This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a government contracts case concerning disaster-assistance funds distributions from FEMA. The court also released six nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Columbus Regional Hospital v. United States (Precedential)
Columbus Regional Hospital (“Columbus”) appeals from two orders of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”) in which the court dismissed all the claims of Columbus’s complaint against the United States. The complaint relates to the action of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) in recovering certain disaster-assistance funds that had previously been distributed to Columbus.
In its complaint, Columbus alleged that FEMA’s recovery of those funds breached Columbus’s contractual rights and constituted an illegal exaction. The Claims Court dismissed Columbus’s illegal exaction claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims. In a separate order, the court dismissed Columbus’s contract claims for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of those rules after concluding that Columbus had not established that it had an express or implied contract with FEMA, or that it was a third-party beneficiary of an agreement between FEMA and the State of Indiana.
We affirm the court’s dismissal of the illegal exaction claim. With regard to the express and implied contract claims, we agree with the Claims Court that those claims should be dismissed, but we hold that they should be dismissed on the merits under Rule 12(b)(6) rather than for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). With regard to the third-party beneficiary claim, we vacate the court’s dismissal of that claim and remand for further proceedings on that issue.
Iron Oak Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Nonprecedential)
Iron Oak Technologies, LLC appeals from final decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board) in two inter partes review proceedings collectively holding claim 1 of Iron Oak’s U.S. Patent No. 5,966,658 (the ‘658 patent) invalid as anticipated by three distinct prior art references and obvious over two additional grounds. We affirm based on anticipation by U.S. Patent Number 6,044,075 (“Le Boudec”).
Neapco Drivelines LLC v. American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Neapco appeals a Patent Trial and Appeal Board final written decision finding claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 5,772,520 anticipated by Burton and holding claim 12 would have been obvious over Burton in combination with other references. We affirm.
Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
This case is about claim construction. In 2018, Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc”) sued defendants-appellees (collectively, “Verizon”) for patent infringement but stipulated to noninfringement after an unfavorable claim construction. As discussed below, we agree with that claim construction and affirm the judgment.
Nuance Communications, Inc. v. MModal LLC (Nonprecedential)
Nuance Communications, Inc. (“Nuance”) appeals from two final written decisions of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding claims 8 and 13 of U.S. Patent 8,117,034 (“the ’034 patent”) and claims 9–11 of U.S. Patent 6,999,933 (“the ’933 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. See MModal LLC v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., No. IPR2018-01431 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 3, 2020), J.A. 134–96; MModal LLC v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., No. IPR2018-01435 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2020), J.A. 197–266. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.
Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Centripetal Networks, Inc. owns U.S. Patent Nos. 9,124,552 and 9,160,713, which address cybersecurity techniques for filtering encrypted packets passing between a secured and an unsecured network. In July 2018, Cisco Systems, Inc. filed petitions for inter partes reviews of the ’552 and ’713 patents. For all claims of both patents, Cisco asserted unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness based on a user manual for an earlier security system—a manual that Cisco asserted was a prior-art “printed publication.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted both requested inter partes reviews and, in its final written decisions, agreed with Cisco about the printed-publication status of the user manual and about unpatentability of all claims. Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2018-01436, 2020 WL 402817 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2020) (’552 Decision); Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2018-01437,
2020 WL 402317 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2020) (’713 Decision). We affirm.
Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Centripetal Networks, Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 9,413,722, which addresses “rule-based network-threat detection.” ’722 patent, col. 1, lines 45–46. In September 2018, Cisco Systems, Inc. petitioned for an inter partes review of all claims of the ’722 patent, alleging that the claimed inventions in all claims (1–25) would have been obvious to a relevant artisan under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of a User Guide for the Sourcefire 3D System—a manual the parties have called “Sourcefire.” That reference is also before us in Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Fed. Cir. Nos. 20-1635, -1636, which involves other Centripetal patents and which we decide today (20-1635 Decision). A common issue in this matter and in our 20-1635 Decision is whether Sourcefire was a “printed publication[]” under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). A distinct issue here is whether Sourcefire teaches identifying “network-threat indicators” as required by the ’722 patent’s claims.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted an inter partes review, and in May 2020, it ruled that Sourcefire was a printed publication and that the claimed inventions in claims 1–7, 10–12, 14–21, 24, and 25 in the ’722 patent would have been obvious to a relevant artisan in view of Sourcefire. Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2018-01760, 2020 WL 2549613 (P.T.A.B. May 18, 2020) (Board Decision). Centripetal appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4). We affirm.