Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Future Link Systems, LLC entered into a license agreement with MediaTek, Inc. in 2019, which stipulated that MediaTek would pay Future Link a lump sum if Future Link filed a lawsuit against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation. Future Link subsequently filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC) accusing Realtek of patent infringement. During the litigation, Future Link settled with a third party and informed Realtek, leading Realtek to file a motion for sanctions against Future Link before the administrative law judge (ALJ).The ALJ expressed concerns about the legality of the agreement between Future Link and MediaTek but ultimately denied Realtek's motion for sanctions, concluding that the agreement did not influence Future Link's decision to file the complaint. Future Link then withdrew its complaint and moved to terminate the investigation, which the ALJ granted. The ITC terminated the investigation when no petition for review was filed. Realtek petitioned the ITC to review the ALJ's order denying sanctions, but the ITC declined and terminated the sanctions proceeding.Realtek appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, seeking an order for Future Link to pay a fine to the Commission. The Federal Circuit concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Realtek's appeal, as the Commission's decision on sanctions was not a "final determination" under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c) that would affect the exclusion or non-exclusion of articles from entry. The court dismissed the appeal, noting that jurisdiction over such matters likely lies with the district courts, not the Federal Circuit. View "Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

Mitek Systems, Inc. (Mitek) filed a declaratory judgment action against United Services Automobile Association (USAA) seeking a declaration of non-infringement concerning four patents related to its MiSnap software product. Mitek argued that it faced potential liability for direct, induced, and contributory infringement, as well as indemnification demands from its licensees after USAA sent them letters seeking to sell licenses to USAA patents.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas initially dismissed Mitek’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and alternatively declined to exercise jurisdiction. On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to conduct a more detailed analysis. On remand, the district court again dismissed the case, finding no subject-matter jurisdiction and reiterating its decision to decline jurisdiction even if it existed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court agreed that Mitek did not have a reasonable apprehension of suit for direct, induced, or contributory infringement based on the record evidence, including USAA’s allegations and claim charts from prior litigation. The court also found that Mitek’s potential indemnification liability was not sufficient to establish jurisdiction, as the indemnification agreements contained applicable carve-outs and did not create a reasonable potential for liability. Additionally, the court upheld the district court’s discretionary decision to decline jurisdiction, noting that intervention in future litigation involving Mitek’s customers would be a more effective remedy. View "MITEK SYSTEMS, INC. v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION " on Justia Law

Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation (Dolby) owns U.S. Patent No. 10,237,577, which is directed to a prediction method using an in-loop filter. Unified Patents, LLC (Unified) filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) challenging claims 1, 7, and 8 of the patent as anticipated and obvious. Unified certified it was the sole real party in interest (RPI). Dolby identified nine other entities it believed should also have been named as RPIs. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) declined to adjudicate whether these entities were RPIs and instituted the review with Unified as the sole RPI. The Board ultimately held that Unified failed to show any of the challenged claims were unpatentable.The Board's final written decision did not address the RPI dispute, explaining that there was no evidence any of the alleged RPIs were time-barred or estopped from bringing the IPR, or that Unified purposefully omitted any RPIs to gain an advantage. Dolby appealed the Board's decision, arguing that the Board's refusal to adjudicate the RPI dispute caused various harms, including potential breaches of license agreements, conflicts of interest, improper estoppel in future proceedings, and disincentivizing Unified from filing IPRs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Dolby failed to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing to appeal. The court found Dolby's claims of harm to be too speculative, noting that Dolby did not provide evidence of any actual or imminent injury. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of standing and did not reach the merits of Dolby's substantive challenges. View "Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation v. Unified Patents, LLC" on Justia Law

