Last night and today, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and two summary affirmances. The precedential opinions come in a patent case and a government contract case. The nonprecedential orders are all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and summary affirmances.
UTTO Inc. v. MetroTech Corp. (Precedential)
UTTO Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 9,086,441, which describes and claims methods for detecting and identifying what the patent calls “buried assets,” referring to underground utility lines. UTTO sued Metrotech Corp., alleging infringement of the patent and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage under California law. The district court dismissed both counts of the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Regarding patent infringement, we conclude that fuller claim-construction analysis and proceedings are needed in this case to determine the scope of the disputed claim language. Regarding the state-law tort, we see no reversible error in the district court’s dismissal. Accordingly, we vacate in part, affirm in part, and remand.
Sage Acquisitions LLC v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Precedential)
This case involves contracts between the appellant, Sage Acquisitions LLC (“Sage”), and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for management and marketing services. These services were to be provided in connection with properties that had been foreclosed and were subsequently in possession of HUD as part of its Real Estate Owned (“REO”) disposition program. Sage is an asset management contractor that was awarded three of these contracts (the “REO Contracts”). Sage filed certified claims with the HUD contracting officer for settlement costs from the termination for convenience of the REO Contracts, equitable adjustments based on the reduction in scope of properties assigned to the REO Contracts, and damages for scope reduction. Sage also sought damages for HUD’s alleged breach of: (1) a contractual option provision of the three REO Contracts and (2) a related bridge contract (“Bridge Contract”), covering performance for a period after the REO Contracts were terminated. The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) denied relief. We affirm.
Dismissals
- Communication Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
- Impossible Foods Inc. v. Motif Foodworks, Inc.
- Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v. TMT Systems, Inc.
- Viavi Solutions Inc. v. Platinum Optics Technology Inc.