Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released six precedential opinions, six nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Of the precedential opinions, three come in patent cases, while one comes in an antidumping trade case. Of the nonprecedential opinions, three come in patent cases, one comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and two come in cases dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here are introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.
Brita LP v. International Trade Commission (Precedential)
Brita LP (“Brita”) appeals from a United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) decision determining claims 1–6 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 8,167,141 (“the ’141 patent”) invalid for lack of written description, lack of enablement, and indefiniteness. For the following reasons, we affirm as to lack of written description and lack of enablement.
Causam Enterprises, Inc. v. International Trade Commission (Precedential)
Causam Enterprises, Inc. (Causam), previously named Causam Energy, Inc., owns several patents related to electrical utilities’ ability to reduce demand for power in response to conditions calling for a reduction, such as high systemic demand in relation to available supply—so-called “demand response” functionality. Causam filed a complaint before the International Trade Commission (ITC or Commission) alleging, as relevant now, that Resideo Smart Homes Technology (Tianjin) and its domestic affiliate Ademco, Inc. (collectively, Resideo) were violating section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, by importing and selling certain internet-connected “smart” thermostats whose operation infringes method claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,394,268 (issued August 27, 2019, on Application No. 15/618,981, filed June 9, 2017)—which Causam asserts it owns. Causam also named other respondents, including ecobee, Inc., now known as ecobee Technologies, ULC (ecobee), and their imported products (which are not at issue in this appeal). Causam sought exclusion of the accused products.
Causam Enterprises Inc. v. Ecobee Technologies ULC (Precedential)
Causam Enterprises, Inc. is the recorded owner of U.S. Patent No. 10,394,268, titled “Method and Apparatus for Actively Managing Consumption of Electric Power over an Electric Power Grid,” which contains nineteen claims. ecobee Technologies ULC successfully petitioned the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to institute an inter partes review (IPR), under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311– 19, of all claims but claim 12 of the patent, alleging obviousness. The PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) held each challenged claim unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Final Written Decision, ecobee Technologies ULC v. Causam Enterprises, Inc., IPR2022- 01339 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2024); J.A. 1–78.
Causam now appeals the Board’s decision. Causam first challenges the Board’s failure to decide whether Causam owns the ’268 patent (which Causam insists it does) after ecobee, though not challenging Causam’s ownership in this IPR, challenged Causam’s ownership in a proceeding before the International Trade Commission (ITC) involving the ’268 patent. (The result of the ITC proceeding is before us in Causam Enterprises, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 23-1769 (Causam v. ITC), decided today. ––– F.4th ––– (Fed. Cir. 2025).) Causam’s argument is that the Board thereby denied due process to whoever ecobee (but not Causam) suggests is the true owner. Causam also presents one argument of error on the merits of the unpatentability ruling, contending that the Board incorrectly construed a claim limitation common to all challenged claims. We first hold that Causam has constitutional standing to bring this appeal. We then hold that the Board committed no reversible error on either of the two grounds raised by Causam. Accordingly, we affirm.
