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

ltimatePointer’s patent, entitled “Easily Deployable Interactive Direct-Pointing System and Presentation Control System and Calibration Method Therefor,” describes a handheld pointing device that can be used to control the cursor on a projected computer screen, thereby improving a presenter’s ability to control the cursor while making a presentation to an audience. The district court entered summary judgment that Nintendo did not infringe five claims of the patent and that four claims were invalid as indefinite. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of noninfringement, stating that the lower court did not err in construing the term “handheld device.” The court reversed the determination of indefiniteness; the claims do not recite functionality divorced from the cited structure and do not reflect an attempt to claim both an apparatus and a method, but instead claim an apparatus with particular capabilities. View "Ultimatepointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Avid’s patent is directed to a “system for decompressing consecutive streams of compressed video data to provide a continuous, uninterrupted decompressed video data output stream.” Many computers store video in a compressed form. One well-known compression format is MPEG. Instead of storing every video frame in full, MPEG stores only changes in one frame to the next. Before compressed video files can be played, they must be decompressed. Methods to compress and decompress videos were well known at the time of the patent application. The patent discloses that these prior art methods often generated blank frames between first and second videos when playing multiple compressed videos back-to-back due to system latency and purports to teach a system that allows play of compressed video streams one after the other without creating blank frames or a video-less gap when switching between streams by using multiple decompression buffers. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes review on a subset of the grounds in Harmonic’s petition and determined that the instituted ground did not render claims of the patent unpatentable. The Federal Circuit affirmed confirmation of claims 11–16 over the instituted ground and concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board’s institution decision. View "Harmonic, Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.." on Justia Law

Bozeman served in the Army, 1967-1970, including one year in Vietnam. In 1993, Bozeman sought disability benefits after substance abuse treatment at a VA Medical Center. The VA awarded him service-connected benefits for PTSD, rated as 10 percent disabling. Bozeman’s condition deteriorated. His disability rating was increased to a 50 percent rating in 1999. In 2000, the VA denied an increased rating. Bozeman underwent a VA Compensation and Pension Examination (C&P) in 2002. Bozeman submitted a Notice of Disagreement with its conclusion. He was hospitalized in 2003 and 2004, for “suicidal and homicidal thoughts[,] . . . severe depression.” In 2005 a C& P examiner concluded that Bozeman suffered from “chronic PTSD symptomatology off and on for the last 25 years” and that he would have “difficulty . . . work[ing] in gainful employment.” In 2006, Bozeman’s rating was increased to 70 percent, effective February 2003, with a temporary 100 percent rating for the hospitalization. The Board denied a rating in excess of 50 percent prior to February 2003, and a rating in excess of 70 percent after February 2003, but granted a rating of 100 percent, effective November 2010. The Veterans Court affirmed. The Federal Circuit vacated. Bozeman’s argument that the Board failed to consider relevant evidence was not a new legal argument raised for the first time on appeal; the Board’s reliance on issue exhaustion was improper View "Bozeman v. McDonald" on Justia Law

The Blue Calypso Patents are all related and describe a peer-to-peer advertising system that uses mobile communication devices. At the request of Groupon, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted Covered Business Method (CBM) review of the Blue Calypso Patents under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA).The Board found certain claims unpatentable under either 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, or 112. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the patents are CBM patents that do not claim a technological invention and that certain claims were anticipated, but reversed the Board’s conclusion that the claim terms “endorsement tag” and “token,” as used in the 516 patent lack written description support. View "Blue Calypso, LLC. v. Groupon, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1998, Dickens filed a claim for PTSD caused by in-service events, stating that he received a Purple Heart and Bronze Star in connection with these events. His file was never located despite extensive searching. Dickens passed away in 2006 while his claim was pending, and Mrs. Dickens sought accrued benefits. In 2011, she testified that she did not know what had happened to her husband’s proof of a Purple Heart. In 2012, the Board of Veterans Appeals denied the claim, finding no evidence that Dickens was involved in combat during his military service. On remand, in 2013, the Board denied the claim, again finding insufficient evidence to establish that Dickens engaged in combat. Mrs. Dickens argued that the VA violated its duty to assist her with her claim because the Board hearing officer failed to suggest that she seek a copy of Mr. Dickens’s service records 2011. The Veterans Court rejected that argument and affirmed the denial, noting that if Mrs. Dickens believed that the hearing officer committed an error, she should have included that issue in the 2012 joint motion for partial remand. The Federal Circuit affirmed, citing principles of issue exhaustion. View "Dickens v. McDonald" on Justia Law

