In Re: Larry Swearingen
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Denied. The fourth federal habeas corpus petition and fifth motion to stay execution of a man convicted as a minor of capital murder were denied because they failed to meet the strict requirements imposed on successive petitions.
US v. Shayota
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Concluding a witness was unavailable due to invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, the district court admitted prior civil deposition testimony. The panel affirms, finding any error was harmless because excluding the depositions would not have changed the outcome of the trial.
US v. Cano
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. Because forensic cell phone searches require reasonable suspicion, the district court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from warrantless searches of his cell phone.
People v. Rodriguez
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order denying motion to vacate conviction. Defendant pled guilty to unlawful intercourse with a person under age 16 for which he received probation. He was then taken into custody by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and ordered removed. He admitted to violating his probation because he was in the custody of the INS and deported. He also married the victim and had two children by her. Defendant filed a petition to vacate his conviction under Penal Code 1473.7 which was denied by the trial court. The appeals court held that the trials court’s order must be reversed because the motion was denied based on untimeliness and without the presence of the defendant or his counsel.
People v McDaniel
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Defendant appealed from multiple convictions for robbery. He challenged the trial court’s admission of police interrogation statements, text exchange with his mother, and books and documents found in his car. The appeals court found that the police interrogation was properly admitted, but the text messages and the books and documents were not. This error by the trial court was prejudicial and therefore required reversal and remand.
US v. Giles
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A confession taken after prolonged solitary confinement did not violate Fifth Amendment rights.
US v. Glenn
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. There was no error in proceedings leading to the conviction of a man for transporting, shipping, and accessing child pornography.
US v. Clark
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated conviction, otherwise affirmed. A hearing should have been held on the issue of a search warrant where the criminal informant was potentially not credible.
Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - A company appealed from the determination in an inter partes review that certain claims of its patent directed to dental implants were unpatentable. Affirming, the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in its anticipation finding.
ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that some, but not all, claims in a telecommunications patent were unpatentable as obvious. Finding no error, the Federal Circuit affirmed the determinations made in an review.
Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC
(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed a judgment that a patent for a pharmaceutical product was invalid on the ground of obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that obviousness was not proved by clear and convincing evidence.
Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a pharmaceutical company's patent claims in a multiple sclerosis drug were invalid for obviousness. Several competitors seeking to market a generic version of the same drug raised the issue of obviousness when the company sued them for infringement. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent claims in question were invalid.
University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment of no interference-in-fact in a patent case involving the CRISPR-Cas9 system for the targeted cutting of DNA molecules. The Federal Circuit found no error in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's conclusion of no interference-in-fact, in this case pitting the Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and others against the University of California, the University of Vienna, and others.
Miller v. Office of Personnel Management
(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that the federal government did not properly calculate the retirement annuity of a retired federal employee. The retiree, who had served in both the military and civilian sectors of the U.S. government, argued that he was entitled to civilian service credit for additional discrete time periods of his government service. On his petition for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.
IXI IP, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that certain patent claims relating to a wireless networking device were invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding.
In re: Detroit Athletic Co.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the refusal to register the trademark DETROIT ATHLETIC CO. for sports apparel retail services because it was likely to be confused with DETROIT ATHLETIC CLUB for clothing goods. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's ruling.
Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions invalidating three patents relating to videogame software. The patentee contended that the petitions for inter partes review were time-barred because an alleged real party in interest had been served with a complaint alleging infringement over one year prior to the IPRs' filing dates. Finding possible merit in this argument, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Gordon v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that two female physicians working at Veterans Administration healthcare facilities failed to establish a prima facie case of an Equal Pay Act violation. The government argued that the physicians failed to raise a fact issue that the difference in pay was presently or historically based on sex. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the government.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Reinstated a patent infringement claim upon finding that the district court's grant of summary judgment resulted from an erroneous claim construction. The patentee accused several telecommunications companies of infringing its patent for an application-aware resource allocator. On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the patentee that the district court construed the patent incorrectly. The panel vacated in relevant part and remanded.
Zheng CAI v. Diamond Hong, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision cancelling registration of plaintiff’s trademark for a green tea product due to the likelihood of confusion with defendant’s registered mark.
Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I, LLC
(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated and remanded a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Appeals Board (PTO Board) that certain claims relating to a wireless communications system are not patentable. In vacating and remanding, the Federal Circuit reasoned that the PTO Board did not consider portions of plaintiff’s reply.
Villareal v. Bureau of Prisons
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed an arbitrator’s decision sustaining plaintiff’s removal from employment as a corrections officer with the Bureau of Prisons. The Federal Circuit reasoned that there was no claim of prejudice for the delay between the notice of employment infractions and the date of termination and it found plaintiff’s other arguments unpersuasive.
