This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a nonprecedential order unsealing it; two precedential orders in a patent case denying panel and en banc rehearing respectively; and nonprecedential opinions in a veterans case, two patent cases, and a tax case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.
Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating (Precedential)
Cross-Appellant Jodi A. Schwendimann filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (“District Court”) against Appellant Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc. (“Arkwright”), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. RE41,623, 7,749,581, 7,754,042, 7,766,475, 7,771,554, and 7,824,748 (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). Following a jury trial, a judgment of willful infringement was entered against Arkwright, the jury awarded Ms. Schwendimann damages in the amount of $2,624,228.00, and the District Court allowed prejudgment interest of $1,915,328.00. See Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., No.11-cv-00820-JRT-HB, 2018 WL 3621206, at *9 (D. Minn. July 30, 2018); J.A. 104–06 (Judgment).
Arkwright appeals. Ms. Schwendimann and her company Cooler Concepts, Inc. (“Cooler Concepts”) cross appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). We affirm.
REYNA, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Our jurisprudence on standing is clear. A plaintiff must have Article III standing at the time it filed suit. Post-suit activities cannot confer Article III standing that was otherwise lacking when the suit was filed. The clarity of this principle is welcome, for litigants require clear notice of how to satisfy the constitutional threshold of standing. The majority obscures the principle, however, by blessing the district court’s post-suit cure of Ms. Schwendimann’s lack of constitutional standing at the time she filed her complaint. I dissent.
Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating (Nonprecedential Order)
Before the court is the parties’ May 7, 2020, joint response to the Order to Show Cause. The parties have agreed there is no need for redactions. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The opinion issued under seal on May 5, 2020 is hereby unsealed.
VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Precedential Order)
The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Cisco Systems, Inc. have petitioned for rehearing to argue that we erred in extending Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) beyond the context of inter partes reviews to this appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes reexamination. Specifically, they assert that administrative patent judges (“APJs”) should be deemed constitutionally appointed officers at least when it comes to their duties reviewing appeals of inter partes reexaminations. We issue this order for the purpose of more fully explaining our rationale for rejecting this argument.
***
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petitions for panel rehearing are denied.
VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Precedential Order)
Combined petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc were separately filed by the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Cisco Systems, Inc. The petitions were first referred to the panel that heard the appeal and were denied by the panel by separate order. The petitions for rehearing en banc were referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active service. A poll was requested, taken, and failed.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petitions for rehearing en banc are denied.
The mandate of the court will issue on May 20, 2020.
El Malik v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Rashid El Malik (“El Malik”) seeks review of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ (“Veterans Court”) denial of mandamus seeking to compel the Board of Veterans Appeals (“Board”) to issue a decision on his claim for an increased rating for his back disability. See Rashid El Malik v. Wilkie, 2019 WL 1602008, No. 18-7435 (Vet. App. 2019) (“Veterans Court Decision”). El Malik also seeks review of the denial of mandamus to resolve a dispute over a contract between the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) and a contractor to provide accommodations to his home. Finally, El Malik seeks review of the denial of mandamus to compel the Veterans Court to waive the filing fee and lift the requirement that he file a motion for leave to file future petitions. Because the first issue is now moot, that part of El Malik’s appeal is dismissed. Because the Veterans Court did not abuse its discretion with respect to the second issue, that part of the appeal is affirmed. Because the final issue improperly seeks to collaterally attack a prior final decision by the Veterans Court, that part of his appeal is denied.
Patterson v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Tad Alan Patterson appeals a decision by the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC (Nonprecedential)
Uniloc 2017 LLC appeals from the Northern District of California’s Rule 12(c) dismissal holding claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 6,980,522 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Because claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea and fails to recite an inventive concept that would otherwise render the claim eligible, we affirm.
Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. General Access Solutions, Ltd. (Nonprecedential)
Sprint Spectrum L.P. appeals the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board declining to hold certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,230,931 unpatentable on anticipation and obviousness grounds. Sprint specifically challenges the Board’s construction of a claim term that appears in most of the challenged claims. Sprint also challenges the Board’s determinations relating to the scope of Sprint’s reply and the scope and content of the asserted prior art. Because we agree that the Board erred in construing the claim term at issue, we vacate the Board’s decision as to the applicable claims and remand for consideration of certain grounds under the proper claim construction. We affirm the Board’s decision in all other respects.