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

In 1985-1986, Kerrigan was a Navy carpenter. He injured his back and was awarded workers’ compensation benefits by the Office of Workers Compensation (OWCP). In 1993, Kerrigan raised concerns regarding his benefits. Over several years, Kerrigan made multiple requests, some of which were denied. In 2001, Kerrigan contacted the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General (OIG) alleging that DOL employees had based one denial on a form that they falsified or destroyed. The OIG did not investigate, but forwarded the letter to OWCP. Kerrigan pursued, over several years, a suit against DOL for illegal termination of benefits and a suit against the physician who reviewed his medical records. Both were dismissed. In 2013, Kerrigan filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which chose not to investigate, but referred him to the Merit Systems Protection Board, where Kerrigan alleged retaliatory termination of benefits. The ALJ dismissed Kerrigan’s appeal, stating that the Whistleblower Protection Act only covers actions taken by an agency concerning its own employees. The Board stated that 5 U.S.C. 8128(b) provides that benefits determinations are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DOL and are unreviewable and that Kerrigan failed to nonfrivolously allege that his protected disclosures were a contributing factor in the decision to terminate benefits. The Federal Circuit affirmed. While 5 U.S.C. 8128(b) does not bar review, Kerrigan failed to nonfrivolously allege that his protected disclosure was a contributing factor in the decision. View "Kerrigan v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd." on Justia Law

Rosario was an Army Corps of Engineers biologist until his 2010 termination. In 2011, the Merit Systems Protection Board ordered his restoration. His improper removal caused Rosario to suffer depression. He took sick leave. In May 2012, Rosario submitted a letter from Dr. Rodriguez-Velez, to his supervisor, Castillo, stating that his symptoms, which included paranoia and aggressive episodes, were not improving. In April, Rosario submitted another letter, recommending that Rosario return to work, 20–30 hours per week. The Corps viewed this as a request for reasonable accommodation and requested further information. After a delay, Rosario replied that he was going to return to work full time. Castillo informed Rosario that due to the possibility of aggressive episodes, Rosario needed to provide a medical release. Rosario requested leave under protest, then submitted a letter from Dr. Rodriguez-Velez, recommending that Rosario apply for disability because his depression had returned. Rosario did not provide any other medical documentation, despite reminders, and continued to request leave. In November 2012, Rosario forwarded a doctor's report, recommending that Rosario return to work, 20–30 hours per week.The Corps issued a “Revised Notice of Proposed Removal” based on the same charges that led to the 2010 removal. Rosario was placed on administrative leave. Rosario appealed, arguing that he was constructively suspended from July-November 2012. The Board concluded that he was not constructively suspended. The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision as supported by substantial evidence. View "Rosario-Fabregas v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd." on Justia Law

Scriptpro’s patent is directed to a “collating unit” used with a control center and an automatic dispensing system to store prescription containers after a medication has been dispensed into the containers. After a remand in an infringement case, the district court entered summary judgment, finding four claims invalid for lack of written description. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. The patent expressly states that containers can be sorted and stored “by patient, prescription, or other predetermined storage scheme without input or handling by the operator.” Not every claim must contain every limitation or achieve every disclosed purpose. Here, the original claims filed as part of the patent application did not include a requirement that sorting and storing be done by use of patient-identifying information. The district court erred when it determined that the specification limited the invention to storing prescription containers based on patient name and slot availability. Because the specification does not limit the scope of the invention in the manner the district court described, the asserted claims are not invalid for lacking such a limitation. View "Scriptpro LLC v. Innovation Assocs, Inc." on Justia Law

The Commerce Department determined that a Vietnamese manufacturer of wind towers was selling its products in the U.S. at about 51.5% below normal value and imposed antidumping duties under 19 U.S.C. 1673. Commerce used statutory calculation methods that apply when imported goods come from a nonmarket economy, as the wind towers at issue do. The Court of International Trade affirmed. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, with respect to Commerce’s use of packing weights rather than component weights in its calculation of surrogate values. The court affirmed Commerce’s determination not to use Korean purchase prices for flanges, welding wire, and wire flux. The court vacated and remanded Commerce’s overhead determination with respect to jobwork charges, erection expenses, and civil expenses. View "CS Wind Vietnam Co., LTD. v. United States" on Justia Law

EPA and state clean air regulations regulate the percentage of contaminates that may be discharged from oil and gas storage tanks and other holding vessels into the atmosphere. The patents at issue address capturing and recovering fuel vapors. NanoVapor’s Vapor Suppression System, developed by Moorhead, aims to control or eliminate combustible and toxic gasses in fuel storage and transfer operations. After working with Moorhead to help market this technology, Nathan became NanoVapor’s COO in 2007. NanoVapor later hired Matheson to help with the “commercial embodiment” of the technology being developed. Moorhead filed a provisional patent application in December 2006, claiming the vapor suppression system. The parties disagree over whether Nathan was then aware of the progress of the patent application. NanoVapor alleged that Nathan and Matheson (collectively, Vapor Point) plotted to steal NanoVapor’s technology and associated trade secrets. Vapor Point claims that the application wrongfully claimed their conceptual and inventive contributions and that that they are the true inventors of the technology. The Federal Circuit affirmed issuance of a correction of inventorship (35 U.S.C. 256) in favor of Vapor Point and denial of Vapor Point’s motion for exceptional case status and attorneys’ fees. The court noted NanoVapor’s concession that a determination of inventorship would resolve the case. View "Vapor Point, LLC v. Moorhead" on Justia Law

