This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, both in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

FOX Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC (Precedential)

Appellant FOX Factory, Inc. (“FOX”) appeals the decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in two inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) of claims 1–6 and 13–19 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027 (“the ’027 patent”). The Board found that the prior art references asserted by FOX disclose all the limitations of the ’027 patent’s independent claims and that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the asserted prior art. The Board nevertheless concluded, based on its analysis of secondary considerations, that FOX had not shown that the challenged claims would have been obvious. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) (2012). For the reasons below, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

Sygenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Willowood, LLC (Precedential)

Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, sued Willowood, LLC, Willowood USA, LLC, Willowood Azoxystrobin, LLC, and Willowood Limited in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina for copyright infringement and patent infringement, asserting four patents directed to a fungicide compound and its manufacturing processes. Prior to trial, the district court dismissed the copyright infringement claims, determining them to be precluded by the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. The district court granted-in-part and denied-in-part Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC’s summary judgment motion with respect to patent infringement. The district court also denied-in-part the defendants’ motion to exclude expert testimony on damages.

After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of Willowood Limited on all patent infringement claims; in favor of all defendants on infringement of one patent at issue; and against Willowood, LLC, and Willowood USA, LLC, on infringement of the remaining three patents. The district court denied Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC’s motions for judgment as a matter of law. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, appeals the district court’s denials of its motions for judgment as a matter of law and its final judgment. Defendants conditionally cross-appeal the district court’s partial denial of their motion to exclude expert testimony on damages. For the reasons explained below, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.