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

Johnson served as an Air Traffic Controller Watch Supervisor. The Air Force alleged that Johnson was at fault for a violation of FAA policy concerning the separation of aircraft during his watch in 2018 and that this was grounds for removal in light of his prior offenses. A notice of a removal decision was effective May 11, 2019. On May 7, 2019, the local Union initiated grievance procedures. When the dispute was not resolved, the Union invoked arbitration through the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. In November 2020, the Arbitrator upheld the removal decision.The Union appealed but withdrew from the appeal because its national union had placed the local Union in receivership and stripped its counsel of all authority to proceed. Without reaching the merits, the Federal Circuit dismissed Johnson’s motion (Federal Rule 43(b) of Appellate Procedure), to substitute the Union. A party may not substitute under Rule 43(b) where the original party to the appeal lacked standing; unions lack standing to initiate an appeal of an arbitration decision under 5 U.S.C. 7703(a). A party may not substitute under Rule 43(b) when the original party being substituted lacked standing to initiate the appeal. View "American Federation of Government Workers v. Department of the Air Force" on Justia Law

Jazz holds an approved New Drug Application (NDA) for the narcolepsy drug Xyrem®, with the active ingredient, GHB, which exerts a heavily sedating effect and is prone to misuse; it is known as a date rape drug. The FDA conditioned approval of Jazz’s NDA upon the development of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS). The 963 patent relates to Jazz’s distribution system, which controls access to the drug through a central pharmacy and computer database, tracking prescriptions, patients, and prescribers. Jazz listed the 963 patent in the Orange Book as covering a method of using Xyrem. The patent’s claims expired in 2022. In 2020, Avadel submitted an NDA for the GHB-based drug FT218. Unlike Xyrem, FT218 is dosed once nightly. FT218’s REMS describe multiple pharmacies and databases for ensuring proper drug handling. Although Avadel had filed an NDA, not an Abbreviated NDA, the FDA required Avadel to file a certification that to the best of its knowledge, the 963 patent’s single-pharmacy system was invalid, unenforceable, or would not be infringed by its product.Jazz sued Avadel for infringement. Avadel sued the FDA for requiring certification; the suit was dismissed because 21 U.S.C. 355(c)(3)(D)(ii)(I) provided Avadel with a separate adequate remedy. Avadel responded to Jazz’s infringement assertions, seeking de-listing of the 963 patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court order that Jazz request de-listing. The 963 patent claims a system and does not claim an approved method of use. View "Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, Inc" on Justia Law

Kluge, an Army Reserve commissioned officer and a civilian employee of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), was ordered under 10 U.S.C. 12301(d) to report to active duty in support of a contingency operation, Operation Enduring Freedom. He was absent from his DHS job from January 15 to July 30, 2011. For the first few weeks, Kluge was on paid military leave; from February 27 until July 30, DHS did not pay him except for the July 4 holiday. Kluge sought to recover differential pay under 5 U.S.C. 5538 for himself and similarly situated service members employed by the federal government, naming the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as the respondent.An administrative judge denied class certification and substituted DHS for OPM. DHS and Kluge stipulated that he was eligible for differential pay. The AJ determined that DHS owed Kluge $274.37 plus interest. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The court upheld a finding that putative class members lack commonality or that identifying class members and adjudicating their claims as a class would not be fairer or more efficient. There was no legal error or abuse of discretion in the substitution of DHS for OPM. Kluge failed to show any error in calculating the differential pay. View "Kluge v. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ARRA) to stabilize the U.S. economy following the 2008 financial crisis, 123 Stat. 115, creating two types of government-subsidized Build America Bonds (BABs). “Direct Payment BABs,” entitled bond issuers to a tax refund from the Treasury Department equal to 35 percent of the interest paid on their BABs. Treasury pays issuers of BABs annually. The payments are funded by the permanent, indefinite appropriation for refunds of internal revenue collections. 31 U.S.C. 1324. Local power agencies (Appellants) collectively issued over four billion dollars in qualifying Direct Payment BABs before 2011. Through 2012, Treasury paid the full 35 percent.In 2011 and 2013, Congress passed legislation reviving sequestration: “[T]he cancellation of budgetary resources provided by discretionary appropriations or direct spending law,” 2 U.S.C. 900(c)(2), 901(a). Treasury stopped making payments to Appellants at 35 percent. Since 2013, Appellants have been paid reduced rates as determined by the Office of Management and Budget’s calculations; for example, 2013 payments were reduced to 8.7 percent.Appellants sued, arguing a statutory theory that the government violates ARRA section 1531 by not making the full 35 percent payments and that the government breached a contract that arises out of section 1531. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Claims Court’s dismissal of the suit. No statutory claim existed because sequestration applied to these payments. No contractual claim existed because the ARRA did not create a contract between the government and Appellants. View "Indiana Municipal Power Agency v. United States" on Justia Law

Hawk’s patent, titled “high-quality, reduced data rate streaming video product and monitoring system,” relates to a method of viewing multiple simultaneously displayed and stored video images on a remote viewing device of a video surveillance system. Hawk sued Castle for patent infringement based on Castle’s use of security surveillance video operations in its grocery stores. Castle argued that the asserted claims were directed to ineligible subject matter and invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101.The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. The patent claims were directed to the abstract idea of storing and displaying video and failed to provide an inventive step that transformed that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The claims do not disclose performing any “special data conversion” or otherwise describe how the alleged goal of “conserving bandwidth while preserving data” is achieved. Nor do the claims (or specification) explain “what th[e] [claimed] parameters are or how they should be manipulated.” The claims, “read in light of the specification, do not show a technological improvement in video storage and display because the limitations can be implemented using generic computer elements.” The “specification and claims do not explain or show how the monitoring and storage is improved, except by using already existing computer and camera technology.” View "Hawk Technology Systems, LLC sued Appellee Castle Retail, LLC" on Justia Law