Arendi’s patent is directed to coordination between a first computer program displaying a document and a second program for searching an external information source. It allows a user to access and conduct a search using the second program while remaining in the first program displaying the document and discloses mechanisms for analyzing the document to identify the presence of name and address information by analyzing formatting, certain designators and abbreviations, and a database of common names. A search by the second program using the first information as a search term then looks for second information associated with the first information in the information source. Once the second information is located, the claimed invention performs an action using the second information. On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found several claims would have been obvious. The Federal Circuit reversed, stating that the Board misapplied precedent on the permissible use of common sense in an obviousness analysis. The Board’s presumption that adding a search for phone numbers would be “common sense” was conclusory and unsupported by substantial evidence; the missing limitation is not “peripheral” and there was nothing to support a conclusion that supplying the missing limitation would be obvious to one of skill in the art. View "Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.." on Justia Law

CSB’s 953 patent, issued in 1997, is directed to a circuit arrangement for integrating an electronic data processing (EDP) system with telephone systems connected to an integrated services digital network (ISDN) telephone network. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board upheld an examiner’s rejection of all claims of the 953 patent as unpatentable over the prior art during an ex parte reexamination. The Federal Circuit affirmed. While the Board should have applied the “Phillips” standard of claim construction rather than the broadest reasonable interpretation standard used by the examiner because the 953 patent expired during the reexamination, its claim construction was correct even under the Phillips standard. There was no support for limiting the broad claim term “personal computer” in the patent to exclude personal computers running software to emulate terminals. In the context of the 953 patent, a personal computer is defined by its hardware and computing capability, not by the software it happens to run at a point in time. View "In re: CSB-Sys. Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

The 997 patent relates to spinal surgery that “insert[s] an artificial implant between two adjacent vertebrae” from a patient’s side and discloses “instrumentation and methods of performing surgical procedures on the human thoracic and lumbar spine along the lateral aspect [(i.e., side)] of the spine” to correct “thoracic and lumbar disc disease and spinal deformities where concomitant fusion is desired.” The lateral approach to spinal surgery seeks to avoid complications that may arise when the surgery is performed from the patient’s front or back. Based on petitions filed by NuVasive, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes review and found claims 1–8 and 17–23 obvious and therefore invalid. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part. Substantial evidence supported findings of obviousness in light of prior art and concerning motivation to combine prior art. The court vacated with respect to a limitation in one specific claim. View "In re: Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc." on Justia Law

Halo owns patents directed to surface mount electronic packages containing transformers for mounting on a printed circuit board inside electronic devices. Halo alleged infringement by Pulse. The district court entered summary judgment that Pulse did not sell or offer to sell accused products within the U.S. and, therefore, did not directly infringe, and that Pulse’s infringement with respect to accused products sold and delivered outside the U.S. was not willful. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the constructions of the claim limitations “electronic surface mount package” and “contour element,” finding the patents not invalid for obviousness, and affirming the judgment of direct infringement with respect to products delivered in the U.S. and the judgment of inducement with respect to products delivered outside the U.S. but ultimately imported by others. The Supreme Court granted Halo’s certiorari petition with respect to enhanced damages, and held that Section 284 of the Patent Act “gives district courts the discretion to award enhanced damages . . . in egregious cases of misconduct beyond typical infringement.” On remand, the Federal Circuit left undisturbed the judgments on other issues, but vacated its unenhanced damages award with respect to products that were delivered in the United States, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. View "Halo Elec,, Inc. v. Pulse Elec., Inc." on Justia Law

Multilayer sued Berry Plastics, alleging infringement of its patent, which relates to multilayered plastic cling wrap films. The district court construed the claims of the patent as not covering (i.e., closed to) blends of the four resins expressly recited by those claims or unlisted resins, instead requiring that each of five inner layers within the film be composed of only one of the listed resins. The court granted Berry summary judgment of non-infringement. The court also invalidated claim 10 of the patent under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), but denied Berry’s request for sanctions against Multilayer under FRCP 11. The Federal Circuit vacated the summary judgment, finding that the district court erred in one aspect of its claim construction. There is nothing in the prosecution history of the patent to suggest that blends of the resins are excluded. The court affirmed that claim 10 of the patent is invalid and the court’s decision not to impose sanctions against Multilayer. View "Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp." on Justia Law