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

Centripetal Networks LLC owns a patent related to rule-based network threat detection for encrypted communications. In November 2021, Palo Alto Networks petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of certain claims of Centripetal’s patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted the IPR with a panel of three administrative patent judges (APJs). Subsequently, Cisco Systems and Keysight Technologies filed similar petitions and sought to join the proceedings. During the process, Centripetal discovered that one APJ, McNamara, owned Cisco stock and moved for the recusal of the panel and vacatur of the institution decision, arguing a conflict of interest. After rehearing requests and additional disclosures, APJ McNamara and another APJ withdrew from the panel, but the Board denied Centripetal’s recusal motion as untimely and found no violation of ethics rules or due process.The PTAB, in its final written decision, held claims 1, 24, and 25 of Centripetal’s patent unpatentable as obvious. Centripetal appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging both the merits of the Board’s obviousness determination and the handling of the recusal issue. The Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s recusal analysis for abuse of discretion and its legal conclusions de novo, finding that Centripetal’s recusal motion was untimely and that the APJ’s stock ownership did not violate applicable ethics regulations. The court also determined that Centripetal’s due process rights were not infringed and that the Board’s actions did not warrant vacatur based on recusal concerns.However, the Federal Circuit found that the PTAB failed to adequately consider evidence of copying presented by Centripetal as part of the obviousness analysis. The court vacated the Board’s final written decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the Board to properly address the evidence of copying. The disposition by the Federal Circuit was “vacated and remanded.” View "CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC. " on Justia Law

Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. owns several related patents describing fencing assemblies that use connectors to attach pickets to rails, allowing the pickets to pivot and slide for easier installation and improved racking ability. The patents describe connectors with “bosses,” “projections,” “nubs,” or “series of axles” that engage holes in the pickets, purportedly providing a fastener-less, pivotal connection. Barrette alleged that products sold by Fortress Iron, LP and Fortress Fence Products, LLC infringed claims of these patents.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas construed the terms “boss,” “projection,” and related terms as requiring the structures to be both integral and fastener-less, based on the patent specification and prosecution history. The court also found that the claim terms related to “sliding” and “causes” were not indefinite, concluding that the specification and prosecution history provided sufficient guidance for a skilled artisan to understand the scope of the claims. Following these constructions, Barrette stipulated it could not prove infringement, and the court entered judgment of non-infringement and no invalidity for indefiniteness.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment of non-infringement, but clarified that while the claims should not be limited to fastener-less bosses, Barrette had clearly disclaimed non-integral bosses during prosecution. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s finding that the claims were not indefinite, holding that the specification and prosecution history provided reasonable certainty as to the meaning of the “sliding” and “causes” terms. The court thus affirmed the district court’s judgment of non-infringement and no invalidity for indefiniteness. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. View "BARRETTE OUTDOOR LIVING, INC. v. FORTRESS IRON, LP " on Justia Law

A federally recognized Indian tribe in northern Nevada, whose lands were set aside by the federal government in the early 20th century, experienced a leadership dispute after the death of its council chairman in 2000. Two factions claimed to be the legitimate tribal government, leading to litigation in tribal courts and a prolonged refusal by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to recognize either group. Eventually, the BIA recognized the results of a 2014 tribal election favoring one faction, but disputes over land occupation and government recognition persisted.The faction recognized by the 2014 election filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief regarding tribal leadership and alleging unauthorized occupation of tribal lands. The district court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit later vacated those orders, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and remanded with instructions to dismiss. The BIA continued to recognize the election results unless a tribal remedy required otherwise.Before the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate, the tribe filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging statutory violations and breaches of trust related to land and water rights. The Claims Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, finding that some claims failed to identify a money-mandating source of law, others were time-barred, some were barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1500 due to the pending Nevada action, and some sought equitable relief outside its jurisdiction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Claims Court’s dismissal. The court held that the tribe’s claims either lacked a money-mandating source of law, were time-barred, or were barred by § 1500 because they were based on substantially the same operative facts as the earlier Nevada action. The court also affirmed that the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over the equitable relief requested. View "WINNEMUCCA INDIAN COLONY v. US " on Justia Law

