FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, one nonprecedential opinion in a Tucker Act case, and two nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the judgments.

J.S.T. Corp. v. International Trade Commission (Nonprecedential)

J.S.T Corporation (“JST”) appeals a determination by the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) finding no violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337. Specifically, JST argues that the Commission erred in finding claims 2, 4, and 9–10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,004,766 to be not infringed and invalid.

* * *

Because it is undisputed that the accused products do not infringe under this construction, we affirm the Commission’s finding of noninfringement.

Toyota Motor Corp. v. Reactive Surfaces Ltd. (Nonprecedential)

Toyota Motor Corporation appeals from a Final Written Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding that claims 1–11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,394,618 are unpatentable as obvious. Reactive Surfaces Ltd., LLP v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. IPR2016-01914, 2018 WL 1146318 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2018) (Board Decision). Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s obviousness determination, we affirm.

Berry v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

Lamar Berry appeals a United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) decision dismissing his clear and unmistakable error (CUE) claims for lack of jurisdiction, and affirming the Board of Veterans Appeals’ refusal to reopen his claims for service connection. Berry v. Wilkie, No. 18-5579, 2019 WL 4892225 (Vet. App. Octo- ber 4, 2019). Because we conclude that the Veterans Court properly dismissed the CUE claims, and because we lack jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s decision regarding reopening the service connection claims,

• Federal Circuit Keeps Expanding Appointments Decision – The Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. decision was broadened to also encompass ex parte appeals according to the Federal Circuit’s precedential ruling in In re Boloro Global Ltd. on Tuesday.
• BofA’s $173M Refund Suit Belongs In Claims Court – The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded Bank of America Corp. v. United States to the Court of Federal claims because the district court lacked standing under Section 1346(a)(1) of the U.S. Judicial Code.
• Fitbit Given Another Shot At Nixing Biometrics Patent – Fitbit, pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s precedential opinion in Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., was granted a second chance to invalidate all of Valencell’s claims because of an erroneous standing ruling by the PTAB.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case. The court also issued one nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.

Uniloc 2017, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (Precedential)

Uniloc 2017 LLC, Uniloc USA, Inc., and Uniloc Luxem- bourg, S.A. (collectively “Uniloc”) appeal orders issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denying, in full, their motions to seal. See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Nos. 3:18-cv-00360-WHA, 3:18-cv-00363-WHA, 3:18-cv-00365-WHA, 3:18-cv-00572- WHA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2019) (“Sealing Order”), revised motion to seal and motion for leave to file for reconsideration denied by Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple Inc., Nos. 3:18-cv- 00360-WHA, 3:18-cv-00363-WHA, 3:18-cv-00365-WHA, 3:18-cv-00572-WHA, 2019 WL 2009318 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2019) (“Reconsideration Order”). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. 

Taggart v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

Bryan Taggart appeals a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing his individual right of action (“IRA”) appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the Board did not err in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Taggart’s appeal, we affirm. 

Rule 36 Judgments

• James Talcott Construction, Inc. v. United States

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The following five new petitions were submitted to the Court: (1) Primbas, et al. v. Iancu, (2) Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Co., Inc., et al., (3) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al., (4) Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. v. Arthrex, Inc., et al., and (5) Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
• Also, in Willowood, LLC v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Willowood, LLC submitted its reply to Syngenta’s brief in opposition. Willowood claims Syngenta’s brief avoids the key issues raised in the petition.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court received two waivers of right to respond for the petitions of Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank and Richard Polidi v. Michelle K. Lee, et al.

Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions in a Tucker Act case and patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc.

Fitbit, Inc. appeals the Final Written Decision of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”),concerning the inter partes review (“IPR”) of United States Patent No. 8,923,941 (“the ’941 patent”) owned by Valencell, Inc. The ’941 patent, entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Generating Data Output Containing Physiological and Motion-Related Information,” concerns systems for obtaining and monitoring information such as blood oxygen level, heart rate, and physical activity. 

* * *

We hold that Fitbit has a right to appeal. However, we conclude that the Board erred in its rulings that claims 3– 5 are not unpatentable. We vacate these rulings, and remand for determination of the merits of patentability of claims 3–5. 

Utley v. United States

Charles Utley appeals from the final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because we agree that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear his complaint, we affirm. 

Via Vadis, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.

Via Vadis, LLC and AC Technologies S.A. (collectively, Via Vadis) appeals a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas finding the claim term “prespecified parameters” in U.S. Patent No. RE40,521 (’521 patent) indefinite, thereby rendering the asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.  For the reasons that follow, we affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part. 

In re Zunshine

Zach Zunshine appeals from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming the rejection of claims 1–3 of U.S.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a response to a petition in a case raising questions related to standing; a new invitation for response to a petition in a case raising questions related to Jurisdiction over an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and the denial of a petition raising questions related to inequitable conduct and obviousness. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, and one nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• Apple loses seven-year import duty legal fight – The Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. Government’s categorization of Apple’s iPad Smart Covers, thereby subjecting the models to tariffs.
• Federal Circuit Affirmed Win Against Database Platform – Hulu successfully challenged a database patent in Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC.
• Federal Circuit Vacates Denial of Attorneys’ Fees – In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit held that the district court must consider the objective unreasonableness of an infringement claim in determining whether to grant attorneys’ fees.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Genentech, Inc. v. Immunex Rhode Island Corp. (Precedential)

Genentech, Inc. and City of Hope (collectively, Genentech) filed an emergency motion and a motion for a temporary restraining order based on Immunex Rhode Island Corporation’s and Amgen Inc.’s (collectively, Amgen) alleged failure to comply with the notice requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(8)(A). Genentech appeals the United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s denial of the motions. Genentech, Inc. v. Immunex Rhode Island Corp., 395 F. Supp. 3d 357, 366 (D. Del. 2019). For the reasons stated below, we affirm. 

This week the Federal Circuit will convene ten panels to consider about 50 cases. This month, like last month, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. Moreover, the court will hear fewer oral arguments than normal, with only about 18 cases being argued this month. Of the argued cases, only one case attracted an amicus brief.