This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and a nonprecedential order. Of the precedential opinions, two come in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and the other comes in a takings case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in pro se appeals, one comes in a veterans case, and the other comes in a patent case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. The lone nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
Etchegoinberry v. United States (Precedential)
Michael Etchegoinberry, Erik Clausen, Barlow Family Farms, L.P., and Christopher Todd Allen, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated (collectively, Appellants), appeal a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing their Fifth Amendment takings claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) 12(h)(3). Etchegoinberry v. United States, 165 Fed. Cl. 696, 729 (2023) (2023 Decision). For the following reasons, we affirm.
In re Riggs (Precedential)
This case stems from an Examiner’s request for a rehearing by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board to correct the Board’s determination that a published patent application did not qualify as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1). Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). The Board granted the request and determined that the Examiner was correct—the reference did qualify as prior art.
Appellants are the named inventors listed on the patent application at issue: U.S. Patent Application No. 11/005,678. They appeal the Board decision affirming the Examiner’s rejection of the ’678 application. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 8, 10–13, and 24–25 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Lettich and rejected claims 3, 5–7, 9, 15–20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lettich in view of Rojek. After determining that Lettich qualified as prior art under pre-AIA § 102(e)(1), the Board sustained the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections. Because the Board conducted an incomplete analysis in determining whether Lettich qualifies as prior art under § 102(e), we vacate and remand.
Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc. (Precedential)
Resolution of this case requires us to consider when a litigant fairly presents an issue to the trial court judge. Appellant-adjudicated infringer Wash World Inc. (“Wash World”) seeks to reverse a final judgment that it infringed Appellee-patentee Belanger Inc.’s (“Belanger”) 8,602,041 patent (the “’041 patent”). Wash World’s principal contentions are that the district court erred in connection with construing – or, more accurately, not construing – three claim terms, and that Belanger could not prove infringement under the correct constructions. Wash World also quarrels with the jury’s decision to award Belanger $9.8 million in lost profits damages and specifically asks us to direct the district court to subtract approximately $2.6 million from this figure by ordering remittitur.
For its part, Belanger asserts that every issue Wash World presses on appeal was forfeited by not being preserved in or in some instances not even being presented to, the district court. Belanger points to distinctions between the claim constructions proposed by Wash World below and those Wash World now asks us, on appeal, to adopt. It further insists that Wash World did not do enough to make clear to the district court that among the remedies it was seeking with respect to damages was remittitur of approximately $2.6 million.
We conclude that neither side is completely correct. With respect to claim construction, for two of the three terms it asks us to construe ourselves, Wash World proposes a materially different construction than it did in the district court, so Wash World’s requests come too late. For the remaining term, we agree with the district court’s implicit construction. Finally, on damages, while Wash World was somewhat vague in the district court about what relief it was seeking, it did enough to let Belanger and the court know that it was asking for remittitur of approximately $2.6 million. Because, on the merits, we agree with Wash World that the jury did not have sufficient evidence to include the $2.6 million as part of its damages award – since this amount corresponds to Belanger’s losses for nonpatented “convoyed sales,” yet the requirements for such damages were not met – and because Belanger is judicially estopped from arguing that we do not know the basis for the jury’s damages award, we will remand with instructions that the district court remit the damages.
Cloud v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Appellant Bennie L. Cloud appeals the final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals to sever service connection for disabilities resulting from a drunk driving accident that occurred while Mr. Cloud was on active military duty. Mr. Cloud argues that the Veterans Court and the Board incorrectly interpreted 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(d), which requires that a grant of service connection be clearly and unmistakably erroneous to be severed. Because the Veterans Court did not err in its interpretation of the applicable regulation, we affirm.
Golden v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Larry Golden appeals from a decision by the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court), which dismissed his patent infringement claims against the United States (government) and denied his motion for disqualification. See Golden v. United States, 171 Fed. Cl. 33 (2024) (Order). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Lowe v. Shieldmark, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
This patent case is before us following remand proceedings in the district court. The parties have raised numerous issues on appeal. We affirm the district court’s decision on the issues of patent invalidity and false advertising under the Lanham Act, and on most of the procedural issues raised by the parties. We vacate and remand on one of the issues bearing on the sanctions imposed against the plaintiffs.
Richardson v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)
Bennie Richardson petitions for judicial review of the Merit System Protection Board’s (Board) final decision. The Board affirmed the United States Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) reconsideration decision, which determined that Mr. Richardson owed a net overpayment of $11,036.76 from his Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) disability annuity. SAppx. 6. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.