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

Pitts, the surviving spouse of an Army veteran, filed for dependency and indemnity compensation from the VA in 2001. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed. In 2012, Pitts employed attorney Viterna. Their fee agreement was filed with the VA and provided that Viterna was owed 20% of any past-due benefits Pitts recovered, less certain expenses but applied only to claims for which a notice of disagreement was filed after June 20th, 2007; the NOD covering the 2001 claim was filed in 2005. Viterna asserts that this was an “unintentional drafting error.”In 2014, Viterna secured past-due benefits for Pitts, which related back to the 2005 NOD. The agency refused to pay Viterna 20% of those benefits. The Board affirmed. Before the Veterans Court, Viterna argued that Congress only gave the VA the power to assess whether a fee agreement was valid and if its terms were excessive or unreasonable—not whether the agreement covered the claim at issue.The Veterans Court and Federal Circuit disagreed. There was no qualifying agreement between Viterna and Pitts providing for payment of a fee for the claim in question. The court noted that between 1988-2006, attorneys could only charge fees for representing claimants after the Board’s “final decision.” In 2006, Congress amended 38 U.S.C. 5904, effective June 20th, 2007, to allow attorneys to charge for VA representation as soon as a claimant had filed a NOD seeking review of a regional office decision. View "Viterna v. McDonough" on Justia Law

Amgen produces apremilast and markets it as a phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor, which is used for treating psoriasis and related conditions, under the brand name Otezla®. The 638, 101, and 541 patents cover Otezla. Sandoz submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of apremilast. Amgen’s predecessor brought a Hatch-Waxman suit, asserting that Sandoz’s generic product would infringe the patents.The Federal Circuit affirmed holdings that claims 3 and 6 of Amgen’s 638 patent and claims 1 and 15 of Amgen’s 101 patent had not been shown to be invalid as obvious and that claims 2, 19, and 21 of its 541 patent”) were shown to be invalid as obvious in light of prior art. The court noted that varying a dose in response to the occurrence of side effects is a well-known, standard medical practice that may well lead to a finding of obviousness. View "Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc." on Justia Law

The U.S. Department of Commerce initiated an antidumping duty investigation on certain tapered roller bearings (TRBs) from China, 19 U.S.C. 1673, and established a country-wide anti-dumping duty for TRBs from China. In 2009, Commerce revised the rate to 92.84%. Since 2017, ZMC had been granted separate rate status. An interested domestic party requested a review of ZMC’s 2016-2017 entries and submitted data indicating de facto control of ZMC by the government. In response to a questionnaire issued by Commerce, ZMC provided details about its corporate structure.After assessing ZMC’s corporate structure, Commerce preliminarily found that ZMC failed to rebut the presumption of de facto government control over its export activities. The Court of International Trade held that Commerce erred in rejecting a revised translation of Articles of Association. On remand, Commerce reviewed the revised translation but maintained its determination that ZMC failed to rebut the presumption of de facto government control. The Trade Court affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Commerce’s determination that ZMC was not entitled to a separate rate was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence because a labor union is the majority shareholder with significant rights over ZMC and has overlapping membership with the employee stock-ownership committee. View "Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

Charger filed an intent-to-use application to register SPARK LIVING on the Principal Register for leasing of real estate; real estate listing; real estate service, namely, rental property management. The examining attorney refused registration under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(d), on grounds of a likelihood “to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive with an earlier registered mark.” The earlier registered mark, SPARK, was registered for “[r]eal estate services, namely, rental brokerage, leasing, and management of commercial property, offices and office space.” Charger amended its description of services to only cover residential real estate services, then disclaimed the term “LIVING,” and again amended the description to “specifically” exclude commercial property and office space—the services of the registrant’s mark. The examining attorney maintained the refusal.The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and Federal Circuit affirmed, as supported by substantial evidence the refusal to register Charger’s mark based on likelihood of confusion. The Board addressed five of the “Dupont factors”: similarity or dissimilarity of the marks, the nature of the goods or services, established, likely-to-continue trade channels, conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, and strength of the mark, focusing on the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks as well as the goods or services. View "In Re Charger Ventures LLC" on Justia Law

Rotigotine is used to treat Parkinson’s disease, which causes difficulty swallowing and slow transit times through intestines, which can frustrate oral treatments. Transdermal therapeutic systems deliver drugs through the patient’s skin and avoid those complications. In 2007, UCB invented and marketed Neupro®, the first FDA-approved patch treatment for Parkinson’s disease. Original Neupro® is covered by several UCB patents, including the Muller patents, which claim priority to an application filed in 1999. The Muller patents are listed in the FDA’s “Orange Book,” as covering reformulated Neupro®.In 2013, Actavis submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for FDA approval of a generic transdermal rotigotine patch. UCB sued for infringement. The district court granted UCB an injunction preventing approval of Actavis’s ANDA until March 2021, when the Muller patent expired. In 2018 UCB filed the patent application that matured into the 589 patent, claiming priority from a provisional application filed in 2009, entitled “Polyvinylpyrrolidone for the Stabilization of a Solid Dispersion of the Non-Crystalline Form of Rotigotine.” UCB again filed suit, asserting the 589 patent, to delay FDA approval of a generic for nine additional years.The district court found that the Muller patents anticipate all asserted claims and that the asserted claims would have been obvious in view of multiple prior art references, including the Muller patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of invalidity of the 589 patent. The district court’s fact findings on overlapping ranges, teaching away, unexpected results, and commercial success are not clearly erroneous, View "UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc." on Justia Law

