This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, a nonprecedential opinion in an MSPB case, and a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.
Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. (Precedential)
Illumina, Inc. and Sequenom, Inc. (collectively, “Illumina”) appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that claims 1– 2, 4–5, and 9–10 of U.S. Patent 9,580,751 (the “’751 patent”) and claims 1–2 and 10–14 of U.S. Patent 9,738,931 (the “’931 patent”) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an ineligible natural phenomenon. Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 356 F. Supp. 3d 925 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (“Decision”). Because we conclude that the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter, we reverse.
Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge REYNA.
The Majority holds that the asserted patents are directed to patent-eligible subject matter. I respectfully disagree and dissent. I conclude that the claims are directed to a natural phenomenon. The patents’ only claimed advance is the discovery of that natural phenomenon. The claims, the written description, and the legal precedent applicable to this case all support the conclusion that the patents are ineligible.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Intellectual Ventures I LLC (“IV”) owns U.S. Patent No. 6,775,745, which describes methods for caching data in a computer. Certain claims of the patent are the subject of two inter partes reviews under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319—one initiated by Unified Patents, LLC (formerly known as Unified Patents, Inc.), the other initiated by EMC Corp., Lenovo (United States) Inc., and NetApp, Inc. (collectively, “EMC”). In those reviews, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ultimately determined that claims 1, 2, 4–6, 12, and 14 of the ’745 patent are unpatentable. Unified Patents Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2016-01643, 2018 WL 1511821 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018); EMC Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2017-00429, 2018 WL 5905861 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2018).
IV appeals, arguing that the Board erred in construing certain claim limitations and that, under proper constructions, those limitations are not taught by the cited priorart references. We affirm without reaching all of IV’s contentions. Notably, as to the “scanning” limitation found in claim 6, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the pertinent reference discloses the limitation even under IV’s construction, and we therefore do not decide IV’s challenge to the Board’s construction of that limitation.
Plasola v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Jesse Plasola petitions for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) decision dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction regarding a challenge to an Office of Personal Management (“OPM” or “Agency”) decision. See Plasola v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. SF-0841-19-0308-I-1, 2019 WL 2745979 (M.S.P.B. June 26, 2019) (“Decision”). We affirm.
In re Supercel OY (Nonprecedential Order)
Supercell Oy petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to transfer these cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. GREE, Inc. opposes the petition. Supercell replies.
* * *
IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition is denied. (2) The motions to exceed the confidential word limit are denied as moot.