This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a vaccine case, one nonprecedential opinion affirming a denial of a motion to intervene, and four nonprecendential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Lozano v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (Precedential)
The Secretary of Health and Human Services (“the government”) appeals from a final judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims, which denied the government’s motion for review and affirmed the special master’s decision granting entitlement to compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa–1 and –34 (“Vaccine Act”). See Lozano v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 143 Fed. Cl. 763 (2019); Lozano v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-369V, 2017 WL 3811124 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 4, 2017). We affirm.
URS Energy & Construction, Inc. v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Robert Kinghorn and the Law Offices of Frederick Huff (“Mr. Kinghorn and Mr. Huff”) appeal the denial of their motion to intervene post-judgment at the Court of Federal Claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
A motion to intervene must be timely. R. Ct. Fed. Cl. 24(a), (b). We review a trial court’s timeliness determination for abuse of discretion. See NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 365–66 (1973).
Mr. Kinghorn and Mr. Huff moved to intervene nearly one month after summary judgment was granted, and over one year after it was requested. J.A. 4. They sought to modify the judgment by over $4.5 million on a theory that had not been presented to the court by the plaintiffs in this case, a circumstance that these appellants were well aware of months before the grant of summary judgment. Id. Applying the relevant factors in its decision, the court denied the motion as untimely. J.A. 5–6.
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the post-judgment motion to intervene was untimely. Because timeliness is dispositive, we affirm.
Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. (Nonprecedential)
Rothschild Connected Devices Innovation, LLC (“RCDI”) sued Coca-Cola Company (“Coca-Cola”), alleging that Coca-Cola’s Freestyle beverage dispensers infringe independent claim 11, and various claims depending on claim 11, of U.S. Patent No. 8,417,377 (“the ’377 patent”). After construing relevant claim limitations, the district court granted Coca-Cola’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. More specifically, the district court concluded that the Freestyle dispensers did not have the claimed “user interface module.” See ’377 patent claim 11. The district court also dismissed the case as to the asserted dependent claims by virtue of its “inherent authority to manage the affairs of its cases.” Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 389 F. Supp. 3d 1169, 1178–79 (N.D. Ga. 2019) (“Summary Judgment Opinion”).
RCDI appealed. For the reasons below, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp., v. Nevro Corp. (Nonprecedential)
Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation appeals the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,587,241 unpatentable as obvious. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Fox Factory, Inc., appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”), holding claims 1–26 of U.S. Patent 9,291,250 (the “’250 patent”) not unpatentable as obvious. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, No. IPR2017-01440, (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2018), Paper 62 (“Decision”). Because the Board’s fact findings are supported by substantial evidence and its conclusion of nonobvious-ness is correct, we affirm.
Sandbox Logistics LLC, v. Proppant Express Investments LLC (Nonprecedential)
Appellants SandBox Logistics LLC and Oren Technologies, LLC (together, “SandBox”) sued Appellees Proppant Express Investments LLC and Proppant Express Solutions LLC (together, “PropX”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (“District Court”) alleging infringement of claims 2 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 9,296,518 (“the ’518 patent”), claims 6 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,403,626 (“the ’626 patent”), claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 16, 18, 19, and 21–23 of U.S. Patent No. 9,440,785 (“the ’785 patent”), and claims 4 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 9,511,929 (“the ’929 patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Claims”). After a Markman hearing, the District Court issued an opinion, construing the parties’ disputed claim terms. See Sandbox Logistics LLC v. Grit Energy Sols. LLC, Nos. 3:16-CV-12, 4:17-CV-589, 2018 WL 3344773, at *2–17 (S.D. Tex. July 9, 2018) (Opinion). Thereafter, SandBox and PropX stipulated to non-infringement of the Asserted Claims by PropX’s accused products (“the Accused Products”), and the District Court entered a final judgment in favor of PropX. See J.A. 1–4 (Final Judgment).
SandBox appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). We affirm.