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

Akzo’s patent is directed to an extrusion process that generates low viscosity aqueous polymer dispersions. To achieve uniform distribution of the polymer in the aqueous medium, the specification notes that “the mixture cannot be heated above the boiling point of the carrier liquid, or else the liquid boils and it becomes impossible to disperse the polymer.” The claimed invention aims to prevent such boiling and achieve uniform polymer distribution by maintaining the pressure in the extruder above atmospheric. Specifically, “[t]he pressure in the extruder [is] maintained by . . . connecting the outlet of the extruder to a pressurized collection vessel.” The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment that Dow did not infringe the patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents and upheld a conclusion that the claims are not indefinite. View "Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co." on Justia Law

Waters’ patent relates to systems that use highly compressed gas, compressible liquid, or supercritical fluid. In liquid chromatography. The patent is directed to using a pump as a pressure source for supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC), a more efficient and advanced form of chromatography. SFC uses pumps to regulate the flow of compressible fluids, such as supercritical carbon dioxide, through a column. The patent provides an alternative SFC system, allowing the effective use of a less expensive pump than was required by prior art. In 2011, Waters sued Aurora for infringement. Aurora sought inter partes reexamination of all claims, citing new prior art. In response to an initial Office Action rejecting all claims, Waters amended independent claims and added dependent claims, with an additional limitation. In 2012 Agilent acquired substantially all of Aurora’s assets, agreeing to be bound by the outcome of the reexamination proceedings.The Board reversed all of the rejections, listing Aurora as the third-party requester and Aurora’s counsel as counsel for the third-party requester. The Federal Circuit dismissed Agilent’s appeal; Aurora, not Agilent, is the third-party requester. Agilent lacked a cause of action to appeal. View "Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Waters Techs. Corp." on Justia Law

Lumen’s 073 patent is directed to facilitating multilateral decision-making by matching parties, using preference data from two classes of parties. FTB operates a search website with a comparison feature, “AssistMe,” that provides personalized product and service recommendations by asking the user questions about attributes of the desired product or service. Lumen alleged infringement. FTB repeatedly informed Lumen that FTB’s accused feature did not involve bilateral or multilateral preference matching. Before receiving any discovery, Lumen served preliminary infringement contentions, including a chart identifying the allegedly infringing features of AssistMe. The district court granted FTB judgment on the pleadings, holding that the patent’s claims are directed to an abstract idea and invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The court found claim construction unnecessary and awarded attorney fees. Finding the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285, the court stated “basic” pre-suit investigation would have shown that AssistMe only used one party's preference data. The court explained factors that supported enhancing the lodestar amount, including “the need to deter the plaintiff’s predatory strategy, the plaintiff’s desire to extract a nuisance settlement, the plaintiff’s threats to make the litigation expensive, and the frivolous nature of the plaintiff’s claims.” The Federal Circuit affirmed the "exceptional" finding, but remanded for proper explanation of the calculation of fees. View "Lumen View Tech., LLC v. Findthebest.Com, Inc" on Justia Law

In May 2003, Wyeth filed the 894 Patent Application, claiming a pharmacological method for cancer treatment. In July 2003, the PTO mailed a Notice to File Missing Parts. Wyeth filed the missing parts in December 2003. The statutory deadline for the PTO to issue its first office action was 14 months from the filing date. In August 2005, having received no office action, Wyeth sent a letter. In August 2005, 404 days after the deadline, the PTO mailed a restriction requirement, 35 U.S.C. 121, which generally constitutes an office action. The deadline for Wyeth to reply was extended to February 10, 2006. On that day, during a telephone interview, the Examiner acknowledged that the restriction requirement was not complete. The PTO issued a corrected requirement in February 2006. In May 2006, Wyeth filed its response. Later, the PTO delayed the mailing of a separate office action for 280 days. In October 2011, the PTO issued a Notice of Allowance. In April 2012, the application issued as the 768 patent, reflecting an award of 1291 days of patent term adjustment, 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(2). The Federal Circuit affirmed denial of an adjustment for 197 days from August 10, 2005-February 23, 2006. Discussions concerning the challenged restriction requirement, which satisfied the notice requirement, were part of the typical “back and forth” of prosecution, not the type of error intended to be compensated. View "Pfizer, Inc. v. Lee" on Justia Law

MG’s patents relate to “financial transactions including a method for a borrower to evaluate and/or obtain financing.” MG sued for infringement. Defendants claimed that the patents failed to claim patent-eligible subject matter. The judge’s Standing Patent Rules (SPRs), developed “based largely on information obtained from over 100 patent practitioners and professors, a review of all the other local patent rules, and a review of related literature,” required that a party opposing an infringement claim serve invalidity contentions after a scheduling conference. Defendants served invalidity contentions, including the statement: “Defendants do not present any grounds of invalidity based on 35 U.S.C. 101 . . . at this time. The final claim construction may require such an assertion of invalidity.” The SPRs required final infringement contentions and expert reports following the issuance of an order construing claim terms. After the claim construction order, final invalidity contentions were served, citing 35 U.S.C. 101. The court agreed that an intervening Supreme Court decision constituted good cause for reviving the invalidity claim and later concluded that all of the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “anonymous loan shopping” and included no “inventive concept.” The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding denial of MG’s motion to strike the section 101 defense and the finding that the asserted claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. View "Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