Shaw v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that the U.S. government did not breach its obligations under a settlement arising out of injuries to a child born at a military hospital. The parents brought this suit alleging that the government was contractually liable because the settlement provided for the purchase of several annuities that would make periodic damages payments, but in 2012 the issuer of the annuities was liquidated and the payments were substantially reduced. Affirming summary judgment for the government, the Federal Circuit held that the settlement agreement did not obligate the government to act as a guarantor of the future periodic annuity payments.
In re Maatita
(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that a patent application covering the design of an athletic shoe bottom should not have been rejected. The applicant argued that the patent claim met the enablement and definiteness requirements even though it used a single two-dimensional plan-view drawing to disclose the shoe bottom design. Agreeing that a designer of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make comparisons for infringement purposes, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's rejection of the patent claim.
Oliver v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that vaccinations given to an infant did not cause him to develop a seizure condition. The parents of an infant who developed an illness called Dravet syndrome after being vaccinated sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Agreeing with the findings of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the Federal Circuit held in a 2-1 decision that the parents failed to show that the infant's injuries were caused by his vaccinations.
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a federally recognized Indian tribe's lawsuit seeking damages and injunctive relief for the alleged taking and mismanagement of its water rights. The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe filed suit against the federal government seeking to enforce its water rights on its reservation located along the Missouri River in South Dakota. Agreeing with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the Federal Circuit held that the tribe failed to allege an injury in fact, because there was no allegation that the tribe lacked sufficient water to fulfill the purposes of the reservation.
In Re: Power Integrations, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Denied petitions for writ of mandamus. Plaintiff sought a writ challenging the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denying the institution of inter partes review of claims from three patents owned by Semiconductor Components industries, LLC.
Labatte v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed and remanded where the plaintiff appealed from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims which had dismissed his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In reversing and remanding, the Federal Circuit held that the court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction.
Sigvaris, Inc. v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment of the US Court of International Trade (ITC) which had found that the certain merchandise involving compression hosiery was not duty free. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the analysis of the ITC was incorrect, but the correct result was ultimately reached.
Core Wireless Licensing v. Apple, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part. Plaintiff brought a patent infringement action. A jury found that the defendant infringed on both asserted claims and that neither claim was invalid. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed some of plaintiff’s infringement claims, but stated that plaintiff’s theory of infringement of other claims was inadequate to support the judgment of infringement and therefore reversed on that claim.
Click-to-Call Tech. v. Ingenio, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Remanded with instructions to dismiss, in a case where the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in determining that certain claims were not time-barred under 35 USC section 314.
Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. IANCU
(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated in part and affirmed in part. Plaintiff owns patents for making flameless candles. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that certain claims by plaintiff were unpatentable and some claims were time barred. The Federal Circuit vacated the time barred decision as to one of the claims and affirmed the Board’s decision as to the other claims.
Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. ITC
(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed finding of the International Trade Commission (ITC) that plaintiff had violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing components of automated teller machines that infringed on certain patents. The court reasoned that the term “cheque standby unit” is a means-plus-function term and lacks corresponding structure disclosed in the specification.
In Re Rembrandt Techs. LP Patent Litig.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part. Rembrandt filed numerous patent infringement actions against dozens of cable companies. After years of litigation, the district entered final judgment against Rembrandt for all claims. Cable company defendants filed a motion for attorney fees. The district court issued an order declaring the case exceptional and granting more than $51 million in fees. Rembrandt appealed the award. The Federal Circuit affirmed the exceptional case determination, but vacated and remanded the fees award for further analysis of the connection between the fees and the plaintiff’s misconduct.
BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued defendant for infringement of several patents related to systems and methods for indexing information stored in wide access databases. The district court agreed with the defendant and held all asserted claims invalid as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. section 101.
Winters v. Wilkie
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a veteran's surviving spouse who had litigated over certain benefits was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. The spouse of a deceased World War II veteran argued that she had prevailed on her benefit claims and thus was entitled to recover her attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the Federal Circuit held that she had not obtained a sufficiently successful result to qualify as a prevailing party for purposes of the attorney fee statute.
Gerson Co. v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the denial of an importer's challenge to an import duty levied by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The company argued that the correct duty rate on its imported light-emitting diode (LED) candles was 2 percent rather than 3.9 percent. On appeal from the U.S. Court of International Trade, the Federal Circuit agreed with the government that the LED candles fell within a classification that was subject to a 3.9 percent import duty. The panel thus affirmed summary judgment for the government.