The district court dismissed Sanderling’s infringement suit due to the asserted claims’ lack of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The patents at issue share the title “Dynamic Promotional Layout Management and Distribution Rules,” and are directed to a method using distribution rules to load digital image branding functions to users when certain conditions are met. The patents share a common specification, which describes the digital image branding function as a transformation, using, for example, an icon or a filter, that displays in a client terminal for the user to apply to a digital image. A distribution rule “is a rule used in determining how to target a group of end users, for instance, a rule that determines that only a group of end users having certain characteristics and/or match a certain requirement.”The Federal Circuit affirmed. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, not a specific improvement in computer functionality. The claims describe the use of computers as a tool to identify when a condition is met and then to distribute information based on satisfaction of that condition. The elements of the representative claim, individually and as an ordered combination, do not constitute an inventive concept. View "Sanderling Management Ltd. v. Snap Inc." on Justia Law

Sequoia’s patent is directed to “a method for managing a logical volume for minimizing a size of metadata and supporting dynamic online resizing,” and “a computer-readable recording medium storing a program or data structure for embodying the method.” The patent describes a preferred embodiment that has three storage virtualizations: extents, disk partitions, and logical volume. The accused product, Red Hat’s software tool, can create and resize logical volumes with units smaller than a whole disk partition, such as extents. Red Hat’s petitions for inter partes reviews were rejected.In infringement litigation, the Federal Circuit reversed a finding of invalidity based on the construction of “computer-readable recording medium” to include transitory media (signals or waves). Transitory media are ineligible statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The district court erred in relying on extrinsic evidence that was clearly at odds with the intrinsic evidence.The Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of noninfringement, upholding the constructions of a “disk partition” to mean a “section of a disk that is a minimum unit of a logical volume” and a “logical volume” to mean an “extensible union of more than one disk partition, the size of which is resized in disk partition units.” View "Sequoia Technology, LLC v. Dell Inc." on Justia Law

In 2015, the Department of Commerce received petitions from domestic producers requesting that Commerce impose antidumping and countervailing duties on corrosion-resistant steel (CORE) exports from China. Commerce initiated investigations and published orders. In 2019, Commerce initiated investigations to determine whether exports of CORE from the UAE were circumventing the China CORE orders. The Court of International Trade judgment affirmed the subsequent circumvention determination. In making its determination, Commerce analyzed the circumvention factors and subfactors provided by 19 U.S.C. 1677j(b).The Federal Circuit affirmed Commerce’s circumvention determination as reasonable and supported by substantial evidence with respect to “pattern of trade,” “level of investment,” “nature of the production process,” and “extent of production facilities.” Commerce’s analysis of the “value-added” subfactor was erroneous because Commerce did not reasonably explain why it rejected financial data that were purported to show a significant value added but the error was harmless because it was limited to a single factual finding within a multi-factor test. View "Al Ghurair Iron & Steel LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

HCM sued Philip Morris for allegedly infringing at least one claim of HCM’s patent, which is directed to an electronic nicotine-delivery device. Philip Morris manufactures the IQOS electronic nicotine-delivery system, which “heats tobacco-filled sticks wrapped in paper [HeatSticks] to generate a nicotine-containing aerosol.” Philip Morris markets IQOS as a “heat-not-burn” system; the tobacco is heated at a low enough temperature that the tobacco does not burn, therefore, in Philip Morris’s view, preventing combustion.Philip Morris argued that an exhibit HCM attached to its original complaint conclusively demonstrated that IQOS does not initiate a combustion reaction as required by the asserted claims. The district court agreed that a Modified Risk Tobacco Product Application that Philip Morris submitted to the FDA when it sought a modified risk order to sell IQOS established that IQOS did not initiate a combustion reaction and thus did not infringe the asserted claims. The court granted Philip Morris attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. 285.The Federal Circuit reversed. HCM’s original and amended complaints recite sufficient allegations to raise a facially plausible case of patent infringement and specifically rejected the notion that IQOS does not initiate a combustion reaction. View "Healthier Choices Management Corp. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Arbutus’s 127 patent states that its purpose is to allow for more efficient methods and compositions for introducing nucleic acids into cells and methods of downregulating gene expression. The invention is, in part, the “surprising discovery” of the Morphology Limitation when one controls two factors: the lipid compositions of a SNALP formulation and formation process.Moderna sought inter partes review (IPR), arguing that the 069 patent, which was filed in April 2009, and claims priority to an application filed in April 2008, anticipated every claim. The 069 patent lists five inventors, three of which are listed on the 127 patent. The 069 patent, its child patent (435 patent), and the 127 patent are commonly owned by Arbutus. While the 127 patent was filed during the pendency of the 069 patent, it does not claim priority to it.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board found claims 1–22 of the 127 patent invalid as anticipated. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board’s determination that the Morphology Limitation of claim 1 is inherently anticipated by the 069 patent is supported by substantial evidence as is its finding that the 069 patent and its incorporated references describe nucleic acid-lipid particles and disclose these amounts as an inherent property of the formulations. View "Arbutus Biopharma Corp. v. Modernatx, Inc." on Justia Law