” The Board of Veterans’ Appeals, Veterans Court, and Federal Circuit rejected her argument. The effective date for service connection is the later of the date the VA receives the claim or the date that entitlement arose; Manzanares’s secondary service claim was not filed until April 2007 and was not part of the ankle claim. View "Manzanares v. Shulkin" on Justia Law

NobelBiz alleged infringement of patents titled “System and method for modifying communication information” with identical specifications. The patents relate to “a method for processing a communication between a first party and a second party.” When a call originator contacts a call target, the system modifies the caller ID data “to provide a callback number or other contact information . . . that may be closer to or local to the Target.” The Federal Circuit reversed a jury verdict of infringement, stating that the district court erred in its claim construction. The intrinsic evidence better supports the defendants’ proposed construction: “outbound call” should be construed as a “call placed by an originator to a target.” View "NobelBiz, Inc. v. Global Connect, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Container Store’s top tracks and hanging standards, components of its elfa® modular storage and organization system, were imported through Houston in 2007-2008. Customs liquidated the merchandise under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8302.41.60, a provision for base metal mountings and fittings suitable for buildings. Container Store filed unsuccessful protests, arguing that the merchandise should be classified under subheading 9403.90.80 as parts of furniture. Customs had previously held that the elfa® top tracks and hanging standards were properly classified under subheading 8302.41.60 as mountings suitable for buildings. The Trade Court placed an appeal on its reserve calendar pending resolution of another appeal involving identical merchandise, in which Judge Ridgway ultimately granted Container Store summary judgment. The government later abandoned an appeal. Judge Barnett reached a different conclusion in the present case. The Federal Circuit reversed. The elfa® system constitutes “unit furniture” because it is designed to be hung on a wall, is “fitted with other pieces to form a larger system,” and can be “assembled together in various ways to suit the consumer’s individual needs to hold various objects or articles.” Given that the tracks and standards are designed exclusively for the elfa® unit furniture system, they are properly classified as parts of unit furniture under subheading 9403.90.80. View "The Container Store v. United States" on Justia Law

Millennium developed the patented product for the treatment of oncology diseases, particularly multiple myeloma and mantle cell lymphoma. The product has the brand name Velcade®. Sandoz and others filed abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), admitting infringement and seeking to invalidate various claims of the 446 Patent. The district courts held that certain claims were invalid as obvious, 35 U.S.C. 103. In consolidated appeals, the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court erred and that invalidity was not established. Sandoz identified no reference or combination of references that show or suggest a reason to make the claimed compound. The district court clearly erred in its examination of the objective indicia of unexpected results and long-felt need. View "Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc." on Justia Law

Louisiana law recognizes the right to extract minerals separately from ownership of the land (mineral servitudes). Servitudes generally revert back to the landowner if not used for 10 years. The servitudes at issue were established in 1932-1934, by deeds contemplating the 10-year prescriptive period. From 1934-1937, the United States acquired 180,000 acres of the encumbered land in Kisatchie National Forest. In 1940, Louisiana’s Act 315 retroactively declared that outstanding mineral rights in land sold to the United States would be imprescriptible while the government remained the landowner. Nebo acquired mineral rights in 1942, believing its rights imprescriptible. The government sought a declaratory judgment. The Fifth Circuit held that Nebo’s rights to a specific tract were imprescriptible. In 1973, the Supreme Court held that Act 315 could not be applied retroactively to land acquired by the government under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The Court did not overrule Nebo, distinguishing its facts. The government began issuing mineral leases. Servitude owners sought declaratory relief. The Fifth Circuit held that Act 315 could not provide the federal rule of decision and that the Kisatchie servitudes had prescribed. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. One servitude holder sued in the Claims Court, based on the same facts. The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of permanent takings claims, contract claims, and some temporary takings claims under the statute of limitations. The Claims Court subsequently held that remaining temporary takings claims were barred by 28 U.S.C. 1500; because the judicial takings claim would require the Claims Court to question the merits of the Fifth Circuit’s decision it also lacked jurisdiction over those claims. View "Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States" on Justia Law