This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of New York; the second comes in another patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas; and the third comes in a vaccine case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Notably, in the third case, Judge Bryson dissented. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.
Kaufman v. Microsoft Corp. (Precedential)
Michael Philip Kaufman owns now-expired U.S. Patent No. 7,885,981, on which he is a co-inventor. The patent describes and claims methods for using a computer to automatically generate an end-user interface for working with the data in a relational database. Mr. Kaufman brought the present action against Microsoft Corporation, asserting infringement of claims of the patent by Microsoft’s making and selling of its Dynamic Data product. A jury found Microsoft liable and awarded damages of $7 million to Mr. Kaufman. The district court upheld the verdict against Microsoft’s post-judgment challenges, Kaufman v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:16-cv-02880, 2021 WL 242672, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2021) (JMOL Order), and it also denied Mr. Kaufman’s motion to amend the judgment to include prejudgment interest, Kaufman v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:16-cv-02880, 2021 WL 260485, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2021) (Prejudgment Interest Order).
Microsoft and Mr. Kaufman both appeal. We reject Microsoft’s challenges and thus affirm the denial of Microsoft’s post-judgment motions. But we agree with Mr. Kaufman’s challenges and reverse the denial of prejudgment interest.
Mitek Systems, Inc. v. United Services Automobile Ass’n (Precedential)
In November 2019, Mitek Systems, Inc. brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against United Services Automobile Association (USAA). It sought a declaratory judgment, under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), that Mitek and its customers have not infringed, either directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claim of USAA’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,699,779, 9,336,517, 8,977,571, and 9,818,090 (hereinafter referred to as the patents-in-suit). In response, USAA filed a motion making two requests. It sought dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that there was no case or controversy between USAA and Mitek as required by Article III of the Constitution, so the case should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and in any event, the court should exercise discretion not to hear Mitek’s claim for declaratory relief. In the alternative, USAA requested transfer of the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.
In April 2020, the California court, without ruling on the dismissal part of the motion, ordered the case transferred to the Texas forum. Mitek Systems, Inc. v. United Services Automobile Association, No. 19-cv-07223, 2020 WL 1922635 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020) (Transfer Order). In April 2021, the Texas court dismissed for want of a case or controversy and stated that, even if jurisdiction existed, it would exercise its discretion to decline to entertain the declaratory-judgment action. Order, Mitek Systems, Inc. v. United Services Automobile Association, No. 2:20-cv-00115 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2021), ECF No. 69 (Dismissal Order); see also J.A. 11–19. On Mitek’s appeal, we vacate the Texas court’s dismissal and remand for further proceedings. The remand is to the Texas court because we affirm the California court’s transfer order.
T.S. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Precedential)
Trystan Sanchez appeals a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims that sustained a special master’s decision denying Trystan compensation under the Vaccine Act. Sanchez v. HHS, 152 Fed. Cl. 782, 784 (2021). For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.
BRYSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
In summary, given the competing evidence regarding the etiology of Trystan’s condition, it was not unreasonable for the special master to conclude that Trystan’s Leigh’s syndrome did not manifest itself until significantly later than the date of his February 2009 vaccinations, and therefore that no causal relationship was established between the vaccinations and the triggering of Trystan’s Leigh’s syndrome. J.A. 117. There is ample evidence in the record consistent with those findings. Even if we were applying a “substantial evidence” standard of review, we would be obliged to sustain the special master’s decision. A fortiori, the special master’s weighing of the evidence cannot fairly be considered arbitrary or capricious. Moreover, nothing in the special master’s analysis was contrary to law, and there is no suggestion that he selectively ignored particular evidence. The majority disagrees with the special master’s conclusion regarding causation in this case. But that is not enough to justify concluding that the special master’s decision was arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, I would uphold the decision of the Court of Federal Claims affirming the special master’s decision.
Martin v. McDonough (Nonprecedential Order)
Upon consideration of Earl Martin’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal and the parties’ responses to the court’s May 10, 2022, order,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted to the extent that the appeal is withdrawn.
(2) Each side to bear its own costs.