Brita LP held a patent for a gravity-fed water filter system designed to remove contaminants, particularly lead, from water using filter media that included activated carbon and a lead scavenger. The patent claimed that the filter would achieve a specific performance metric, the Filter Rate and Performance (FRAP) factor, of about 350 or less. Although the patent described various types of filter media, such as carbon blocks and mixed media, it only provided working examples and detailed formulations for carbon-block filters that met the claimed FRAP factor. The patent also included test results showing that only carbon-block filters achieved the required performance, while mixed media filters did not.Brita filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) under section 337, alleging that several companies imported and sold water filters infringing its patent. After a Markman hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the asserted claims met the written description and enablement requirements and determined there was a violation of section 337. Upon review, the ITC reversed the ALJ’s findings, concluding that the claims were invalid for lack of written description and enablement as to any filter media other than carbon blocks, and that the term “filter usage lifetime claimed by a manufacturer or seller of the filter” was indefinite.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s decision. The court held that the patent’s specification did not adequately describe or enable the full scope of the claimed invention, specifically for non-carbon-block filter media, and that substantial evidence supported the ITC’s findings. The court did not reach the issue of indefiniteness, as the claims were already found invalid. The disposition was affirmed. View "BRITA LP v. ITC " on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, a patent holder, brought an infringement suit against the defendant, alleging that certain claims of two patents were infringed. Previously, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) had conducted inter partes reviews (IPRs) of both patents. In those IPRs, the Board found some claims unpatentable but determined that the specific claims asserted in this litigation (the Asserted Claims) had not been proven unpatentable. The Asserted Claims all depended from claims that the Board had found unpatentable. The Board’s decisions were not appealed.After the plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Asserted Claims were invalid for obviousness. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant, holding that issue preclusion applied to the limitations of the Asserted Claims that were shared with the previously invalidated claims. The court reasoned that, because the Board had already found the parent claims unpatentable, the plaintiff could not relitigate those issues, and the defendant did not need to independently prove invalidity for those limitations. The court then found the remaining limitations obvious in light of the prior art and granted summary judgment of invalidity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case. The Federal Circuit held that issue preclusion did not apply because the standard of proof in IPRs (preponderance of the evidence) is lower than the standard required in district court (clear and convincing evidence). Therefore, factual findings made by the Board in the IPRs could not have preclusive effect in the district court’s invalidity analysis. The court instructed that any summary judgment of invalidity must be based on evidence and argument presented in court, not on issue preclusion from the IPRs. View "INLAND DIAMOND PRODUCTS CO. v. CHERRY OPTICAL INC. " on Justia Law

The dispute centers on allegations by a manufacturer of semiconductor wafers that it developed a novel porous silicon technology in 2018 and entered into a non-disclosure agreement with a group of semiconductor companies and their executives. The parties discussed a potential collaboration, during which the manufacturer claims it disclosed proprietary trade secrets. While negotiations were ongoing, the semiconductor companies filed a series of patent applications, which the manufacturer alleges incorporated its confidential technology without crediting its inventors. The negotiations ultimately failed, and the manufacturer was not included as an inventor on any of the resulting patents.The manufacturer filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, asserting federal claims for trade secret misappropriation and correction of inventorship, as well as several California state law claims, including trade secret misappropriation and interference with economic advantage. The defendants moved to dismiss and also filed a special motion to strike the state law claims under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which is designed to quickly dismiss lawsuits targeting protected speech or petitioning activity. The district court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, and denied the anti-SLAPP motion to strike. The defendants appealed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the denial of a California anti-SLAPP motion to strike is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine as a matter of Federal Circuit law. The court found that the district court erred by conflating the two steps of the anti-SLAPP analysis, improperly considering the merits of the trade secret claims at the first step. The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of the motion to strike and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "IQE PLC v. NEWPORT FAB, LLC " on Justia Law

Causam Enterprises, Inc. owns several patents related to “demand response” technology, which allows electrical utilities to reduce power demand in response to certain conditions. Causam filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC), alleging that Resideo Smart Homes Technology (Tianjin) and its affiliate Ademco, Inc. were importing and selling internet-connected smart thermostats that infringed method claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,394,268, which Causam claimed to own. Causam sought to exclude these products from importation. During the ITC investigation, respondents argued that Causam did not own the patent and that Resideo’s products did not infringe the asserted claims.The assigned administrative law judge (ALJ) at the ITC found that Causam did not own the ’268 patent and that Resideo’s products did not infringe the claims. The full Commission, upon review, adopted only the noninfringement finding and did not address the ownership issue. Causam appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging the noninfringement determination and seeking a ruling on ownership. Meanwhile, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held, in a separate inter partes review, that claim 1 of the ’268 patent was unpatentable, and the Federal Circuit affirmed that decision in a companion case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Causam owns the ’268 patent, interpreting the relevant assignment agreements to exclude continuations-in-part from a prior assignment, thus leaving ownership with Causam. However, the court did not reach the noninfringement issue because its affirmance of the PTAB’s finding that claim 1 is unpatentable rendered the appeal moot. The court therefore dismissed the appeal as moot. View "CAUSAM ENTERPRISES, INC. v. ITC " on Justia Law

Petitioners representing domestic honey producers requested that the U.S. Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission investigate whether raw honey imported from Vietnam and other countries was being sold in the United States at less than fair value, causing material injury to the domestic industry. During the investigation, both agencies made affirmative preliminary and final determinations supporting the imposition of antidumping duties. The agencies also found “critical circumstances,” meaning there was a surge of imports after the petition was filed but before the preliminary determination, which could undermine the effectiveness of any eventual duties. As a result, the suspension of liquidation and the imposition of duties were backdated by 90 days to cover these imports.The importers of Vietnamese honey and their trade association challenged the Commission’s final determination of critical circumstances in the United States Court of International Trade. They argued that the Commission improperly focused on the period before the antidumping duty order was issued, rather than considering whether the import surge would undermine the remedial effect of the order after its issuance. The Trade Court rejected this argument, upholding the Commission’s determination as both lawful and supported by substantial evidence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Trade Court’s decision de novo, applying the same standard. The Federal Circuit held that the statute does not require the Commission to focus solely on the period after the antidumping duty order is issued. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether the surge of imports before the preliminary determination is likely to undermine the remedial effect of the order, starting from the suspension date. The court also found that the Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Court of International Trade. View "SWEET HARVEST FOODS v. US " on Justia Law

Causam Enterprises, Inc. owns a patent related to methods for managing electric power flow within a grid, specifically focusing on demand response load management, where utilities can control customer appliances to reduce power consumption during peak periods. Ecobee Technologies ULC filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, challenging all but one claim of the patent on grounds of obviousness, citing prior art references. Causam did not dispute its ownership of the patent in the IPR, though ownership had been contested by ecobee in a separate International Trade Commission (ITC) proceeding.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) instituted the IPR and ultimately found all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness, determining that ecobee had properly served the patent owner of record, Causam, and that the statutory requirements for institution were met. The Board also construed a key claim limitation to include both actual measurements and estimates of power savings, rejecting Causam’s narrower interpretation. The Director of the PTO denied further review, and Causam appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.The Federal Circuit first determined that Causam had constitutional standing to appeal, based on its status as the assignee of record and its unequivocal assertion of ownership. The court rejected Causam’s argument that the Board’s failure to resolve ownership denied due process to a potential third-party owner, holding that Causam could not assert the constitutional rights of others. On the merits, the court upheld the Board’s claim construction and its finding of obviousness, concluding that the Board committed no reversible error. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision, leaving the challenged patent claims unpatentable. View "CAUSAM ENTERPRISES, INC. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC " on Justia Law

A former federal employee retired before age sixty-two and began receiving an annuity supplement under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act (FERS). Years earlier, a Colorado state court had issued a divorce decree awarding his ex-wife a pro rata share of his “gross monthly annuity” and any benefit earned from his special service, but the decree did not specifically mention the annuity supplement. For nearly thirty years, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) only divided the annuity supplement between former spouses if a court order expressly required it. In 2016, OPM changed its policy, deciding that if a court order divided the basic annuity, the annuity supplement would also be divided in the same way, even if the order was silent on the supplement. OPM applied this new interpretation retroactively, resulting in a demand that the retiree pay his ex-wife nearly $25,000.The retiree challenged OPM’s decision before the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board’s administrative judge found that OPM could only divide the annuity supplement if a court order expressly provided for such division. The Board affirmed this decision, rejecting OPM’s new interpretation. OPM then sought review from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, under 5 U.S.C. §§ 8421(c) and 8467(a), OPM may apportion a federal retiree’s annuity supplement to a former spouse only when a court order expressly provides for such division. The court reasoned that the statutory text, structure, and history require the annuity supplement to be treated in the same way as the basic annuity, which is only divided if expressly ordered by a court. The court affirmed the Board’s decision. View "OPM v. MOULTON " on Justia Law