This morning the Federal Circuit issued three opinions: a precedential opinion in a patent case; a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; and a nonprecedential opinion in another case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introduction to the opinions.
Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. and Hamamatsu Corporation (“Hamamatsu”) appeal from the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts after a jury verdict that (1) Hamamatsu breached its Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”) with SiOnyx LLC (“SiOnyx”); (2) Hamamatsu willfully infringed U.S. Patent 8,080,467 (“the ’467 patent”); (3) SiOnyx is entitled to $796,469 in damages and $1,091,481 of pre-judgment interest for breach of the NDA; (4) SiOnyx is entitled to $580,640 in damages and $660,536 of pre-judgment interest for unjust enrichment; (5) SiOnyx is entitled to post-judgment interest at the statutory rate for its breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims; (6) Dr. James Carey is a co-inventor of U.S. Patents 9,614,109; 9,293,499; 9,190,551; 8,994,135; 8,916,945; 8,884,226; 8,742,528; 8,629,485; and 8,564,087 (collectively “the Disputed U.S. Patents”); (7) SiOnyx is entitled to sole ownership of the Disputed U.S. Patents; (8) SiOnyx is entitled to an injunction prohibiting Hamamatsu from practicing the Disputed U.S. Patents for breach of the NDA; and (9) SiOnyx is entitled to an injunction prohibiting Hamamatsu from practicing the ’467 patent for infringement. See SiOnyx, LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., No. 1:15- cv-13488-FDS (D. Mass. Sept. 24, 2019), ECF No. 834.
SiOnyx cross-appeals from the district court’s decisions (1) denying SiOnyx sole ownership of the Japanese patent applications from which the Disputed U.S. Patents claim priority and all other foreign patents claiming priority from the Japanese applications (collectively “the Disputed Foreign Patents”); and (2) denying SiOnyx’s motion for fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Because the district court erred in failing to grant SiOnyx sole ownership of the Disputed Foreign Patents, we reverse the district court’s denial of SiOnyx’s motion to compel Hamamatsu to transfer ownership of those patents to SiOnyx. We decline to address the issue of willfulness and affirm the district court’s judgment in all other respects.
This case involves the removal of a federal employee, Charles Harrington, Jr., who worked as a police officer for the Department of Veterans Affairs. VA removed Mr. Harrington based on 38 U.S.C. § 714, which streamlined disciplinary actions by VA and placed certain limitations on the review of those actions by the Merit Systems Protection Board. The MSPB affirmed Mr. Harrington’s removal. Mr. Harrington appealed to this court.
After briefing concluded here, this court decided Sayers v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 954 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2020), which included two holdings relevant to this appeal. First, we held that the proper interpretation of § 714 requires the Board to review the entire decision below, including the choice of penalty. Second, we held that § 714 does not apply to proceedings instituted based on conduct occurring before its enactment. Mr. Harrington submitted Sayers as supplemental authority.
Because we conclude that Mr. Harrington has not waived his arguments regarding Sayers, we vacate Mr. Harrington’s removal and remand to the Board for further proceedings consistent with our decision in Sayers.
Michael Flynn petitions for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) final decision denying his individual-right-of-action (IRA) appeal. Flynn v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. SF-1221-19-0192-W-1, 2020 WL 1130116 (M.S.P.B. Mar. 6, 2020). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). For the following reasons, we affirm.