This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Kingston Technology Co. v. SPEX Technologies, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Kingston Technology Company, Inc. appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decision declining to find claims 55–57 of U.S. Patent No. 6,003,135 anticipated by PCT Application WO 95/16238 (Jones). Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that Jones does not expressly or inherently disclose certain limitations of claims 55 and 56, we affirm as to those claims. With regard to claim 57, we hold that the Board abused its discretion when it rejected Kingston’s supplemental briefing for purportedly presenting a new theory of invalidity. We therefore vacate the Board’s decision as to claim 57 and remand for the Board to consider Kingston’s supplemental briefing addressing claim 57.

Ironworks Patents LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. (Nonprecedential)

MobileMedia Ideas, LLC sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, Samsung), alleging infringement of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,427,078 and U.S. Patent No. 5,915,239.1 In March 2017, MobileMedia assigned the patents-in-suit to Ironworks, which was then substituted as plaintiff in July 2017. In October 2018, the district court issued a claim construction order, construing claim terms of both the ’078 patent and ’239 patent. Following the claim construction order, the parties stipulated to noninfringement of the claims of the ’078 patent and to noninfringement and invalidity of the claims of the ’239 patent. The district court entered judgment based on its claim construction order and the parties’ stipulation. Ironworks appeals the district court’s judgment, arguing that the district court’s claim constructions were erroneous. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

For the reasons discussed below, we vacate and remand the district court’s judgment of noninfringement of the asserted claims of the ’078 patent because the district court erred in its construction of the term “camera unit.” We also vacate and remand the judgment of invalidity of the asserted claims of the ’239 patent because the district court erred in its construction of the term “means for interpreting the received voice commands.” Finally, we affirm the judgment of noninfringement of the asserted claims of the ’239 patent because the district court did not err in its construction of the term “means for storing the sub-identifiers.”

Choirock Contents Factory Co. v. Spin Master, Ltd. (Nonprecedential)

Choirock Contents Factory Co., Ltd., appeals from the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board in an inter partes review proceeding. The Board held that Choirock did not prove that claims 1–4 and 7–14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,306,504 (“the ’504 patent”) are unpatentable. We affirm.

DYK, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part.

The ’504 patent is directed to a transformable toy shaped like a ball that can open to reveal a figurine. The prior art references—Maruyama ’693 and Maruyama ’258—disclose a nearly identical toy that can open to reveal a robot figurine. While the Board may have been correct in finding that Choirock did not establish that claims 1–4 and 7–8 were anticipated, I think the Board demonstrably erred in holding that Choirock failed to show that claims 1– 4 and 7–8 would have been obvious. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to affirm the Board with respect to those grounds. I join the majority opinion as to standing and claim 9 and its dependent claims.