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

Lashify, Inc., an American company, distributes and sells eyelash extensions and related products in the United States, which are manufactured abroad. Lashify holds patents on these products and filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging that other importers were infringing on its patents, specifically a utility patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,721,984) and two design patents (U.S. Design Patent Nos. D877,416 and D867,664). Lashify sought relief under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which requires the existence of a domestic industry related to the patented articles.The ITC denied Lashify relief, ruling that Lashify failed to meet the economic-prong requirement of the domestic-industry test, which demands significant investment in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor or capital, or substantial investment in exploitation of the patents. The ITC excluded expenses related to sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, and distribution, deeming them insufficient to establish a domestic industry. Additionally, the ITC found that Lashify's products did not satisfy the technical-prong requirement for the utility patent, as the products did not meet the "heat fused" claim limitations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with Lashify that the ITC applied an incorrect legal standard for the economic-prong requirement. The court held that significant employment of labor or capital should include expenses related to sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, and distribution. The court vacated the ITC's decision on the economic prong and remanded for reevaluation regarding the design patents. However, the court affirmed the ITC's finding that Lashify failed to satisfy the technical-prong requirement for the utility patent, upholding the construction of "heat fused" to mean joined to form a single entity. View "LASHIFY, INC. v. ITC " on Justia Law

Restem, LLC (Restem) appealed a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176, owned by Jadi Cell, LLC (Jadi Cell). The patent is related to stem cells with specific cell markers obtained from the subepithelial layer (SL) of mammalian umbilical cord tissue through a two-step process. Restem challenged claims 1–15 of the patent, arguing they were inherently anticipated or obvious based on prior art references.The Board held that Restem failed to prove the claims were unpatentable. The Board found that the prior art did not necessarily produce cells with the claimed cell marker expression profile, and thus did not inherently anticipate the claims. Additionally, the Board found that the prior art did not render the claims obvious, as the specific cell marker expression profile was not shown to be produced by the prior art processes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that the prior art did not inherently anticipate the claims because the processes disclosed did not necessarily result in cells with the claimed marker profile. The court also upheld the Board's finding that the claims were not obvious, as Restem did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the prior art would produce the claimed cell marker expression profile. The court concluded that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the decision in favor of Jadi Cell. View "RESTEM, LLC v. JADI CELL, LLC " on Justia Law

Apple Inc., LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics USA Inc., and Google LLC filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431, which relates to camera-based sensing in handheld devices. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) joined the petitions and issued a final written decision, holding claims 1–10, 12, and 14–31 unpatentable, while claims 11 and 13 were not found unpatentable.Apple appealed the PTAB's decision regarding claims 11 and 13, arguing that the Board applied the wrong legal standard for obviousness and ignored Apple's arguments. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC cross-appealed the decision, arguing that claims 1, 7, 12, and 14 were not unpatentable and that the Board lacked jurisdiction over expired patents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Gesture forfeited its argument that Apple was estopped from appealing under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) because Gesture did not raise this issue before the Board. On the merits, the court affirmed the PTAB's decision that claims 11 and 13 were not shown to be unpatentable, finding that the Board did not misapply the legal standard for obviousness and did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act.Regarding Gesture's cross-appeal, the court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings that Numazaki taught the disputed limitations of claims 1, 7, 12, and 14. The court also rejected Gesture's argument that the Board lacked jurisdiction over expired patents, affirming that the Board has jurisdiction over IPRs concerning expired patents.The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision in its entirety, holding that claims 1–10, 12, and 14–31 of the '431 patent are unpatentable and that claims 11 and 13 were not shown to be unpatentable. View "APPLE INC. v. GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC " on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an intelligence analyst with the FBI, was required to complete the FBI Basic Field Training Course (BFTC), which included in-person training sessions and various tasks and assessments, some of which were scheduled outside working hours. Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that they were not compensated for all overtime hours worked during the BFTC.The United States Court of Federal Claims denied the government's motion for summary judgment, holding that the OPM regulation 5 C.F.R. § 551.423(a)(3), which bars overtime compensation for entry-level training, was invalid. The court reasoned that the regulation was inconsistent with the Department of Labor (DOL) regulations and that the government failed to justify the categorical rule against overtime compensation for entry-level training. The court certified the validity of the regulation for interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the OPM regulation 5 C.F.R. § 551.423(a)(3) is valid. The court reasoned that the differences between OPM and DOL regulations are justified by the need to accommodate the differences between federal and non-federal employment, particularly considering the Government Employees Training Act (GETA), which generally prohibits overtime pay for training for federal employees. The court concluded that OPM's regulation is a legitimate policy choice consistent with both the FLSA and GETA. The case was remanded to determine whether the OPM regulation is consistent with the FLSA. View "DOE NO. 1 v. US " on Justia Law

