This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order, all in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the order.

Koninklijke Phillips N.V. v. Google LLC (Precedential)

Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Philips”) appeals the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,806 (“the ’806 patent”), in which the Board found that claims 1–11 were unpatentable as obvious. For the reasons below, we affirm.

Intelligent Automation Design v. Zimmer Biomat CMF and Thoratic, LLC (Nonprecedential)

This is a patent case about controlling a motor used to drive a screwdriver bit. Intelligent Automation Design, LLC sued Zimmer Biomet CMF and Thoracic, LLC for infringement of all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,091,683. The district court found that independent claims 1 and 6 were invalid as indefinite for failing to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.1 We agree with the district court that § 112 ¶ 6 applies because both claims include means-plus-function terms. But because we conclude that the ’683 patent’s specification discloses sufficient structure to define the bounds of the means-plus-function terms, we reverse the district court’s finding of indefiniteness and remand for further proceedings.

MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)

MLC Intellectual Property, LLC petitions for permission to appeal interlocutory orders certified by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Micron Technology, Inc., while disagreeing with MLC’s challenges to the underlying orders, agrees with MLC that this court should grant review.

* * *

Section 1292(b) gives this court discretion to exercise interlocutory review. In re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Patent Litig., 903 F.2d 822, 822 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Under the unique circumstances of this case, where the certified damages orders leave the plaintiff with no damages case to present at trial and the district court has concluded that there are no available alternative options without section 1292(b) review to otherwise avoid an expensive trial solely on liability, we agree with the district court and the parties that review is appropriate.



The petition for permission to appeal is granted. This case is transferred to the regular docket. MLC’s opening brief is due within 40 days of the date of filing of this order.