This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions in cases addressing trademark cancellation, damages for patent infringement, and alleged inequitable conduct during patent prosecution. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in cases addressing government employment and the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. Finally, the court also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Piano Factory Group, Inc. v. Schiedmayer Celesta GMBH (Precedential)

In this trademark case, the appellants, Piano Factory Group, Inc., and Sweet 16 Musical Properties, Inc. (collectively, “Sweet 16”), seek review of a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB” or “Board”) that ordered the cancellation of a trademark registration owned by the appellants. We affirm.

Lubby Holdings LLC v. Chung (Precedential)

Henry Chung appeals a judgment of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, finding that Mr. Chung was liable for infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,750,284 (the “’284 patent”) and awarding damages of $863,936.10. Although we conclude that there was evidence to support the jury’s verdict that Mr. Chung directly infringed the ’284 patent, the district court erred in awarding damages for the sales of infringing products prior to the commencement of this action, which is the date Mr. Chung received actual notice of the ’284 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 287. As a result, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a new trial to determine the number of infringing products sold after the commencement of this action and for the determination of a reasonable royalty rate for the sale of these units.

Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Hospira, Inc. (Precedential)

This is an appeal from a decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware that U.S. Patent No. 9,283,197, which Appellant Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC asserted against Appellee Hospira, Inc. in a patent infringement suit under the Hatch-Waxman Act, is unenforceable for inequitable conduct. The district court concluded that Belcher’s Chief Science Officer engaged in inequitable conduct by withholding material information from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during prosecution of the ’197 patent with the requisite deceptive intent. For the reasons below, we affirm.

Holland v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Lee Holland, Jr. appeals a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) that dismissed his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

Conejo v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

Jose Conejo filed an Individual Right of Action (IRA) appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging prohibited retaliation for whistleblowing. Specifically, he asserted that, while he worked for the Government Publishing Office (GPO, or agency), he was passed over for promotion and stripped of responsibilities in retaliation for raising concerns about agency personnel decisions and abuse of agency funds. The Board dismissed his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Appx. 5–15; see Conejo v. Gov’t Publ’g Off., No. DC-1221-20-0852-W-1, 2020 MSPB LEXIS 4305 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 28, 2020). Mr. Conejo appeals. In agreement with the Board’s position in the appeal, we vacate the Board’s decision and remand the matter for further proceedings.

Rule 36 Judgments