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

Littelfuse alleged that Mersen infringed its patent, which is directed to a “fuse end cap for providing an electrical connection between a fuse and an electrical conductor.” After the district court construed the patent claims, the parties stipulated to a judgment of non-infringement.The Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and the district court’s constructions of “fastening stem” and “a fastening stem that extends from the mounting cuff and into the second cavity of the terminal that receives the conductor.” On remand, the district court should adjust the construction of those claim terms so as to allow for the independent claims to cover both single-piece and multi-piece embodiments, but the court’s constructions should continue to give meaning to the terms “fastening” and “stem” in the context of the invention and the ordinary meaning of those terms. View "Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp." on Justia Law

Genuine Enabling’s patent, titled “Method and Apparatus for Producing a Combined Data Stream and Recovering Therefrom the Respective User Input Stream and at Least One Additional Input Signal,” discloses the technology for combining data streams that the inventor, Nguyen, conceived when developing a “voice mouse” that conserved computer resources. Genuine sued Nintendo, accusing infringement by the Wii Remote and Wii Remote Plus, the Nunchuk, the WiiU GamePad, the Switch Joy-Con Controller, and the Nintendo Switch Pro Controller..The district court construed the term “input signal,” which appears in all the asserted claims, consistent with the defendants’ proposed construction, and granted the defendants summary judgment of noninfringement.The Federal Circuit reversed. The district court erred in its construction of “input signal.” The Federal Circuit construed the term to mean “a signal having an audio or higher frequency.” Nguyen disclaimed subject matter other than signals below the audio frequency spectrum during prosecution, and the district court further erred in relying on extrinsic evidence to limit the claim scope to signals above 500 Hz. View "Genuine Enabling Technology LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Slaughter served on active duty in the Navy, 1975-1995. In 2008, a VA Regional Office determined that Slaughter, who is righthanded, suffered right ulnar nerve entrapment as a result of his service and awarded a 10% disability rating under 38 C.F.R. 4.124a, Diagnostic Code (DC) 8516. Slaughter pursued a higher rating. VA examiners eventually additionally diagnosed Slaughter with a median nerve injury, not service-connected. In 2018, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals increased Slaughter’s rating for right ulnar nerve entrapment to 40%, finding that it could not distinguish the symptoms of his service-connected ulnar nerve entrapment from those of his non-service-connected median nerve injury and attributing the entirety of the disability to the service-connected injury. The Board determined that it would be inappropriate to rate Slaughter under DC 8512, which provides ratings for injuries to the lower radicular group, because only the ulnar nerve entrapment was service-connected.The Veterans Court and Federal Circuit affirmed. While the Veterans Court placed too heavy a burden on Slaughter to show prejudice, that error was harmless because the Board correctly interpreted section 4.124a. The section provides that “[c]ombined nerve injuries should be rated by reference to the major involvement, or if sufficient in extent, consider radicular group ratings” and refers to service-connected injuries, not to a combination of service-connected and non-service-connected injuries. View "Slaughter v. McDonough" on Justia Law

StarKist produces two varieties of tuna salad products, albacore and chunk light, each of which is imported as ready-to-eat pouches or lunch-to-go kits. The fish is caught in South American or international waters, frozen, delivered to a facility in Ecuador, sorted, thawed, cooked, machine chopped, then hand-folded with a prepared mixture of other ingredients including a mayo base. The tuna salad products were classified by Customs under HSTUS subheading 1604.14.10, which carries a 35% ad valorem duty, and covers: Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs: Fish, whole or in pieces, but not minced: Tunas, skipjack and bonito: Tunas and skipjack: In airtight containers: In oil.StarKist sought classification under 1604.20.05, which covers “products containing meat of crustaceans, molluscs or other aquatic invertebrates; prepared meals,” and carries a 10% ad valorem duty. In the alternative, StarKist seeks a classification under either subheading 1604.14.22, which covers tuna that is “not minced” and “not in oil,” carrying a 6% ad valorem duty, or subheading 1604.14.30, which covers “other,” carrying a 12.5% ad valorem duty.Customs denied StarKist’s protests. The Trade Court granted summary judgment in favor of the government. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The products at issue are “not minced” and are “in oil.” View "StarKist Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

The 2010 Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act required the VA to establish two programs to help individuals who provide eligible veterans with personal care services. One program provided assistance to family caregivers, 38 U.S.C. 1720G(a); the other provided assistance to general caregivers, section 1720G(b). The VA promulgated implementing regulations, 38 C.F.R. 71 (2015). In 2018, Congress amended the Act.; the VA MISSION Act expanded the class of veterans who qualify as eligible under the family caregivers program. The program now applies to all veterans regardless of their service dates, and there are new avenues for a veteran to qualify as eligible for benefits. The VA overhauled its regulations that attempted to clarify, streamline, and regularize implementation of the Act.Objectors challenged six definitions in 38 C.F.R. 71.15 and a residency requirement imposed in 38 C.F.R. 71.10(b). The Federal Circuit addressed standing; rejected challenges to the definitions of “three or more activities of daily living,” “serious injury,” “inability to perform one or more activities of daily living,” and “monthly stipend rate”; and to the imposition of a geographic residence requirement. View "Veteran Warriors, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs." on Justia Law

DynaEnergetics’s patent is directed to a perforating gun used in an oil wellbore to penetrate the well lining and surrounding rock formation in order to provide a flow path for oil into the wellbore from the surrounding rock formation. Titan petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1–15, asserting unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board found all of the original claims unpatentable. DynaEnergetics moved to amend the patent to add proposed substitute claims 16–22. Titan opposed the motion, advancing only obviousness grounds. Although Titan did not assert that prior art (Schacherer) anticipated the proposed substitute claims, the Board determined that the original and proposed substitute claims alike were unpatentable as anticipated by Schacherer.The Federal Circuit Precedential Opinion Panel concluded that Titan had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 16–22 are unpatentable and granted the motion to amend the patent to add the proposed substitute claims. The Federal Circuit subsequently affirmed. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that Schacherer anticipates all of the patent’s original claims. The court rejected Titan’s challenge to the Panel’s decision to vacate the Board’s denial of the motion to amend and argument that the Board has a duty to determine the patentability of the proposed substitute claims based on the entirety of the record. View "Hunting Titan, Inc. v, DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH" on Justia Law

The patents-in-suit, titled “System for Location-Based Triggers for Mobile Devices,” describe improved systems for delivering messages to users based on their locations. The shared specification discloses a communications system that provides users with information tailored to their particular interests or needs based on their presence within a specified location, such as a shopping center that has different retail stores within it. The district court held the claims invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112 based on its view that certain claim limitations are in means-plus-function format and that the specification does not disclose sufficient structure corresponding to the recited functions.The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the “code”/“application” limitations are not written in means-plus-function format because they would have connoted sufficiently definite structure to persons of ordinary skill in the art. View "Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp." on Justia Law

Wolfe, who was enrolled in VA health care, obtained emergency treatment at a non-VA health care facility, incurring expenses of $22,348.25. Her employer-sponsored healthcare contract covered most of the expenses. She was responsible for a copayment of $202.93 and coinsurance of $2,354.41. The VA denied reimbursement of those expenses; 38 U.S.C. 1725(c)(4(D) bars reimbursement for “any copayment or similar payment.” Wolfe filed a Notice of Disagreement; rather than await the outcome of her appeal, Wolfe also filed a mandamus petition. The Veterans Court certified her requested class and granted her petition, invalidating a VA regulation prohibiting the reimbursement of deductibles and coinsurance for being within the category of “similar payments,” and requiring the VA to re-adjudicate claims denied under the invalidated regulation.The Federal Circuit reversed. Deductibles are excluded from reimbursement under the correct interpretation of the statute and other adequate remedies (appeal) were available with respect to coinsurance, so mandamus was inappropriate. Coinsurance is the type of partial coverage that Congress did not wish to exclude from reimbursement. View "Wolfe v. McDonough" on Justia Law

Martinez-Bodon served on active duty in the Army, 1967-1969. In 2016, he sought benefits for diabetes and for anxiety secondary to his diabetes. At his VA psychiatric examination, he reported: “I can’t sleep well, my right eye trembles too much and that bothers me and I get very anxious about it.” He denied having other symptoms. The VA examiner found that these symptoms did not meet the “criteria for a mental condition as per DSM–5” and concluded that she could not establish a relationship between Martinez-Bodon’s diabetes and anxiety.The VA granted him a service connection for diabetes but denied him a service connection for a mental condition. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed. The Court of Veterans Claims rejected an argument that even without a formal diagnosis, his symptoms constitute a disability for service-connection purposes under Federal Circuit precedent defining “disability.” The Federal Circuit affirmed that 38 C.F.R. 4.125(a) and 4.130, “require a DSM–5 diagnosis as a precondition to compensate mental conditions.” View "Martinez-Bodon v. McDonough" on Justia Law

CSIRO, a research arm of the Australian government, owns six U.S. patents, concerning the engineering of plants, particularly canola, to produce specified oils not native to the plants. After the resolution of jurisdiction and venue issues in an infringement case against BASF and Cargill, the case proceeded to trial on eight claims of the six patents. The parties stipulated to infringement of five patents; the jury found infringement of the sixth. The jury rejected invalidity challenges, including the challenge that the asserted patent claims lacked adequate written-description support. The jury found that BASF co-owned one patent (precluding infringement of that patent) but not the others. The district court ruled that the evidence would not support a finding of willfulness, denied a conduct-stopping injunction, and granted an ongoing royalty on all five patents found infringed.The Federal Circuit affirmed that Eastern District of Virginia venue was proper and affirmed the verdict rejecting the written-description challenge to the claims that are limited to canola plants but reversed as to the broader genus claims. The court agreed that five patents were not co-owned by BASF but reversed the contrary verdict as to the sixth, so that infringement of all valid claims of the six patents is now settled. The court upheld the district court’s refusal to submit willfulness to the jury and its decision on an evidentiary issue concerning past damages but remanded for reconsideration of the remedy. View "BASF Plant Science, LP v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation" on Justia Law