Federal Circuit - The FindLaw Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

August 2010 Archives

Stauffer v. Brooks Bros. Inc., 09-1428

Stauffer v. Brooks Bros. Inc., 09-1428, concerned a challenge to the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim for lack of standing and denial of government's motion to intervene, in plaintiff's qui tam action against Brooks Brothers under 35 U.S.C. section 292, claiming that defendants falsely marked its bow ties.  In reversing the decision, the court held that plaintiff had standing as he has sufficiently alleged (i) an injury in fact to the United States that (ii) is caused by Brooks Brothers' alleged conduct, attaching the markings to its bow ties, and (iii) is likely to be redressed, with a statutory fine, by a favorable decision.  Further, the district court made an error of law in denying the government's motion to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2).

Related Resource:

Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 07-1386

Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 07-1386, concerned a challenge to the International Trade Commission's decision that the doctrine of patent misuse does not bar intervenor-U.S. Philips Corporation from enforcing its patent rights against defendant, in plaintiff's patent infringement suit related to two types of digital storage devices, recordable discs (CD-Rs) and rewritable compact discs (CD-RWs), claiming that defendant was violating section 337(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing CD-Rs and CD-RWs that infringed its patents.


Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n., 09-1338, concerned a challenge to the International Trade Commission's judgment in favor of the defendants, in plaintiff's suit against various defendants claiming infringement of its patents related to circuit interrupters for use with household electrical appliances.  In affirming the judgment, the court held that, because the accused products at issue here do not meet the "mounting means" limitation as properly construed, and thus do not meet every limitation of the asserted claims, there can be no infringement.  Accordingly, Commission's finding of no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is affirmed.


Geo M. Martin, Co. v. Alliance Mach. Sys. Int'l., LLC., 09-1132

Geo M. Martin, Co. v. Alliance Mach. Sys. Int'l., LLC., 09-1132, concerned a challenge to the district court's ruling as a matter of law that the '566 patent would have been obvious at the time of invention, in a suit for infringement of a patent, relating to an improvement over the traditional bundle breaker (a machine used to separate stacked sheets of corrugated board).  In affirming, the court held that the district court correctly concluded as a matter of law that the difference between the prior art and the claimed improvement were minimal.  Also, the district court correctly concluded that evidence of secondary considerations in this case do not create a reasonable dispute as to obviousness.  Lastly, because the asserted claims of the '566 patent are invalid, remaining issues are moot.

Related Resource:

Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc., 09-1556, involved Transocean's suit for infringement of its patents, related to an improved apparatus for conducting offshore drilling.  The court affirmed in part, the the district court's holding of summary judgment of no willfulness.  The court reversed in part district court's grant of summary judgment relating to obviousness and enablene, because there remain genuine issues of material fact regarding objective evidence of nonobviousness and undue experimentation.  Lastly, because the contract between defendant and a Norwegian company is both an offer to sell and a sale, district court's summary judgment of noninfringement is vacated and remanded for further findings of infringement based on the rig that was the subject of the contract.

Related Resource:

Found. of Human Understanding v. US, 09-5129

Found. of Human Understanding v. US, 09-5129, concerned a challenge to the United States Court of Federal Claims' decision that a nonprofit organization did  not qualify as a "church" under section 170(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code for the period from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2000.

Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. v. US, 09-1516, concerned a challenge to the Court of International Trade's decision reversing and remanding Commerce's first remand determination, in an anti-dumping duty case, involving frozen and canned warmwater shrimp from Thailand.  In reversing, the court held that the Commerce's statement of a general preference for exclusion of sales outside the ordinary course of trade where, as here, the date are for like products sold by other respondents, is reasonable.  Thus, Commerce reasonably determined that in this case, where such data were readily available, and indeed had been used for the other two respondents, it was reasonable to make its determination excluding sales outside the ordinary course of trade.

Golden Hour Data Sys., Inc. v. Emscharts, Inc., 09-1306, involved a plaintiff's suit for patent infringement, involving a patent directed to computerized systems and methods for information management services in connection with emergency medical transport.  Although, the court affirmed the district court's finding that the information in the brochure not produced to the PTO was highly material, the court vacated the district court's inequitable conduct determination and remanded the matter to make additional fact findings with respect to the intent prong.  Lastly, the court affirmed the district court's finding of no joint infringement. 