Incyte Corporation appealed a post-grant review (PGR) final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) which held that Incyte failed to prove claims 1–7 and 9–21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,561,659 were unpatentable. The '659 patent, owned by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., discloses a method of treating hair-loss disorders using deuterium-modified ruxolitinib. Incyte petitioned for PGR, arguing the claims were obvious, but the Board found Incyte's arguments unpersuasive and upheld the claims. Incyte's request for rehearing was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. Sun argued that Incyte lacked Article III standing to appeal. The court noted that standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue that must be addressed before reaching the merits of an appeal. To establish standing, Incyte needed to demonstrate an injury in fact, which it attempted to do by claiming potential infringement liability and invoking the competitor standing doctrine.The court found that Incyte's plans to develop a deuterated ruxolitinib product were too speculative to establish concrete plans for future activity that would create a substantial risk of future infringement. The court also determined that Incyte's reliance on the competitor standing doctrine was insufficient because Incyte did not show it was currently engaging in or had nonspeculative plans to engage in conduct covered by the claims of the '659 patent.Ultimately, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Incyte failed to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. View "INCYTE CORPORATION v. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. " on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Michael Etchegoinberry, Erik Clausen, Barlow Family Farms, L.P., and Christopher Todd Allen, own land in the Westlands Water District, part of the San Luis Unit in California. They alleged that the United States failed to provide necessary drainage for their irrigated lands, leading to a rise in the water table and accumulation of saline groundwater, which they claimed resulted in a taking of their property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.The United States Court of Federal Claims initially denied the government's motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, agreeing with the plaintiffs that their claim was timely under the stabilization doctrine. This doctrine postpones the accrual of a takings claim until the damage has stabilized and the extent of the damage is reasonably foreseeable. The case was then stayed for nearly seven years for settlement attempts. In 2023, the Court of Federal Claims revisited the issue and dismissed the case sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the stabilization doctrine did not apply and the claim was time-barred.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the dismissal. The court held that the stabilization doctrine did not apply because the plaintiffs' claim was based on the regular and known lack of drainage over many years, not an irregular or intermittent physical process. Even if the doctrine applied, the court found that the plaintiffs' claim accrued before the critical date of September 2, 2005, as they were aware of the permanent nature of the damage to their land well before that date. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claim was time-barred and affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "ETCHEGOINBERRY v. US " on Justia Law

Associated Energy Group, LLC (AEG) initiated multiple bid protests concerning contracts managed by the U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency Energy (DLA) to deliver fuel to a U.S. military base and nearby airfield in Djibouti. This appeal concerns whether AEG has standing to bring its second bid protest in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, challenging a one-year sole-source bridge contract awarded to the incumbent contractor. AEG argued that officials within the Djiboutian Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources were preventing contract performance by threatening AEG’s contracted fuel delivery truck drivers and refusing to issue or renew petroleum activity licenses (PALs) to AEG and its contractors.The U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissed AEG’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ruling that AEG lacked both Article III constitutional standing and Tucker Act statutory standing to challenge the sole-source bridge contract awarded to United Capital Investments Group, Inc. (UCIG). The Claims Court found that neither AEG nor its contractors possessed the required PAL, making AEG ineligible to bid on the contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Claims Court’s dismissal. The court held that AEG lacked Article III standing because it could not bid on or compete for the bridge contract due to the lack of a PAL. Additionally, the court found that AEG lacked statutory standing under the Tucker Act, as it did not have a substantial chance of winning the contract even if the alleged errors by DLA were corrected. The court concluded that an exception to mootness applied to the case, but AEG’s inability to secure the required PAL meant it had no concrete stake in the lawsuit. View "ASSOCIATED ENERGY GROUP, LLC v. US " on Justia Law

Sisvel S.p.A. owns U.S. Patent No. 7,869,396, which relates to a data transmission and retransmission method in a wireless communication system. The patent describes a method where data is packaged into protocol data units (PDUs) and assigned sequence numbers. The method includes a variation of the automatic repeat request (ARQ) method, where a receiver activates a timer when a PDU is detected as missing. If the missing PDU is not received before the timer expires, a reception failure is reported to the transmitter. If the missing PDU is received before the timer expires, the timer is stopped.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) held claims 1, 2, and 6–8 of the '396 patent to be unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious in view of International Patent Application Publication No. WO 02/091659 (Sachs). However, the Board held that claims 3–5, 9, and 10 were not shown to be unpatentable. Appellants Sierra Wireless, ULC; Honeywell International Inc.; and Telit Cinterion Deutschland GmbH appealed the Board’s decision regarding claims 3–5, 9, and 10. Sisvel cross-appealed the Board’s decision regarding claims 1, 2, and 6–8.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the Board erred in its construction of the claim limitations and that its finding that Sachs disclosed certain limitations was not supported by substantial evidence. The court also determined that the Board abused its discretion by relying on testimony from Sisvel’s expert, Mr. Bates, without finding that he was qualified as an ordinarily skilled artisan.The Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s holdings that claims 1, 2, and 6–8 were unpatentable and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court did not reach the arguments regarding the patentability of claims 3–5, 9, and 10 due to the vacatur of the independent claims. View "SIERRA WIRELESS, ULC v. SISVEL S.P.A. " on Justia Law

