This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one precedential opinion in a Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals case, one nonprecedential opinion in a Court of Federal Claims case, one nonprecedential order in a patent case, and one precedential erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GMBH (Precedential)
Plaintiff-Appellant Koninklijke KPN N.V. (KPN) owns U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662 (’662 patent). KPN sued Gemalto M2M GmbH, Gemalto Inc., Gemalto IOT LLC, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited, TCL Communication, Inc., TCT Mobile, Inc., TCT Mobile (US) Inc., TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc., and Telit Wireless Solutions, Inc. (collectively “Appellees”) for infringement of the ’662 patent in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Appellees moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) alleging that all four claims (claims 1–4) of the ’662 patent were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted Appellees’ motion with respect to all four claims, concluding that the claims recite no more than mere abstract data manipulation operations, such as “reordering data and generating additional data.” J.A. 23. On appeal, KPN only challenges the district court’s ineligibility decision with respect to dependent claims 2–4. As to these appealed claims, we reverse. Rather than being merely directed to the abstract idea of data manipulation, these claims are directed to an improved check data generating device that enables a data transmission error detection system to detect a specific type of error that prior art systems could not.
Secretary of Defense v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (Precedential)
The Secretary of Defense appeals a final decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals finding that the United States Government improperly disallowed certain retirement benefits costs that Northrop Grumman Corporation asserts are eligible for reimbursement. Northrop Grumman Corporation conditionally cross-appeals the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals’ finding that the retirement benefit costs are unallowable under the appli- cable regulations because they were calculated using an improper accounting method. Because substantial evidence supports the Armed Services Board of Contract Ap- peal’s finding that Northrop Grumman Corporation never claimed and will never claim any of the disputed retire- ment benefits, we affirm and do not reach the cross-appeal.
Pipes v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Captain Malcolm W. Pipes (“Pipes”) appeals from the final judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) granting Judgment on the Administrative Record to the United States on his complaint. Pipes v. United States, 139 Fed. Cl. 538 (2018). For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the Claims Court’s final judgment and remand with instructions to remand the case to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records for further assessment consistent with this opinion.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. Resmed Ltd. (Nonprecedential Order)
Appellee ResMed Limited (“ResMed”) moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Despite the title of its motion, ResMed appears to argue that appellant Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited (“Fisher”) lacks standing to maintain this appeal. We decline to rule on ResMed’s motion at this time, and instead defer ResMed’s motion until hearing from the parties at oral argument.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
ResMed’s motion to dismiss is deferred until after oral argument, at which ResMed is instructed to appear and be prepared to argue the standing issue as well as the merits of Fisher’s appeal.
Montelongo v. OPM (Precedential Erratum)
Please make the following changes:
On page 5, line 7, after “widows,” “or widowers” is added. On page 5, line 11, “8842” is changed to “8442”.