FlightSafety International Inc. (FlightSafety) supplied the U.S. Air Force with commercial technical data under subcontracts awarded by CymSTAR, LLC. The data included restrictive markings, which the Air Force challenged. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) determined that the restrictive markings were improper under applicable statutes and regulations, leading FlightSafety to appeal.The Board found that the restrictive markings placed by FlightSafety on the technical data were improper. The Board concluded that the government had unrestricted rights to the data, as it was necessary for operation, maintenance, installation, or training (OMIT data). The Board also determined that the government could challenge the restrictive markings under the Validation Clause, which was not limited to challenges based on the funding source of the data.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Board's decision. The court held that the government had unrestricted rights to the OMIT data and that the restrictive markings placed by FlightSafety contradicted these rights. The court also held that the government could challenge the restrictive markings under the Validation Clause, which was not limited to challenges based on the funding source of the data. The court found that the restrictive markings, including the terms "proprietary" and "confidential," as well as the requirement for written authorization, were impermissible as they contradicted the government's unrestricted rights. The court also found that the copyright notice in the markings was misleading and contradicted the government's rights. View "FLIGHTSAFETY INTERNATIONAL INC. v. AIR FORCE " on Justia Law

Appellants, including GL B Energy Corporation and others, were accused of transshipping xanthan gum from China through India to evade antidumping duties imposed by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) initiated an investigation based on allegations from CP Kelco U.S., a domestic producer, and found substantial evidence that the xanthan gum was of Chinese origin and subject to antidumping duties. Customs applied adverse inferences against the manufacturers for not cooperating with information requests, concluding that the merchandise was transshipped to evade duties.The United States Court of International Trade (CIT) reviewed the case and affirmed Customs' determinations. The CIT dismissed claims related to finally liquidated entries for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the importers failed to timely appeal the denial of their protests. The CIT also denied the remaining motions for judgment on the agency record, finding that Customs' determinations were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary or capricious.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the CIT that Customs' evasion determinations were supported by substantial evidence and were in accordance with the law. The court also found that the CIT had jurisdiction to review the evasion determinations, even for finally liquidated entries, based on the precedent set in Royal Brush Mfg., Inc. v. United States. However, the court affirmed the CIT's decision, noting that the CIT would have denied the motions for judgment on the agency record for the same reasons stated for the other entries. The court concluded that Customs' evasion determinations were lawful and supported by substantial evidence. View "ALL ONE GOD FAITH, INC. v. US " on Justia Law

Mark L. Sadler, a former employee of the United States Army, was suspended and then removed from his position for insubordination. Sadler claimed that these actions were retaliatory under the Whistleblower Protection Act and sought corrective action from the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board). He also requested sanctions against the government for the destruction of evidence. The Board denied both his motion for sanctions and his request for corrective action.The Merit Systems Protection Board initially dismissed Sadler’s first complaint, finding it did not sufficiently allege protected activity. For his second complaint, the Board acknowledged that Sadler engaged in protected whistleblower activity but concluded that the Army had shown by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same actions regardless of the protected activity. The Board also denied Sadler’s motion for sanctions, finding that the destruction of evidence was part of the Army’s ordinary procedures and did not warrant sanctions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Board’s decision. The court agreed that Sadler’s first complaint did not allege protected activity and that the Army had provided clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same actions absent the whistleblowing. The court also upheld the Board’s decision on the sanctions issue, agreeing that the destruction of evidence was part of routine procedures and did not meet the intent standard required for sanctions under Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. View "SADLER v. ARMY " on Justia Law

