Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a design patent case, one precedential opinion in a tax credit dispute with the United States government, two nonprecedential opinions in related patent cases, and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc. (Precedential)
Campbell Soup Company, Campbell Sales Company, and Trinity Manufacturing, LLC (“Appellants”) appeal the final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding Appellants did not demonstrate that the claimed designs of U.S. Patent Nos. D612,646 and D621,645 would have been obvious over U.S. Patent No. D405,622 (“Linz”) and G.B. Patent Application No. 2,303,624 (“Samways”). Because substantial evidence does not support the Board’s finding that Linz is not a proper primary reference, and substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Samways is not a proper primary reference, we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.
Alternative Carbon Resources v. United States (Precedential)
Appellant Alternative Carbon Resources, LLC claimed nearly $20 million in energy tax credits meant for taxpayers who sell alternative fuel mixtures. The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) later determined that Alternative Carbon should not have claimed these credits and it demanded repayment (along with interest and penalties). Alternative Carbon paid back the government, in part, and then filed this refund suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”).
After the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the Claims Court decided that Alternative Carbon failed to establish that it properly claimed the credits or that it had reasonable cause to do so. Alternative Carbon Res., LLC v. United States, 137 Fed. Cl. 1 (2018). The Claims Court therefore granted summary judgment for the government.
Alternative Carbon appeals, arguing that it is entitled to claim the credits or that it at least had reasonable cause for claiming them and so it should not have to pay any penalties. Because we conclude that Alternative Carbon cannot show it is entitled to the credits or that it had reasonable cause for claiming them, we affirm.
Valencell, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Valencell appeals from the final written decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) in the above-captioned inter partes review proceedings (IPRs) that found unpatentable all of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,292,965 on independent grounds: obviousness over Japanese Publication No. 2005-040261 (Numaga), and anticipation by United States Application Patent Publication No. 2005/0209516 (Fraden). We agree with the Board as to both grounds and therefore affirm.
Valencell, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Valencell appeals from the final written decisions of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) in the above-captioned inter partes review proceedings (IPRs) that found unpatentable claims 1–6, 8–16, and 18–20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,989,830 and claims 1–10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269. J.A. 59; J.A. 125. The two patents at issue share a specification describing light-based monitoring devices for physiological measurements of a patient’s body. The ’269 and ’830 patents each claim the use of window(s) in a cladding layer to serve as light-guiding interfaces between an emitter and detector and the subject’s body. ’269 patent at claim 1; ’830 patent at claims 1, 11. For this appeal, the relevant unpatentability grounds are various combinations of a publication by Asada,1 U.S. Patent No. 4,830,014 (Goodman), and U.S. Patent No. 6,745,061 (Hicks). We affirm.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. EMC Corp. (Nonprecedential Errata)
Please make the following change: On page 2, line 36: change “reject EMC’s challenge” to “reject IV’s challenge”.