Federal Circuit: January 2011 Archives
Federal Circuit - The FindLaw Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

January 2011 Archives

Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 10-1025

Action for infringement of patents related to improved electrical connector

Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 10-1025, concerned an action for infringement of patents related to an improved electrical connector that snaps into electrical junction boxes with one hand instead of two.  In vacating the district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement, non-willfulness, and no damages as to the patents-in-suit, the court remanded the case in concluding that the district court in parties' second case misconstrued the "spring metal adapter" and "spring steel adapter" terms by importing a "split" limitation from the specifications into the claims.

Related Link:

ILOR, LLC v. Google, Inc., 10-1117

District court's finding patent infringement action against exceptional reversed

ILOR, LLC v. Google, Inc., 10-1117, concerned a patent infringement suit against Google, Inc., brought by an Internet company, involving a patent directed to a method for adding a user selectable function to a hyperlink.


Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Dickinson Wright, P.L.L.C., 10-1091

Jurisdictional issue in legal malpractice action arising from a patent litigation

Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Dickinson Wright, P.L.L.C., 10-1091, concerned a patent owner's malpractice action against a law firm, arising from an underlying patent infringement litigation involving patents directed to lacrosse sticks and heads.


Chattler v. U.S., 10-1066

Plaintiff's Tucker Act claim against the government for breach of contract

Chattler v. U.S., 10-1066, concerned a plaintiff's action against the United States and Department of State asserting a Little Tucker Act claim under 28 U.S.C. section 1346(a)(2) for breach of contract, claiming provision 5(b) of the passport application was an offer, which she accepted by paying the $60 expedite fee, and that the government breached the resulting contract by failing to process her passport within three days.


Navajo Nation v. U.S., 10-5036

Indian Tribe's Fifth Amendment Taking Claim

Navajo Nation v. U.S., 10-5036, concerned a challenge to the district court's dismissal of the complaint in concluding that plaintiff did not have the requisite property interest to establish a valid takings action, in an Indian Tribe's suit seeking damages for an alleged Fifth Amendment taking of its right to develop land granted to it by the United States in 1934.


SKF USA Inc. v. US, 10-1128

Antidumping duty orders on ball bearings

SKF USA Inc. v. US, 10-1128, concerned a challenge to the decision of  the Court of International Trade, affirming the final determination of the United States Department of Commerce in its seventeenth administrative review of antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore and the United Kingdom.


Hargrove v. Shinseki, 10-7043

Veterans Court's denial of a petition for writ of mandamus for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

Hargrove v. Shinseki, 10-7043, concerned a challenge to the Veterans Court's denial of a petition for writ of mandamus, challenging the Regional Office's proposed reduction in petitioner's disability rating.  In affirming the decision, the court held that, because the petitioner had not exhausted his administrative remedies before filing his petition, the Veterans Court did not abuse its discretion in denying mandamus.


In re Glatt Air Techniques, Inc., 10-1141

Finding of obviousness of a patent related to a coating apparatus reversed

In re Glatt Air Techniques, Inc., 10-1141, concerned a challenge to the final decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) holding claim 5 of a patent, related to a coating apparatus known as a Wurster coater used to coat particles, such as pharmaceutical ingredients, unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. section 103(a).  In reversing, the court held that, because substantial evidence does not support the Board's finding that a prior art expressly or implicitly teaches using an air wall to shield particles from entering the initial spray pattern, the Board has not made a proper prima facie case of obviousness.

Related Link:

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 10-1035

Patent infringement action against Microsoft

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 10-1035, concerned various challenges to the district court's judgment in plaintiff's suit for infringement of the '216 patent against Microsoft, directed to a software registration system to deter copying of software.