This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case, and both nonprecedential opinions come in appeals from the Court of Federal Claims–one in a vaccine case and one in a government contract case. Here are introductions to the opinions.
Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Fortress Iron, LP (Precedential)
Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. (“Barrette”) appeals from an entry of judgment of non-infringement by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas based on Barrette’s stipulation that it could not prove—under the district court’s construction of “boss,” “projection,” and other related terms as fastener-less and integral—that products sold by Fortress Iron, LP and Fortress Fence Products, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) infringe claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,413,332 (“’332 patent”); claims 1, 2, 3, and 5–12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,413,965 (“’965 patent”); claims 1, 2, 3, and 5–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,551,164 (“’164 patent”); and claims 1, 2, and 4–13 of U.S. Patent No. 9,963,905 (“’905 patent”). See Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Fortress Iron, LP, No. 3:21-cv-02008-E, 2023 WL 8610184, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2023) (“Final Judgment”) (citing J. App’x 145–51). Defendants cross-appeal from a final judgment holding the asserted claims are not indefinite. Id.
Because the district court correctly construed the claims as limited to integral bosses and projections, we affirm the judgment of non-infringement. Because the district court correctly determined that the asserted patents’ specification and prosecution histories would allow a skilled artisan to ascertain the claims’ scope with reasonable certainty, we affirm the judgment of no invalidity based on indefiniteness.
Vinesar v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Nonprecedential)
Angelica and Marius Vinesar, on behalf of their minor child (“A.V.”), appeal the judgment of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims sustaining a special master’s denial of their petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Vinesar v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 170 Fed. Cl. 681 (2024). On appeal, the Vinesars challenge the Court of Federal Claims’ determination that the Vinesars failed to demonstrate that A.V.’s vaccination caused or significantly aggravated her seizure disorder. Relying largely on the Court of Federal Claims’ thorough and detailed analysis of the facts and law, we affirm.
E&I Global Energy Services, Inc. v. United States (Nonprecedential)
E&I Global Energy Services, Inc. (“E&I Global”) appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) granting the government’s motion for summary judgment. E&I Glob. Energy Servs., Inc. v. United States, 168 Fed. Cl. 206, 209 (2023) (“Claims Court Decision”). The case arose from an E&I Global contract with the United States Department of Energy’s Western Area Power Administration (“WAPA”) to construct a high-voltage electricity substation. WAPA terminated the contract for default for failure to complete construction in a timely manner. E&I Global brought suit in the Claims Court, claiming excusable delay and seeking conversion of the termination for default into termination for convenience. The Claims Court sustained WAPA’s decision to terminate the contract for default, finding that E&I Global’s contract performance failures were not caused by excusable delays. Id. at 209. For the reasons explained below, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.