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

Andrew J. Winterbottom, a veteran, was awarded a 30% disability rating for his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which was later increased to 50%. He appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals seeking a higher rating. During a Board hearing in June 2021, the judge questioned Winterbottom about specific violent episodes, which he later claimed demonstrated judicial bias. In May 2022, the Board denied a higher rating, concluding that his violent behavior was not unprovoked.Winterbottom appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision and exhibited bias. The Veterans Court partially agreed, remanding the case because the Board did not adequately explain why it gave less weight to a private counselor's opinion. However, the court found no bias warranting reassignment, stating the judge's questions aimed to determine if the violent conduct was provoked.Winterbottom then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal, stating it lacked jurisdiction to review non-final orders from the Veterans Court. The court noted that exceptions to the finality requirement, as outlined in Williams v. Principi, did not apply to Winterbottom's case. The court also declined to create a new exception for judicial bias claims, suggesting that such claims should be raised through a mandamus petition or after a final judgment. Thus, the appeal was dismissed. View "WINTERBOTTOM v. MCDONOUGH " on Justia Law

CKY, Inc. entered into a fixed-price construction contract with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in October 2012. CKY encountered unexpected conditions, including heavy rainfall and undisclosed culverts, which led to additional expenses. CKY sought compensation for these expenses, but the Corps denied the requests. CKY then filed a claim under the Contract Disputes Act, seeking $1,146,226 for the additional costs incurred. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) ruled in favor of CKY regarding the undisclosed culverts but denied compensation for other claims.The Board awarded CKY $185,000 plus interest for the expenses related to the undisclosed culverts. CKY then applied for attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The Board granted the application, concluding that the government’s position regarding the undisclosed culverts was not substantially justified. The Board limited its substantial-justification inquiry to the government’s litigation position on the specific claim where CKY prevailed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Board erred by categorically narrowing its substantial-justification inquiry to the government’s litigation position and to the specific claim on which CKY prevailed. The court emphasized that the substantial-justification inquiry should consider both the agency’s pre-litigation conduct and its litigation position, and should treat the case as an inclusive whole rather than focusing on individual claims. The court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the case for reconsideration without the categorical limitations previously applied. View "In Re SECRETARY OF THE ARMY " on Justia Law

Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., Norton (Waterford) Ltd., and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collectively, Teva) filed an NDA for their ProAir® HFA Inhalation Aerosol, which contains the active ingredient albuterol sulfate. Teva listed several patents in the FDA's Orange Book, including patents related to the inhaler's dose counter and canister. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, Amneal Ireland Ltd., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, and Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, Amneal) filed an ANDA to market a generic version of ProAir® HFA, asserting that their product did not infringe Teva's patents.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled in favor of Amneal, ordering Teva to delist its patents from the Orange Book. The court found that Teva's patents did not claim the active ingredient albuterol sulfate but were directed to components of the inhaler device. Teva appealed the decision, arguing that their patents were properly listed because they claimed parts of the NDA product.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Federal Circuit held that for a patent to be listed in the Orange Book, it must claim the drug for which the application was submitted and approved, which includes the active ingredient. The court rejected Teva's argument that a patent claims the drug if it reads on any part of the NDA product. The court concluded that Teva's patents, which claimed only the device components of the inhaler, did not meet the statutory requirement of claiming the drug, as they did not claim the active ingredient albuterol sulfate. Therefore, the court affirmed the order requiring Teva to delist its patents. View "TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS R&D, INC. v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS OF NEW YORK, LLC" on Justia Law

CloudofChange, LLC sued NCR Corporation, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,400,640 and 10,083,012, which disclose an online web-based point-of-sale (POS) builder system. The system allows non-expert business operators to assemble and manage POS systems. NCR's product, NCR Silver, was accused of infringing these patents. NCR Silver is a web-based POS solution that requires merchants to use their own internet connection and POS hardware, although NCR occasionally provides the hardware.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found that NCR's merchants' use of the system could be attributed to NCR under principles of vicarious liability and denied NCR's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of no direct infringement. The jury found NCR directly infringed the asserted claims, awarded CloudofChange $13.2 million in damages, and found NCR's infringement willful. NCR renewed its motion for JMOL, arguing that it did not use the claimed system as a matter of law, but the district court denied the motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's denial of JMOL. The Federal Circuit held that it is NCR's merchants, not NCR, who use the claimed system by putting it into service and benefiting from it. The court also concluded that NCR is not vicariously liable for its merchants' use of the system, as NCR does not direct or control the merchants' actions in putting the system to use. Consequently, the Federal Circuit vacated the jury verdict and reversed the district court's decision. View "CLOUDOFCHANGE, LLC v. NCR CORPORATION " on Justia Law

In 2014, due to severe drought conditions, the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) was unable to meet its water delivery obligations to both the Exchange Contractors and the Friant Contractors under the Central Valley Project (CVP). Reclamation prioritized delivering water to the Exchange Contractors, including water from the San Joaquin River, which resulted in a near-zero allocation to the Friant Contractors. The Friant Contractors and individual growers sued the United States, alleging breach of contract and takings without just compensation.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed the Friant Growers' breach of contract claims for lack of standing and dismissed the takings claims for lack of a property interest. The court granted summary judgment to the government on the Friant Contractors' breach of contract claims, concluding that the Exchange Contractors' rights under the Exchange Contract were superior and that Reclamation's actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the Exchange Contract allowed Reclamation to deliver San Joaquin River water to the Exchange Contractors when necessary, and that the government did not breach the Friant Contract by doing so. The court also found that the government was immune from liability under the Friant Contract because its actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Finally, the court affirmed the dismissal of the takings claims, concluding that the Friant Contractors and Growers did not have a property interest in the water delivered by Reclamation under California law. View "CITY OF FRESNO v. US " on Justia Law

The United States Department of the Navy issued a solicitation requesting technical support for its electromagnetic spectrum resources, requiring proposals to be submitted via email by a specified deadline. eSimplicity, Inc. submitted its proposal before the deadline, but it was not received by the Contracting Officer due to the email exceeding the maximum file size and being bounced back. The Navy deemed eSimplicity's proposal untimely and did not consider it.eSimplicity filed a pre-award bid protest with the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Claims Court ruled in favor of eSimplicity, concluding that the file size was an unstated evaluation criterion and that the government control exception could apply to electronically submitted proposals. The court remanded the case for the Navy to reconsider its decision or to take other actions consistent with the court's opinion. Subsequently, the Navy issued an amended solicitation and awarded the contract to eSimplicity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that the appeal was moot because the original solicitation had expired, and the contract had been awarded under a new solicitation. The court found that there was no longer a live controversy, as the issues presented on appeal concerned the now-expired solicitation. The court also rejected the government's argument that the case fell under the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to mootness, noting that the government had other opportunities to appeal similar issues in the past but chose not to do so. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. View "ESIMPLICITY, INC. v. US " on Justia Law

Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (PAN) petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1–18 of Centripetal Networks, LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 10,530,903, asserting that the claims were unpatentable for obviousness based on three prior-art references. The United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) concluded that PAN had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims would have been obvious over the relevant prior art combination.The Board found that PAN’s argument regarding the motivation to combine the references was not sufficiently articulated in the petition. Specifically, the Board determined that PAN had not provided sufficient evidence to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Paxton’s computing system to include Sutton’s step of transmitting a notification of malicious activity after Paxton’s correlation step. The Board concluded that PAN had not established that the claims would have been obvious.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and found that the Board erred by failing to clearly explain its holding or rationale regarding the motivation to combine and whether the proposed combination teaches the final limitation of claim 1. The court noted that the Board did not make a clear finding on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Paxton by adding Sutton’s step of transmitting a notification of malicious activity after Paxton’s correlation step. The court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to clarify and explain its holding on the motivation to combine the references. View "PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC. v. CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC " on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the municipality of Anchorage and the United States regarding two agreements related to the improvement of the Port of Alaska. In 2003, Anchorage and the United States, through the Maritime Administration (MARAD), signed a Memorandum of Understanding (2003 Memorandum) to upgrade and expand the port. In 2011, they signed a Memorandum of Agreement (2011 Memorandum) to address issues that arose during the project, including large-scale damage discovered in 2010.The United States Court of Federal Claims held that the United States breached the 2003 Memorandum by failing to deliver a defect-free port and the 2011 Memorandum by settling subcontractor claims without consulting Anchorage. The court awarded Anchorage $367,446,809 in damages, including $11,279,059 related to the settlement of subcontractor claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the 2003 Memorandum did not require the United States to deliver a defect-free port, as it lacked specific terms such as what was to be built, where, dimensions, deadlines, and costs. The court vacated the Court of Federal Claims' decision regarding the 2003 Memorandum and remanded for further proceedings.However, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of Federal Claims' decision that the United States breached the 2011 Memorandum by settling subcontractor claims without conferring with Anchorage. The court upheld the award of $11,279,059 in damages to Anchorage for this breach. The case was vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further consideration consistent with the Federal Circuit's opinion. View "ANCHORAGE v. US " on Justia Law

Malcolm Pipes, a former reservist in the United States Air Force, sought disability-retirement pay and benefits after suffering a stroke while participating in the Air Force’s Self-paced Fitness Improvement Program (SFIP). Pipes argued that he was in inactive-duty training (IDT) status at the time of his injury, which would entitle him to the benefits under 10 U.S.C. § 1204. The Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) and the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) previously denied his claim, leading to this appeal.In the first appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court's decision, holding that Pipes was in a duty status when ordered to participate in the SFIP. However, the court did not address whether Pipes was in IDT status when performing the SFIP. On remand, the AFBCMR and the Claims Court again denied relief, concluding that Pipes did not have the necessary advance authorization for IDT status as required by Air Force Manual (AFMAN) 36-8001.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the Claims Court's decision. The court found that the AFMAN applies to all IDT and requires advance authorization for such status. Pipes failed to provide evidence of receiving this authorization. The court also rejected Pipes's argument that the lawful order to participate in the SFIP automatically placed him in IDT status. The court noted that the Department of Veterans Affairs' grant of service connection for Pipes's stroke did not impact the determination of his duty status under the AFMAN.The court affirmed the Claims Court's judgment, concluding that the AFBCMR's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence. View "PIPES v. US " on Justia Law

Meyer Corporation, U.S. (Meyer) imported cookware manufactured in Thailand and China, which was sold to distributors in Macau and Hong Kong before being imported to the U.S. Meyer requested that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) value the cookware based on the first-sale price paid by the distributors to the manufacturers. Customs rejected this request and assessed duties based on the second-sale price Meyer paid to the distributors. Meyer protested and appealed to the Court of International Trade.The Court of International Trade affirmed Customs' decision, holding that Meyer failed to prove the first-sale prices were free of market-distortive influences, particularly due to the lack of financial documents from Meyer’s parent company, Meyer International Holdings, Ltd. (Meyer Holdings). Meyer appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, instructing the trial court to reconsider without imposing requirements beyond the statute and regulations.On remand, the trial court again held that Meyer could not rely on the first-sale price, citing Meyer’s failure to produce Meyer Holdings' financial documents as dispositive. The trial court presumed that the absence of these documents indicated potential market-distortive influences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and found that the trial court improperly applied an evidentiary presumption against Meyer and failed to address other record evidence. The appellate court vacated the trial court's decision and remanded the case for reconsideration of whether Meyer may rely on the first-sale price, instructing the trial court to evaluate the extensive record without relying on speculative adverse inferences. The appellate court did not address Meyer’s argument regarding the interpretation of "the firm" in the relevant regulation, as the trial court's decision did not hinge on this interpretation. View "Meyer Corp., U.S. v. United States" on Justia Law