This morning the Federal Circuit issued six precedential opinions in veterans, government contract, and patent cases. The patent cases address issues of claim construction, damages expert testimony, the written description requirement, and eligibility. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in related patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Larson v. McDonough (Precedential)
Gary R. Larson, Jr. appeals the decision of the Veterans Court holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review a Board determination of what constitutes a disability under 38 U.S.C. § 1110. Because this court has previously held that the Veterans Court has jurisdiction to review a Board determination that a claimed condition did not constitute a disability for purposes of § 1110, we reverse the Veterans Court’s jurisdictional finding and remand.
Bullock v. United States (Precedential)
This case presents the question whether an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulation and a United States Department of the Army regulation, both which state that settlement agreements are required to be in writing, preclude enforcement of oral settlement agreements.
Plaintiff Ellen P. Bullock alleges that she entered into an oral settlement agreement with the government to resolve an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) claim that she filed with the Army. The government argues that any agreement between the parties, if it exists, is unenforceable due to the EEOC and Army regulations. Without deciding whether the government representative had settlement authority or an agreement existed between the parties, the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) held that the EEOC and Army regulations made any agreement unenforceable. We disagree with the Claims Court’s interpretation of the two regulations and hold that oral agreements to settle EEOC claims are enforceable. We reverse and remand for a determination of whether the representative of the Army had the necessary authority to enter a settlement agreement and whether the parties in fact reached an agreement.
Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC (Precedential)
This is the second appeal in this case. Data Engine Technologies LLC (DET) appeals the United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s summary judgment of noninfringement. The district court’s summary judgment was premised on its construction of the term “three-dimensional spreadsheet” recited in the preamble of the asserted claims. For the reasons below, we hold that the preamble is limiting and adopt the district court’s construction of that term. Because DET does not argue that the accused product infringes under the district court’s construction, we affirm.
MLC Intellectual Property LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. (Precedential)
MLC Intellectual Property, LLC seeks interlocutory review of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s orders excluding certain opinions of MLC’s damages expert. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court’s orders precluding MLC’s damages expert from characterizing certain license agreements as reflecting a 0.25% royalty, opining on a reasonable royalty rate when MLC failed to produce key documents and information directed to its damages theory when requested prior to expert discovery, and opining on the royalty base and royalty rate where the expert failed to apportion for non-patented features.
Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc. (Precedential)
Kite Pharma, Inc. appeals a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Central District of California that (1) claims 3, 5, 9, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,446,190 are not invalid for lack of written description or enablement, (2) the ’190 patent’s certificate of correction is not invalid, and (3) Juno Therapeutics, Inc., and Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research (collectively, Juno) were entitled to $1,200,322,551.50 in damages. Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-07639-PSG-KS, (C.D. Cal. April 8, 2020), ECF 728. Because we conclude that the jury verdict regarding written description is not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse.
Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc. (Precedential)
Universal Secure Registry LLC (USR) appeals the United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s dismissal of certain patent infringement allegations against Apple Inc., Visa Inc., and Visa U.S.A. Inc. (collectively, “Apple”) under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court held all claims of four asserted patents owned by USR ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Because we conclude that all claims of the asserted patents are directed to an abstract idea and that the claims contain no additional elements that transform them into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea, we affirm.
Apple Inc. v. Universal Secure Registry LLC (Nonprecedential)
In our opinion in Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 20-2044 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2021), issued concomitantly with this opinion, we held all the claims at issue in this appeal ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the reasons we explained in Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc., 976 F.3d 1316, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2020), this appeal is rendered moot in light of our decision in Universal Secure. Thus, we vacate the Board’s final written decision and remand for the Board to dismiss Apple’s petition.
Apple Inc. v. Universal Secure Registry LLC (Nonprecedential)
In our opinion in Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 20-2044 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2021), issued concomitantly with this opinion, we held claims 1–35 of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826 at issue in this appeal ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. These thirty-five overlapping claims were at issue in the underlying inter partes review proceeding. Accordingly, for the reasons we explained in Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc., 976 F.3d 1316, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the appeal of these overlapping claims is rendered moot in light of our decision in Universal Secure. We vacate the Board’s final written decision and remand for the Board to dismiss Apple’s petition as to the overlapping claims.
This leaves us with proposed substitute claim 50, which depends from proposed substitute claim 45.
* * *
Accordingly, we reverse the Board’s eligibility determination as to substitute claim 50.