This morning, the Federal Circuit released five precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. Two of the precedential opinions come in tax cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and address whether bilateral tax treaties relieve U.S. taxpayers from double taxation with respect to the net investment income tax. Two other precedential opinions come in patent cases, one appealed from the Eastern District of Texas and the other from the District of Delaware. The fifth precedential opinion comes in an appeal from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. As for the nonprecedential opinions, two come in related patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board involving the same parties, and the third comes in another patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. The order dismisses an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.
Christensen v. United States (Precedential)
In 1994, the United States and France entered into a bilateral tax treaty called the “Convention between the Government of the French Republic and the Government of the United States of America for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and Capital” (the “Convention”). The Convention governs the taxes owed by U.S. and French citizens when they reside in or draw income from sources in the other treaty partner’s jurisdiction. One of the goals of the Convention is, as its name indicates, to protect taxpayers from paying tax on the same income to both countries, which is known as double taxation.
The question presented in this appeal is whether Article 24 of the Convention relieves U.S. taxpayers from double taxation with respect to a specific type of income tax: the net investment income tax (“NIIT”). The Court of Federal Claims held that it does. We determine otherwise and, therefore, reverse.
Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. (Precedential)
This patent infringement case raises issues of eligibility, infringement, and damages and relates to communication systems that use non-uniform constellations that have increased capacity compared to conventional, uniform constellations operating within a similar signal-to-noise ratio band. Constellation Designs, LLC sued LG Electronics Inc.; LG Electronics USA, Inc.; and LG Electronics Alabama, Inc. (collectively, “LG”) for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which proceeded to a jury trial. The district court entered a final judgment against LG for willfully infringing claims 17, 21, 24, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,842,761; claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700; claims 21 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,019,509; and claims 24 and 44 of U.S. Patent No. 11,018,922.
LG challenges on appeal the district court’s (1) summary judgment of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, (2) denial of LG’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of non-infringement, and (3) denial of LG’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of no damages or denial of LG’s motion to exclude the testimony of Constellation’s damages expert.
For the reasons discussed below, we vacate the summary judgment of eligibility for claims 17, 21, 24, and 28 of the ’761 patent and claim 5 of the ’700 patent; affirm the summary judgment of eligibility for claims 21 and 23 of the ’509 patent and claims 24 and 44 of the ’922 patent; affirm the denial of LG’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of non-infringement; and affirm the denial of judgment as a matter of law of no damages as well as the denial of LG’s motion to exclude the testimony of Constellation’s damages expert. Accordingly, we vacate-in-part, affirm-in-part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Estate of Bruyea v. United States (Precedential)
In 1980, the United States and Canada entered into the “Convention Between the United States of America and Canada with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital” (the “Treaty” or “Convention”). J.A. 536-86. Article XXIV of the Convention is entitled “Elimination of Double Taxation.” J.A. 564. Its general purpose is to protect U.S. and Canadian taxpayers from having to pay taxes to both nations on the same income.
In 2015, Paul Bruyea, a U.S. citizen living in Canada, sold real estate he owned in Canada. Bruyea paid taxes to Canada on the proceeds earned from this transaction. He also had to pay the U.S. a “net investment income tax,” or “NIIT,” on this same income. Based on Article XXIV of the Convention, Bruyea attempted to reduce his NIIT liability by claiming a foreign tax credit for the taxes he had already paid to Canada. His efforts were rejected by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).
Bruyea then sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for a refund of the NIIT, arguing that he was subjected to double taxation in violation of the Convention. The court agreed with his interpretation of the Convention and entered judgment in his favor.
The government now appeals. It contends that the Court of Federal Claims erred when it determined that the Convention created a foreign tax credit that can be applied against a taxpayer’s NIIT. We agree with the government that the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) precludes such a credit, and the Convention does not independently provide for a credit that can be taken notwithstanding the Code. Accordingly, we reverse.
Exelixis, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. (Precedential)
MSN Laboratories Private Limited and MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. appeal the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding that the asserted claims of United States Patent Nos. 11,091,439, 11,091,440, 11,098,015, and 11,298,349, which are owned by Exelixis, Inc., are not invalid. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the district court’s finding that the asserted claims of the ’439, ’440, and ’015 patents have adequate written description pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and dismiss MSN’s appeal as to the asserted claim of the ’349 patent.
Jadue v. Department of Homeland Security (Precedential)
George Jadue appeals from a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming his removal by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) from his position as an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) criminal investigator. Mr. Jadue requests that we reverse an administrative judge’s (“AJ”) denial of sanctions he sought on DHS due to the agency’s failure to meet certain deadlines governing the handling of his “mixed case.” We agree with the government that we must dismiss this component of his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Jadue also asks that we reverse the finding that he exhibited “lack of candor” and vacate the penalty of removal. We are not persuaded by these contentions. Hence, as to these aspects of the appeal, we affirm the Board.
Apple Inc. v. SpaceTime3D, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
SpaceTime3D, Inc. (“SpaceTime3D”) is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,881,048 (the “’048 patent”), which relates to a graphical user interface that displays webpages as objects in a three-dimensional space and, upon a user’s selection of an object, displays the corresponding webpage in a two-dimensional space. Apple Inc. and Google LLC (together, “Apple”) filed petitions for inter partes review challenging claims 1-18 of the ’048 patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In its final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determined that Apple had not proven claims 1-13 unpatentable but had proven claims 14-18 unpatentable. Apple appeals the Board’s determination as to claims 1-13 and SpaceTime3D cross-appeals the Board’s determination as to claims 14-18. We affirm.
Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Evolved Wireless, LLC (Evolved) filed a patent infringement suit against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively, Samsung) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging Samsung’s products infringed U.S. Patent No. RE46,679 (’679 patent). At the end of discovery, the district court granted partial summary judgment of no infringement for Samsung’s products that used Qualcomm chips, because those products were covered by a license. The district court then held a jury trial for the remainder of Samsung’s accused products. The jury found claims 1, 3, 6, and 8 (Asserted Claims) of the ’679 patent not invalid but not infringed, and Evolved filed a motion for a new trial on infringement which the district court denied. For its part, Samsung filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) for lack of written description, which the district court also denied. Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:21-CV-00033-JRG, 2024 WL 3447914 (E.D. Tex. July 17, 2024) (JMOL Decision). Evolved appeals the grant of partial summary judgment and the denial of its motion for a new trial. Samsung cross-appeals the JMOL decision. We affirm both appeals.
SpaceTime3D, Inc., v. Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential)
SpaceTime3D, Inc. (“SpaceTime3D”) is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,304,654 (the “’654 patent”) and 9,696,868 (the “’868 patent”), which relate to graphical user interfaces that allow a user to switch between applications by displaying images of applications in a three-dimensional space and, upon selection of an image, displaying the corresponding application in a two-dimensional space. Apple Inc. and Google LLC (together, “Apple”) filed petitions for inter partes review challenging claims 1-19 of the ’654 patent and claims 1-20 of the ’868 patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In two final written decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determined that Apple proved all challenged claims would have been obvious. SpaceTime3D now appeals, and we affirm.