This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued four nonprecedential opinions in a veterans case, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and another patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Akpeneye v. United States (Precedential)
Plaintiffs Tejere J. Akpeneye et al. are police officers employed by the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (“PFPA”). They appeal a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) entering summary judgment in favor of the United States and rejecting their claim for overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). We affirm.
London v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Petitioner Steven L. London appeals an order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. Because the Veterans Court did not conduct the necessary analysis of Mr. London’s petition, we remand.
Reynolds v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Penny Reynolds appeals a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing her appeal as untimely filed without a showing of good cause for the delay. Reynolds v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. CH-0841-20-0198-I1, 2020 WL 1915789 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 17, 2020). Ms. Reynolds argues that the Board failed to consider the merits of her case seeking recalculation of her income for purposes of receiving disability benefits. Because the Board did not abuse its discretion in considering whether Ms. Reynolds had good cause for her belated filing, we affirm.
Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Ethicon LLC appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding claims 1–14 of U.S. Patent No. 9,585,658 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and denying Ethicon’s contingent motion to amend to substitute proposed claims 20 and 21. Because we agree with the Board’s claim construction of relevant terms, and because substantial evidence supports the Board’s anticipation finding under that construction, we affirm the Board’s determination that claims 1–14 are unpatentable. Because the Board’s denial of Ethicon’s contingent motion seeking to substitute proposed claims 20 and 21 was based on an anticipation finding unsupported by substantial evidence, we reverse that finding and remand for the Board to consider Intuitive Surgical, Inc.’s alternative grounds for invalidity of Ethicon’s proposed substitute claims 20 and 21.
Caterpillar Prodotti Stradali v. International Trade Commission (Nonprecedential)
Wirtgen America, Inc. filed a complaint against Caterpillar Products Stradali S.R.L., Caterpillar Americas C.V., Caterpillar Paving Products, Inc., and Caterpillar, Inc. (collectively, Caterpillar) with the International Trade
Commission, alleging that Caterpillar’s importation and sale of certain road-milling machines violated 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930). Specifically, invoking section 337’s bar on importation and sale “of articles that . . . (i) infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent,” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B), Wirtgen alleged that Caterpillar infringed several of its patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 9,656,530, 7,828,309, and 7,530,641. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that Caterpillar violated section 337 with respect to the ’530 and ’309 patents. But the ALJ found no violation with respect to the ’641 patent, concluding that Wirtgen had not shown the infringement alleged, i.e., inducement by Caterpillar of direct infringement of method claims 11 and 17. Both determinations became those of the Commission when it declined to review them.
Caterpillar appeals as to the ’530 and ’309 patents, and Wirtgen cross-appeals as to the ’641 patent. We affirm the Commission’s decision as to the ’530 and ’309 patents. We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand as to the ’641 patent.
O’Malley, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment
I agree with the majority’s well-reasoned analysis affirming the International Trade Commission’s (“Commission”) decision as to the ’530 and ’309 patents. I also agree in principle with the majority that substantial evidence does not support the Commission’s finding of no induced infringement of the claimed methods of the ’641 patent. I write separately because, as I said in Suprema, I believe the Commission has no authority to bar products that are non-infringing at the date of importation and that will only become infringing if and when some future parties are induced to use the products in a way that infringes a method of use claim. Suprema, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 796 F.3d 1338, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (O’Malley, J., dissenting).