This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases, one precedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, one precedential opinion in an Arizona-Florida Land Exchange Act case, and one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.
CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc. (Precedential)
CardioNet, LLC and Braemar Manufacturing, LLC (collectively, “CardioNet”) appeal the district court’s dismissal of their patent infringement complaint against InfoBionic, Inc. The district court held that the asserted claims of CardioNet’s U.S. Patent No. 7,941,207 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and therefore the complaint failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We conclude instead that the asserted claims of the ’207 patent are directed to a patent-eligible improvement to cardiac monitoring technology and are not directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, we reverse the district court and remand for further proceedings.
DYK, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part and concurring in the result.
This is a routine case easily resolved by existing precedent. Under that approach, I agree with the majority that the claims have not been shown to be patent ineligible under section 101. I dissent in part because the majority addresses issues never argued by the parties and appears to suggest approaches not consistent with Supreme Court and circuit authority.
Spigen Korea Co. v. Ultraproof, Inc. (Precedential)
Spigen Korea Co., Ltd., appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity of three asserted design patents. Ultraproof, Inc., cross-appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees. Because the district court improperly resolved a genuine dispute of material fact at summary judgment, we reverse the district court’s decision and remand for further proceedings. We dismiss the cross-appeal as moot.
Circuit Judge Lourie dissents.
Higgins v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Precedential)
Petitioner Sean Higgins appeals the Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision denying corrective action for his suspension and affirming his removal by the Department of Veterans Affairs from his role as a Supply Technician at the Memphis Veterans Administration Medical Center due to misconduct. Mr. Higgins argues that the Board improperly discounted his medical evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in assessing the reasonableness of his suspension and removal, and that the Administrative Judge abused his discretion by excluding certain witness testimony relevant to institutional motive to retaliate. We discern no reversible error and affirm the Board’s decision.
Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona v. United States (Precedential)
Appellant Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (“ITCA”) filed a lawsuit against the United States (“Government”) in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the Government breached its fiduciary duties established pursuant to the Arizona-Florida Land Exchange Act (“AFLEA”), Pub. L. No. 100-696, 102 Stat. 4571, 4577–93 (1988).1 The Government filed a motion to dismiss ITCA’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”), respectively. The Court of Federal Claims granted the Government’s motion in part, dismissing two of the Complaint’s three claims. Specifically, the court found that it lacked jurisdiction over a portion of Claim I, and that Claim II and the remaining portion of Claim I failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Inter-Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc. v. United States, 140 Fed. Cl. 447, 460 (2018); see also J.A. 1 (Partial Final Judgment), 2–8 (Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Partial Final Judgment).
ITCA appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). We affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part.