This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions. In the first, the court vacated a preliminary injunction and remanded a patent case appealed from the District of Nebraska. In the second, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In the third, the Federal circuit affirmed a judgment in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Tennessee. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions. In the first, the court reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded a patent case appealed from the District of Utah. In the second, the Federal Circuit affirmed another judgment in a patent case, this one appealed from the Southern District of Indiana. Here are the introduction to the opinions.
Lite-Netics, LLC v. Nu Tsai Capital LLC (Precedential)
Lite-Netics, LLC competes with Nu Tsai Capital, LLC d/b/a Holiday Bright Lights (HBL) in the market for holiday string lights. Lite-Netics brought a patent-infringement action against HBL in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. It also sent two notices, one before filing suit and one after, to its customers (in particular, stores that sell the lights), some of which were also HBL customers, informing them of allegedly infringing competitors in the market and stating Lite-Netics’s intent to enforce its patent rights. Lite-Netics did not name such competitors in the first notice, but in the second notice, it identified HBL as an allegedly infringing competitor. After the second notice was sent, HBL, in the infringement action, simultaneously filed counterclaims, including for state-law torts, and moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, based on two of the statelaw counterclaims, against certain speech by Lite-Netics about its patents. The district court issued a preliminary injunction that bars Lite-Netics from suggesting that HBL is a patent infringer, that HBL has copied Lite-Netics’s lights, or that HBL customers might be sued. Lite-Netics appeals the district court’s preliminary injunction against its patent-related speech. We hold that the district court abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction because the applicable speech-protective legal standards are not met.
Indiana Municipal Power Agency v. United States (Precedential)
On appeal is the Court of Federal Claims’ judgment that sequestration applies to reduce government payments for Build America Bonds and that Appellants do not have a contractual right to these payments. We affirm and adopt the trial court’s reasoning.
Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC (Precedential)
Appellant Hawk Technology Systems, LLC sued Appellee Castle Retail, LLC in the Western District of Tennessee for patent infringement based on Castle Retail’s use of security surveillance video operations in its grocery stores. Castle Retail moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. It argued that the asserted patent claims were directed to ineligible subject matter and therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted the motion. It found that the patent claims were directed to the abstract idea of storing and displaying video and failed to provide an inventive step that transformed that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The district court entered judgment dismissing Hawk’s case. Hawk appeals. For the reasons below, we affirm.
C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Plaintiffs-Appellants C.R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. appeal a decision from the United States District Court for the District of Utah finding the asserted claims for three asserted patents ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Defendant-Cross-Appellant Medical Components, Inc. cross-appeals a decision from the same court, also finding the asserted claims of its asserted patent ineligible under § 101. Because the district court’s opinions are contrary to our binding precedent in C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., we reverse the district court’s opinion in the lead appeal (22-1136) and vacate and remand the district court’s opinion in the cross-appeal (22-1186).
Neuroptics, Inc. v. Brightlamp, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
NeurOptics, Inc. and Brightlamp, Inc. do not agree on whether they agreed. So now they are litigating over whether they should continue litigating. Because we agree with the district court that the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement, we affirm that court’s dismissal of this patent infringement case – notwithstanding our disagreement with the district court as to the scope of the parties’ settlement.