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

Gallegos worked for the FDA, 1980-2000. He was removed for refusal to accept a reassignment that required relocation. Gallegos appealed to the Merit System Protection Board. In 2001, the parties entered into a settlement, providing that the Agency would expunge from Gallegos’s file and Standard Form 50 any indication that he was removed. A revised SF50 would indicate “voluntary resignation.” Gallegos was to “be provided with a copy of the revised SF50 … notify the Agency of any concerns within 15-days.” The Board approved the settlement, noting that any petition for enforcement must be filed within a reasonable period after discovery of noncompliance, consistent with 5 C.F.R. 1201.182(a). Almost 14 years later, Gallegos alleged that he discovered that his revised SF-50 indicated resignation “in lieu of involuntary action.” Gallegos alleged that he had misplaced the agreement and was only able to confirm the breach by obtaining a copy in response to a FOIA request. In 2015, Gallegos filed a petition for enforcement with the Board. An administrative judge concluded that Gallegos had received the revised SF-50 14 years earlier, and that Gallegos did not establish good cause for the delay. The Board and Federal Circuit affirmed, noting Gallegos’s failure to maintain a copy of the agreement and his apparent failure to compare the SF-50 with the settlement agreement. Gallegos did not establish good cause for untimely filing. View "Gallegos v. Merit System Protection Board" on Justia Law

D’Agostino’s patents disclose methods of effecting secure credit-card purchases by minimizing merchant access to credit card numbers and using a transaction code to complete a purchase instead. At the request of MasterCard, the Patent Board initiated inter partes review and cancelled all of the reviewed claims as unpatentable on the grounds of anticipation or obviousness. The claims involve either “limiting a number of transactions to one or more merchants,” or “limit[ing] transactions to a single merchant.” The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, finding the Board’s claim interpretation unreasonable. The single-merchant limitation requires, simply, that, when the transaction code is requested, the request limits the number of authorized merchants to one but does not then identify the merchant, such identification occurring only later. View "D'agostino v. Mastercard International. Inc." on Justia Law

At Appvion’s request, the Department of Commerce initiated a third administrative review of its antidumping duty order covering lightweight thermal paper from Germany. Koehler responded to Commerce’s antidumping questionnaire, including aggregate information about the quantity and value of home-market sales and a database showing individual home-market sales transactions. Commerce issued a supplemental questionnaire. Appvion filed an affidavit from a confidential source asserting that Koehler was engaged in a transshipment scheme, shipping goods destined for its home market through other markets so that those sales would not be reported as home-market sales to Commerce. After two extensions of time, Koehler’s response admitted that its employees had knowingly transshipped certain orders that should have been reported as home-market sales. It proffered an updated home-market sales database that allegedly included those sales. Commerce refused to accept the updated data, stating that the supplemental questionnaire had requested only clarification, not new data. Commerce found that Koehler had withheld information, failed to timely provide information, significantly impeded the proceeding, provided information that could not be verified, and failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Commerce invoked its authority (19 U.S.C. 1677e) to draw adverse inferences and adopted, as Koehler’s dumping margin, the highest rate alleged in Appvion’s petition, 75.36%. The Trade Court and Federal Circuit affirmed, noting Commerce’s “considerable discretion” and that Commerce gave Koehler an opportunity to explain its conduct. View "Papierfabrik August Koehler SE v. United States" on Justia Law

United sued Tile Tech (TT), claiming infringement of its patent, entitled “Support Pedestal Having an Anchoring Washer for Securing Elevated Surface Tiles.” United served its first discovery requests. TT missed the deadline. United granted 20 additional days to respond. TT requested two additional extensions before serving responses, which were deficient. TT postponed a conference on the matter three times, then failed to respond by an agreed-upon date for supplementing its responses. After additional delays, United filed a Motion to Compel. TT never responded to the Motion, but served supplemental responses, still deficient, and later served a third supplement. The district court ordered TT to respond, imposed monetary sanctions, and warned that it would enter default judgment if TT did not comply by October 12. TT failed to respond. On October 12, United moved for default judgment. TT responded that it had not known the response deadline; that it had produced a set of supplemental responses; and that it required an expert opinion to fully respond, which would be forthcoming. On November 2, TT served supplemental responses, which disclosed its destruction of a previously undisclosed mold used to make one key component of the disputed support pedestal. United sought spoliation sanctions and added a claim for unfair competition, to which TT never responded. The Federal Circuit affirmed default judgment with relief for all of United’s claims, and a permanent injunction. View "United Construction Products, Inc. v. Tile Tech, Inc." on Justia Law

U.S. Water’s patents disclose methods for reducing or preventing fouling (the deposit of insoluble by products on equipment) by the addition of the enzyme phytase during the process of producing ethanol from milled grain. In U.S. Water’s suit, alleging indirect infringement, Novozymes counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, and inequitable conduct. The district court found certain claims invalid as inherently anticipated by prior art references, but declined to find inequitable conduct by U.S. Water, based on representations made during the application process. The Federal Circuit vacated with respect to inherent anticipation. There is a material dispute as to whether adding phytase in the manner disclosed in prior art will necessarily lead to a reduction of insoluble organometallic salt deposits as claimed in the patents. The court, affirmed in part, finding no genuine dispute as to a fact material to the inequitable conduct inquiry. View "U.S. Water Services, Inc. v. Novozymes A/S" on Justia Law

