Today the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases, one nonprecedential opinion in a case addressing the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, and one nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Curver Luxembourg, SARL v. Home Expressions, Inc. (Precedential)

Plaintiff-appellant Curver Luxembourg, SARL (Curver) is the assignee of U.S. Design Patent No. D677,946 (’946 patent), entitled “Pattern for a Chair” and claiming an “ornamental design for a pattern for a chair.” The design patent’s figures, however, merely illustrate the design pattern disembodied from any article of manufacture. Curver sued defendant-appellee Home Expressions Inc. (Home Expressions) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that Home Expressions made and sold baskets that incorporated Curver’s claimed design pattern and thus infringed the ’946 patent. Home Expressions moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that its accused baskets could not infringe because the asserted design patent was limited to chairs only. The district court agreed with Home Expressions and granted the motion. The question on appeal is whether the district court correctly construed the scope of the design patent as limited to the illustrated pattern applied to a chair, or whether the design patent covers any article, chair or not, with the surface ornamentation applied to it. Because we agree with the district court that the claim language “ornamental design for a pattern for a chair” limits the scope of the claimed design in this case, we affirm.

Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC (Precedential)

Henny Penny Corporation (“HPC”) appeals from the inter partes review decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) holding claims 1–3, 5–12, 17–21, and 23 of U.S. Patent 8,497,691 (the “’691 patent”) not unpatentable as obvious. Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster L.L.C., No. IPR2016-01435, 2017 WL 6551237 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2017) (“Decision”). Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings and the Board properly credited evidence of secondary considerations, we affirm.

Fuqua v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Leonard D. Fuqua appeals a decision from the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

Rule 36 Judgments