This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal challenging the settlement of a nationwide class action claiming the federal judiciary overcharged members of the public for access to court records. Two of the four nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases, one appealing a denial of a motion for attorney’s fees and the other examining a district court’s claim construction and exclusion of an expert. The third opinion comes in government contract case. The fourth comes in a veterans case. Of the six nonprecedential orders, one grants a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, one denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, and one grants a motion for summary affirmance. The other three dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first three orders and links to the dismissals.
National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States (Precedential)
This appeal challenges the settlement of a nationwide class action claiming that the federal judiciary overcharged members of the public for access to court records through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”) system. The suit was brought in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by three nonprofit organizations, the National Veterans Legal Services Program, the National Consumer Law Center, and the Alliance for Justice (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), asserting that the Government exceeded its statutory authority by exacting PACER fees to fund not only the expense of operating PACER itself but also other expenses unrelated to the operation of PACER. After nearly eight years of litigation, which encompassed substantial motion practice, an interlocutory appeal, and protracted negotiations, the case settled for $125,000,000.
The district court approved the settlement, noting that hundreds of thousands of PACER users will be fully or substantially reimbursed for all PACER fees they incurred during the eight-year class period. The district court also approved awards of attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as incentive awards to each of the three nonprofit organizations that served as class representatives.
Appellant-Objector Eric Isaacson (“Objector”), proceeding pro se, appeals the judgment. He asserts that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, abused its discretion in approving the settlement and awarding attorneys’ fees, and acted contrary to Supreme Court precedent in granting the incentive awards. We affirm.
The Parallax Group International, LLC v. Incstores LLC (Nonprecedential)
Defendant-Appellant Incstores (Incstores) LLC appeals the United States District Court for the Central District of California’s denial of Incstores’s motion for attorney’s fees. Parallax Grp. Int’l, LLC v. Incstores LLC, No. 8:16-CV-929-JVS-DFMX, 2023 WL 9417497 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2023) (Decision). Under 35 U.S.C. § 285, a district court has the discretion, in “exceptional cases,” to award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in a patent litigation. In denying Incstores’s motion, the district court found that (1) Parallax Group International, LLC (Parallax) was not liable for inequitable conduct, and (2) the circumstances did not support an exceptional case finding. We affirm.
Durr Systems, Inc. v. EFC Systems, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Durr Systems, Inc. (“Durr”) sued EFC Systems, Inc. (“EFC”) alleging infringement of claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,189,804 (“’804 patent”), 6,360,962 (“’962 patent”), 7,017,835 (“’835 patent”), 8,141,797 (“’797 patent”), and 8,590,813 (“’813 patent”). The district court granted EFC’s motion to exclude the testimony of Durr’s expert, Vincent Dattilo, and its motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. Durr appeals.
We conclude that the district court erred in construing “generally conical/substantially conical” to exclude any curves or undulations and erred in construing “rear cover attached to the bell cup” to require that the rear cover and bell cup be formed from separate pieces. However, we determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of Durr’s expert. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s ruling excluding Mr. Dattilo’s testimony, reverse its order granting summary judgment of noninfringement, and remand for further proceedings.
HEALTHeSTATE, LLC v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Appellant HEALTHeSTATE, LLC sued the United States for breach of contract and copyright infringement in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. ASM Research, an entity that subcontracted with HEALTHeSTATE to develop software for the government, joined the litigation as an interested party. The government and ASM Research moved for summary judgment on HEALTHeSTATE’s claims, and the Claims Court granted their motions. We affirm.
Hughes v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Janie Hughes, surviving spouse of veteran Bobbie M. Hughes, appeals from a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying an earlier effective date for the grant of total disability rating based on individual unemployability (“TDIU”) for accrued-benefits purposes. For the reasons below, we dismiss.
Crosby v. Social Security Administration (Nonprecedential Order)
The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Nicole Renee Crosby has not filed a response to the motion but has filed an informal opening brief.
In re Jones (Nonprecedential Order)
Thomas Melvin Jones, Jr. petitions for a writ of mandamus “commanding the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Board of Veterans’ Appeals” to grant various relief in connection with his claims for veterans benefits “currently pending before the Board.” ECF No. 2 at 3. Mr. Jones also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Deweese v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
The United States moves for summary affirmance. Lisa Ann Deweese has not filed a response though she has filed her opening brief.