Related Resource:

Ring Plus, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless Corp., 09-1537, concerned plaintiff's suit for infringement of its patent, related to a software based algorithm and method for generating and delivering messages over a phone line during a "ringing signal" period.  In reversing the district court's judgment of unenforceability for inequitable conduct, the court held that the district court clearly erred in finding that applicants acted with specific intent to deceive the PTO.  The court affirmed the district court's entry of summary judgment of noninfringement, because it did not err in construing the disputed claim terms.  Lastly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to disqualify counsel. 

Munro v. Shinseki, 09-7110, concerned a challenge to the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals denial of claimant's petition for an earlier effective date for an increased rating for his service-connected granuloma of the left lung and total disability based on individual unemployability.  In affirming, the court held that the implicit denial rule may be applied to terminate the pending status of both formal and informal claims.  Here, because claimant's earlier informal claims were identical to his later claim, the VA's denial of his later claim was sufficient to notify him that his earlier informal claims were also denied.

Related Resources:

PAI Corp. v. US, 10-5003, involved a plaintiff's bid protest case challenging the government's award of a support services contract to Innovative Technology Partnerships, LLC (ITP) by the Department of Energy's Office of Secure Transportation, claiming that the contracting officer's organizational conflict of interest created an advantage to ITP over other bidders.  In affirmed the trial court's entry of judgment in favor of the government, the court held that the contracting officer fully complied with the Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR) requirements.  Also, the plaintiff failed to establish that there was any significant potential conflict that provided ITP with an unfair competitive advantage during the procurement.

  • Intervet Inc. v. Merial Ltd., 09-1568, involved a challenge to the district court's entry of summary judgment of noninfringement based on its construction of six disputed claim terms in a patent infringement suit, involving patents directed to DNA constructs encoding a type of porcine cirovirus.

  • Enovsys LLC. v. Nextel Communications, Inc., 09-1167, involved a patent infringement suit against Sprint Nextel Corporation and its various subsidiaries, claiming that Sprint Nextel's iDEN and CDMA wireless networks infringed two patents covering inventions that use global positioning satellites (GPS) and ground control stations to determine the physical location of mobile devices.  The jury found in favor of plaintiff in finding that Sprint Nextel infringed both patents and awarded  approximately $2.78 million in damages.

    In affirming the jury verdict and district court's various rulings, the court held that the district court correctly denied Sprint Nextel's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as plaintiff had standing to bring and maintain the suit without joining the ex-wife of one of the patents' co-inventors because, giving the California divorce decree the preclusive effect required, the ex-wife had no ownership interest in the asserted patents at the time the case was filed, or anytime thereafter.  On the merits, the court held that the district court correctly denied Sprint Nextel's post-verdict JMOL, as Sprint Nextel waived its right to argue its new claim constructions.

    Related Resource:

    King Pharm. Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 09-1437, concerned a plaintiff's patent infringement suit under the Hatch-Waxman Act, related to a name brand muscle relaxant used to treat "discomforts associated with acute, painful musculosketal conditions."  In affirming the judgment of the district court in part, the court held that although the district court erred in invalidating several of the claims as unpatentable under section 101, all the claims of the '128 and '102 patents are ultimately anticipated under 35 U.S.C. section 102 or obvious under section 103 in light of the prior art.  However, the court vacated and remanded as, the district court erred in entering a judgment of invalidity against Elan because no case or controversy currently exists between Elan and defendant.

    Consol. Coal Co. v. US, 1832599, concerned a challenge to the the United States court of Federal Claims' grant of summary judgment finding that certain regulations that implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamations Act of 1977 (SMCRA) reclamation fee do not violate the Export Clause of the Constitution, in a suit by a group of operators in the coal mining industry.  In affirming the grant of summary judgment, the court held that all of Office of Surface Mining's (OSM) challenged regulations for collecting the reclamation fee under SMCRA, like the statute itself, apply to "coal extracted" and do not violate the Export Clause.

    Related Resources: