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

In 2003, Electric Boat (EB) and the Navy entered into a contract for the construction of up to six nuclear-powered submarines. The Contract includes a “Change-of-Law Clause,” which provides for a price adjustment in the event that compliance with a new federal law, or a change to existing federal laws or regulations, directly increases or decreases EB’s costs of performance.In September 2004, OSHA issued a new regulation, "Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment." In February 2005, EB submitted a Notification of Change, stating that it anticipated that compliance would result in a cost increase exceeding $125,000 per ship. In June 2007, EB sought price adjustments across all six submarines. The Navy challenged the calculations. In April 2009, EB submitted a revised cost proposal. In May 2011, the Contracting Officer formally denied an adjustment of the contract price, citing discrepancies between the proposal and documents related to the OSHA change.. The memorandum stated that if EB decided to further pursue the adjustment, it should file “Requests for Equitable Adjustment’” by June 3, 2011. In December 2012, EB filed a certified claim, seeking a price adjustment. The Contracting Officer, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and the Federal Circuit concluded that the claim was barred by the six-year limitations period, 41 U.S.C. 7103(a)(4)(A). EB knew of its claim by February 2005 and suffered some injury by August 2005. View "Electric Boat Corp. v. Secretary of the Navy" on Justia Law

ESIP’s patent relates to “a novel system and method for combining germicidal protection and aromatic diffusion in enclosed habitable spaces.” ’ Products of this type are commonly known as “vaporizers” or “diffusers.” On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that certain claims of ESIP’s patent are invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed, first rejecting ESIP’s claim that the Board should not have instituted inter partes review because appellee Puzhen failed to identify “all real parties in interest” as required by 35 U.S.C. 312. The Board’s decision to institute inter partes review is final and not appealable. The Board’s determination of obviousness in light of prior art was supported by substantial evidence. View "ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2012, Lozano gave birth to a baby. While still hospitalized, Lozano received a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular-pertussis (Tdap) vaccination. Two weeks later, Lozano reported a low-grade fever, body aches, and breast tenderness. Lozano’s symptoms persisted through visits to her physician and the emergency room. She developed abdominal pain, difficulty urinating, weakness, loss of balance, vision changes, neck pain, headache, vomiting, and dizziness. A brain MRI suggested that Lozano possibly had multiple sclerosis (MS), acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), or vasculitis. Lozano’s symptoms improved with steroid treatment, following a working diagnosis of MS. After several months, a repeat MRI “showed dramatic improvement, suggesting that ADEM was a more likely etiology, which was confirmed through later serological findings.” Lozano’s doctors opine that ADEM is the likely explanation for her symptoms.Lozano sought compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa. Lozano’s expert opined that Lozano’s ADEM was the result of her receipt of the Tdap vaccine. The special master granted Lozano’s petition, finding that her expert’s testimony and the supporting medical literature demonstrated that the Tdap vaccine can cause autoimmune diseases such as ADEM and that Lozano offered preponderant evidence of a proximate temporal relationship between the vaccine and her injury. The Claims Court and Federal Circuit upheld the award of a lump-sum payment of $1,199,216.86, finding that the decision was neither an abuse of discretion nor contrary to law and that the fact-findings were neither arbitrary nor capricious. View "Lozano v. Secretary of Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

In 1999, the Taylors purchased land near a New Mexico Air Force base to raise calves. The Air Force began flying training missions over the land, sometimes “no more than 20 feet . . . off the deck.” In 2008, the Taylors granted Wind Energy an exclusive five-year option for an easement on the Taylors’ property, for “wind resource evaluation, wind energy development, energy transmission and related wind energy development uses.” In 2012, Air Force employees suggested to Wind Energy that the FAA would not issue a “No Hazard” designation for the air space above the Taylors’ land, which would be “fatal to the construction of planned wind turbines.” Wind Energy exercised its contractual right to terminate the agreement.The Taylors sued, claiming that the Air Force’s informal advice to Wind Energy caused a regulatory taking of their property interest in their contract and that the flyovers effected a physical taking. The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. Wind Energy’s termination was not a breach of the agreement so the Taylors had no property right in the continuation of that agreement nor did they have any investment-backed expectations. Any advice given by Air Force employees did not amount to an FAA denial. The Taylors did not provide factual allegations of how the flights “directly, immediately, and substantially interfere” with their quiet enjoyment and use of the land View "Taylor v. United States" on Justia Law

Cochlear’s patent describes a hearing aid with several parts. A vibration-producing component is implanted and mechanically anchored into a patient’s skull on the patient’s deaf side. An external component, which includes a microphone, picks up sound on the patient’s deaf side, processes the sound, and generates vibrations in the implanted part, which are transmitted through th skull to the patient’s non-deaf ear, which then perceives sound originating from the deaf-ear side. The Patent and Trademark Office instituted two inter partes reviews, 35 U.S.C. 311–319, and concluded that claims 4–6 and 11–12 had been proven unpatentable; claims 7–10 were not unpatentable. Cochlear disclaimed claims 1–3 and 13.The Federal Circuit affirmed except with respect to claim 10, as to which it vacated. The Board correctly held that the preamble phrase “for rehabilitation of unilateral hearing loss” is not a limitation on the scope of the apparatus claims. The court upheld obviousness determinations concerning claims 4-6 and found claims 11-12 anticipated by prior art. On remand with respect to claim 10, the Board should consider whether the directivity-dependent-microphone alternative is outside the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112, because it recites a structure (the directivity dependent microphone) that sufficiently corresponds to the claimed directivity means. View "Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB v. Oticon Medical AB" on Justia Law