Odyssey Logistics & Technology Corp. filed a patent application for a web service interface for transit time calculation in 2007. The application was rejected by a patent examiner in 2015, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) affirmed the rejection in 2018. Odyssey appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the PTAB's decision in 2020. Odyssey did not raise an Appointments Clause challenge during this appeal.After the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. in 2021, which held that PTAB administrative judges' unreviewable authority violated the Appointments Clause, Odyssey requested Director review of the PTAB's 2018 decision. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied this request, stating that it did not accept requests for Director review of ex parte appeal decisions. Odyssey then filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking to compel the Director to consider its request. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal, but on different grounds. The Federal Circuit concluded that the PTO did not abuse its discretion in denying Odyssey's request for Director review, noting that Odyssey had forfeited its Appointments Clause challenge by not raising it during the initial appeal. The court held that the PTO's decision to deny the request for review was reasonable given the significant delay and lack of justification for Odyssey's failure to raise the issue earlier. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision for failure to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6). View "ODYSSEY LOGISTICS & TECHNOLOGY CORP. v. STEWART" on Justia Law

Mark L. Sadler, a former employee of the United States Army, was suspended and then removed from his position for insubordination. Sadler claimed that these actions were retaliatory under the Whistleblower Protection Act and sought corrective action from the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board). He also requested sanctions against the government for the destruction of evidence. The Board denied both his motion for sanctions and his request for corrective action.The Merit Systems Protection Board initially dismissed Sadler’s first complaint, finding it did not sufficiently allege protected activity. For his second complaint, the Board acknowledged that Sadler engaged in protected whistleblower activity but concluded that the Army had shown by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same actions regardless of the protected activity. The Board also denied Sadler’s motion for sanctions, finding that the destruction of evidence was part of the Army’s ordinary procedures and did not warrant sanctions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Board’s decision. The court agreed that Sadler’s first complaint did not allege protected activity and that the Army had provided clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same actions absent the whistleblowing. The court also upheld the Board’s decision on the sanctions issue, agreeing that the destruction of evidence was part of routine procedures and did not meet the intent standard required for sanctions under Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. View "SADLER v. ARMY " on Justia Law

Trudell Medical International Inc. (Trudell) owns U.S. Patent No. 9,808,588, which relates to devices for performing oscillatory positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) therapy. Trudell sued D R Burton Healthcare, LLC (D R Burton) for patent infringement. D R Burton sells OPEP devices, including the vPEP®, vPEP® HC, iPEP®, PocketPEP®, and PocketPEP® Advantage products. Trudell alleged that these products infringed certain claims of the ’588 patent.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina allowed D R Burton to present infringement testimony by Dr. John Collins at trial. After a three-day trial, the jury found that the asserted claims of the ’588 patent were valid but not infringed. Trudell filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on infringement or, alternatively, for a new trial. The district court denied this motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by allowing Dr. Collins to testify on noninfringement because his testimony was untimely and did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Additionally, the court found Dr. Collins' testimony unreliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The Federal Circuit vacated the jury’s finding of noninfringement and remanded for a new trial, excluding Dr. Collins’ noninfringement testimony. The court also affirmed the district court’s denial of Trudell’s motion for JMOL of infringement, as the jury could have reasonably found noninfringement based on the evidence presented.The Federal Circuit ordered that the case be reassigned to a different district court judge on remand to preserve the appearance of justice and fairness, given the trial judge’s statements indicating a predisposition to quickly resolve the case. View "TRUDELL MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. D R BURTON HEALTHCARE, LLC " on Justia Law