In 2002, the Department of Commerce published notice of an antidumping duty order covering polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET Film) from Taiwan, Commerce initiated administrative review in 2010, covering three respondents, including Nan Ya and Shinkong. Without providing a reason, Nan Ya informed Commerce that it would not participate in the review; it submitted no information. Commerce determined that Nan Ya significantly impeded the proceeding, applied an adverse inference to Nan Ya in selecting among the facts available, and assigned a 74.34% rate to Nan Ya. The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s determination. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Under 19 U.S.C. 1677e(b)(4), Commerce may assign the highest transaction-specific margin on the record of the subject review. If Commerce selects the highest transaction-specific margin from the subject review from among the adverse facts available, it need not corroborate that information. Congress has confirmed there that Commerce has the “discretion to apply [the] highest rate” and need not demonstrate that a particular dumping margin “reflects an alleged commercial reality of the interested party,=” in the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. View "Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

Muller, an employee of the U.S. Government Printing Office, is a union member. The union and GPO are signatories to a multi-party Master Labor Management Agreement, which creates a negotiated grievance procedure for GPO employees to contest adverse employment actions as an alternative to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Muller was reassigned within the GPO, resulting in demotion to a lower grade and a reduction in pay. Muller challenged his reassignment through the negotiated procedure. An arbitrator dismissed the grievance as “not arbitrable,” because a four-month deadline for holding a hearing, required by the agreement, had passed. The Federal Circuit reversed; the contractual provision does not require dismissal of the grievance in the event of noncompliance with the four-month deadline. The deadline is merely a nonbinding housekeeping rule to encourage timely arbitration, one that is addressed to the arbitrator as well as the parties. There is no past practice requiring dismissal under the circumstances of this case. View "Muller v. Gov't Printing Office" on Justia Law

International Boundary and Water Commissioner Ruth hired McCarthy as an attorney in 2009. Within months, McCarthy had prepared four legal memoranda challenging Commission activities as “gross mismanagement,” contrary to existing law, and characterizing certain officers as lacking “core competencies.” McCarthy submitted a report: “Disclosures of Alleged Fraud, Waste and Abuse” to the Office of Inspector General (OIG), and other federal agencies and informed Ruth of his reports. Ruth terminated McCarthy’s employment, citing McCarthy’s failure to support the executive staff in a constructive manner. McCarthy filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), alleging whistleblower retaliation, citing his report to OIG, but not the legal memoranda, as protected activity. Existing precedent held that reports made in the course of an employee’s normal duties and reports made to a supervisor about a supervisor’s conduct were not protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act, 103 Stat. 16. The administrative judge found no retaliation. The Merit Systems Protection Board and Federal Circuit affirmed in 2012. While McCarthy’s petition was pending, Congress enacted the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012, 126 Stat. 1465-76, under which McCarthy’s legal memoranda could be protected disclosures. The Act can be applied retroactively to pending cases. McCarthy did not raise the change in law while his petition for rehearing was pending. The Federal Circuit affirmed MSPB’s refusal to reopen his case. McCarthy has not exhausted OSC remedies with respect to the memoranda, rendering the MSPB without jurisdiction. View "McCarthy v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd." on Justia Law

In the 1970s, the Department of the Interior’s Fish and WildlifeService began entering into cooperative farming agreements with farmers to manage public lands in the National Wildlife Refuge System for the conservation of migratory birds and wildlife, including at the Umatilla and McNary Refuges in the Pacific Northwest. Most CFAs share identical terms; the Service permits a “cooperator” to farm public land with specific crops that benefit wildlife. There is no payment. Cooperators typically retain 75 percent of the crop yield for their efforts. Hymas sought a cooperator contract. The Service selected other cooperators, but did not use formal procurement procedures or solicit full and open competition. It relied upon its system that gave preference to previous cooperators with a successful record of farming designated areas within the refuge. Hymas did not live adjacent to the refuges and had not previously farmed refuge lands. The Claims Court concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491(b)(1), to resolve his bid protest and held that the Service violated various federal procurement laws and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Federal Circuit vacated with instructions to dismiss, holding that the CFAs are not subject to Tucker Act review. View "Hymas v. United States" on Justia Law

Ethicon’s patent is directed to a surgical device used to staple, secure, and seal tissue that has been incised. As is commonly done during endoscopic procedures, a surgeon will insert the device into the patient and will pull a trigger to latch onto a desired tissue. Once attached, the surgeon will then pull another trigger, which causes a blade to move, cutting the desired tissue. Simultaneously, rows of staples on either side of the cutting blade are actuated against a staple forming surface, both securing and sealing the newly-cut tissue. The Patent Trial and Appeals Board granted inter partes review found all challenged claims invalid as obvious over the prior art. The Federal Circuit rejected an argument that the Board’s final decision is invalid because the same Board panel made both the decision to institute and the final decision and upheld the determination that the claims would have been obvious over prior art. View "Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, LP" on Justia Law