Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contract case and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Sonoma Apartment Associates v. United States (Precedential)
Sonoma Apartment Associates contracted with the Government to construct low-income housing in exchange for a $1,261,080 loan under Section 515 of the Housing Act of 1949. In 2010, Sonoma submitted a written request to prepay the balance of its loan. The Government denied the request, and Sonoma filed for breach of contract. The Court of Federal Claims awarded Sonoma expectancy damages of $4,223,328 and a tax gross-up award of $3,171,990. The Government appeals the tax gross-up award. Because the Court of Federal Claims clearly erred in using income from a single tax year to predict the future rates at which each partner would pay taxes, we vacate the tax gross-up award and remand for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.
OrthoAccel Technologies, Inc. v. Propel Orthodontics, LLC (Nonprecedential)
OrthoAccel Technologies, Inc. appeals from a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denying its motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court determined that the patent at issue could not claim priority to its parent application because the parent application lacked written description support for the claimed “1 to 20 minutes daily” limitation. On this basis, the district court determined that OrthoAccel Technologies, Inc. was unlikely to demonstrate at trial that the patent at issue was not anticipated by its parent application and denied the preliminary injunction. Because we conclude for the reasons below that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v. Arctic Cat Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. appeals the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law or a new trial following a jury trial in a patent infringement case. Because substantial evidence supports the jury verdict that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,213,669 are indefinite, and the question of indefiniteness was properly before the jury, we affirm the district court’s denial of Bombardier’s post-trial motions regarding the ’669 patent. In addition, because substantial evidence supports the jury verdict of anticipation and obviousness of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,124,847, we likewise affirm the district court’s denial of post-trial motions regarding the ’847 patent. As the resolution of these issues is dispositive of the validity issues on appeal, we do not reach the parties’ remaining arguments.