IQE PLC v. Newport Fab, LLC (Precedential)
Newport Fab, LLC dba Jazz Semiconductor; Tower U.S. Holdings Inc.; Tower Semiconductor Ltd.; Paul D. Hurwitz; Edward Preisler; David J. Howard; and Marco Racanelli appeal the denial of their motion to strike California state-law claims of trade secret misappropriation and interference with economic opportunity by the United States District Court for the Central District of California under California laws that seek to limit Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). We conclude that the denial of that motion in this instance is immediately appealable as a matter of Federal Circuit law under the collateral order doctrine. Because we hold that the district court erred in its analysis, we vacate the district court’s denial of the motion to strike and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Newport Fab, LLC dba Jazz Semiconductor; Tower U.S. Holdings Inc.; Tower Semiconductor Ltd.; Paul D. Hurwitz; Edward Preisler; David J. Howard; and Marco Racanelli appeal the denial of their motion to strike California state-law claims of trade secret misappropriation and interference with economic opportunity by the United States District Court for the Central District of California under California laws that seek to limit Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). We conclude that the denial of that motion in this instance is immediately appealable as a matter of Federal Circuit law under the collateral order doctrine. Because we hold that the district court erred in its analysis, we vacate the district court’s denial of the motion to strike and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States (Precedential)
In April 2021, the American Honey Producers Association and Sioux Honey Association (collectively, Petitioners) petitioned the U.S. Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673– 1673h to impose antidumping duties on raw honey imported from five countries, including the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. In the investigation initiated in response, the Commission and then Commerce made affirmative preliminary determinations supporting imposition of such duties, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) suspended liquidation of entries of the covered merchandise from Vietnam (and required associated cash deposits or other security), while the investigation moved forward to the final determinations, which were also affirmative. In the ordinary case, the suspension date is when Commerce published its affirmative preliminary determination, and the ultimate antidumping duties apply retroactively to entries made on or after that suspension date. 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(b). But the statute provides for an even earlier suspension and/or applicability date (up to 90 days earlier) if there are specified “critical circumstances”—as relevant here, a post-petition surge of imports before the otherwise-governing suspension/applicability date, which could lower demand from domestic suppliers supposed to be protected by antidumping duties. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673b(e), 1673d(a)(3), (b)(4)(A), (c)(4). Commerce and the Commission found such circumstances here and backdated the suspension and ultimate imposition of duties to entries made starting 90 days before Commerce published its preliminary determination. See Raw Honey from Argentina, Brazil, India, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Antidumping Duty Orders, 87 Fed. Reg. 35,501, 35,501–04 (Int’l Trade Comm’n June 10, 2022) (June 2022 Antidumping Duty Order). That backdating based on “critical circumstances” is at issue here.
Sweet Harvest Foods, Export Packers Co., Honey Holding I, LLP, Sunland Trading, Inc., who import raw honey from Vietnam, and the National Honey Packers & Dealers Association—collectively, “Sweet Harvest”—filed an action in the Court of International Trade (Trade Court) to challenge the Commission’s final affirmative critical-circumstances determination under 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(4)(A). The Trade Court sustained the Commission’s determination. Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States, 669 F. Supp. 3d 1346 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023). We now affirm.
Inland Diamond Products Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc. (Precedential)
Inland Diamond Products Co. (“Inland”) appeals from a summary judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The district court relied on issue preclusion to hold that claims 2, 4, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,636,360 (“the ’360 patent”) and claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,405,130 (“the ’130 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Claims”) are invalid for obviousness. We vacate the district court’s judgment and remand.
Inland Diamond Products Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Appellant Cherry Optical Inc. (“Cherry”) appeals the denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The district court had granted summary judgment in Cherry’s favor but determined that the case was not “exceptional” so as to warrant an award of attorneys’ fees to Cherry under § 285. See Inland Diamond Prods. Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc., No. 20-C-352, 2024 WL 448307 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 6, 2024).
Carrum Technologies, LLC v. Ford Motor Company (Nonprecedential)
Carrum Technologies, LLC (“Carrum”) appeals from two final judgments of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, which have been consolidated for our review. See Carrum Techs., LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 18-cv-1647, 2023 WL 7407778 (D. Del. Nov. 9, 2023) (“Ford Decision” or “Ford”) (granting summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of the Ford Motor Company (“Ford”)); Carrum Techs., LLC v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. C.A. No. 18-cv-1645, 2023 WL 9744835 (D. Del. Dec. 12, 2023) (“BMW Decision” or “BMW”) (ordering claim constructions consistent with the Ford Decision). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Deborah Mouton-Miller v. Department of Homeland Security (Nonprecedential)
Former Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) employee Deborah Mouton-Miller petitions for review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) denying her request for corrective action in individual right of action (“IRA”) appeals AT-1221-19- 0742-W-4 (the “0742 appeal”) and AT-1221-21-0039-W-4 (the “0039 appeal”). S.A. 1–28 (“Board Decision”).1 For the following reasons, we affirm.
Gaylord v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Vincent Gaylord appeals the decision of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for either lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim. Because Mr. Gaylord’s claims are either time-barred or do not plausibly state a claim for relief, we affirm.
Stevenson v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Janice Stevenson appeals a Court of Federal Claims decision dismissing her complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.