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

Imported goods are generally subject to tariffs, duties, fees, and taxes, such as an excise tax. A “drawback” is a customs transaction involving the refund of payments made upon the importation of a good. The most common drawback occurs when duties that are paid when a good is imported are refunded when the same good is exported. A “substitution drawback,” involves the refund of duties, taxes, or fees that were paid upon importation and refunded when similar goods, normally merchandise classified under the same tariff schedule subheading, are exported. Since 2008, substitution drawback has been allowed for wine where the imported wine and exported wine are of the same color and the price variation does not exceed 50 percent. Substitution drawbacks could result in a near-total refund of both tariffs and excise taxes paid on imported wine where the substituted exported wine was either not subject to excise tax (having been exported from a bonded facility) or had received a complete refund of previously paid excise taxes, a “double drawback.”Treasury and Customs promulgated Rule.1, an interpretation of 19 U.S.C. 1313(v), intended to prevent “double recovery,” limits drawbacks to the amount of taxes paid and not previously refunded. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Trade Court in finding the Rule invalid. The Rule is contrary to the clear intent and structure of the statute. View "National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of the Treasury" on Justia Law

Gamon’s patents each claim “[t]he ornamental design for a gravity feed dispenser display.” Gamon’s commercial embodiment of the claimed designs is called the iQ Maximizer gravity feed dispenser, In 2002-2009, Gamon sold about $31 million worth of iQ Maximizers to Campbell. In 2008, Campbell began purchasing similar gravity feed dispensers from Trinity. Gammon sued for infringement. In inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejected claims of obviousness. The Federal Circuit reversed. Weighing all of the “Graham" factors, including the Board’s finding that, from the perspective of a designer of ordinary skill, prior art creates the same overall visual impression as the claimed designs and copying by Trinity of the claimed designs’ unique characteristics, the claimed designs would have been obvious over the prior art. View "Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc." on Justia Law

Hyatt is a prolific patent filer and litigant. In 1995, Hyatt filed “hundreds of extraordinarily lengthy and complex patent applications,” including the four at issue; he adopted an approach "that all but guaranteed indefinite prosecution delay” in an effort to submarine his patent applications and receive lengthy patent terms. The examination of these patents has cost the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) millions of dollars. After adverse results regarding the patents at issue, Hyatt sued the PTO under 35 U.S.C. 145. The PTO moved to dismiss the actions for prosecution laches. The district court ordered the PTO to issue a patent covering some of the claims.While an appeal was pending, Hyatt sought attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act as a “prevailing party” 28 U.S.C. 2412(b). The district court granted this motion in part. The Sixth Circuit vacated, holding that the PTO had carried its initial burden of demonstrating prosecution laches. The PTO sought reimbursement of its expert witness fees. Under 35 U.S.C. 145, “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant.” The district court noted the American Rule presumption against fee-shifting and denied expert fees. The Federal Circuit vacated. Hyatt is not entitled to attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. 2412(b) and cannot be considered a prevailing party. The court affirmed the denial of expert fees because section 145 does not specifically and explicitly shift expert witness fees. View "Hyatt v. Hirshfeld" on Justia Law

The separate inter partes review (IPR) proceedings concerned the 688 patent, and the 229 patent, which have the same inventors and owner. Both are directed to controllers for games consoles. The Patent Board determined that nine claims of the 688 patent were unpatentable as anticipated by the Uy application; five other claims were not unpatentable as obvious over a claimed prior art reference (Burns article) in combination with other references because a copy of the Burns article that Valve relied on had not been authenticated. The 229 patent is directed to “[a] hand[-]held controller for a games console,” “wherein the controller further includes at least one additional control located on a back of the controller,” The Board determined that none of the claims of the 229 patent were unpatentable as anticipated by Uy because Uy did not teach “an elongate member” that “is inherently resilient and flexible,” and because Valve failed to show that a copy of the Burns article Valve relied on as a reference to show obviousness was prior art.The Federal Circuit reversed the determination that the Exhibit is not prior art and vacated the determination that five claims of the ’688 patent and multiple claims of the 229 patent were not shown to be unpatentable. The court remanded for the Board to consider Valve’s arguments that relied on the Exhibit as to those claims. The court affirmed that other of the patents were not unpatentable. View "Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd." on Justia Law

Teva’s patents, directed to methods of using humanized antagonist antibodies that target calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), a 37-amino acid peptide that is “a neurotransmitter in the central nervous system, and has been shown to be a potent vasodilator. Dilation of blood vessels was associated with and thought to exacerbate the pain symptoms of migraine. Lilly filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR).In three IPR proceedings, the Board issued a combined final written decision holding that the challenged claims in all three patents are unpatentable as they would have been obvious over various cited references and that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art and would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving the claimed invention. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting Teva’s arguments that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred as a matter of law in its motivation to combine analysis by deviating from the motivation asserted by Lilly in its IPR petitions, that even under the motivation to combine that the Board did analyze, substantial evidence does not support the Board’s factual findings, and that the Board erred in its analysis of secondary considerations of nonobviousness View "Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lily & Co." on Justia Law