Lanard owns Design Patent D167 and the 458 copyright for a work entitled “Pencil/Chalk Holder,” relating to a toy chalk holder designed to look like a pencil. Lanard sold the Chalk Pencil, marked to indicate Lanard’s copyright and patent protections, to national retailers. Ja-Ru designed a toy chalk holder, using the Chalk Pencil as a reference sample. Lanard’s retailers stopped ordering the Chalk Pencil and began ordering Ja-Ru’s product. Lanard sued, asserting copyright infringement, design patent infringement, trade dress infringement, and statutory and common law unfair competition.The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment that Ja-Ru’s product does not infringe the patent, that the copyright is invalid and alternatively not infringed, and that Ja-Ru’s product does not infringe Lanard’s trade dress. Lanard’s unfair competition claims failed because its other claims failed. The district court properly construed the claims commensurate with the statutory protection for an ornamental design. Lanard impermissibly seeks to exclude any chalk holder in the shape of a pencil and extend the scope of the patent beyond the “new, original and ornamental design,” 35 U.S.C. 171. Lanard’s copyright is for the chalk holder itself; Lanard’s arguments seek protection for the dimensions and shape of the useful article itself. Because the chalk holder itself is not copyright protectable, Lanard cannot demonstrate that it holds a valid copyright. Lanard cannot establish that the Chalk Pencil has acquired secondary meaning. View "Lanard Toys Ltd. v. Dolgencorp LLC" on Justia Law

ECT sued ShoppersChoice for infringement of its 261 patent, titled “Secure Notification Messaging with User Option to Communicate with Delivery or Pickup Representative.” The Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment on the pleadings that claim 11 of the patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101, as directed to the abstract idea of providing advance notification of the pickup or delivery of a mobile thing. Claims, like claim 11, that are directed to longstanding commercial practices do not pass step one of the two-part section 101 “Alice” test. The process of recording authentication information—such as the customer’s name, address, and telephone number—and including that information in subsequent communications with the customer is abstract not only because it is a longstanding commercial practice, but also because it amounts to nothing more than gathering, storing, and transmitting information, quite unlike the “improvement[s] in computer capabilities” that have been found eligible for patenting at step one. The claims do not include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. View "Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2019, the Federal Circuit (Arthrex) held that the appointment of the APJs by the Secretary of Commerce, 35 U.S.C. 6(a), violated the Appointments Clause. The Patent and Trademark Office and Cisco argued that the Federal Circuit erred in extending Arthrex beyond the context of inter partes reviews to an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes reexamination. They claimed that administrative patent judges (APJs) should be deemed constitutionally appointed officers at least when it comes to their duties reviewing appeals of inter partes reexaminations.The Federal Circuit rejected the argument. The fact that an inferior officer on occasion performs duties that may be performed by an employee not subject to the Appointments Clause does not transform his status under the Constitution. Courts should look not only to the authority exercised in the case but to all of the appointee’s duties when assessing an Appointments Clause challenge. An APJs’ duties include both conducting inter partes reviews and reviewing appeals of inter partes reexaminations. Although no discovery is held and no trial conducted in inter partes reexaminations, the proceedings are otherwise similar. The Director’s authority over the Board’s decisions is not meaningfully greater in the context of inter partes reexaminations than in inter partes reviews. View "Virnetx Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

Starting in 1992, Schwendimann worked at ACT, which manufactured paper coating products. In 1998-2000, Schwendimann and Nasser (ACT's owner) filed the 983 and 845 patent applications; both were named as inventors. Schwendimann filed the 910 application as the sole inventor. All three applications were assigned to ACT. When ACT ceased operations in 2001, it owed significant debts. ACT gave Schwendimann a $282,073.25 promissory note for unpaid wages. ACT agreed to assign its patent applications to Schwendimann to satisfy its outstanding debt to her..Schwendimann agreed to satisfy ACT’s debts to its law firm, SLW. An SLW attorney was instructed to file the necessary documents. SLW filed an incorrect assignment for the 845 application.In 2011, Schwendimann sued Arkwright for infringement and became aware of the incorrect assignment; ACT's assignment to Schwendimann was then recorded with the Patent Office. The district court rejected a claim that Schwendimann lacked standing, finding that ACT assigned the 845 application to Schwendimann in 2002. A judgment of willful infringement was entered; the jury awarded Schwendimann damages of $2,624,228.00. The court awarded prejudgment interest of $1,915,328.00, applying a 10 percent interest rate, under Minnesota law.The Federal Circuit affirmed. Arkwright’s proposed 1.42 percent interest rate was insufficient to place Schwendimann in as good a position as she would have been in, had Arkwright entered into a reasonable royalty agreement; the prejudgment interest rate should be calculated based on the amount of damages awarded, not of Arkwright’s final settlement offer. Arkwright failed to provide a written offer. View "Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc." on Justia Law

Eage filed suit, alleging infringement of four patents under the doctrine of equivalents, stemming from Slayback’s new drug application for a generic version of Eagle’s branded bendamustine product, BELRAPZO®. Bendamustine is used to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia and indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The district court entered a judgment of non-infringement on the pleadings.The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting Eagle’s arguments that the district court erred when it concluded that the asserted patents disclose, but do not claim, ethanol—and therefore dedicated ethanol to the public and that the district court improperly applied the dedication disclosure doctrine at the pleadings stage, in the presence of factual disputes and without drawing all inferences in Eagle’s favor. The disclosure-dedication doctrine bars application of the doctrine of equivalents: “when a patent drafter discloses but declines to claim subject matter, . . . this action dedicates the unclaimed subject matter to the public.” The application of the doctrine is a question of law. The asserted patents disclose ethanol as an alternative to propylene glycol in the “pharmaceutically acceptable fluid” claim limitation. The only reasonable inference that can be made from the disclosures is that a skilled artisan would understand the patents to disclose ethanol as an alternative to the claimed propylene glycol. View "Eagle Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Slayback Pharma LLC" on Justia Law