Federal Circuit: September 2010 Archives
Federal Circuit - The FindLaw Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

September 2010 Archives

McHugh v. DLT Solutions, Inc., 09-1536

McHugh v. DLT Solutions, Inc., 09-1536, concerned a challenge to a final decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals holding that the government breached a non-substitution clause of a delivery order awarded to plaintiff (an authorized software reseller and licensor under a blanket purchase agreement between Oracle Corporation and the Army's Information Technology E. Commerce and Commercial Contracting Center).  In reversing the Board of Contract Appeals' decision, the court held that, under a proper interpretation of the contract, the government did not replace the contracted-for software following the termination of its contract with plaintiff, and hence did not breach the contract.

Related Resource:

The Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu A/S, Ambu Inc., 10-1028

The Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu A/S, Ambu Inc., 10-1028, concerned a challenge to the rulings finding that defendant's products did not infringe the asserted claims of plaintiff's '100 patent and that all claims were invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. section 112, in a patent infringement suit related to artificial airway devices used to deliver anesthetic gases during surgery and to establish unobstructed airways in patients in emergency situations.

 

Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 10-1045, concerned a challenge to the district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, in a patent infringement suit related to patents that describe and claim a different aspect of wireless communication technologies.  In affirming in part, the court held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment of noninfringement of the asserted claims of the '642 and '993 patents.  Regarding the '952 patent, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement for all products but for the four models for which plaintiff produced appropriate evidence of direct infringement.  Lastly, with respect to these four models, district court's summary judgment of no contributory and no induced infringement is reversed because genuine issues of material fact remain.

 

Jones v. Shinseki, 09-7128

Jones v. Shinseki, 09-7128, involved a challenge to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims' (Veterans Court) affirmance of the Board of Veterans' Appeals' (Board) denial of a claim,  in a veteran's petition for an earlier effective date for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) based on a claim filed in 1973, which he alleges was still pending when his claim was later reopened. 

 

Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 09-1323

Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 09-1323, involved a patent infringement suit related to patents claiming various methods and devices for vaporizing tissue by using laser radiation.  The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement to defendant, and remanded the matter as the district court erred in construing the phrase "photoselective vaporization" as a claim limitation, rather than merely a label for the invention as a whole.

 

Wanless v. Shinseki, 10-7007, involved an incarcerated veteran's request for full reinstatement of his disability benefits following his transfer from a state-operated prison to a privately owned prison.  In affirming the Board of Veterans' Appeals' and the Veterans Court's denial of the request, the court held that the Veterans Court properly construed section 5313 to include penal institutions that are privately operated, yet state-contracted.

 

Tri-Star Elec. Int'l, Inc. v. Preci-Dip Durtal, SA, 09-1337, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing under Federal Rule of Civil procedure 12(b)(1), in a patent infringement suit.  In affirming, the court held that the assignment transferred ownership to Tri-Star of California and thus, the Tri-Star Delaware corporation has standing to bring this suit.

 

Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. US, 10-1027

Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. US, 10-1027, involved a complaint filed by a committee of domestic producers and processors of warmwater shrimp challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results of its antidumping duties on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.  In reversing the Court of International Trade's dismissal of the complaint, the court remanded the case in concluding that the trial court erred by dismissing the case without reaching the merits of the committee's claims, as substantial evidence supports Commerce's decisions to calculate the surrogate shrimp value based on the NACA Survey data and to exclude Bionic's financial statements in calculating the surrogate expenses.

Related Resource:

Kahn v. Dep't of Justice, 09-3125, concerned a challenge to the Merit Systems Protection Board's final decision that plaintiff did not make protected disclosures under the WPA, in a DEA agent's suit under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA).  In affirming, the court held that the administrative judge did not err in finding that plaintiff's communications with an agent were not protected disclosures because they were made as part of normal duties through normal channels.  The court concluded that plaintiff's report was not a disclosure because he did not reveal something that was hidden and not known to the DEA.  Lastly, because plaintiff's communications were not protected under the WPA, the question of whether the government could have shown by clear and convincing evidence that it would have transferred plaintiff on the absence of his communications need not be addressed.

Henry E. & Nancy Horton Bartels Trust for the Benefit of Cornell Univ. v. US, 09-5122, concerned a challenge to the Court of Federal Claims' denial of a claim, in a university trusts' tax refund suit. In affirming, the court held that the securities purchased on margin by otherwise tax-exempt organizations are debt-financed property, and thus, income from an unrelated trade or business, which is subject to the UBIT.

Green Edge Enter., LLC v. Rubber Mulch Etc., LLC., 09-1455, involved a suit for infringement of a patent related to a synthetic mulch that is colored with a water based acrylic colorant to imitate natural mulch.  In reversing, the court held that the district court erred by invalidating a patent, and by dismissing defendant's trademark claims.  The court also reversed as the district court abused its discretion by precluding all damages evidence for the Lanham Act counterclaims.  However, the court affirmed the district court's holding with respect to counterclaims of noninfringement and invalidity of the mark as there was no case or controversy.

Geoddel v. Sugano, 09-1156, concerned a challenge to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences' decision that appellee is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of its initial Japanese application in awarding appellee priority as to the counts of both interferences, in two related patent interference priority contests, related to human fibroblasts interferon used in combating pathogens and tumors. In reversing, the court remanded the matter in concluding that the Board's decision that the Japanese Application constitutes constructive reduction to practice of the subject matter of these interferences is not in accordance with law, for the Japanese Application does not meet the criteria of section 112, first paragraph, as to this subject matter.

Related Resources:

Morse v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 10-3030, involved a plaintiff's action claiming that the Transportation Security Administration violated his veterans' preference rights when it declined to waive its maximum entry age requirement in connection with his application for employment as a Federal Air Marshal.  In affirming the Merit Systems Protection Board's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, the court held that the TSA is exempt from section 3330(a) of Title 5, which provides Board appeal rights for preference eligible veterans.