Skip to main content

Naval Engineer's Suit For Back-Pay, Plus Intellectual Property & Health Law Matters

By FindLaw Staff on August 30, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n., 09-1338, concerned a challenge to the International Trade Commission's judgment in favor of the defendants, in plaintiff's suit against various defendants claiming infringement of its patents related to circuit interrupters for use with household electrical appliances.  In affirming the judgment, the court held that, because the accused products at issue here do not meet the "mounting means" limitation as properly construed, and thus do not meet every limitation of the asserted claims, there can be no infringement.  Accordingly, Commission's finding of no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is affirmed.

 

Hall v. US, 10-5021, concerned a challenge to the Court of Federal Claims' dismissal of the action for lack of jurisdiction in a Naval engineer's suit for back-pay for the pre-removal period during which she was still employed but was designated as being on AWOL status.  In reversing the dismissal, the court remanded the matter as the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction over the employee's pay claim and the fact that the employee was ultimately removed from her position did not deprive the court of jurisdiction over her claim for pay that accrued prior to her removal.

Gen. Protecht Group, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 09-1378, concerned a challenge to the International Trade Commission's determination that the importation into the United States of certain ground fault circuit interrupters (GFCI) violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, in issuing limited exclusion orders against the importation of GFCI products from the petitioners and judgment finding that these products infringe the '340 patent.

In reversing in part, the court held that GPG's 2003 and 2006 FCIs and ELE's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '340 patent, because they do not have a "detection circuit" as claimed in the patent.  Trimone's 2006 GFCIs and ELE's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '340 patent because the "load terminals" of the patent do not include receptacle outlets.  Also, GPG's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '398 patent because GPG performs the function of the "latching means" in a substantially different way than the structure disclosed in the patent. In all other respects, the court affirmed the Commission's determinations.

Cedillo v. Sec'y of Health & Human Serv., 10-5004, involved a plaintiff's suit brought under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, claiming a link between childhood vaccines and autism.  In affirming the Court of Federal Claims' affirmance of a Special Master's denial of petitioners' claim for compensation on behalf of their daughter, the court held that, after careful review of the Special Master's decision, the decision is rationally supported by the evidence, well-articulated, and reasonable.

Related Resources:

Copied to clipboard