In 2006, the IRS audited the Sandovals’ 2003-2005 tax returns. The Sandovals signed forms waiving their right to a notice of deficiency for the years 2003 and 2004, and consenting to extend the limitations period for the 2003 fiscal year through December 31, 2008. The Sandovals hired representation. On reconsideration, the IRS assessed deficiencies for 2003 and 2004 at $60,274 and $87,566. IRS agents continued to confer with the Sandovals’ representative to prepare amended returns. The Sandovals filed amended returns in 2008 for amounts they considered “substantially correct,” and requested abatements. They submitted checks and a letter from their representative stating that the checks should be applied to the Sandovals’ liability for 2003 and 2004, and that “any overpayment” should be contributed to other years’ outstanding amounts due. The IRS granted substantial abatements, such that the checks satisfied the Sandovals’ tax deficiencies from 2003 and 2004. In 2010, the Sandovals filed new amended returns for 2003 and 2004 seeking a full refund of funds remitted plus amounts applied as overpayments from other years, approximately $101,000. The IRS denied the claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the IRS, rejecting arguments that the Sandovals withdrew consent to assessment without notice of deficiency and never received subsequent notice; the 2008 funds were applied after the three-year limitations period for assessment; or the 2008 funds were given as refundable deposits, not as tax payments. View "Sandoval-Lua v. United States" on Justia Law

Following a request from ICP, Customs issued a Ruling Letter, classifying ICP’s white sauce as “sauces and preparations therefor” under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 2103.90.9060. Years later, Customs issued a Notice of Action reclassifying pending and future entries of white sauce as “[b]utter and . . . dairy spreads” under HTSUS 0405.20.3000, which increased the tariff by approximately 2400%. After protesting and paying duties on a single entry, ICP filed a claim in the Court of International Trade, alleging the Notice of Action improperly revoked the Ruling Letter without following the procedures required by 19 U.S.C. 1625(c). Since ICP filed its first action in 2005, the CIT has issued five separate opinions on the matter, two of which were appealed to the Federal Circuit. In awarding ICP attorney fees, the Trade Court found that “The record ... establishe[d] that the goverment position was rooted in a desire to avoid the timely revocation process” by using the Notice of Action, rather than following the procedures of 1625(c)(1). The Federal Circuit affirmed the award under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(A), upholding the Trade Court’s analysis of whether the government’s conduct was “substantially justified.” View "International Custom Products, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Kyocera manufactures solar panels in Mexico and imports them to the U.S. The panels incorporate crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) cells from Taiwan, which are strung together, sealed, and framed to make solar modules. CSPV cells are the main electricity-generating component of solar modules, which were subject to an antidumping duty investigation into CSPV products from China and Taiwan. The Department of Commerce defined the investigation’s scope to include cells and modules produced in Taiwan and certain modules “completed or partially manufactured” in other countries. Kyocera unsuccessfully challenged Commerce’s scope determination, requesting that it exclude solar modules produced in Mexico, including modules using CSPV cells manufactured in Taiwan. Using Commerce’s scope determination, the International Trade Commission determined that an industry within the U.S. had been materially injured by imports of CSPV products from Taiwan. The ITC declined to conduct a separate negligibility analysis under 19 U.S.C. 1677(24), stating that the Commission must defer to Commerce’s definition of the scope of the merchandise subject to these investigations. The Trade Court agreed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument section 1677(24)’s definition of negligible merchandise directs the Commission to consider whether “imports from a country” are negligible so that imports from Mexico could be considered separately. View "Kyocera Solar, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

Medgraph’s patents are directed to a method for improving and facilitating diagnosis and treatment of patients: data relating to “medically important variable[s],” such as blood sugar levels, measured from a patient’s body, are uploaded and transmitted to a central storage device, from which they can be accessed remotely by medical professionals. Medtronic manufactures and markets integrated diabetes management solutions, allowing patients to upload data relating to their diabetes, including blood glucose readings, to Medtronic’s server; patients can keep an online record and share the information remotely with a healthcare provider. Medgraph sued, alleging infringement. A year later, the Federal Circuit issued the first of its “Akamai” holdings, which culminated with a remand by the Supreme Court in 2014. The district court subsequently entered summary judgment of no infringement in favor of Medtronic, applying the law on direct infringement liability as it then stood, stating that “more than one person, i.e., the patient or doctor, neither of whom is an agent of or under contractual obligation to Medtronic, is required to perform all of the steps of the method claims.” The Federal Circuit then issued Akamai V, an en banc holding that attribution is proper “when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance.” The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding the decision unaffected by Akamai V. View "Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc." on Justia Law

Power Integrations and Fairchild are direct competitors in the power supply controller chip market. They have engaged in a long-running and multi-fronted patent dispute. Power’s patents claim circuits that “jitter”— or vary—the frequency of the controller chip’s oscillator to reduce the amount of electromagnetic interference the switched-mode power supply (having “on” and “off” states) generates. The Federal Circuit affirmed: the jury’s verdict that the asserted claims of the 876 patent were not anticipated; the verdict that the asserted claims of the 972 patent would not have been obvious; and the court’s construction that the asserted claims of the 972 patent require “sampling a voltage from the auxiliary winding of the transformer when the transformer is discharging.” The court vacated the verdict that Fairchild induced asserted claims of the 876 and 851 patents, finding that the district court’s jury instruction incorrectly stated the law on inducement. The court reversed verdicts that the asserted claims of the 605 patent were not anticipated and that Power Integrations infringed the asserted claims of the 972 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. View "Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc." on Justia Law