Federal Education Association--Stateside Region v. Department of Defense
(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that a teacher working for the U.S. Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools failed to file a timely petition for review of a decision removing her from the federal service. The teacher, who argued that her procedural due process rights were violated when she was fired from her job teaching on a military base, petitioned for review of an arbitrator's decision. However, the Federal Circuit concluded that her petition for review was not timely filed and thus dismissed it.
JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Automotive Ltd.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review decision on grounds that the patent challenger lacked Article III standing. The challenger asserted that the patentee's claims for a motor vehicle drivetrain were invalid. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the challenger lacked standing because it had not established an actual injury; in particular, it had no product on the market or any concrete plans for future activity that would likely cause the patentee to complain of infringement.
Advantek Marketing, Inc. v. Shanghai Walk-Long Tools Co., Ltd.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Reinstated a patent infringement claim relating to a design for a portable animal kennel. The patent owner insisted it should not be estopped by prosecution history from asserting its infringement claim against a competitor. Agreeing that estoppel did not apply, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's judgment on the pleadings and remanded for further proceedings.
GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding, LLC
(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated and remanded the Patent Board's prior ruling against plaintiff which had filed suit to challenge the defendant’s proposed patent. In vacating and remanding, the Appellate court ruled that plaintiff’s printed catalog was prior art and that the defendant’s proposed patent could have been based on information in that catalog and that the trial court had not properly considered the catalog in making its finding.
Nantkwest, Inc. v IANCU
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the trial court's decision which had denied Plaintiff's challenge to the Patent Board’s denial of its patent. The government sought to recover costs and attorney’s fees under section 145 of the Patent Act. The trial court held that costs may be recovered under section 145, but not attorney fees.
Alta Wind v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated and remanded the trial court's ruling for plaintiff which had sued the US for additional grant money for alternative energy projects under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The US appealed arguing that it had overpaid plaintiff. In vacating, the appellate court found that the trial court erred in finding for the plaintiff and it remanded to re-examine the government’s calculation method.
Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that a patent claim relating to light-emitting diodes was invalid because it did not meet the enablement requirement. After a jury found that the defendants had infringed Boston University's patent, the defendants appealed on the ground that the patent was invalid because it did not adequately teach the public how to make and use the invention. Agreeing with this argument, the Federal Circuit held that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
ZUP, LLC v. Nash Manufacturing, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a patent for a water recreational board was invalid as obvious. On appeal, the patent holder argued that its invention of a recreational board that would help athletically challenged people ride on the water was not obvious. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit disagreed and affirmed the district court decision granting summary judgment to the defendant in this patent infringement action.
Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that certain computer-related patent claims were not directed to patent-eligible subject matter. In this patent infringement case, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the patent claims at issue failed under the abstract idea exception, because the claims lacked any arguable technical advance over conventional computer and network technology. The patent claims here related to a way to display two sets of information, in a non-overlapping way, on a display screen.
Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that tribal sovereign immunity could not be asserted in a patent proceeding. A pharmaceutical company involved in a dispute over an eye medication patent transferred the title of its patent to a Native American tribe, which then moved to terminate the patent proceeding on the basis of sovereign immunity. Concluding that tribal sovereign immunity cannot be asserted in inter partes review, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of the Tribe's motion to terminate the proceeding.
Horvath v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed the dismissal of overtime compensation claims brought by a special agent of the U.S. Secret Service. In a class action complaint, the plaintiff special agent argued that Office of Personnel Management regulations improperly required that certain overtime hours be worked consecutively in order to trigger compensation. Agreeing with his position, the Federal Circuit held that the challenged OPM regulations were contrary to the unambiguous meaning of the relevant statute. The panel thus reversed in relevant part and remanded.
Shell Oil Co. v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that the U.S. government had breached certain World War II-era contracts with several oil companies. In this long-running litigation, the oil companies claimed that the federal government, which had sued them for hazardous waste cleanup, was partly liable for the cleanup costs due to language in their 1940s government contracts to produce aviation fuel for the war effort. The Court of Federal Claims agreed with the oil companies and awarded them nearly $100 million in contract damages, collectively. The federal government appealed, but the Federal Circuit affirmed.
Blackbird Tech LLC v. ELB Electronics Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated a patent noninfringement judgment based on an erroneous construction of the patent's language. The sole issue on appeal concerned a patent pertaining to energy efficient lighting apparatuses and what precisely was meant by the words attachment surface. Because the district court had adopted an erroneous construction of those words, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of noninfringement and remanded for further proceedings.