Teva's patents are directed to methods of using humanized antagonist antibodies that target calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP). CGRP is a 37-amino acid peptide that is “a neurotransmitter in the central nervous system and has been shown to be a potent vasodilator in the periphery, where CGRP-containing neurons are closely associated with blood vessels. Dilation of blood vessels was associated with and thought to exacerbate the symptoms of migraine. The challenged patents describe “anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies and methods of using anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies for treating or preventing vasomotor symptoms, such as headaches, such as migraine.” Lilly asserted that each challenged claim would have been obvious over a combination of prior art references.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board first construed the claims, including the preambles and the term “effective amount,” then analyzed prior art, concluding that Lilly failed to prove that the challenged claims would have been obvious over the stated references. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the Board erred by reading a result into the constructions of the preambles and the term “effective amount,” which led to erroneously requiring Lilly to prove that a skilled artisan would have expected to achieve results that are unclaimed and that, even if the preambles are limiting and the claims require administration of an antibody with an expectation of results, the Board applied too high a standard in determining whether a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success. View "Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals International GMBH" on Justia Law

Rodriguez, a Supervisory Consumer Affairs Specialist with the VA Patient Advocate’s Office, engaged in a confrontation with a patient, yelling at the patient and using profanity. VA Police officers had to escort him back to his office. Rodriguez returned to the reception area, where he again confronted the patient. During an investigation, Rodriguez was temporarily relieved of his supervisory responsibilities. Rodriguez contacted one of his subordinates and asked her to modify her witness statement. The investigator made findings of patient abuse, violation of the VA Code of Conduct, failure to follow the officer’s instruction, attempted coercion, and lack of candor in Rodriguez’s accounts of the incident, and concluded that the appropriate penalty was removal. Rodriguez had a previous disciplinary incident. After Rodriguez was given an opportunity to reply, the Director issued a removal decision.The Merit Systems Protection Board administrative judge, citing 38 U.S.C. 714, found the charges supported by substantial evidence. The Federal Circuit reversed the removal order. the administrative judge misinterpreted section 714 when he ruled that “substantial evidence” is the proper standard for determining whether an employee has engaged in misconduct that justifies discipline; preponderance of the evidence is the minimal appropriate burden of proof in administrative proceedings. Although section 714 provides that the Board may not mitigate penalties, the Board has the authority to review penalties for substantial evidence. View "Rodriguez v. Department of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

In 2007, Connor began working as the Chief of Police Services for the Fayetteville, North Carolina VA Medical Center. After it was discovered that Connor had stored ammunition in a manner inconsistent with VA policy, the VA investigated allegations of mismanagement at Fayetteville, including the failure to inventory ammunition, misuse of government vehicles, lack of training, unfair hiring and promotion practices, employee misconduct, and lack of leadership. In 2019, Fayetteville's Executive Director sustained 27 specifications against Connor and the penalty of removal under 38 U.S.C. 714. The Merit Systems Protection Board determined that the VA had failed to prove 26 specifications by substantial evidence, upholding specification 25, regarding the improper storage of ammunition. The Board held that the “Douglas factors” remained applicable and upheld the VA’s charge and the penalty of removal.The Federal Circuit affirmed. Section 714 of the 2017 Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act created an expedited procedure allowing the VA Secretary to remove, demote, or suspend VA employees for misconduct or substandard performance; it limits review of disciplinary actions by administrative judges and the Board. A disciplinary decision must be upheld if “supported by substantial evidence.” The administrative judge and the Board “shall not mitigate the penalty prescribed by the Secretary.” Section 714 does not alter the penalty review with respect to the Douglas factors. The court rejected Connor’s argument that the Board did not adequately consider those factors. View "Connor v. Department of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

PersonalWeb’s asserted patents claim priority from an application filed in 1995 and relate to data-processing systems that assign each data item a substantially unique name that depends on the item’s content. These content-based identifiers are generated by a mathematical algorithm, such as a cryptographic hash or “message digest” function. The identifier changes when the data item’s content changes.PersonalWeb sued Google for patent infringement. The court stayed the cases pending resolution of several inter partes reviews (IPRs); the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found all challenged claims unpatentable, concluding that using hash-based identifiers for data management was disclosed in the prior art. The Federal Circuit affirmed. After the stay was lifted, the district court granted Google judgment on the pleadings, citing 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit affirmed. the claims focus on “mere automation of manual processes using generic computers.” “lie[] entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.” View "PersonalWeb Technologies LLC v. Google LLC" on Justia Law

In 1982, while serving in the Air Force in Germany, Jones was struck in the eye by the door of an armored personnel carrier. He developed intense headaches; it became increasingly difficult for Jones to perform his duties. A 1988 Clinical Resume reflects that Jones had developed “intermittent right cranial nerve 4th palsy associated with chronic right retro-orbital stabbing pain, usually occurring during the late afternoon or night.” Jones described "a nearly constant headache which was relieved only with repetitive doses of intramuscular Demoral.” A Physical Evaluation Board recommended that Jones be discharged with severance pay based on a 10% disability rating for “Post-traumatic pain syndrome manifest[ing] as headaches.”Jones was honorably discharged with severance pay. In 1989, his discharge was amended to reflect that his injury was combat-related. Effective in 2017, the VA awarded Jones a 100% disability rating. Jones petitioned the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records for changes to his record that would entitle him to a disability retirement dating back to 1988, when he was discharged, 10 U.S.C. 1201. The Board denied Jones’s petition. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Claims Court: the claim for disability retirement pay and benefits was a claim under a money-mandating statute, as required by the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1), but jurisdiction was lacking because the claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. 2501. View "Jones v. United States" on Justia Law