The patents teach improved techniques for making artificial candles flicker like real candles and were developed for the DIsneyland “Haunted Mansion.” In 2008, Disney granted Candella a worldwide license to practice the technology. In 2010, Candella approached Liown to manufacture its candles. Negotiations broke down. Liown filed a patent application in China on flameless candles, allegedly based on confidential information obtained during negotiations with Candella. In 2012, Liown began selling flameless candles in the U.S. Disney and Candella amended the license to permit Candella to sublicense, to assign its interest with Disney’s consent, and to sue without Disney’s consent. Candella sued Liown for infringement. The parties settled and reopened negotiations for Liown to manufacture flameless candles using the technology. The relationship again deteriorated. Days after receiving its own U.S. patent covering similar artificial flame technology, Liown advised Candella that it would no longer comply with the settlement agreement and allegedly began selling its own flameless candles to Candella’s exclusive customers based on information it learned after the settlement proceedings. Candella again filed suit. The court granted a preliminary injunction, based on the alleged infringement without reaching the alternative ground of tortious interference. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding a substantial question of patent validity. View "Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co. Ltd." on Justia Law

Agent Parkinson, of the FBI’s Sacramento field office, was the leader of a special operations group, tasked with relocating a previously compromised undercover facility. In 2006, the FBI leased a facility from Rodda, who agreed to contribute $70,000 to “construction, construction documents, permits and fees. Parkinson negotiated the lease on behalf of the FBI, and managed the tenant improvement funds. In 2008, during the work, Parkinson made whistleblower-eligible disclosures, implicating two pilots involved with the group in misconduct. Parkinson’s supervisor issued Parkinson a low-performance rating, removed him as group leader, and reassigned him. Believing this to be retaliation, Parkinson sent a letter to Senator Grassley, who forwarded Parkinson’s allegations to the Department of Justice’s Office of the Investigator General (OIG) for investigation. The OIG sent the FBI its report. Ultimately, the Merit Systems Protection Board upheld Parkinson’s termination for lack of candor under oath and obstruction of process of the Office of Professional Responsibility. The Federal Circuit reversed in part and remanded. The court sustained the obstruction charge and dismissal of Parkinson’s affirmative defense of violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, but found the lack of candor charge unsupported by substantial evidence and that the Board improperly precluded Parkinson from raising an affirmative defense of whistleblower retaliation. View "Parkinson v. Dep't of Justice" on Justia Law

Eon’s patents relate to a two-way interactive communication network system for enabling communications between local subscribers and a base station and describe various contexts in which the described networks might be useful: broadcast television programs; wireless facsimile services; pay-per-view services; when the subscriber unit is located in a location where it would otherwise lack ability to receive transmissions; meter reading; inventory control in soft drink dispensing machines; and site alarms for remote monitoring of open doors, fires, failure, temperature, etc. Eon sued SIlver Spring, a utility services network provider, and won an infringement verdict of $18,800,000. The district court reversed as to one of the three patents and remitted the award to $12,990,800. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that no reasonable jury could have found that Silver Spring’s utility meters are “portable” and “mobile” in the context of the claimed invention; those meters do not infringe the two remaining patents. View "Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc." on Justia Law

Apple alleged infringement of five patents that cover various aspects of the operation of smartphones. . The district court entered awarded Apple $119,625,000 in damages and ongoing royalties for infringement of three patents. The jury found that Samsung had not infringed the other two. Samsung’s countersuit alleged infringement of two patents that it owns. The jury found Apple had infringed one patent and awarded $158,400 in damages but found that Apple had not infringed the other. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, finding that Apple failed to prove, as a matter of law, that the accused Samsung products use an “analyzer server” as the Federal Circuit has previously construed that term with respect to one Apple patent and that the asserted claims of two Apple patents would have been obvious based on the prior art. The court affirmed the judgment of non-infringement of two Apple patents, affirmed the judgment of infringement of Samsung’s patent, and affirmed the judgment of noninfringement of Samsung’s other patent. View "Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Fellowes obtained the 468 patent, claiming a shredder that prevents paper jams using a combination of a presence sensor that detects whether paper is present in the feed and a thickness sensor that detects whether the stack’s thickness risks exceeding the shredder’s capacity. The patent further claims a controller that turns the shredder motor on only when those sensors indicate paper is present in the feed that does not exceed the shredder’s thickness capacity. Because prior art contained both sensors, Fellowes claimed nonobviousness based on its particular combination of these elements. Fellowes sued ACCO for infringement. The Patent and Trademark Office granted reexamination. An examiner found a prima facie case that certain claims would have been an obvious combination of prior art. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board reversed, finding that the examiner failed to make a prima facie showing of obviousness. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the examiner made this prima facie showing, and remanded to allow the Board to consider issues that it did not reach below: whether Fellowes’ rebuttal evidence changes the outcome on obviousness and whether the dependent claims at issue provide independent grounds of nonobviousness. View "ACCO Brands Corp. v. Fellowes, Inc." on Justia Law