This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The first precedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of International Trade, the second affirms a judgment of the District Court of New Jersey in a patent infringement case, and the third reverses-in-part, vacates-in-part, and remands-in-part a breach of contract case to the Court of Federal Claims. The nonprecedential opinion affirms-in-part, vacates-in-part, and remands a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

Government of Quebec v. United States (Precedential)

Marmen Inc., Marmen Énergie Inc., Marmen Energy Co., the Government of Québec, and the Government of Canada appeal from a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade, which sustained the final affirmative determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce in a countervailing duty investigation concerning imports of certain utility scale wind towers from Canada. We affirm the judgment of the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc. (Precedential)

Beteiro, LLC (“Beteiro”) appeals from a judgment entered by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing its multiple related patent infringement cases for failure to state a claim based on the subject matter ineligibility of the patent claims. We affirm.

Hahnenkamm, LLC v. United States (Precedential)

This case involves a claim for breach of a land purchase contract between Hahnenkamm, LLC (“Hahnenkamm”), and the United States Forest Service (“Forest Service”). The Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) held that the Forest Service breached the agreement by not supporting the purchase price with an independent appraisal that complied with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (hereinafter, the “Yellow Book”). We understand the Claims Court’s decision to find a breach of an implied warranty that the purchase price was supported by an independent, Yellow Book-compliant appraisal. The Claims Court rejected the government’s affirmative defenses of waiver and equitable estoppel and awarded damages to Hahnenkamm.

The government does not appeal the breach of implied warranty determination except to the extent it appeals the Claims Court’s rejection of its affirmative defenses. As to the defense of waiver, we conclude that Hahnenkamm could not have reasonably relied on the contractual representation that the appraisal was independent, but conclude that further proceedings on remand are necessary as to whether it reasonably relied on the representation that the appraisal was Yellow Book-compliant. We also remand the Claims Court’s rejection of the equitable estoppel defense.

Hahnenkamm cross-appeals the damages award contending that the Claims Court erred by not assessing the value of the property as a so-called “trophy property.” We affirm the Claims Court’s rejection of Hahnenkamm’s challenge to the damages award.

Apple Inc. v. Omni Medsci, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Appellant Apple Inc. appeals from a Final Written Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding Apple failed to show that claims 3–6 and 8–14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,517,484 were unpatentable. Those claims were upheld because the Board found prior art did not disclose the claim limitation “configured to identify an object” (the “identifying limitation”). In contrast, the Board found claim 16 unpatentable, which is like upheld claims 3 and 8 except for the claim limitation “configured to detect an object” (the “detecting limitation”).

Apple appeals on two grounds, one substantive and one procedural. First, Apple claims that the Board incorrectly construed the identifying limitation. Second, Apple argued below that U.S. Patent No. 9,241,676 (“Lisogurski”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,108,036 (“Tran”) disclose the identifying limitation even under appellee Omni MedSci, Inc.’s proposed construction (the “alternative argument”). Apple faults the Board for considering this an improper new reply argument. Because the Board erred only in disregarding the alternative argument, we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand to the Board for further consideration.