This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here are summaries of the opinions.
SATCO Products, Inc. v. Lighting Science Group Corp. (Nonprecedential)
In this case, the Board found claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,967,844 not unpatentable in view of Tickner and Van De Ven based on arguments solely related to the limitations of claim 1, from which claim 15 depends. The Board’s decision finding claim 15 of the ‘844 patent not unpatentable in view of Tickner and Van De Ven is supported by substantial evidence. In an earlier, related proceeding— IPR2017-01280—the Board found claim 1 of the ‘844 pa- tent, unpatentable over Chou and Wegner. On appeal, Petitioner has failed to argue that the Board’s decision invalidating claim 1 in the earlier proceeding abrogated the basis for the Board’s decision. See MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This argument is thus waived.
AFFIRMED
Team Hall Venture, LLC v. Army and Air Force Exchange (Nonprecedential)
Team Hall Venture, LLC, appeals from a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) denying its appeal from a final decision by the Army and Air Force Exchange Service. In its final decision, the Exchange awarded partial payment on a claim arising from the early termination of Team Hall’s military base concession contract. After the parties agreed to terminate the ten-year concession contract early, they executed a Contract Amendment that further shortened the contract period by moving the termination date from July 17, 2016, to June 30, 2016, at Team Hall’s request.
* * *
Although we understand Team Hall’s argument that the record could be read to demonstrate that the parties intended to bar only claims arising in that two-week period, that is not what the release clause says. “When the contractual language is unambiguous on its face, our inquiry ends and the plain language of the Agreement controls.” Coast Fed. Bank, FSB v. United States, 323 F.3d 1035, 1040–41 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (en banc). Because the plain language of this release clause is unambiguous, there are no ambiguous terms to construe against the drafter. See Gardiner, 467 F.3d at 1352. The ASBCA correctly determined that by entering this Contract Amendment, Team Hall waived any claim against the Exchange for the concession contract. We therefore affirm.