Lite-Netics sells string lights held by magnets to a surface such as a roof edge, as the assignee of two patents entitled “Magnetic Light Fixture.” Lite-Netics competes with HBL in the market for holiday string lights. Lite-Netics brought a patent-infringement action against HBL and also sent notices, one before filing suit and one after, to its customers (stores that sell the lights), some of which were also HBL customers, informing them of allegedly infringing competitors and stating Lite-Netics’s intent to enforce its patent rights. Lite-Netics did not name such competitors in the first notice. In the second notice, it identified HBL as an allegedly infringing competitor.After the second notice, HBL filed counterclaims, including for state-law torts. The district court issued a preliminary injunction, barring Lite-Netics from suggesting that HBL is a patent infringer, that HBL copied Lite-Netics’s lights, or that HBL customers might be sued. The Federal Circuit vacated. The district court abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction because the applicable speech-protective legal standards were not met. Federal patent law preempts state-law tort liability for a patentholder’s good faith conduct in communications asserting infringement and warning about potential litigation. HBL’s state-law claims can survive federal preemption only to the extent that they are based on a showing of bad faith in asserting infringement. Lite-Netics’s positions have not been shown, at this stage of the litigation, to be objectively baseless. View "Lite-Netics, LLC v. Nu Tsai Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

The application for the 208 patent was filed in 2012 and claims a priority date of November 7, 2011. It is directed to surgical devices for an “endometrial ablation,” which stops or reduces abnormal uterine bleeding. The procedure generally involves inserting a device having an energy-delivery surface into a patient’s uterus, expanding the surface, energizing the surface to “ablate” or destroy the endometrial lining of the patient’s uterus, and removing the surface.Minerva sued Hologic for infringement. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment that the asserted claims are anticipated under the public use bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The Federal Circuit affirmed. The patented technology was “in public use” because, before the critical date, for several days, Minerva disclosed 15 devices having the technology at the industry’s “Super Bowl,” Minerva showcased them at a booth, in meetings with interested parties, and in a technical presentation. Minerva did not disclose the devices under any confidentiality obligations, despite the commercial nature of the event. At the time of that public use, the technology was “ready for patenting.” Minerva had created working prototypes and technical documents describing the claimed technology. There are no genuine factual disputes. View "Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc." on Justia Law

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), promulgated regulations (5 U.S.C. 5545(d) and 5343(c)(4)), to provide hazardous duty and environmental differential pay to federal employees. Current and former employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons filed suit, alleging that they were entitled to hazardous duty and environmental differential pay due to their “work [with] or in close proximity to objects, surfaces, and/or individuals infected with COVID-19 without sufficient protective devices.”The Federal Circuit affirmed the Claims Court’s dismissal of their claims for hazardous duty and environmental differential pay (plus related overtime, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs). For the plaintiffs to prevail, it is not enough that COVID-19 can readily be characterized as “unusual”—one of the requirements of the statutory provisions; their case depends on whether their allegations come within OPM’s existing regulations, which are not challenged and which delimit particular situations in which federal employees are entitled to hazardous duty and environmental differential payments. OPM has not addressed contagious-disease transmission outside certain situations within laboratories and jungle-work situations. Although OPM might be able to provide for differential pay based on COVID-19 in various workplace settings, it has not to date adopted regulations that do so. View "Adams v. United States" on Justia Law

SSI alleged that DZEM infringes two of SSI’s patents that are generally directed to sensors for determining the characteristics of fluid in a container, such as a fuel tank. SSI’s commercial embodiments of the asserted patents and DZEM’s accused products are systems that determine the quality and volume of diesel exhaust fluid that is used in emission-reduction systems for diesel truck engines. DZEM asserted counterclaims for invalidity of the asserted patents and for tortious interference with prospective business relations.The district court granted DZEM summary judgment on the infringement claims and dismissed DZEM’s invalidity counterclaims, granting SSI summary judgment on the tortious interference counterclaim. The Federal Circuit vacated in part, reversing the district court’s construction of the term “filter” as used in the 038 patent. The term is properly construed to mean “a device containing openings through which liquid is passed that blocks and separates out matter, such as air bubbles.” On remand, SSI will not be precluded from arguing that DZEM’s accused sensors infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. The court affirmed summary judgment with respect to the 153 patent and DZEM’s counterclaim for tortious interference. View "SSI Technologies, LLC, v. Dongguan Zhengyang Electronic Mechanical LTD" on Justia Law

ChromaDex’s 807 patent is directed to dietary supplements containing isolated nicotinamide riboside (NR), a form of vitamin B3 naturally present—in non-isolated form—in cow’s milk and other products. Animal cells convert ingested NR into the coenzyme nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, or NAD+. NAD+ deficiencies can cause diseases in both animals and humans. ChromaDex sued Elysium, a former ChromaDex customer, for patent infringement.The district court construed several claim terms, finding “isolated [NR]” to mean “[NR] that is separated or substantially free from at least some other components associated with the source of [NR].” The district court granted Elysium summary judgment, finding that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The asserted claims concern a product of nature and are not patent eligible. They do not have characteristics markedly different from milk; both “increase[] NAD+ biosynthesis upon oral administration.” Recognizing the utility of NR is nothing more than recognizing a natural phenomenon, which is not inventive. The act of isolating the NR by itself, “no matter how difficult or brilliant it may have been” does not turn an otherwise patent-ineligible product of nature into a patentable invention. View "ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc." on Justia Law