US Synthetic Corp. (USS) filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) alleging that several intervenors violated 19 U.S.C. § 1337 by importing and selling products that infringe five of USS’s patents. The focus of this appeal is U.S. Patent No. 10,508,502 (’502 patent), which claims a polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) with specific structural and magnetic properties.The Commission instituted an investigation, and the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that the asserted claims of the ’502 patent were infringed and not invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, or 112. However, the ALJ found the claims patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as they were directed to an abstract idea. The Commission reviewed and affirmed the ALJ’s determination, concluding that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of achieving desired magnetic properties, which were seen as side effects of the manufacturing process.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the asserted claims of the ’502 patent are not directed to an abstract idea but to a specific, non-abstract composition of matter defined by its constituent elements, dimensional information, and quantified material properties. The court found that the magnetic properties are integrally related to the structure of the PDC and are not merely side effects. Therefore, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one, and the court did not reach Alice step two.The court also addressed the alternative argument that the claims were not enabled. The court found no error in the Commission’s conclusion that the claims were enabled, as the respondents failed to prove a lack of enablement by clear and convincing evidence. The court reversed the Commission’s conclusion on patent ineligibility, affirmed the enablement conclusion, and remanded the case. View "US SYNTHETIC CORP. v. ITC " on Justia Law

Pirelli Tyre Co., Ltd. (Pirelli China), a foreign producer and exporter of certain tires, sought to establish independence from the Chinese government to obtain a separate antidumping duty rate. The United States Department of Commerce conducted an administrative review of merchandise covered by a 2015 antidumping-duty order for tires from China, covering entries between August 1, 2017, and July 31, 2018. Commerce applied a rebuttable presumption that all exporters within China are subject to government control, assigning a PRC-wide antidumping-duty rate unless the exporter demonstrates sufficient independence.The United States Court of International Trade (Trade Court) upheld Commerce’s determination that Pirelli China had not demonstrated its independence from government control. Commerce found that Pirelli China did not show autonomy from the Chinese government in selecting its management, a key criterion for obtaining a separate rate. Pirelli China’s arguments based on Italian law were rejected because the relevant provisions were not included in the record.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Trade Court’s decision. The court held that Commerce’s interpretation of the rebuttable presumption and its requirement for Pirelli China to demonstrate autonomy from government control were reasonable. The court also found that Commerce’s determination was supported by substantial evidence, including the indirect ownership and control by state-owned enterprises and the shared management between Pirelli entities and Chinese government-controlled entities. The court concluded that Commerce acted within its discretion in rejecting Pirelli China’s unsupported interpretations of Italian law and upheld the assignment of the PRC-wide antidumping-duty rate to Pirelli China. View "PIRELLI TYRE CO., LTD. v. US " on Justia Law

In 1957, Congress enacted the Price-Anderson Act (PAA) to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, providing indemnity for contractors and others involved in nuclear activities. The PAA mandated that the government indemnify contractors and other "persons indemnified" for public liability arising from nuclear incidents. In 1962, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) entered into an indemnity agreement with Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, which processed uranium for the government. Cotter Corporation later purchased radioactive materials from Mallinckrodt and was sued in 2012 by plaintiffs alleging harm from these materials.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Cotter's claim for indemnification under the PAA and the indemnity agreement, ruling that Cotter was not entitled to indemnification because its activities did not arise out of or in connection with the contractual activities of Mallinckrodt. The court also dismissed Cotter's contract claim, concluding that Cotter lacked standing as a third-party beneficiary and failed to state a claim for breach of contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the Claims Court's decision. The Federal Circuit held that Cotter's liability for the nuclear incident plausibly arose out of or in connection with the contractual activities of Mallinckrodt, as the materials causing the incident were produced under the contract. The court also found that Cotter sufficiently alleged it was an intended third-party beneficiary of the indemnity agreement and that the government breached the contract by not indemnifying Cotter. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "COTTER CORP., N.S.L. v. US " on Justia Law